House of Commons
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I have regular discussions with our P3 partners—the French and the Americans—and with Italy, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates on how we can bring together the international community in support of the United Nations plan for Libya, which in our view offers by far the best hope for that country and the best prospect of security for all its people.
David Linden
The Foreign Secretary has been widely deplored for stating that Sirte could be the new Dubai if
“they…clear the dead bodies away.”
This is just the latest gaffe from the Foreign Secretary. Will he do the right thing and apologise, or will he resign?
Boris Johnson
We must all be aware of the reality in Libya, and indeed in Sirte: there is a tragic absence of security and the problems of that city have yet to be resolved. But when they are resolved—they will be addressed, and are being, with the help of this country—the people of Libya will indeed have fantastic economic prospects, and that is the objective of this Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The power vacuum in Libya is sucking in economic migration from the rest of Africa, causing deaths in the Mediterranean as migrants try to flee to the European Union. What can the Foreign Secretary do to make sure that the international community recognises the scale of the problem that it faces in this benighted part of the world?
Boris Johnson
As I have been saying, the key thing is to bring together all the sides in Libya—the two halves of the country, Mr Swehli, Mr Saleh, Prime Minister al-Sarraj and of course General Haftar—to change the Skhirat agreement of 2014 to get a new political settlement and then to have elections, and through those elections to produce a unified Government that we believe offer the prospect of peace and security in Libya.
My hon. Friend also raises the problem of illegal immigration, which the UK is of course doing a great deal to combat.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
When challenged about his recent “clear the dead bodies” remarks, the Foreign Secretary said that his only critics were those with
“no knowledge or understanding of Libya.”
Can he therefore respond to Guma el-Gamaty, the head of the Libyan Taghyeer party, who said:
“Libyans fought and died fighting Islamic State in Sirte…Many remain where they fell…It is insensitive to talk about those bodies as if they are some obstacle to British businessmen enjoying beer and sunbathing. The very least he should do is apologise to the families of the young men who died”?
Will the Foreign Secretary now directly apologise to those families today?
Boris Johnson
By far the best thing this Government and this House can do is to get behind the plan this Government are promoting to bring security to Libya and to Sirte, which would do honour to all those who fell fighting Daesh in Libya. That is the way forward for that country, and that is the course we are promoting.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the only way forward on Libya is for the international community to support Ghassan Salamé’s UN road map, the UK still has a unique part to play?
Boris Johnson
That is a very good point, because one of the difficulties in Libya over the last few months and years has been the tendency of actors across the international landscape to try to come up with their own plans, which has allowed the various parties in Libya to play one part of the international community off against another, and not to do the deals that are necessary. What needs to happen now is for the various parties in Libya to put aside their selfish interests and co-operate in the name of the country as a whole.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary agrees that the UK has a special responsibility to Libya, given the 2011 military action and the aftermath. How does he think his comments have impacted on the relationship?
Boris Johnson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have very good relations with all parties in Libya. One of our objectives, which remains undimmed, is to bring those parties together so as to form a unified Government of Libya.
Stephen Gethins
The Foreign Secretary is certainly right to say that he has managed to bring people together in Libya. Quite remarkably, he has been criticised across the political divide, as well as by a former British ambassador, and he was described as having “dishonoured” the sacrifice of those who fought and died in Sirte. Will he now retract his comments, and will he tell us whether he is the best placed to take forward a relationship with Libya?
Boris Johnson
I do not believe that political point scoring of this kind or trivialising the reality—[Interruption.] Ignoring the reality of the security situation in Sirte does no favours to the people of Libya. They want to see the international community concerted and co-ordinated around the UN plan so that their children can have the opportunities that are currently being denied to their own generation in Libya. That is what we are working to achieve.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
As the hon. Lady will recognise, the UK’s long-standing position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK either to prescribe some sort of solution or to play a mediation role.
Helen Hayes
In the context of continued reports of human rights violations in Kashmir, will the Minister commit to placing human rights and a peace process for Kashmir firmly on the table as part of any new trade and labour market negotiations with India and Pakistan?
Mark Field
I am very happy to do that. I visited India only last month and was able to discuss the Kashmiri situation. I am hoping to go to Pakistan in the next few weeks, and I will do likewise there. I think all of us in the House recognise that there are human rights concerns throughout both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We continue to encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws are in line with international standards but, as the hon. Lady rightly says, those human rights issues need to be taken into account when it comes to trade and all the other important work that goes on.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
There have been threats from both sides to target nuclear facilities, and talks at the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation have broken down, so what exactly will the Government and the Foreign Secretary do to defuse those tensions and promote dialogue?
Mark Field
Obviously we will do our part within the international community—as a member of the P5 at the UN, for example—to encourage all sides to maintain a positive dialogue, but the pace and scope of that must be for India and Pakistan to determine. We cannot insist on that. As I have said, we will continue to discuss the Kashmiri issue at every opportunity, both here in London, and out in Islamabad or New Delhi.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)
I should like to begin by expressing strong condolences on behalf of the British Government, and indeed the whole House, following the horrifying situation in Mogadishu—this was one of the largest bombs ever. Almost 300 people were killed and 500 were injured. As part of the United Kingdom’s response to that terrorist incident, we have provided support through the counter-terrorist police and the joint operations centre. More broadly, through the London Somalia conference, we are supporting the security infrastructure of the Somali state.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I join the Minister in offering heartfelt sympathy and prayers to President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo and his people at this dreadful time. This was the most lethal bomb ever let off in Africa, yet it has received minimal coverage in the west. What more can we do to redouble not only security input but our development efforts, so that we can give the Somali people hope for the future and enable them to triumph over this evil?
Rory Stewart
The UK Government are doing three things. First, we are providing £170 million in drought response to Somalia, where people are dying of starvation. Secondly, through the London Somalia conference, we have given new energy to the international community, and a focus on economic development and security. The most important thing we need to do at the moment, however, is to focus on the relationships between Mogadishu and the federal member states, where tensions are rising daily.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Rory Stewart
I want to reinforce how horrifying the attack was and emphasise the threat that al-Shabaab poses to Somalia and the broader regions, and to the United Kingdom. I also reiterate our absolute abhorrence of and determination to clamp down on any British citizen who involves themselves with a group of such extreme horror.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
On behalf of the Labour party, I associate myself with the comments about the despicable act by al-Shabaab in Mogadishu. Together with our European partners, we must step up our efforts to destroy that organisation and to help Somalia to achieve lasting peace and stability. To that end, will the Minister assure the House that, whatever the terms of our exit from the European Union, our joint efforts with the EU in Somalia will carry on in exactly the same way?
Rory Stewart
We remain very committed to working not only with the European Union but, critically, with the African Union, whose troops have taken a lot of pain and sacrificed their lives to keep Somalia together. The US, the EU and the African Union need to work together until the Somali security forces can build themselves up to ensure that the progress that we have made over the past 10 years is guaranteed for the future.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Following the collapse of the Cyprus talks at Crans-Montana in Switzerland in July, there has inevitably been a pause in any further negotiations. We are encouraging all parties to reflect on any steps that they might now take towards constructive future talks.
Dan Carden
I thank the Minister for that answer. It is disappointing that the talks have collapsed, but more progress seemed to have been made than at any point previously. Will he continue to work to put the human rights of all Cypriots at the top of the agenda?
Sir Alan Duncan
Like the hon. Gentleman, we all share the disappointment at the collapse of the talks. As he rightly says, they were as close as they have ever been, perhaps for decades, to reaching a settlement. Getting a unified Cyprus is the principal objective of the talks, in which human rights will of course play their proper part.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The UK Government have made it clear that they are not pressing to retain their status as a guarantor power in Cyprus. Will they advise the other guarantor powers that they should take the same approach?
Sir Alan Duncan
Along with the UN, we remain flexible as a facilitator to try to bring about a unified Cyprus. However, our sovereign base areas will, of course, remain. They are not subject to negotiation, except in terms of some territory that we might cede, if that were to help.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
We are gravely concerned by demolitions, by the eviction of Palestinians and by the increased pace of settlement advancement, including the discussions this week of plans for 3,000 new settlement units to be constructed on the west bank. Such actions undermine both the physical viability of the two-state solution and Israel’s commitment to it.
Julie Elliott
I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently visited the communities of Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya in Area C of the west bank, both of which are under threat of demolition. I was surprised that both have received significant investment from the EU and therefore from the British taxpayer. Will the Minister tell me what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about that?
Alistair Burt
I visited Susiya in August to talk to members of the community about the pressures that they were under. We maintain a continued interest in legal arguments in relation to both Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya, and we regularly make it clear to the Israeli authorities that activities there and other settlement actions are deeply concerning, and undermine the intentions that we all have for a viable two-state solution and a movement towards peace.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I join the Minister in agreeing that such settlements are not in any way conducive to peace, but does he agree that what is required in the end is a negotiated settlement involving the other countries in the region? That will inevitably involve an element of land swap, which the Palestinians have accepted in the past.
Alistair Burt
It does and, as many of us are aware, the outline of the parameters of a peace agreement, including some degree of land swaps, is known. However, the encroachment in recent years of Israeli settlements on areas well beyond those anticipated to be part of a future land swap undermines the credibility of the so-called commitment to that answer.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Alistair Burt
We work extremely hard to play our part in fulfilling that second half of the Balfour declaration. I met one of the negotiators appointed by President Trump at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and I was recently in Israel to talk to people there. We believe it is absolutely essential to make progress on the middle east peace process, which is not something to be managed but something to be solved, and the United Kingdom is bending all its efforts to seek to do so, particularly in this sensitive year.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Alistair Burt
The short answer is yes. Hezbollah appears to have been rearmed in recent years, and the conflict in Syria has provided the opportunity for Iran to supply more weapons—and more dangerous weapons—to Hezbollah. The possibility of a confrontation remains high. Those who have been committed to violence should renounce that commitment and make progress on reconciliation among the Palestinians on that basis, and all the parties involved should seek the peace we all want in the region.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
We cannot have a normal relationship with Russia, given how it has behaved in Ukraine and Syria, and given its continuing behaviour in the cyber sphere, but we must engage with Russia, which is what we will do and are doing, to further mutual interests where they exist.
Mr Sheerman
I urge the Secretary of State and his whole team to reread George Kennan’s famous 1947 article on containment, because Kennan predicted that the then Soviet Union, now Russia, would come forward to destabilise Europe, the United States and Japan. Will the Secretary of State also note what Hillary Clinton said yesterday: there is
“a new…cold war and it is just getting started.”?
Boris Johnson
I remember reading George Kennan’s article many years ago and it contains much wisdom. The tragedy is that, in many ways, Russia is behaving as though there is a new cold war, and our objective is to prevent the situation from getting any worse by constraining Russia and ensuring that we penalise it for its malign and disruptive activities. However, it is also our objective to engage where we can, which is why I will be going to Russia later this year.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
A hundred years ago this month saw the start of the Russian revolution, which unleashed misery and purges against millions of Russian people. Although we are right to remind future generations and younger people about the evils of the past, for example through Holocaust Memorial Day, does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe it to the younger generation to educate them about the warped and failed Marxist-Leninist ideology that continues to unleash misery across the world? People should be very worried about that.
Boris Johnson
Absolutely. It is also worth reminding people that it was the Labour party that sneered at working people who tried to rise up against such regimes, and it was the Labour party that supported and connived in the repressive activities of Moscow for decades.
Mr Speaker
Ah, the leader and the deputy in hot competition. On this occasion, my instinct is to side with the deputy. I call Jo Swinson.
Jo Swinson
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Amid reports that Russia is hacking into the smartphones of NATO troops and that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is very unseemly. The hon. Lady is putting a pertinent inquiry to the Foreign Secretary, to which I know he will wish to listen undisturbed.
Jo Swinson
Amid reports that Russia is hacking into the smartphones of NATO troops and the ongoing revelations about the Russian online involvement in the US election, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the cyber threat posed to this country by Russia and what are his Government doing about it?
Boris Johnson
We are continually monitoring Russian activity in that sphere. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Russians have been up to all sorts of mischief in many countries, but so far we cannot yet pinpoint any direct Russian cyber-attacks on this country. [Official Report, 14 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 2MC.]
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assessment of the impact of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 on Russian relations? Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), perhaps he will assure me and others in this House that this Act will be used to prevent corrupt, human rights-denying and human rights-abusing Russian oligarchs from using London to launder their ill-gotten gains?
Boris Johnson
I can tell my hon. Friend that only yesterday, at breakfast, I met Vladimir Kara-Murza, a distinguished leader of the Russian Opposition and a journalist, who paid tribute to this country for being one of the few European countries to implement what is, to all intents and purposes, a Magnitsky Act. People on this side of the House can be very proud of the role they have played—in fact, people on both sides of the House can.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Broadly speaking, there are two, mutually contaminating ecosystems of terror that we face, one is at home and one is abroad. What the UK is doing overseas is to drive out the terrorists from the spaces they currently occupy, be that in Iraq, Syria, Libya or Nigeria. We are having a great deal of success in that. The ungoverned space occupied by terrorists has been greatly reduced in the past year. In addition, we are working to increase aviation security around the world and, above all, at the UN, with the resolution agreed last month, to bring Daesh fighters to justice.
Mr Cunningham
Following last year’s decision to strip the Foreign Office of its responsibilities for co-ordinating the UK’s diplomatic counter-terrorism relationships, what reassurances can the Foreign Secretary provide that his Department’s unique expertise in this area is not being lost?
Boris Johnson
I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring to the JICTU—Joint International Counter Terrorism Unit—arrangement we have across government. I think he would accept that in view of what I have said about the mutually contaminating ecosystems of terror that we face, where people are being radicalised online here at home and people are in the ungoverned spaces, be it in Iraq, Syria or wherever, a one-Government approach has to be taken to all this by Her Majesty’s Government. It is right therefore that we co-ordinate with the Home Office to tackle this, but we are also tackling it overseas. One aspect of international diplomacy which the Prime Minister has been leading is countering online radicalisation and taking more than 270,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material off the internet.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
May I remind the Foreign Secretary that 20 million Russians died in the second world war, without which we might have lost the war? Does he agree with Sir Tony Brenton, the former British ambassador to Russia, that despite Russia’s being a leading nuclear power, a member of the UN Security Council, a fundamental source of hydrocarbons and other vital raw materials, and a leading player in the middle east, we are, through “pointless sanctions” and “demonisation”, doing everything we can
“to push Russia into China’s arms”?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with Sir Tony Brenton that this may prove to be
“the geopolitical blunder of a generation”?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out Russian sacrifice in the war. He is quite right to allude to it, although I might also point out that probably 30 million people died in Stalin’s purges and famines and various other things associated with communism which, as I say, were indulged by the Labour party. [Interruption.] It is true. My hon. Friend’s point about engagement is valid, and that is what we are doing.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
One of the things we need from cross-Government co-ordination is for British citizens who fought for Daesh to be prosecuted for genocide and war crimes. More than 400 people from this country have fought in that conflict and come back here, but not a single one has been prosecuted for either genocide or war crimes. Surely that must change.
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As he knows, they are guilty of a crime—what they have done in going to fight overseas is a crime—and they should be brought to justice. What we have done overall is to call for the evidence that we need to prosecute them to be gathered by the special investigative team that has just been set up by the UN, thanks to the UK’s agency.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend notice Tony Blair’s remarks over the weekend in which he recognised that the international community was wrong not to enter into dialogue with Hamas when it was elected in 2006? In the light of the deal between Hamas and Fatah that has been brokered by Egypt, is there not now another opportunity to engage Hamas in a dialogue in order to draw it into a constructive position and at least have a chance of making it a more constructive player?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question; he brings great learning to this subject. In the end, there might be the prospect of Hamas being brought in—of course that must be right—but before that can happen it has to renounce terror, to recognise Israel’s right to exist, to cease and desist from vile and anti-Semitic propaganda and to abide by the Quartet principles. Nevertheless, what he says has a profound truth; if only Hamas would listen to it and act on what he says.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
The whole House can be proud of the way the country responded. We have committed £62 million to meet the immediate—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Speaker; I am answering Questions 10 and 15 together with Question 8—
Mr Speaker
Or even Questions 10 and 14. I realise that these are not the sort of matters with which the right hon. Gentleman ordinarily has to preoccupy himself. They may seem a mere trifle, but they are quite important in parliamentary terms.
Boris Johnson
I am obliged and I stand corrected, Mr Speaker. I am answering Questions 8, 10 and 14 together, because they all relate to the impact of the hurricane.
The House can be proud of the way in which the country responded. We have provided £62 million to meet the immediate humanitarian needs. We deployed 2,000 military personnel and delivered 600 tonnes of aid. We fielded fantastic quantities of calls, not least from colleagues, some of whom I see are present behind me. I am chairing an inter-ministerial group to support a long-term recovery plan to get those overseas territories and British citizens back on their feet.
Chris Davies
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the swift UK response was unreasonably criticised by some? We should recognise the efforts of our outstanding aid workers and our military.
Boris Johnson
I am grateful for the sentiment that my hon. Friend has expressed and his willingness to come to the defence and support of our military and our aid workers. I saw from my own direct experience that they did an absolutely fantastic job. I will not hide it from the House: I was surprised to see on the news—before the hurricane had even finished—that I had received a letter denouncing the UK’s performance and our response from the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I thought that was hasty, and I hope to be able to explain to him when I appear before his Committee, as I shall shortly, that I thought it was a premature judgment.
Nigel Huddleston
Can the Foreign Secretary say what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of our help so far in getting the islands up and running again and open for business?
Boris Johnson
I really must advise my hon. Friend that the extent of the damage is so considerable that he must see it for himself. It is quite extraordinary. Hon. Members should understand that the British Virgin Islands and Anguilla have seen nothing like this for generations, and it will take time, but we are committed and we will be there for the long term.
Toby Perkins
The Foreign Secretary is right to pay tribute to the British armed forces for the part they played in the overseas territories, but it is also right to recognise that the contribution that the British Government made both immediately and in the days after Hurricane Irma was considerably less than that of their counterparts in Holland and France in their overseas territories. It is absolutely crucial that, going forward, the investment that the islands need means that those people no longer look with envy to their French and Dutch counterparts.
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is completely in error when he says that. In point of fact, both the French and the Dutch appealed to us at various times for help with their own needs, and, of course, we were very glad to supply that. We are now working with them and the Americans to make sure that we have a joined-up plan to react in the event of any future hurricanes.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Boris Johnson
As I have said, there is a long-term plan to restore those overseas territories to full economic health, and it will take a long-term commitment from this country. I want all those British nationals there to realise that this Government are absolutely determined to vindicate their rights and to give them the support that they need.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Following the hurricanes, the British overseas territory has a reconstruction bill of about £4 billion. The Government are providing grants to the Dominican Republic, but seem to be relying on private sector loans for the British Virgin Islands. With the loss of EU funding, is it not time that the Government stopped trying to fiddle the definition of overseas aid and set up a dedicated scheme and used the contingency reserve for the first year?
Boris Johnson
If I may humbly correct the hon. Lady there has been no loss of EU funding so far. As she will understand, EU funding will continue for some years—let me put it like that. [Interruption.] In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that, one way or the other, we will get through the very considerable sums that are needed—whether it is through the Caribbean Community or the Caribbean Development Bank. The assessments of the requirements are only now coming in. We must wait to see exactly what the bill and the requirements are before we start pushing out the money. When we have a full understanding of the requirements, we will ensure that the UK stands behind the plan.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
The Foreign Secretary spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi on 7 and 17 September. I met her in Naypyidaw in Burma on 27 September, and the Deputy Foreign Minister at the UN General Assembly on 20 September. We called for an end to the violence in Rakhine state, a safe return for refugees, full humanitarian access, and, most importantly, implementation in full of the Annan Commission’s recommendations.
Gerald Jones
We are seeing the heartbreaking pictures and hearing the tragic stories of the plight of the Rohingya people on a daily basis now. Will the Minister increase his representations? Specifically in the light of the evidence of the atrocities by the Myanmar armed forces, does he feel that the decision to lift the EU sanctions against the military regime was premature?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question. What is going on in Rakhine is a human tragedy and a humanitarian catastrophe. When the UN lifted sanctions in 2011, it was trying to encourage a road towards democracy, which has obviously happened with the election that took place only 18 months ago. With hindsight, one might argue that these sanctions were lifted prematurely. However, a lot of Burma watchers would say that the sanctions did not have a huge effect. There was not a great deal of money from the Burmese military in western bank accounts in the way that applies, for example, to sanctions for Russia, China and elsewhere.
Mark Field
As I said, it is a humanitarian catastrophe out there. Sadly, this increasingly appears to be an accurate description of the situation. It is now essential for the Burmese authorities to enact the positive measures that were announced by the State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Thursday evening. They include the establishment of a new civilian-led body to oversee refugee returns and the development of Rakhine into a state in which all communities can live together sustainably.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Terrible acts of brutality and violence have been carried out against the Rohingya people. Is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that the Burmese army will be charged with war crimes for what they have done?
Mark Field
That is a matter for the UN. The issue of genocide is a legal one and it will be determined at UN level. I understand that there is some frustration and a perception that diplomatic advancement has been slow. We have taken a lead in this. There have been two closed meetings and an open meeting of the UN Security Council. The truth is that a headlong rush to get a Security Council resolution along these sorts of lines would most likely end up being vetoed by the Chinese or the Russians. We need to move together as an international community, recognising that these serious crimes must be properly dealt with.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I discussed Catalonia with the Spanish ambassador to the UK on 11 October. Our embassy in Madrid regularly discusses the issue with the Spanish Government. We also routinely engage with the Catalan regional Government on matters that fall properly within their competence.
Jonathan Edwards
The referendum provided a clear mandate for independence with over 92% of voters voting yes, despite horrific violence by the Spanish authorities. Yesterday pro-independence leaders were detained and charged with sedition. Surely the British Government and the international community should now be guided by the words of Woodrow Wilson:
“‘Self-determination’ is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of actions”.
We should support the values of peace and democracy, not the forces of oppression.
Sir Alan Duncan
It is the rule of law that needs to govern the decision affecting the future of Catalonia. We fully defend the rule of law and actively assert that this can take place only within the proper workings of the Spanish constitution.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
We encourage all countries, including Malaysia, to conduct open and transparent election processes. Naturally that should include external observation missions, which I believe—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman believes—are important to achieving a legitimate democratic outcome.
Mr Leslie
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Election observers can help to check that electoral registration in constituencies and districts, campaign finance and polling day are all above board. Will the Minister do what he can to help our friends in Malaysia show the entire world that these elections can be free and fair?
Mark Field
I very much hope so. As the hon. Gentleman points out, Malaysia is an important partner for the United Kingdom, with co-operation across a range of areas, including security, prosperity, education, foreign policy and Islamic finance. He will be glad to know that I have a routine meeting—tomorrow morning, no less—at the Foreign Office with the high commissioner to Malaysia, and I will ensure that his heartfelt views are put forward.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I was proud, on 21 September this year, to speak at the United Nations Security Council when it unanimously adopted a UK-drafted resolution, which involved the deployment of an investigative team to Iraq to help bring Daesh perpetrators to justice. The United Kingdom is giving material and moral support to this work.
Ross Thomson
I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm what discussions he has had with key partners in the region with regard to the reconstruction and stabilisation of the area for the long term in a post-Daesh world?
Alistair Burt
Absolutely. I have been to the region twice in recent months to speak to Iraqi authorities about what is happening to make sure that areas formerly occupied by Daesh are given support. We strongly support the work being carried out on behalf of the UK Government through the Department for International Development to make sure there is stabilisation. We recognise not only that these areas need physical reconstruction but that the political reconciliation that brings different sides together to work in effective local governance is a key part of the solution for the future.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK is leading the global coalition’s efforts to disrupt and counter Daesh’s communications. Can the Minister broadly say what we are now doing differently, as a result of our learning against this fast-moving and fluid organisation, from what we were doing a couple of years ago?
Alistair Burt
It is a good question. There is a certain amount that can be said and cannot be said. We are all aware that Daesh operates in an increasingly sophisticated way. It should never be underestimated. Those who are fighting in the region fight not just physically but through the internet and through the spread of false ideological information and the like. The UK takes certain steps to deal with this, in company with partners, through cyber-protection and the like. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as Daesh’s attempts to infiltrate the minds of people have stepped up, so have our attempts to counter that.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
We are, of course, supporting the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s plans to hold a detailed forum for Commonwealth parliamentarians in February 2018, before CHOGM. As my hon. Friend will know, we intend to have a range of contemporary issues discussed, including security, prosperity, climate change and all aspects of human rights, ahead of the national debates that will take place at the Commonwealth summit in April 2018.
James Duddridge
I thank the Minister for that reply, specifically because it advertises an event this afternoon offering colleagues the opportunity to find out more about the forum. What specific opportunities will there be for parliamentarians at CHOGM and in the two years after CHOGM, when the UK is in the chair?
Mark Field
My hon. Friend, a former Minister, makes a valid point. There is no point having large-scale meetings such as CHOGM if we see them as an end in themselves. We need to have plans for the future, and I think those plans are afoot. Let us be honest: there has never been a more important time for us to be networked in, whether with the Commonwealth or a range of other international institutions, on all the issues—particularly around security and prosperity—that should be close to the hearts of all British parliamentarians.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The nation of Sudan may have expressed its interest in joining the Commonwealth, but will the Minister make it clear that, despite Donald Trump’s recent lifting of sanctions on Sudan—a decision welcomed by this Government—there is no way we will allow into the Commonwealth a Sudanese regime that continues to brutally persecute ethnic and religious minorities and to perpetrate the most outrageous abuses of human rights?
Mark Field
I very much understand the shadow Minister’s concern. My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa made it clear in meeting Sudan people only yesterday that we are pushing for further reforms. As she rightly says, it would be very premature at this juncture for there to be any application to join the Commonwealth, and it would obviously be a matter for other Commonwealth members to approve.
It is also important to point out that the Commonwealth, as a body, is much respected, particularly in Africa. One looks at countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique, which were never part of the British empire, but which have joined the Commonwealth. That is a big sign of approval for it, but obviously these things need to be done in a properly concerted manner.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
The whole House will wish to join me in condemning the atrocity in Mogadishu on Saturday, which claimed at least 281 lives. Those who inflicted this heinous act of terrorism on a thriving capital city achieved nothing except to demonstrate their own wickedness. We offer our profound condolences to the Government and people of Somalia. Britain shall not rest in our efforts to restore stability in a country that has suffered for too long.
Jeff Smith
I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the terrible events in Somalia.
In March, the Foreign Secretary told this House that the Labour party had been “far too pessimistic” about Donald Trump. He said specifically that the nuclear deal with Iran
“was going to be junked”,
but
“it is now pretty clear that America supports it.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2017; Vol. 624, c. 116.]
Does the Foreign Secretary think that those comments perhaps demonstrate that he has a lack of political judgment?
Boris Johnson
If I may say so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s question demonstrates that he has a lack of understanding of what has taken place, because, as he will readily appreciate, the United States has not abrogated, or “junked”, the joint comprehensive plan of action. The JCPOA remains alive; it remains intact. It is our intention in this Government, working with our French and German friends, and with China and Russia, as well as with the rest of the European Union, to keep that deal alive, because that is in the interests of the whole world.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend is completely right. The best way forward is to continue with what I think is the common policy on both sides of the House, which is to encourage the Chinese to intensify the economic pressure on Pyongyang with a view to getting it round the table, and that is what we are doing.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At our last session of questions, the Foreign Secretary agreed with the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that if the EU demanded a single penny in the Brexit divorce bill, then they could “go whistle”. A month later, the Foreign Secretary said—[Interruption.] I appreciate that accountability is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, but he ought to listen. He said:
“We are law-abiding, bill-paying people”
who will
“meet our legal obligations as we understand them”,
so can he clear up this issue today? Does he accept that there will be a divorce bill or not, and if so, how much should the bill be?
Boris Johnson
I must very humbly and apologetically correct the right hon. Lady, because she is not faithfully representing what I said. [Hon. Members: “She is.”] She is not. What I said in answer to an hon. Friend on these Benches was that some of the sums I had heard spoken of were, in my view, or in the view of my hon. Friends, eye-watering and far too high. The figure I heard was €100 billion. Would Labour Members cough up €100 billion? Would you, or you, or you? I think they would, the supine, protoplasmic, invertebrate jellies. I think that is the sort of money they would readily fork out. I think it is too much.
Mr Speaker
I hope the Hansard reporters caught the full flavour of that. We will inspect the Official Report tomorrow.
Emily Thornberry
I do not think that has really cleared up a great deal, but let me try another question.
Again at our last session, the Foreign Secretary told this House—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I cannot believe that the Foreign Secretary conducted himself in that way when he was a schoolboy. Or perhaps he did, which might explain some matters.
Emily Thornberry
Let me just quote again from the last session of Foreign Office questions, when the Foreign Secretary told the House:
“There is no plan for no deal”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 141.]
Five days ago, he said that
“we must make the right preparations…for a no-deal scenario.”
We know that the Cabinet cannot stop fighting about the Brexit that they want, but it would be a start if our flip-flopping Foreign Secretary could stop fighting with himself.
Emily Thornberry
I have not asked the question yet, Boris. Which is it: the Telegraph article or the Florence speech—the lion roars or the lion wants to stop this malarkey? Apart from his own fading ambitions, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary believe in?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady should not refer to the Foreign Secretary by his first name. It is rather vulgar.
Mr Speaker
Not the name, but merely the mention of it. It is unseemly and insufficiently reverential.
Boris Johnson
I would not dream of calling the right hon. Lady by any name other than Lady Nugee. May I say to her that, in fact, there is a ruthless and an iron consistency that applies not just to everything I have said, but to all the statements made by Conservative Members? We are united behind the principles of the Lancaster House speech, the article 50 letter and every jot, tittle, comma, syllable and every other item of punctuation in the Florence speech. I suggest that she adopts it as well.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)
May I begin by expressing our condolences to Mr Harron, who has been through a very difficult situation? We are grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this specific case. Consular staff have spoken to Mr Harron’s family, we have dealt with Mr Harron himself, we have provided consular access for friends to visit him and we have provided access to the best legal advice. He is currently on bail, awaiting sentence for an alcohol-related offence. The point about the travel advice is one that we take very seriously, and we continue to review it on a regular basis.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter of real seriousness in Egypt. I met leaders of the Coptic Church just last week with the support of His Grace Bishop Angaelos, and I am going to the Coptic service later today to express further solidarity. We raise these matters directly with the Egyptian Government, who view these terrorist attacks with the same degree of horror as we do, and who are doing all in their power to stop them. We will continue to urge just that.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in thanking Ambassador Frank Baker for all his tireless work in Iraq? He has worked with the Foreign Secretary, Secretary Tillerson and the Iraqi Prime Minister to put together a deal that would have avoided the catastrophic situation that now plagues the country between the Kurds and Baghdad. Will the Foreign Secretary urge all sides to come back together around the negotiating table on that framework and negotiate a deal?
Boris Johnson
I want to thank my hon. Friend very much for his work in this sphere. There is no one who knows the Kurdistan Regional Government or Kurdistan better than he does. Clearly, to a great extent the troubles that are now befalling that area were anticipated. We saw this coming, and we warned our friends in Kurdistan that it would happen. My hon. Friend also did a great job of warning them. We now have to manage a very difficult situation, and it calls for calm heads and negotiation.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Boris Johnson
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago. The Government are united on a very coherent policy, and we made a very generous offer. If I may say to the gentleman that he quotes, whose name I did not, alas, catch, it is up to our friends and partners in the EU to look seriously at the offer we are making, particularly on citizens, and to make progress. Everybody wants to make progress, and everybody wants to give the 3.2 million EU citizens in this country the maximum possible reassurance and security. That can only happen once our friends and partners decide to get serious in these negotiations.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
May I thank the Foreign Secretary, notwithstanding our differences, for his personal intervention in the case of a constituent of mine who, along with her 22-month-old son, was rescued from Dominica by our Government—I am very proud of that —and brought back to this country safely? Unfortunately, she is not entitled to any benefits for three months, and she is relying on the generosity of the great people of Broxtowe. In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend at least look at the bill for her flight home and consider waiving it?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned assiduously for the rights of this particular constituent, and I congratulate her on everything she has done. Unfortunately, that kind of agreement would set all sorts of precedents, but we will look at the particular case and we will certainly see whether we can come up with a payment plan to extend the period of the loan.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Alistair Burt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I spoke this morning to the Foreign Minister of Iraq, and I am speaking later to representatives of the Kurdish Regional Government to do exactly what is being expressed in the House—to urge caution on all sides, and to continue a careful dialogue to make sure that there is no possibility of a miscalculation leading to conflict. It is essential that matters are pursued on a constitutional basis, but there is a difficulty at the moment in getting accurate information about precisely what is happening in the region. We are doing all we can to verify all stories, but we are also doing all we can to cool down the situation.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
This Government have promised protection to an area of ocean equal in size to India, covering Pitcairn, St Helena and much more. I think it is a source of huge pride for our country, but we are not all the way there yet, so I hope the Minister can provide an update on progress, specifically in relation to Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, both of which have been promised protection —in 2019 and 2020, respectively.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I am very happy to update my hon. Friend in due course on the exact details of those two, but I think we can all bask in the reflected historic glory, as it were, of having pretty much the largest ocean protection area in the world, apart from the United States, which made ours one of the most effective voices at the oceans summit in Washington last year.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Boris Johnson
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the failure of communications has greatly exacerbated the difficulties. One of the things we have been trying to do is to restore mobile communications as fast as possible. We are putting in a £5 million aid package to Dominica through the Department for International Development, and the Prime Minister of Dominica, Roosevelt Skerrit, has written to our Prime Minister to express his profound gratitude for the Government’s response.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s earlier remarks about Hamas, but does he share my deep concern about the groups linked to Islamic State that now have a presence in Gaza and Sinai and that, even in recent days, have been firing rockets into southern Israel?
Alistair Burt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Absolutely—rooting out those terrorist organisations in Gaza and Sinai is hugely important, not only for those who live in the immediate target area but for wider regional peace. There can be no peace without a rejection of violence, particularly rocket attacks in relation to Israel, but there are indications that something is going on that may help the process of peace in the area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I know that we are out of time, but that does not trouble me too much. There are many colleagues whom I wish to call on these very important matters, so brevity is required. I call Dr Philippa Whitford; very briefly—well done.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Alistair Burt
The short answer is no, as the Foreign Secretary indicated earlier, until there is movement on the Quartet principles. However, resolution to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza is urgently needed, and we are doing all that we can to support that.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Do Ministers share concern about the apparent continuing erosion of the one country, two systems principle in Hong Kong following the disappearances of booksellers, the recent imprisonment of a democratically elected representative and, last week, the refusal of entry into Hong Kong on a purely private visit by UK citizen and human rights campaigner Ben Rogers, who is watching our proceedings today? If so, what action is the Foreign Office taking?
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is fair to say that broadly UK-Hong Kong relations remain strong, and there is bilateral work. However, I very much accept her position. We are very concerned that Ben Rogers, a UK national, was denied entry into Hong Kong on 11 October in absolute disregard of the one country, two systems principle. The Foreign Secretary has issued a statement, and the Foreign Office director-general for economic and global issues summoned the Chinese ambassador on this issue over the past few days. We have also made representations to Beijing, and I shall write to Carrie Lam in Hong Kong in the days ahead.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Minister of State for what he said, and the Foreign Secretary for issuing that statement. Ben Rogers is an outstanding and articulate champion of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Asia and elsewhere, well known to Members on both sides of the House. His treatment was utterly scandalous, and those responsible have certainly not heard the last of it—of that we can be sure. I call Paula Sherriff.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Alistair Burt
The UK Government position is that Palestine will be recognised when it is in the best interests of the peace process to do so, which leaves the matter quite open.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
West Oxfordshire has been celebrating the 80th anniversary of the foundation of Royal Air Force Brize Norton this weekend with a magnificent sculpture at the main gates. The extraordinary history of that station is exemplified by its response to our hurricane relief programme. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in celebrating that response and provide an assessment of the contribution that the station made to our humanitarian hurricane response?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to congratulate RAF Brize Norton on its anniversary and all its achievements in tackling the consequences of the hurricane. Along with colleagues on the Government Benches, I used RAF services during trips to the region, and the station will continue to be absolutely vital to getting those areas back on their feet.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
In view of the Foreign Secretary’s self-declared “ruthless consistency”, will he tell the House why he now thinks that we should accept the judgments of the European Court of Justice during the transitional period that the Prime Minister has announced the UK will now seek?
Boris Johnson
As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the implementation period that we have suggested is still under negotiation, so we will have to see the result of that negotiation. We do not know as yet whether our friends and partners will accept the suggestion of an implementation period. What we do know is that we have made a fair—we think reasonable—suggestion on money, citizenship, the Northern Ireland question, rights and privileges, and so on. It is now up to our friends and partners to decide how they will respond. If we are going to get on to that kind of question, now is the time for them to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues who have already spoken are greedily indicating a desire to contribute again. I am keen to accommodate colleagues, but there is a limit.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Reports from Cameroon describe barbaric clashes between security forces and civilian opposition. The internet and phone lines have been cut, and constituents of mine with family members in the country are rightly concerned about their welfare. What can my hon. Friend do to help stop the worsening crisis and help people find out about their family members?
Rory Stewart
Clearly, the situation in Cameroon is very disturbing. As my right hon. Friend suggests, the Anglophone community has been particularly victimised in terms of internet access, which has now been restored. We call on all parties to refrain from violence and to respect the rule of law, and call particularly on the Government of Cameroon to exercise restraint and address the root causes of the dispute.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Secretary of State may be aware of the tragic and unexplained death of my constituent Kirsty Maxwell, who died in Benidorm in April this year. Her family are distraught, as the investigation’s progress has been very slow and there are a number of issues. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Kirsty’s family to discuss what further support can be given at this very difficult time?
Sir Alan Duncan
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady in the first instance to discuss this; we would like to extend all the consular assistance we possibly can to anyone in such circumstances.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Given the grave situation in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the impact on our currently deployed British Army teams who are training the peshmerga as we speak?
Alistair Burt
At present, I do not think there is any reason to change the arrangements of the armed forces who have worked with the peshmerga and have done such an outstanding job to push back Daesh. What we are all hoping for is that there will be no conflict in the area and that the determination already expressed by both sides to prevent any conflict will lead to a peaceful resolution of the current difficulties.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As Amnesty International among others has pointed out, the disproportionate use of force by police against civilians is contrary to international law. What representations has the Minister made to his Spanish counterparts about the treatment by Spanish police of civilians voting in the Catalonian independence referendum?
Sir Alan Duncan
People understand that we do not wish to see scenes such as that, but it is the duty of everyone in this House personally to uphold the rule of law. I very much regret that Scottish National party Members considered it appropriate to call themselves “official” observers at what was an illegal referendum.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Yesterday’s red skies were a timely reminder of the Russian revolution 100 years ago, which brought such chaos and suffering. In the light of indications that Russia seeks to destabilise western democracies, does the Secretary of State share my concern that Russia’s state broadcaster appeared to be providing a platform to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party and its campaign to inflict socialism on the UK?
Mr Speaker
Order. This tendency to name people is very unseemly. I said earlier that it was vulgar. If it was vulgar from the illustrious figure of the shadow Foreign Secretary, it is also vulgar from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). The tendency must cease.
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s excellent question. If we study the output of Russia Today and consider the state of the press in Russia at present, we see that it is a scandal that Labour Members should be continuing to validate and legitimate that kind of propaganda by going on those programmes. [Interruption.] I am assured by my ministerial team that none of them does so.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to the questions about Kashmir, we are talking about two states with nuclear arms possibly edging towards a conflict, and we should all take that seriously. Given our unique historical relationship with both countries, cannot pressure be brought to bring the two sides together to engage in some sort of meaningful dialogue?
Mark Field
It is the 14th minute of injury time already —unlucky for some, I think. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers on this issue. We understand that clearly there is a worry: as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, both India and Pakistan are nuclear states and the world can ill afford this flashpoint. From my own discussions in India and Afghanistan—I am going to Pakistan next month, as I said—there seems to be a lessening of some of the tensions. We can take nothing for granted, but ultimately this must be an issue for India and Pakistan rather than anyone else.
Mr Speaker
I remind the Minister that we are in injury time, and that is at least in part because questions and answers at Foreign Office questions are always longer. As a Clerk of the House once said to me, “Mr Speaker, I think that Ministers tend to feel that they’re addressing not merely the House but the world.”
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I warmly thank the Foreign Secretary for suggesting that he and I should visit the BBC Monitoring Service at Caversham Park before the crazy decision is implemented next year to sell off the site and break our link with the similar American operation there. Will he remonstrate with his officials, however, on the grounds that 45 minutes for a walk-through on a Thursday is not long enough for him to see what is going on there? Given also—[Interruption.]—that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee cannot accompany us, should the visit not be altered?
Boris Johnson
I am looking forward immensely to the trip with my right hon. Friend, and I can tell him from my own experience that an immense amount can be accomplished in 45 minutes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it was former Governor of New York Mario Cuomo who said we should campaign in poetry but govern in prose? The next time we hear the Foreign Secretary quoting Kipling, will he be campaigning or governing?
Boris Johnson
The SNP contrives to govern neither in poetry nor in prose. It should begin governing to start with.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
What are the chances of getting the Chennai Six home by Christmas?
Mark Field
Much as I would like my hon. Friend to take over this particular matter, I will answer.
I know that this case, which my right hon. Friend raises with me whenever I see him on the parliamentary estate, is very close to his heart. I raised it this month during my visit to India and spent a day in Chennai, when I had a chance to visit the men in prison. It was heart breaking, but the determination of those men and their families is to be much admired. I also saw the families in my office at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I should take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and other MPs across the House who represent the Chennai Six. I know that a huge amount of work has been done. I cannot make any promises, and I do not want to raise expectations that we cannot meet, but we are doing our level best here and in India to bring them back as soon as possible.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I believe that the point of order springs directly out of questions, and for that reason I will take it now—otherwise it would come after statements—but it must be done briefly.
Joanna Cherry
I seek an apology from the Minister for Europe and the Americas, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who is no longer in his seat. The SNP did not send official observers to the Catalonian referendum. The Catalonian Government invited observers from across Europe and the Israeli Knesset. In addition to me, other Members of the House and a peer of the House of Lords, Lord Rennard, were present. We were there as international parliamentary observers, just as Conservative Members were in Gibraltar in 2002 at the request of the Gibraltar Government, despite that being an illegal referendum. I would like an apology and the record set straight.
Mr Speaker
I have understood the hon. and learned Lady, but we do not need to delve into the archives and refer back to 2002 and comparable examples. I recognise it is something that a distinguished legal practitioner is accustomed to doing, but we are short of time. If Ministers want to apologise, they can, but they are not under any obligation to do so.
Mr Speaker
I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary is shaking his head. It is clear that he does not wish to apologise. The hon. and learned Lady has made her point with force and eloquence, however, and it is on the record; it will be in the Official Report. If that does not satisfy her, I hope it at least mollifies her.
International Investment
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The United Kingdom has a deserved reputation as one of the most open economies in the world, one that welcomes international investment and the benefits it brings. Our position as the fifth-largest economy in the world has been built on international trade and investment. Today’s Green Paper affirms our commitment to that approach, and sets out proposed reforms of our scrutiny of foreign investment to ensure that our national security is protected.
An open approach to international investment must include appropriate safeguards. It is vital that the UK Government can deliver on their primary duty to safeguard national security and ensure that the interests of the British people are protected, and it is important for the Government to have both knowledge of potential national security risks to the UK and the ability to act where necessary. Our review has highlighted the need for that to be updated to take account of the changing structure and size of companies in sectors that are critical to our national security. Our reforms will bring the UK in line with many major developed economies. We want to develop clear, consistent and proportionate rules which will enable us to scrutinise the ownership of our infrastructure, but which will also be well understood and will give international investors the clarity and transparency that they require.
We are proposing a two-stage approach. First, I am updating our current arrangements by consulting on amendments to the Enterprise Act 2002 to enable the Government, if necessary, to intervene in mergers that fall outside the current provisions. In most sectors, the thresholds in the Act allow the Government to intervene in mergers on public interest grounds only if the acquired company has a UK turnover of more than £70 million, or if the share of supply is 25% or more of the market. The thresholds are no longer appropriate for certain sectors, particularly those in which smaller companies may hold technologies that are critical to national security. For those sectors, we are proposing to introduce amendments through secondary legislation that would lower the turnover threshold to £1 million and remove the requirement for the merger to increase the share of supply to 25% or more.
Specifically, I am consulting on amendments to the thresholds for the dual use and military sector, and certain parts of the advanced technology sectors. The first relates to items that are currently subject to export controls. Hostile actors should not be able to acquire such items, or knowledge about how to make them, by buying UK-based businesses. The second relates to companies that are involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. Advanced technologies can create threats that are difficult to detect, and may mean that devices could be directed remotely should a hostile actor gain access.
The Green Paper also seeks public views about options for broader reforms to the way in which we scrutinise investment for national security purposes. In particular, we are seeking views on two proposals: broadening the range of transactions that the Government are able to review for national security purposes, and the introduction of mandatory notification of foreign investment in certain parts of the economy that are critical for national security, such as the civil nuclear and defence sectors. The Government intend any reforms to be firmly targeted at national security. While the national security assessment must, by its very nature, remain confidential, we will also seek to provide greater certainty and clarity for businesses in respect of the process itself. Our proposals will ensure that our arrangements for protecting national security are aligned with the practices in other major countries, and are more robust in response to the evolving nature of national security threats and technological change.
Let me say something about takeovers more generally, outside the area of national security. We have held discussions with stakeholders, including the Takeover Panel, about the current process. Those discussions have covered the need for more information and time to allow for the assessment of takeover bids by interested parties, and to enable assurances given during the takeover process to be properly assessed and compliance-scrutinised. We believe that the changes recently proposed by the Takeover Panel would improve the UK’s takeover rules, and we look forward to the conclusion of the consultation.
The Government will also act, when appropriate, to ensure that public funds are protected in mergers. In particular, we will take steps to ensure that Government-funded research and development grants can be clawed back following a takeover if the new company would have been ineligible to receive the grant. or if the purpose for which the grant was made has changed.
Let me now turn to an international investment announcement that was made late last night. On Tuesday, I briefed the House on the trade dispute brought by Boeing against Bombardier. My colleagues and I have been constantly engaged from the outset, and have considered all the alternatives that we can bring to bear to resolve the dispute. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that yesterday the boards of Bombardier and Airbus announced plans for a joint venture involving the C series aircraft. The deal is expected to be completed by the second half of next year. I have spoken directly to the chairman of Bombardier and the chief executive of Airbus about the joint venture specifically, and I have also discussed the matter with Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. My top priority has been to emphasise the importance of giving certainty to Bombardier’s high-quality UK workforce, now and in the future.
As the House well knows, the Shorts factory in Belfast employs more than 4,200 highly skilled workers and supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs across the United Kingdom. Airbus also has a large presence in the UK, employing more than 15,000 people, and is firmly rooted in the UK’s advanced-technology industrial base. It is in all our interests for the C series to be successful. Both Bombardier and Airbus have made a number of important commitments to me, including commitments that C series wing manufacturing will continue in Belfast, and that the strategy will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments.
This announcement offers the potential to protect the interests of Bombardier’s Belfast workers and the UK supply chain. The UK is already Airbus’s wing factory for the world, and the announcement reinforces that position. The trade dispute brought by Boeing against Bombardier’s C series remains in place. We consider Boeing’s action to be totally unjustified, unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct that we would expect of a company that has a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom. We reject entirely any suggestion that our support for Shorts contravenes international rules. We will continue to work to see the dispute resolved while Bombardier and Airbus complete their merger.
I remain in close contact with Airbus, Bombardier, and the Canadian and US Governments. I will be speaking to the chairman of Bombardier and the chief executive of Airbus again later this week for an update on progress. I will, of course, continue to meet the representatives, and to meet Members of Parliament with constituency interests, who have been assiduous in standing up for their constituents. I will do everything I can to secure, at all times, the best possible future for Bombardier’s Belfast workforce and its UK-based suppliers.
I commend my statement to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The news that Bombardier and Airbus will be forming a partnership will be welcome to the thousands of Airbus and Bombardier staff who are employed in the United Kingdom, but can the Secretary of State confirm that he has received unequivocal assurances from Airbus and Bombardier about the security of UK jobs in the long term? The pairing of two cutting-edge product lines is very exciting for the future of aerospace manufacturing, but it should not be an excuse for the Government to diminish their efforts to ensure that the unfair tariffs imposed in the United States are dropped. Will the Secretary of State give more details about the further action that he proposes to take? For example, has he written to the European Commission?
Britain clearly wants to be open to investment, despite reports that the Office for National Statistics is revising its investment position downwards. However, it would be naive to allow key businesses to be at risk from people who have no interest in the long-term success of a business, its workers and its pensioners, or in the long-term interests of the British economy.
Today’s proposals are welcome, but I have some concerns. First, I am concerned about the delay in the presenting of the proposals. In the last year or so, we have seen mergers that have called into question the adequacy of our merger regime to defend vital economic interests: jobs, research and development, and the significance of the company involved to the supply chain, to name but a few. For instance, our biggest chip manufacturer, ARM, was sold to Japan’s SoftBank. ARM is one of the jewels in our crown, developing cutting-edge chip design and generating thousands of jobs, yet there was no guarantee that R and D—or investment, or jobs—would be protected in the long run. The best that our takeover regime could generate was post-offer undertakings by SoftBank for five years on some of those issues.
That is not an isolated example in the high-tech world. The UK firm Imagination Technologies was sold to Canyon Bridge just a few weeks ago, and our automobile sector has also witnessed the shortcomings of the takeover regime. PSA’s purchase of Opel and Vauxhall raised concerns about jobs and investment. Yet again, our takeover regime was unable to guarantee that those things would be protected, and this week we have heard about the risk of voluntary redundancies. My first question to the Secretary of State is this: why did it take so long, given the manifest deficiencies in the regime to which we drew his attention earlier this year?
My second concern relates to the inadequacy of the proposals. They seem to lower the threshold tests that must take place before the competition authorities and the Government can scrutinise a merger. However, those lower tests apply only to the dual-use and military sector, and to companies that are involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. But there are other high-technology sectors that are also in need of the same protections, including life sciences, and food, chemical and automobile manufacturing, to name but a few on a very long list of sectors and business areas that are systemically important to UK plc. These powers would have given no assurances to companies like Unilever, for example, who might try to resist a takeover and have been calling for better safeguards in the takeover regime overall.
Similarly, it is not clear how these powers would have helped in many of the cases I have mentioned where they potentially do apply. Indeed, this morning when the Secretary of State was asked whether these powers would have altered the takeover of ARM, he stated that the turnover of that firm already qualified for scrutiny so this would have made no difference.
So, finally, does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals, while welcome, on the thresholds in particular, fail to protect companies that still fall within them, and will he confirm what further action he proposes to take, because action is desperately needed?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response and questions. On Bombardier, I am grateful for her recognition—which I hope and think is shared across the House and certainly in Northern Ireland—that this is a very positive step forward. I have been very clear that we will continue to seek to strike out and resolve the trade dispute that has been brought by Boeing. Given what we have been doing during the weeks since the initial complaint was made, I do not think anyone could accuse the Government of being anything other than full-hearted in our attempts to resolve this, and our efforts, with our Canadian Government counterparts, to find a secure source of guarantees for Belfast have been widely welcomed this morning.
In terms of the assurances given, Bombardier and Airbus have clearly said they regard the Belfast wing operation as foundational. They expect to expand the production, which means good prospects for those jobs in Northern Ireland and the supply chain across the United Kingdom. That is extremely good news. We will continue to pursue to the point of resolution the trade dispute. The hon. Lady asked about the European Commissioner: my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has discussed this personally with the European Commissioner for Trade. We will leave no stone unturned in seeking a resolution of this dispute.
On the proposals in the Green Paper on international investment, I would have thought the hon. Lady should welcome the fact that we continue to be the third-biggest destination in the world for overseas investment. One of the major strengths of our economy is that we have a reputation for dependability and openness, and it is important that we preserve that while upgrading our systems of scrutiny to make sure that the national interest is protected, particularly in the case of national security. In saying that, I note that the hon. Lady suggests that there has been some delay in so doing, but the changes we are making were changes that were not made during 13 years when the Labour party had the chance to address these matters. I hope she will respond to the consultation and welcome it.
It is right that the threshold should be dropped in order to admit small companies: everyone knows that as technology develops, smaller companies can have a critical role to play in producing products that are part of a wider system. It is right to have that degree of scrutiny. But when the hon. Lady reads the Green Paper she will see that, in addition to those initial changes, we are consulting on whether there should be a wider set of powers to require the mandatory notification of mergers in other sectors of the economy, and we make some proposals around that. It is right to consult on that, but it would not be right for every single transaction in the economy to be required to go through an administrative process when it does not pose a threat to our national interest. That is the purpose of the consultation, and I hope she will welcome it.
The hon. Lady raises the question of Unilever. One of the features of the proposed takeover of Unilever was that the company—correctly, in my view—did not feel it had the time to prepare a proper defence of itself, given the current takeover rules. Following conversations that we have had, the Takeover Panel is proposing a more substantial period in which, at the request of the target company, it will have longer to prepare that defence. That will be welcomed across the economy. This is a consultation by the Takeover Panel so we will wait for that to conclude, but I have welcomed it as a positive step forward.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record levels of inward investment demonstrate a strong vote of confidence in Britain, showing that we are open for business and an outward-looking and world-leading nation?
Greg Clark
I agree: it is a proud boast that we are the No. 3 nation in the world. We are by no means the biggest nation in the world, but to be No. 3 behind the US and China in terms of foreign direct investment is a real vote of confidence in this economy, and that is something I and my team and my colleagues across Government will always work hard to extend.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for an advance copy of his statement.
The Scottish National party supports measures that best protect our citizens and measures that relate to national security. However, it is not clear why these proposals have been brought forward now, so can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why now, and what the UK Government’s long-term strategy is?
We also believe it is vital that Parliament is fully involved in this process. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case?
Finally, on military technology, the UK Government must look to their own track record. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the same degree of stringent oversight and scrutiny is to be applied to arms sales abroad?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, although I am surprised that he did not want to welcome the investment decision in Bombardier. In response to his—perfectly reasonable—question, “Why now?”, it is right to upgrade our systems for scrutiny periodically. A national security risk assessment was carried out recently, which correctly pointed out that smaller companies have the potential to pose a threat to national security, and these measures respond to that. We are publishing a Green Paper; Parliament is being invited to scrutinise it, as the essence of a Green Paper is that it is published for Parliament, as well as people in the outside world, to examine. On military technology and the scrutiny of arms sales, I think the hon. Gentleman should know that that is already subject to a licensing procedure.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that robust due diligence is always carried out on foreign investment when it might afford other Governments control of systems that are closely linked to national security, such as the grid?
Greg Clark
That is the essence of the proposals, and it is necessary to update them from time to time in line with the recommendations that arose from the national security risk assessment. It is very important—it is the first duty of Government—to make sure that we are protected from hostile threats.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of the need to widen the public interest test, but express some disappointment that his definition of it does not appear to include cases where British companies that are fundamental to the science base would be at risk of acquisition, as in the abortive Pfizer AstraZeneca bid, and more recently in the successful bid for ARM, Aveco and the many smaller companies now being acquired on the back of a cheap pound.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will be aware that under European law we are limited in the public interest test to questions of national security, financial stability and media plurality. That is the situation that exists, hence the proposals that we have are around strengthening national security. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the Takeover Panel proposals to give a longer period for the scrutiny of any bids in the public domain, allowing the target company to respond, because from what I have seen so far, that has received a very positive response in corporate Britain, and when that consultation concludes I very much hope it will be enacted.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There are occupants of the Treasury Bench to whom I once taught economics, and I used to tell them that the United Kingdom owned more assets overseas per capita than any other nation on earth. Do we still believe in the free movement of capital?
Greg Clark
We certainly do, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has been part of the process of educating generations of Conservative Front Benchers. In fact, the UK’s stock of overseas investment is second only to that of the United States of America. For this country to be second only to the United States in terms of the value of the assets that we own overseas is a remarkable achievement, and he is right to pay tribute to that.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I sincerely thank the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), for their steadfast support for Bombardier and Belfast. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in encouraging a union between Bombardier and Airbus, Boeing has scored a spectacular own goal? Will he continue his commitment to supporting that partnership, both in terms of the tariff proposition from the US International Trade Commission and of the regulatory considerations to come?
Greg Clark
I will indeed, and I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is the constituency Member for the Bombardier Shorts plant in Belfast. No part of the United Kingdom could have a more vigorous representative of the interests of its constituents than his constituency. He and his colleagues have played an important role in this process. The reaction of Boeing is clearly a matter for that company, but I have been clear that as long as that unjustified and unmerited complaint is being pursued, we will vigorously defend it. We think that the complaint is without merit. As I said when I last updated the House, it is in everyone’s interest that the complaint should be withdrawn so that the relationship that Boeing seeks to have with this country should not be marred by the unjustified action that it is taking. My hon. Friend has my commitment on this.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s attention to this area. I note that research and development in areas of critical national security often occur in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to how these proposals might impact on the propensity of people to invest in that sector?
Greg Clark
It is important that investors, especially those starting up a firm for the first time, should reflect on the fact that the UK is the best place in the world to establish new scientific and technological companies. They can invest with confidence. The ability to scrutinise investments should not put anyone off establishing a firm in this country. It is often possible to deal with security concerns through conditions and undertakings, and getting that framework clear and in place will give confidence to investors in the future.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I welcome the Bombardier announcement—it is very good news. However, future Airbus investment in the UK will depend on a Brexit deal that allows the company to operate as it does now. The company has been very clear about that, and it will mean having a deal rather than no deal. For example, if a wing leaves Broughton but then needs further work, British Airbus employees can leap on to a plane and follow it. They might be away for days or even weeks. Will that be able to continue post Brexit?
Greg Clark
My colleagues and I meet regularly not only with Airbus but with the whole of the aerospace industry, which is one of our most successful industries, and we are well aware of how the sector and the companies within it work. This informs our negotiations to allow us to ensure that that way of working can continue.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the investment in Bombardier. As the fourth industrial revolution accelerates and new technologies emerge, will he consider introducing a call-in mechanism to allow flexibility when the Government scrutinise transactions for national security concerns?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the need to prepare for the fourth industrial revolution, if we are to benefit from it. Part of the reason for this Green Paper is consistent with the high standards that we have always had in this country for ensuring that our systems are up to date. We are suggesting that, in certain sectors that are relevant to national security, it would be possible, subject to the results of the consultation, to scrutinise transactions to assess whether they posed a problem.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is surely right to add smaller companies to the national security process, but this is only a Green Paper and secondary legislation takes time. Given how fast these fields of technology are moving, what are the Government doing right now to mitigate the risk of what we want to legislate to deal with in the future?
Greg Clark
The proposals can be introduced through secondary legislation, and I hope that they will find favour with the House so that we can proceed with that. There is an ability to act through other measures if there is a threat to national security, but the essence of these proposals is that this can be done in anticipation, rather than when a threat has crystallised. This is the right way to proceed, rather than waiting for a threat to be identified as imminent. This is about being prepared.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and particularly the news about Bombardier. Does he agree that the Brexit vote was about us going out into the world and being part of the international trading community, not about withdrawing behind a wall? Will he therefore reassure me that, despite what we are saying about considerations of national security, we will remain an open advocate of free trade in the world?
Greg Clark
It is precisely because we are a leading advocate of free trade and open investment that it is necessary to have the right framework in place so that people can invest with confidence. In fact, in many cases, the steps that we are taking bring us into line with our competitor nations when it comes to trade, and I am absolutely confident that this regime will be respected and applied.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On the subject of companies developing dual-use technology, can the Secretary of State confirm that as well as introducing powers to stop those companies falling into foreign hands, he will ensure that they will still be able to recruit workers from the EU? Those workers will often not be particularly well paid, as they might be graduates working in start-up companies. Also, will he clamp down on companies here that use subsidiaries in other countries to avoid UK export controls and sell dual-use technology that can be used to clamp down on dissent in middle east countries?
Greg Clark
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, an export control regime deals with these matters. On his first point, while the scope of the Green Paper is extensive, it is not a consultation on immigration policy. There will be other opportunities to pursue that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I broadly welcome the proposals to change the takeover code and protect national security assets, especially smaller companies, but will the Secretary of State consider adopting a new principle that for every new policy that could be construed—however unfairly—as being protectionist or anti-business, at least two new policies should be brought forward that state as loudly as possible that Britain is open for business and a free trading country committed to free enterprise?
Greg Clark
We are saying loudly and clearly that we depend on free trade, and that free trade depends on our having clarity in the rules so that investors in our companies know what scrutiny they will be subject to. That is something that business has wanted, so it is good that we are going to be clear about that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
These proposals are welcome as far as they go, but if, thinking about the bigger picture, we are looking at transparency in safeguards relating to foreign investment, we will need to stamp out the laundromat money-laundering schemes that channel billions of pounds through the UK. What steps are the Government taking to eliminate the vehicles for that practice, including the Scottish limited partnerships?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friends in the Treasury are, as the House knows, active and vigorous in pursuing measures against money laundering, and that approach is an important part of this regime’s reputation for applying high standards.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his recognition of the importance of not only large strategic businesses, but the supply chain. Does he agree that it is vital that the rules for the scrutiny of foreign investment are clear, certain and proportionate?
Greg Clark
That is exactly what is proposed in the Green Paper. The focus is on national security, which is an important responsibility for the Government. It is important that investors and businesses know the procedures so that they can have the greatest certainty when conducting business, including when contemplating takeovers.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the role of industrial strategy in helping to harness international investment?
Greg Clark
One of the strengths of the UK’s economy is our reputation for innovation and discovery through the application of science. Our industrial strategy deepens our commitment to that. We have seen the biggest increase in public investment in research and development for more than 40 years. Part of our strategic approach means establishing companies that make use of that technology, and having a regime under which companies that do use that technology can be confident about taking in foreign investment is part and parcel of the positive, mature regime that we want to establish.
EU Exit Negotiations
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the fifth round of negotiations with the European Union. In view of the fact that the October European Council is this week, I will also review the progress of the five negotiation rounds since June.
While the negotiations have been tough at times, both Michel Barnier and I have acknowledged the new dynamic created by the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence. That momentum was maintained during October, and both negotiating teams have continued to work constructively together. Since June, we have steadily developed our shared political objectives. Nevertheless, there is still some way to go to secure our new partnership, but I am confident that we are on the right path.
I will now take the House through each of the negotiating issues in turn. On citizens’ rights, we have made further progress towards giving British citizens in the EU, and EU27 citizens in the UK, the greatest possible legal certainty about the future. Our legal orders will be distinct and different in the future. Last week, we explored how we will ensure that the rights we agree now will be enforced in a fair and equivalent way. We also explored ways in which we can fully implement the withdrawal treaty into UK law, giving confidence to European citizens living in the UK that they will be able to directly enforce their rights, as set out in the agreement, in UK courts.
The two sides also discussed ways of ensuring the consistent interpretation of our agreement. Although we have not yet arrived at single model to achieve that, we have explored a number of options. We should also not lose sight of the fact that we have made significant progress in that area since June. We have reached agreement on the criteria for residence rights, the right to work and to own a business, social security rights, rights for current family members, reciprocal healthcare rights, the rights of frontier workers, and the fact that the process for securing settled status in the UK will be streamlined and low cost. However, there are of course still some issues outstanding for both sides, including the rights: to continue to enjoy the recognition of professional qualifications; to vote in local elections; to onward movement as a UK citizen already resident in the EU27 and to return; to bring in future family members; and to export a range of benefits. In many of those areas, it is a straightforward statement of fact that our proposals go further and provide more certainty than those of the Commission, but both sides are trying to find pragmatic solutions. In the fourth round, we offered the guaranteed right of return for settled citizens in the UK in exchange for onward movement rights for British citizens currently living in the EU. We look forward to hearing the Commission’s response to that offer.
I recognise that there has been some concern regarding the new system that European citizens will have to use to gain settled status in the UK. While there will be a registration process, I confirmed last week that the administration process will be completely new, streamlined and, importantly, low cost. Furthermore, any EU citizen in the UK already in possession of a permanent residence card will be able to exchange it for settled status in a simple way and will not need to go through the full application process again. The tests associated with the process will be agreed and set out in the withdrawal agreement. As a result of our productive discussions, the Commission is also able to offer in return similar guarantees to British citizens in the EU. Those clarifications from both sides have helped to build further confidence.
This round also saw further detailed discussions on Northern Ireland and Ireland. In a significant step forward, we have developed joint principles on the continuation of the common travel area and associated rights. The joint principles will fully preserve the rights of UK and Irish nationals to live, work and study across these islands. They will also protect the associated rights to public services and social security. To provide legal certainty, the principles recognise that the withdrawal agreement should formally acknowledge that the UK and Ireland will continue to be able to uphold and develop bilateral arrangements.
Our teams have also mapped out areas of co-operation that function on a north-south basis, and we have started the detailed work to ensure that that continues once the UK has left the EU. We also agreed a set of critical guiding principles to protect the Belfast or Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and we are working on the necessary steps to make that a reality. Throughout the process, we have reaffirmed our commitment to the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to choose to be British or Irish, or both. I have set out before our shared determination to tackle the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland by focusing on creative solutions, and we have begun to do so. But we cannot fully resolve the issues without also addressing our future relationship. As the Prime Minister said in her statement to the House last week:
“We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland—to get this right.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 43.]
On the financial settlement, discussions continued in the spirit fostered by the Prime Minister’s significant statements in her Florence speech. The Prime Minister reassured our European partners that they will not need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. She reiterated that the UK will honour the commitments we have made during the period of our membership. Off the back of that, we agreed in the September round to undertake a rigorous examination of the technical detail on which we needed to reach a shared view. That work has continued. It has not been a process of agreeing specific commitments—we have been clear that that can come only later—but it is an important step, so that we will be able to reach a political agreement when the time comes.
Finally, on separation issues, we have continued to work through the detail on a range of issues, particularly areas relating purely to our withdrawal, such as nuclear safeguards, civil judicial co-operation, and privileges and immunities. While we have made good progress, the remaining issues are dependent on discussions about our future partnership. We are ready and well prepared to start those discussions.
Our aim remains to provide as much certainty as possible to businesses and citizens on both sides. I have made no secret of the fact that to fully provide that certainty we must be able to talk about the future. We all must recognise that we are reaching the limits of what we can achieve without considering our future relationship. The Prime Minister’s speech in Florence set out the scale of our ambition for the new partnership with the European Union. She also laid out our case for a simple, clear and time-limited period of implementation on current terms. At the European Council later this week, I hope the leaders of the EU27 will recognise the progress made and provide Michel Barnier with the mandate to build on the momentum and spirit of co-operation we now have. Doing so will be the best way of allowing us to achieve our joint objectives and move towards a deal that works for both the UK and the EU.
There has been much discussion of what will constitute sufficient progress. Let me be clear that sufficient progress, and the sequencing of negotiations, has always been a construct of the EU, not the UK. Negotiations require both parties not just to engage constructively, but to develop their positions in advance. For the UK’s part, I have always been clear that we will be conducting these negotiations in a constructive and responsible way. We have been entirely reasonable. The work of our teams and the substantial progress that we have made over recent months proves that we are doing just that, and we are ready to move these negotiations on. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
No one should underestimate the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves. At the first hurdle, the Government have failed to hit a very important target, which leaves EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Europe in a continued state of uncertainty. There is insufficient progress on Northern Ireland, and it appears that the deadlock on the financial settlement is such that both sides are barely talking.
The Secretary of State says he is confident that we are now on the right track. I cannot fault him for his confidence in his own negotiating ambitions. The problem is that most of those ambitions have failed to materialise. One ambition was that the sequencing of talks would be the row of the summer and that he would not agree, but he agreed by coffee time on day one. His suggestion that sequencing and the concept of sufficient progress are EU constructs leaves out the fact that he agreed to them and signed up.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were right to go to Brussels last night. Obviously, I would like to claim that was in response to the letter I wrote to the Secretary of State last Thursday, but even I recognise that would probably be over-claiming for my letter. Because of the seriousness of the situation, both sides—I include the EU—need to do whatever they can to break the impasse by Friday. More flexibility is needed on both sides by Friday.
I hear what the Secretary of State says about the Florence speech, which was an important speech, but he would be on stronger ground if what the Prime Minister said in Florence had not been immediately undermined by the self-interested antics of some Cabinet members. I also hear what the Secretary of State says about the statement of intent last night to accelerate the process. Given the glacial speed so far, it is not exactly a high ambition—a car going from 2 miles per hour to 4 miles per hour is accelerating, but it is still going slowly.
If we want investment in our economy to continue, and if we want businesses to stay here and others to come, we need to start talking about transitional arrangements now. Those transitional arrangements need to be on the same basic terms as now—in the single market and within a customs union. Every passing week without progress on transitional arrangements makes things worse for businesses, not better. We need to make progress this week, before December.
We also need to drop the nonsense about no deal. Only fantasists and fanatics talk up no deal. No deal is not good for the UK, is not good for the EU and is not what the Secretary of State wants, but he must now realise that the slow progress of these talks raises the risk of no deal.
We need the Secretary of State to answer these critical questions from the Dispatch Box today. What does he intend to do between now and Friday to deliver on the commitment to accelerate the talks? What words does he want to hear on Friday to evidence that progress? How confident is he, on a scale of one to 10, that he will hear those words? And what does he intend to do if he fails?
Mr Davis
As ever, we get carping from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and not a single proposal or suggestion. It is interesting that he does not have another strategy, and we have a measure of that because he started by criticising the fact that citizens’ rights have not been resolved, whereas on Sunday he said, “I agree with David Davis, who says you cannot simply separate out the issues we are dealing with now and the later issues.” He talks about Northern Ireland in the same terms: “To be fair to David Davis, he is right on issues like Northern Ireland. There is only so far you can get before we move to the next phase.” When he has to appear reasonable on Peston he is very different from when he has to appeal to his Back Benchers here.
The simple truth is that there has been extremely productive activity in these negotiating rounds. Mr Barnier is going to the European Council on Friday to present his case, which I hope will argue for more progress both on transition and on the future relationship, but it is for him to make that persuasive case on the day. I know from my own visits across Europe, and Mr Barnier will also know this, that a large number of the 27 member states want to do the same.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about talking up no deal. I cannot think of a time, a day, a moment when I have talked up no deal. We are in the middle of a negotiation, and we want to negotiate in good order and with good faith on both sides, but if we do not prepare for all outcomes, we will leave ourselves exposed to an impossible negotiation. We saw that again this weekend when he and the shadow Chancellor said, “Oh, we’ll pay in perpetuity for access to the single market. We’ll pay whatever it takes. £100 billion. £200 billion. Whatever it takes.”
The simple truth of the matter is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman carps and carps, but he has no options of his own.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said that in the discussions we have also explored ways in which we can fully implement the withdrawal treaty in UK law. Does that suggest he has in mind legislative enactment of the withdrawal treaty? When he talks about the role of the UK courts, does he mean that the enactment will be overseen by our courts, and not by the European Court of Justice?
Mr Davis
A range of models are available for how we bring the withdrawal treaty into British law—British law, not European law—and the key criterion I am applying is that it gives certainty to those EU27 citizens who are here now that their rights will be preserved. It will, of course, be adjudicated by British courts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the Scottish National party spokesman, I remind the House that Members who arrived in the Chamber after the statement started should not be standing. Some experienced Members are standing when they should not. I am afraid it is too bad if they got their timing wrong. Members should keep an eye on the annunciators and get into the Chamber in time for the statement. It is a considerable discourtesy to turn up late, not having heard some of the statement, and then expect to be called, so please do not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I said that Members who arrived late should not be standing. The message is clear, and it ought to be heeded. It is discourteous to ignore it. End of subject.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
About a year ago, the Prime Minister said that we cannot expect a running commentary, but in truth we would not have to run very fast to keep up with the negotiations. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has already commented in similar terms to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, but he might have added that, before pressing the accelerator, we should check whether we are heading towards or away from a cliff edge.
We have seen one humiliation after another for this Government. They tried to drive a wedge between the Commission and the 27 sovereign states from which it takes its mandate and authority, so will the Secretary of State assure us that the Government will stop playing these games and accept the Commission’s mandate, rather than attempting to undermine it and thereby undermine their own position? He claims that the UK is being reasonable, but is it reasonable to go in with red lines already firmly dug into the sand before the negotiations have even started? That does not look too reasonable to me.
The Secretary of State assures us that he has never talked up no deal, but he has not talked it down, either. Other influential voices in his party talk up no deal all the time. The Prime Minister still has not withdrawn her claim that no deal is better than a bad deal. Rather than just not talking up no deal, will the Secretary of State absolutely rule out no deal today as the worst of all possible deals?
Finally, on the rights of EU nationals living here, I had a distressing meeting last week with representatives of the Fife Migrants Forum. They told me of their first-hand experience of immensely talented, hard-working young people who have made Fife their home but who are now making plans to head back to Poland, Slovakia or wherever else, not because they do not like living in Scotland but because they do not think the United Kingdom will make them welcome. Will the Secretary of State commit to guaranteeing in law the rights of those citizens, rather than continuing to use them as negotiating capital?
Mr Davis
There were three questions there, which I will take in sequence. First, on separating the 27, nothing could be further from the truth; the worst thing for the UK would be for us to have to deal with fragmentary groups of the European Union, as we would never get an answer and that would lead us to the Walloon Parliament outcome on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Canadian treaty, so we have not done that at all. However, we should also talk to each of the 27 to see what their own interests are, as those of Poland and Lithuania may differ from those of littoral states such as Holland or Belgium, and differ again from those of Spain and Italy. We talk to all of them on a continuous basis to make sure we know what they want.
To pick up the hon. Gentleman’s last point, about his Polish constituents, let me say that we also go to those Governments to explain precisely what we have on offer. There have been times in the past few months when the European institutions have not reflected what we intended to do. For example, in a perfectly legitimate and reasonable mistake, Guy Verhofstadt said that we were not going to give European citizens the right to vote in local elections. That was not true, so we corrected it directly with the Governments.
As for no deal, the issue is straightforward: we are intending, setting out and straining every sinew to get a deal. That will be the best outcome, but for two reasons we need to prepare for all the other alternatives. The first is that it is a negotiation with many people and it could go wrong, so we have to be ready for that. The second is that in a negotiation you always have to have the right to walk away: if you do not, you get a terrible deal.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Today, a report estimated that should we move to a tariff regime, the German motor car industry alone could lose between 8,600 and 29,400 jobs. It is massively in the interests of the UK and our 27 partners that we establish reciprocal free trade based on a recognition of conformity of standards. In his conclusion, the Secretary of State says that he recognises that we have reached the limits of what we can achieve without consideration of our future relationship. When are our partners going to recognise that it is massively in their interests that we establish reciprocal free trade and start talking about our end trading relationship?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course it is absolutely in everybody’s interest that we have an outcome that encourages free trade in all directions, across the EU and with us. The simple truth is that we are in a negotiation and they are using time pressure to see whether they can get more money out of us—that is what is going on, as is obvious to anybody. That will take some time, but I am sure we will get there in time to get a decent outcome for everybody.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
As evidence mounts that leaving the EU with no deal would involve an unacceptably high price, it is also clear that although the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence improved the atmosphere, it has not broken the logjam in the negotiations. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government now propose to do or to offer so that the talks can move on to phase 2 and in particular to the nature of the transitional arrangements, for which British businesses are waiting because they urgently need to know that those arrangements will happen and what their terms may be?
Mr Davis
First, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not jump to conclusions, as we have yet to hear the Council conclusions on Friday. Let us wait to see what they are before we make the next move; if I do, I probably will not make it from the Dispatch Box —I will probably make it in Brussels. On the implementation period, transition period or whatever he wants to call it, the Prime Minister has made it clear from this Dispatch Box that things will be as close as possible to where we currently are for up to or about two years. That was what her estimate was and I have no reason to differ from it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I mentioned the poor timekeeping of several colleagues, and I stand by that, but I wrongly accused the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) of being late for this statement and he quite properly corrected me. He was in fact here and I had not been conscious of it, so my apologies to him and let us hear his question.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. What expectation does my right hon. Friend have that on Friday a decision will be made that sufficient progress has been made on the people issues of the island of Ireland, which would very much be welcomed, but that, given that any decision on goods and services across what we hope will continue to be a soft border cannot be made without second-guessing any future UK-EU relationship, this should be carried over into the next phase?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend is right to say it is difficult to come up with a solution to create an invisible border if we do not know what the border around the rest of the United Kingdom will be. I think that, over time, the European Union has come to a similar view, although it may never have said so explicitly. I do not want to predict what the conclusions will say when they come out on Friday, but I suspect they will pay proper attention to the fact that we have made quite a lot of progress on Northern Ireland, possibly as much as we can.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I have sympathy with the Secretary of State because he has to come here every month to report on negotiations that resemble the holding pattern at Heathrow airport, where the planes go round and round but never actually move forward. May I return him to this crucial issue of no deal? Members of his party have spent the past two or three days touring TV studios saying that they are relaxed about that outcome, yet the Resolution Foundation and the International Trade Policy Observatory have today published a report saying that it would mean added costs for families of between £250 and £500 per year, with the burden falling most heavily on families in the midlands and the north. Is he relaxed about that kind of additional burden on hard-working families?
Mr Davis
If I thought it reflected the reality, I would not be relaxed about it, but the simple truth is that it does not. It does not reflect the effect of free trade and the free trade deals, and it does not reflect what we would have to do in those circumstances. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), from a sedentary position—he has not been here very long and obviously thinks this is the way to do it—shouts that I am talking up no deal. No, I am not. I am dealing with scaremongering and I am knocking down scaremongering, so I think the answer there is no.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and the advance in the negotiations made by both him and the Prime Minister? Does he agree that it is not just within this House where there is no majority for no deal, but that by their vote on 8 June the British people did not give this Government any mandate for no deal, because not only would it be bad for everybody in England, Wales and Scotland, but it would be particularly bad for our friends in Northern Ireland?
Mr Davis
I would say two things to my right hon. Friend. First, the election gave us a bigger mandate than it gave the Opposition. Secondly, we are seeking to get a deal, as that is by far and away the best option. The maintenance of the option of no deal is both for negotiating reasons and for sensible security; any Government doing their job properly will do that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
If there is no deal, agricultural products from Wales will probably face tariffs in Europe, and European agricultural goods coming into the UK will face tariffs. That will dramatically increase the cost of family food budgets, which is wrong and bad for my constituents. The Secretary of State for Transport has a brilliant answer to this; he says that we are just going to grow more food. In order to grow more food in this country, will we not need agricultural workers from elsewhere in Europe and the common agricultural policy to remain? Might we not just be better off staying in the EU?
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Those who threaten economic Armageddon if we leave the EU without a deal are, in effect, engaging in “Project Fear 2”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that “Project Fear 1” did not materialise and there is every possibility that “Project Fear 2” will not either?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend is right about that. I am not a great believer in mathematical forecasting, but I can tell him that if he really wants to look at an independent view of what a World Trade Organisation outcome would look like, he could look at an OECD report out today, which says that growth will continue.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State must be gutted that after not one, two, three or four, but five rounds of negotiation we still have not even a sign of this potential for a transitional arrangement, which is so essential for businesses. They are not necessarily thinking of the cliff edge in March 2019; that cliff edge is beginning at the end of this calendar year, when businesses are starting to look at relocating to other jurisdictions. Will he therefore tell us specifically, because this week’s European Council is mission critical, who he will be talking to between now and Friday to make sure we get that transition done this week?
Mr Davis
We are in a negotiation. As the hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, we have been talking for five rounds so far, and indeed I had another meeting with Mr Juncker and Mr Barnier last night. Let us just see what the European Council comes out with on Friday, shall we?
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that
“we cannot fully resolve the issues without also addressing our future relationship”.
He is obviously right in saying that, but is it not also the case that it is impossible to address the future relationship if talks do not take place? Will he therefore resist the siren voices who are tempting him to say that if there is no progress this week, we should get up and walk away? If we get up and walk away, we will never solve the issues that he talked about in his statement.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
With it looking increasingly likely that the Prime Minister’s claim that no deal is better than a bad deal might be put to the test, and with new research out today—not only the report mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) but the OECD report—indicating that that would result in an horrendous economic situation, will the Secretary of State assure the House of Commons that it will have a meaningful opportunity to vote on what would be a disastrous outcome of the current gridlocked negotiations? That vote is going to be crucial because this is not what the referendum was about.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Mr Juncker used the uncharacteristic analogy of ordering 28 beers; does my right hon. Friend agree that our moving into the second phase of negotiation on our future trading arrangements would be a welcome sign of a “Sober October” in which minds are clear and focused on what is in the best interests of both the UK and the EU?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State set out the implications of the Prime Minister’s Florence speech for the UK’s relationship with EU regulatory bodies such as the European Medicines Agency during transition? Will we in effect seek to remain a member of such organisations, despite our having formally left the EU?
Mr Davis
As the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech, we start by identifying the regulatory position, and the question is then how we manage divergence. Britain will bring the control of such matters back within its own shores, and we will then have a procedure between us by which we manage divergence.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on the patience and good humour with which he conducts the negotiations. At what time does he think he will be obliged to inform the EU that that patience is not infinite and that if it continues to refuse to discuss the future relationship, which is after all prescribed by article 50 and which is something we want to do, we will assume that it is not serious about doing so and therefore consider other options?
Mr Davis
I think I learned patience and good humour from standing at the Dispatch Box and dealing with that lot on the Opposition Benches. The simple answer to my right hon. Friend is that I expect the EU to do what is in its own best interests. That is what normally happens in a negotiation and that is what will happen in this one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) stated earlier, there are massive interests for the EU in getting a deal, and that is what will happen.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I particularly welcome the references to Northern Ireland and the related progress that has been made. Sadly, thus far, too much of the focus by too many has been on the obstacles to be overcome in relation to a hard border. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best approach is to get the best possible trading relationship with the Republic of Ireland, ergo minimising any obstacles to be overcome? Does he commit to keep emphasising that point to the Taoiseach, speaking for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on these matters?
Mr Davis
The hon. Lady is entirely right. It is important to the Republic of Ireland not only because it intends to maintain the peace process and an invisible border, but because the direct interests of the Republic of Ireland are in maintaining a very good trading relationship with the UK. I think the trade between us is worth around £1 billion a week, so the Republic of Ireland would not want to see that handicapped.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will initiate the implementation phase only if our final relationship with our European allies has been agreed, at least in principle, so that what is meant to be a transitory state of affairs does not become a permanent bridge to nowhere?
Mr Davis
There are two answers to my hon. Friend. First, we will try to get the nature of the implementation phase agreed as soon as possible so that, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, businesses can take it into account. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right that such a transition phase will be triggered only once we have completed the deal itself. We cannot carry on negotiating through it, because our negotiating position during a transition phase would not be very strong.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State claimed that progress has been made on the questions of EU citizens here and British citizens living in other EU countries. Will he confirm that British citizens living in other EU countries will maintain the protections of the European Court of Justice for the foreseeable future, whether or not we are inside the EU?
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Is it sensible to allow the EU to focus on the nature of an implementation phase before we are clear about what the final relationship is? Would not it be a good idea at this point to have Crawford Falconer, who is very experienced in trade negotiations, involved in the negotiations with the EU in a principal position?
Mr Davis
Mr Falconer works at the Department for International Trade, of course, but we are in constant communication with him. With respect to the sequencing of decisions on the implementation phase and the ongoing relationship, my hon. Friend is correct in theory, but in practice we need the implementation phase to be decided early for it to be beneficial to a large number of companies. In his response to the statement, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) pointed out that some companies will have to make decisions at the end of this year or in the first quarter of next year so that they are able to carry out any necessary changes, so we want to get things under way as quickly as possible.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), some representatives from the pharmaceutical industry came to see me last Thursday, and they are desperate for some clarification on future trading relations and regulation. If they do not get some certainty, investment is going to be put back or spent in other countries. Nobody thinks that we should give the EU a blank cheque, but can the Secretary of State not see that if arguing about every £5 billion takes so long that we lose more in GDP, it is not worth it?
Mr Davis
First, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), had a meeting with the industry this morning, and not for the first time. I have met industry representatives a couple of times as well. Secondly, part of the point of the implementation phase is that it gives them an extra two years of decision making, and that is well within their decision cycle. Thirdly, as for giving a blank cheque, that is Labour’s policy.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I very much welcome the update that my right hon. Friend has given the House. As we leave the EU, the talented people and their businesses will drive our economy forward, whatever the outcome of the deal, because that is what we do in British business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time for the EU to move on with trade discussions and that British businesses that operate throughout Europe should be lobbying the Commission and the member states in which they operate so that the EU moves forward and we can start to see some clarity and certainty?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As I have told the House before, my wife is an EU citizen, and I can assure the Secretary of State that his comments today will not give her any more comfort about her settled status in the future. What EU citizens want are guarantees. On the process to which he has alluded, what does a streamlined system look like? What does low cost mean, because I am sure that his definition is different from that of my constituents? How many additional resources will be employed by the Home Office to put that system in operation?
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The decision to leave the EU in its entirety has been made, and any other consequence will be a betrayal of that vote. Is it not right and logical that a no-deal option has to be on the table in the event that we are forced, through bad negotiation and lack of will on the other side, to stay in an organisation that we voted to leave?
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The writing is on the wall and the warning signs are there for the economy, whether on growth, foreign direct investment, and the decisions that businesses are already taking in anticipation of there being no deal or no agreement on transition as soon as business needs it. Despite that, the Chancellor has been savaged not by the Opposition but by members of his own party for no reason other than drawing to the attention of this House and the public the risks associated with making a series of bad judgments, or indeed no judgments at all, about our future relationship with the European Union. Given that many firms, including manufacturing firms with supply chains in the EU, will be making irreversible decisions before Christmas about jobs and activity, what assurance can the Secretary of State give them this afternoon that there will be a transitional deal before manufacturing and every other sector are faced with a series of unpalatable decisions?
Mr Davis
One thing that I will say to the hon. Gentleman about his fantasy economics—I can put it no better than that—is that people like him have been talking down the economy for two years. They said that there would be recession in the economy immediately following a Brexit decision, but the reverse has been true: we have higher employment than we have ever had; lower levels of unemployment than we have had for 30 or 40 years; and the economy is growing as fast as it has done.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assist me? Not to countenance a no-deal scenario would surely be writing a blank cheque to the European Union. Is it, in his view, naivety in negotiating strategy or is it in fact a vehicle for those who wish us to stay within the European Union against the wishes of the British people?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The core cities represent nearly 20 million people in the UK and a significant sector of our economy. Michel Barnier is meeting them soon. Why, despite repeated requests, has the Secretary of State not met them?
Wera Hobhouse
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has said in his statement that we have made further progress on certainties for EU citizens in this country. May I tell him what creates great uncertainty for people? Those EU nationals who have lived here for many years and now want to apply for British passports are being delayed because they have to apply for settled status first. Can he explain why those citizens cannot apply for British citizenship straight away, rather than being delayed, which causes yet more uncertainty?
Tom Brake
This is something that the Minister’s office will not have to leak to Guido Fawkes. Does the Secretary of State accept that some of the consequences of crashing out of the EU will be: destabilising the lives of millions of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU; gridlock at our ports; and a loss of investor confidence in sectors as varied as the creative industries, the automotive sector and the food and drink sector? Will he rule out once and for all the so-called no-deal option, even if it does appeal to some of the fanatics on his Back Benches, and work instead towards a solution that keeps the United Kingdom in the single market and the customs union permanently?
Mr Davis
The first thing that I point to is the right hon. Gentleman’s wonderful selective choice of fantasies—none of them is true. He has ignored the fact that inward investment in the UK was at record levels in the first half of this year. As he raises the point about how a letter of his came to the attention of Guido Fawkes—he did it in a point of order yesterday and has alluded to it again today—let me tell him that that letter came to me via a journalist who already had full knowledge of its entire contents. I am afraid that he has no apologies coming from me on that either.
Points of Order
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In health oral questions on 16 October, the Health Secretary answered questions on the mental health workforce. It was clear that two of his answers were not correct. He stated twice that the mental health workforce had increased by 30,000 staff, but, as I understand it, the correct figure is about 690. There has been an attempt today to correct the record, but it is still not correct. Although the questions were about mental health staff, the corrections are about the total numbers of NHS clinical staff. May I ask through you, Mr Speaker, that the Health Secretary makes a further correction to give the House the correct figures for mental health staff?
Mr Speaker
I have heard what the hon. Lady has said. It is up to any Member who errs to take responsibility for the correction of the record. It cannot be ultimately for the Chair to seek to arbitrate where there might be a dispute as to which is the correct statistic in a particular case. The hon. Lady, who is extremely experienced and dextrous in the use of parliamentary devices to achieve her objective, should keep a beady eye on the situation and if there is neither a correction forthcoming nor what she regards as an adequate or fully accurate correction, she can, through the Table Office, table further questions, which might elicit the same. On the whole, it is presumably desirable to reach a conclusion on these matters sooner rather than later. If that point is obvious to the hon. Lady, I trust that it will be similarly obvious to the Minister concerned.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your advice on a matter relating to the A63 road in my constituency, known locally as Castle Street? It is a major route into the city and many of my constituents are worried about the lack of clarity on this issue. On 17 July, I wrote to the Transport Secretary to invite him to meet me. It has taken two-and-a-half months for his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to write to inform me that the Department does not propose to meet me at this point. This is a massive discourtesy and a huge insult to my constituency and neighbouring constituencies, which have seen repeated delays to the Castle Street development. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, about how I can encourage the Secretary of State to meet me on this incredibly important issue to my local economy.
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady has just done so through the device of the point of order. I am grateful to her for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter and I do take it very seriously. It is an important matter for her and for her constituents and it is certainly unsatisfactory—a point that I have made frequently over the years—if Ministers do not respond promptly to Members’ inquiries. A Member should not have to wait two-and-a-half months for a ministerial reply. I am afraid that I cannot offer her a sure route for securing a meeting with the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Perhaps I can be allowed to respond to the point of order without people chuntering from a sedentary position. I cannot offer the hon. Lady a sure route for securing a meeting with the Secretary of State or even with the Under-Secretary. It is for the Minister concerned to decide whether or when to meet with a Member about a constituency matter, and there may occasionally be factors that legitimately make a meeting untimely, but my emphasis is on the word occasionally. On the whole, I think it is reasonable for Members who ask for a meeting with a Minister on a constituency matter to expect that such a meeting will be facilitated. It might not necessarily be with the Secretary of State, but such a meeting should usually be facilitated. The hon. Lady has put her concern on the record. No doubt, it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and will be relayed to the Department. If she does not achieve the meeting she seeks, she might wish to ask the advice of the Table Office on other avenues that are open to her to pursue, but I hope that it will not be necessary for her to explore those alternative avenues.
Channel 4 (Relocation)
Tuesday 17th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Channel 4 (Relocation) Bill 2017-19 View all Channel 4 (Relocation) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Channel 4 to relocate its headquarters outside London; and for connected purposes.
Channel 4 is a publicly owned broadcaster and has undoubtedly made a huge contribution to British broadcasting. I am in no doubt that many Members on both sides have enjoyed watching the hours of quality broadcasting, from “Countdown” to “Gogglebox”, and from “Grand Designs” to “Come Dine with Me”. Indeed, I am sure there are many programmes that hon. and right hon. Members may not want to admit in this Chamber to watching, but they enjoy them all the same. However, the value of Channel 4 and the contribution it makes could have a much greater transformative impact if it were to relocate outside London.
Being in public ownership means that Channel 4 has a responsibility to the nation, not just in the innovative and boundary-probing programming that it rightly produces, but in the way in which it is organised and run. Truly, it must be operated for the benefit of all parts of our country, throughout all the nations and regions that make up the UK. We should consider the effects of the BBC’s relocation to Salford Quays, with the creation of MediaCityUK. The regeneration that comes from such investments has a much wider ripple effect beyond the transfer of the headquarters, staff and offices. With the right location, such moves can significantly boost prosperity across a whole region and help support thousands of jobs. As the Secretary of State said at the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport last week, more people are employed at Salford Quays today than there ever were when they were docks. That is a direct effect of a public service broadcaster fulfilling its remit in its most inclusive sense.
Channel 4 could have a significant transformative impact on a new location, with the potential to anchor wider regeneration and deliver jobs over and above those which move out of the capital. Very careful consideration must be given to location in order to maximise and extract value. There could be an open competition to decide on the new location, allowing interested areas and sites to put forward their case, ensuring that the site that delivers the greatest impact and fulfils the needs of Channel 4 is selected. This is not just about the benefits a move could have on a specific area; many organisations could have a similar impact from relocating their headquarters. There is greater significance in and much wider benefits from helping to rebalance the institutions of broadcasting within the UK to reflect much more effectively the diverse communities in our constituencies across the country, and to bring a fresh perspective.
The realities faced on a daily basis by my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South and those in many constituencies throughout the UK are very different from those experienced in London. As I said, Channel 4 produces some phenomenal programmes that are greatly valued, but this could be so much better. If Channel 4 relocated out of London, the organisation and its employees would experience directly the true vibrancy and diversity across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. The programmes it produces could be drawn from a much more diverse palette, giving a much greater scope, depth and quality to what we see on our screens.
As a commissioning organisation, Channel 4 has huge potential to support the wider broadcasting and creative sectors across the countries and regions of the UK. Many small and medium-sized businesses right across the country could contribute significantly to diversifying the content produced by Channel 4, but currently all the decisions are made in London and many companies and organisations are not getting a fair chance. A move would have much greater knock-on benefits across the industry, helping to support and create more highly skilled jobs outside London. Location is hugely important not only to extract the greatest benefit from our media, but to ensure that there are the skills available in the workforce to match the demands of the organisation.
There are a number of extremely interesting suggestions for a potential future location for this national broadcaster. They come from a number of areas across the country, including from my area, Stoke-on-Trent. Many parts of our country have the wealth of skills and creativity— both in industry and academia—needed to support the relocation. I know from visiting Staffordshire University that our academic institutions across the country have state-of-the-art digital and media facilities. For example, Staffordshire University is now rated the best in the country for computer gaming.
Industries and universities right across the country are leading the way in the digital and creative sectors. The move of Channel 4 out of London would further support this success and mean that more of those skills could be retained in other parts of the UK. This is the critical point: we are currently seeing a brain drain of skills and employment opportunities from across our country towards London. The Bill aligns with the Government’s industrial strategy to help to rebalance the economy, driving prosperity right across the country. I hope that all hon. Members can support that aim.
The further benefit that a move could realise is to counteract the consequences of an overheating property market in London. Land is much cheaper and more freely available outside London, particularly in areas like mine, meaning that the costs of development and moving have the potential with the right location to be significantly lower. Much of the cost of the move could probably be made back from the sale of Channel 4’s current headquarters site on Horseferry Road.
The cost of property also has an important effect on the likely quality of life of those working for Channel 4. Outside London, workers are likely to be able to afford a much better quality of life. The average house price in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency in quarter 1 of 2017 was £1,275,000 compared with £122,150 in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South. The Bill does not specify a location to which Channel 4 should move, but it secures the principle of a move away from London and would allow for the process in selecting a new location and facilitating the move once a location is agreed.
I encourage Members on both sides of the House to back this Bill and ensure that Channel 4 can continue to improve the quality and range of its broadcasting to reflect the entire UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jack Brereton, Ross Thomson, Ruth Smeeth, Andrew Bowie, Michael Fabricant, Rachel Maclean, Mr. Graham Brady, Gareth Snell and Eddie Hughes present the Bill.
Jack Brereton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October 2018, and to be printed (Bill 111).
New Southgate Cemetery Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 17th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This private Bill was introduced in the other place in January 2016. It is being promoted by New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Ltd to enable it to use the burial space in the New Southgate cemetery more effectively and to provide greater capacity for new interment and burial in future years. The cemetery lies in my constituency, close to the boundary with Enfield.
The promoters, which I will refer to as the NSCC for brevity, are responsible for the administration of the cemetery under the terms of the Great Northern London Cemetery Act 1976. In 1990, ownership of part of the cemetery was transferred to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United Kingdom. The cemetery has real significance for the Baha’i community because one of its greatest spiritual leaders, Shoghi Effendi, is buried there. I understand that the Baha’i National Spiritual Assembly has expressed its support for the Bill.
People may ask why I am here today talking about cemeteries. Well, put simply, the problem is that the New Southgate cemetery is running out of space. Some 180,000 interments have been carried out there, but only around 1,800 burial spaces remain. With an average of 180 burials a year, all spaces are likely be full within 10 years if action is not taken. The Bill would address that problem by granting two new powers to the NSCC and the Baha’is. Those are based on powers already available to local authority-run cemeteries in London under section 9 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1976 and section 74 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007.
First, clause 3 would provide the promoters and the Baha’is with the power to extinguish rights of burial in grave spaces in the cemetery where a right of burial has not been exercised for 75 years or more. That would enable them to reclaim unused graves and make them available for new burials. Before those powers can be exercised, the Bill requires notices to be displayed in a cemetery and published in newspapers. The NSCC would also need to serve notices on the registered owner of a grave, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Historic England. The Bill provides that if the registered owner of the burial right objects, the right of burial cannot be extinguished. If anybody else objects, the right cannot be extinguished without the Secretary of State’s consent. Compensation is payable where burial rights are extinguished.
The second main power conferred by the Bill is set out in clause 4 and would enable the promoters and the Baha’is to reuse existing graves. That would involve the following process: removing remains, excavating the grave to its deepest possible depth, reinterring the disturbed remains in a casket at the bottom of the deeper grave and using the additional space above the reinterred remains for new burials.
Under the Bill, that could be done only where two conditions are met: first, that no burial has taken place for at least 75 years; and, secondly, that no exclusive burial right previously existed, or the right of burial has been extinguished using the provisions in the Bill. If the Bill is adopted, the NSCC or the Baha’is would be able to authorise re-use without the current requirement for a licence from the Secretary of State under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.
Before exercising this power, the NSCC and the Baha’is would have to give notice, as I described earlier in my remarks. If an objection is made by the registered owner of the extinguished right of burial, the owner of a memorial on the grave or the relative of a person buried there, the powers may not be used for a further 25 years. The Bill requires the promoters and the Baha’is to keep records of any memorial removed, and a public record of the disturbance and reinterment of remains.
Prior to the promotion of the Bill, the promoters consulted cemetery users, local authorities, various religious orders and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on what they intended to propose in it, and the response to that consultation was positive. No petitions were deposited against the Bill in either House.
The Bill was given a Second Reading by this House following a debate on 29 November 2016, where it was proposed by the former Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate, David Burrowes. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to his work on the Bill and on so many other important parliamentary and constituency matters. We miss him.
Consideration of the Bill took place in an Unopposed Bill Committee on 24 January 2017. I gather that the Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out during those proceedings that cemeteries can sometimes be important wildlife habitats—a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Concern was expressed about a statement by the promoters regarding the maintenance of the cemetery and potential habitats, and corrections were subsequently made.
A constituent also got in touch to challenge a statement regarding the extent of tree protection orders. She believed that the TPOs referred to in Committee all related to land that had been sold by the NSCC and that no longer formed part of the cemetery. I took that up with the NSCC. I am encouraging it, of course, to do all it can to protect trees in the cemetery. It has acknowledged that, while some of the trees in the cemetery are indeed covered by TPOs, not all are. It has also confirmed that, while the TPO referred to does cover the land that was sold, it also still covers some of the trees in the cemetery. That exchange led to a further correction of the evidence.
It is regrettable that these corrections were needed, but the NSCC has given a commitment to carry out a nature conservation assessment prior to any exercise of the powers conferred by clause 4. That assessment would comply with the standards set out in the technical guidance on the reuse and reclamation of graves in London local authority cemeteries, which is dated October 2013, or any subsequent replacement document.
I should make it clear to the House that the Bill does not give the promoters any additional powers with regard to trees, wildlife or nature conservation. The NSCC remains bound by the same rules on planning, conservation and TPOs as any other landowner. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
In response to other matters raised in Committee, three further undertakings were given by the NSCC. First, it undertook that, within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, it will publicise the power to extinguish burial rights in the cemetery in a newspaper circulating in the Greater London area. Secondly, before exercising any of the powers conferred by clause 4 of the Bill, the NSCC will carry out a survey of the faith groups most affected by the Bill’s proposals, to ensure that relevant faith and cultural sensitivities are taken into account fully in exercising the powers conferred by the Bill. The results of that exercise will be published along with proposed best practice. Thirdly, the NSCC undertakes not to sell for commercial gain any memorial that is removed under clauses 3 or 4 without the consent of the registered owner.
To demonstrate its compliance with the three undertakings I have outlined, the promoters have promised to send the Ministry of Justice a copy of the relevant publication or assessment, so that Ministers can place it in the Library of the House if they feel that is appropriate. Compliance with the final undertaking can be monitored under clause 5, which requires the promoters to make a record of each memorial removed and to deposit a copy of that record with the Registrar General.
Parliament was dissolved for the general election before this Bill received its Third Reading, but the Bill was revived in this Parliament. I hope that the House will support the Bill today in order to give New Southgate cemetery a sustainable future for the benefit of my constituents and the local community. It is a sensible measure that is needed to ensure that we have more burial space in north London for my constituents in Chipping Barnet and for residents living in a wider area in the boroughs of Enfield and Barnet and beyond. The changes proposed are relatively modest and reflect the position that already applies in relation to cemeteries owned by local authorities. It is only because New Southgate cemetery happens to be privately owned that statute does not already provide the powers sought in the Bill. The promoters have given important undertakings about how those powers will be exercised. As a result of this debate, these are now formally on record, including the commitment to notify the Minister at the Minister of Justice in the relevant circumstances.
There are important cultural reasons to back this legislation. Barnet and Enfield are among the most ethnically diverse boroughs in the country and are home to people of many different faiths. Burial is preferred over cremation for many in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox communities. The NSCC tells me that its experience with the black Caribbean community has also indicated a preference for burial by many families.
Moreover, as I pointed out on Second Reading, there are important conservation reasons for supporting the Bill. If we fail to take steps to ensure that we use our existing burial space effectively, pressure will grow for new cemeteries. Establishing those on green-belt land or in other suburban green spaces would damage the quality of life for my constituents and would also see a loss of valued wildlife habitats. That is one of the reasons I am opposing such a proposal for a new burial ground on the green belt in Arkley in my constituency.
For all those reasons, I appeal to the House to support the Bill. I very much hope that it will be given its Third Reading this afternoon.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her very full introduction to this Third Reading debate. I objected to the Third Reading going through on the nod because I thought it important that the undertakings given in Committee were recorded in this Chamber so that everybody could look back and see the nature of those undertakings.
I echo my right hon. Friend’s tribute to our colleague who lost his seat at the general election. David Burrowes was an outstanding Member of Parliament. He was a really easy-going colleague and we had many a wry laugh not just about this Bill but lots of other things. He had a great twinkle in his eye, which I am sure he has not lost as a result of his electoral experience.
I would also like to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With private Bill procedure, one often thinks that if the business goes to an Unopposed Bill Committee there will not really be any effective scrutiny and it will go through on the nod. The record of the role that you played in the Unopposed Bill Committee shows that you were rigorous in exploring matters and putting questions to the promoters, some of which they answered more easily than others. As a result, they wrote to you on 2 February setting out the four undertakings, which I will not repeat because my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has already referred to them. In securing those undertakings through your expert cross-examination, you have done everybody a great service. You have also put it on record that this sometimes obscure private Bill procedure never suffers if we have proper scrutiny, whether it be in debates on the Floor of the Chamber or in Committee.
This Bill now has the support of everybody, I think. We also have a written memorandum, to which my right hon. Friend did not refer in much detail. The one I have here is signed for and on behalf of New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Ltd and dated 5 September 2017, but another one in almost identical terms was issued in March this year. The memorandum sets out more detail and background on the way in which the cemetery will be maintained in future. Apart from the safeguards set out in the memorandum and the undertakings, there is also the fact that the promoters will send those undertakings to the Ministry of Justice, so that the Minister may place the information in the Library of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is able to confirm that that will happen, because it is important that when people look back at these proceedings years hence, they are easily able to access the documentation. I wish this Bill a safe passage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on moving the Third Reading of this private Bill. I associate myself with her comments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) with regard to the former Member for Enfield Southgate. In addition to all those comments, which I support, I would say that if there is one thing I remember about him, it is his core decency. As a consequence, he really is a loss to the House.
As I said on an earlier occasion, we are participating in one of Parliament’s less used procedures. It is nevertheless significant, in that it enables organisations to seek to disapply or modify the general law in relation to their own powers. Our debate here today, like earlier discussions on this Bill, has been aimed at ensuring that the promoters have put in place, or have agreed to observe, appropriate measures to ensure the proper exercise of the modifications to the law that they seek. I am grateful to all hon. Members both here and in another place who have contributed to this important process during the Bill’s passage. The result is a comprehensive and robust set of provisions that will enable New Southgate cemetery to continue to serve its communities into the future while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place.
As I have said before, the Bill addresses the needs of New Southgate cemetery, and the Government do not wish to prevent the cemetery from remaining viable in this way. On Second Reading, I confirmed that I was satisfied with the engagement that the promoters had undertaken with faith groups using the cemetery. In a subsequent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I expressed my expectation that in exercising the powers conferred by this Bill, the New Southgate cemetery burial authorities would continue to ensure that relevant faith and cultural sensitivities are taken into account and would continue to have due regard to available guidance and best practice. This issue was explored further in some detail in Committee. As a result, the promoters have given a written undertaking that before exercising any powers under clause 4, they will carry out a survey of the faith groups affected to ensure compliance with my expectations, and will publish their findings and proposed best practice. I am grateful to the Committee for securing this undertaking and to the promoters for agreeing to it.
Also as a result of discussion in Committee, the promoters have given an undertaking to publicise in a Greater London newspaper, within three months of Royal Assent, the power to extinguish burial rights in the cemetery. They have also given an undertaking that before exercising any powers under clause 4, they will carry out a nature conservation assessment of the cemetery grounds in accordance with the technical guidance current at the time. Again, I am grateful to those who have proposed and agreed to these undertakings.
Of course, giving undertakings is one thing and carrying them out is another. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is rightly concerned to ensure that the promoters’ compliance with these conditions is demonstrated to Parliament. In answer to the question on tree protection, this particular cemetery will, in any event, be obliged to comply with any tree preservation orders that are in place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet indicated, the promoters have agreed to provide to the Ministry of Justice copies of the documentation arising from the three undertakings on the newspaper advertisement, the findings of the faith groups survey and best practice, and the nature conservation assessment. They will also be publishing the documents on their website. I give an undertaking of my own to the House today that on receipt of those documents, I will place them in the House Libraries, where they will be available for scrutiny by Members. I hope that that mechanism will satisfy the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
The promoters have given a fourth undertaking to the House—not to sell for commercial gain any memorial removed under sections 3 or 4 of the Act without the consent of the registered owner. Compliance with this condition will be monitored by means of the requirement for the burial authority to keep a record of each memorial that is removed and to deposit a copy of that record with the Registrar General. It would also be possible to scrutinise the burial authority’s accounts, which, as it is a registered company, are published.
In conclusion, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for securing this debate and for his diligence in seeking to put on record the means by which the promoters will demonstrate compliance with their undertakings to this House. I trust that the explanations provided have allayed his concerns, and I am grateful to all who have contributed to today’s proceedings.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, I would like to bring in Theresa Villiers.
Theresa Villiers
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a very few words. As others have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his always assiduous scrutiny of private Members’ business. I express my gratitude to the Minister for the work that he has done to agree the undertakings, and for his promises about the work that the Ministry of Justice will carry out as a result of those undertakings. I thank my constituent who contacted me about this Bill to express her concerns about nature conservation at the cemetery. Finally, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your careful scrutiny of the process. I am happy to commend this Bill to the House and I hope it will command a majority this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Middle Level Bill: Revival
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to support the revival of this important Bill and pleased to have the chance, once again, to discuss it on the Floor of the House.
Some Members will recall that the Middle Level Bill received its Second Reading on 29 March 2017, following a debate including a range of contributions from hon. and right hon. Members, but it was lost at the Dissolution of Parliament ahead of the general election. I do not intend to repeat the whole of my speech from that debate—[Interruption.] It is lovely to hear a request from Labour Front Benchers for more, but I will contain myself, despite their obvious enthusiasm. I will set out the basic details of the Bill and the reasons why we should legislate, as well as what has happened since we last debated the measure and the changes that have been proposed to respond to concerns raised in petitions and by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who has assiduously followed the progress of this Bill.
To be clear, the Bill is being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. The commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. Many Members who have seen the title of the debate on the Order Paper will probably wonder what the Middle Level is. The Middle Level is the central and largest section of the Great Level of the Fens, which was reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. The area is bounded to the north-west and the east by the Nene and Ouse washes, to the north by the previously drained marshland silts, and to the south and west by low clay hills.
The Middle Level river system consists of more than 120 miles of watercourses, approximately 100 miles of which are statutory navigations, and it has a catchment of just over 170,000 acres. Virtually all the fenland within the Middle Level catchment lies below mean sea level. The Middle Level Commissioners, together with the local internal drainage boards, therefore operate a highly complex flood protection and water level management system to balance the various water uses and requirements, and to alleviate the risk of flooding to land and properties. The efficient operation of the system is vital to the safety and prosperity of the more than 100,000 people who live and work in the area and the 26,000 properties that depend on it. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local boards, much of the fenland would be underwater for a lot of the year, access from higher ground would be cut off, and many of the present land uses would be completely impossible.
Although the Middle Level was built primarily for drainage reasons, it has gone on to be used by a range of craft, particularly pleasure craft and motorboats. That brings us to the key point with any legislation: why do we need to legislate? The current system of regulation is hopelessly out of date and based on a different era of waterways usage. Our forebears in the 19th century viewed canals as a practical method of transporting goods and a working location, rather than as an attractive place for a holiday, hence measures such as an exemption from charges relating to manure-carrying. The success of many waterways today in recreation is due to the fact that they have a system of regulation and income generation that reflects the needs of boat users today, rather than those of the 19th century. That is why the current legal framework for the Middle Level needs to be updated.
That legal framework does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels used on the waterways, or for the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. In particular, the commissioners may levy charges only on commercial traffic, not on pleasure craft. That is presumably because, in the past, the extent of commercial traffic was considered sufficient to pay for the costs of navigation. Again, that shows a different understanding of the use of waterways. However, commercial traffic on the Middle Level is now virtually non-existent. Almost all the vessels are pleasure craft, and they benefit from an exemption from charging under the old Acts.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend—he is a very good friend—for giving way. I am listening to him with rapt attention, and I heard him say that the entirety of the Middle Level is below sea level. I do not know the area, so could he tell me if that means that the rivers cannot get out—does the stuff have to be pumped out?—and traffic on the waterways cannot get out of this sunken level? I admit that I am pretty ignorant about the area.
Kevin Foster
There are ways of getting from the Middle Level to other waterways. It connects to some waterways that have much more modern systems of regulation. Most of it is below mean sea level, but my understanding is that it is possible to get boats into and out of other watercourses.
The Middle Level was built as a very large drain—that is the best way of putting it—but in its usage it has become more like a canal. Such waterways work very successfully in other areas of the country, but the problem with the Middle Level is that its ability to generate income is based on its original design and conception, rather than its modern-day usage. Following on from my hon. Friend’s helpful intervention, I will talk about the issues concerning the income for maintaining the Middle Level.
At the moment, the commissioners do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways because of the virtual non-existence of commercial traffic. That has meant that monies raised through drainage rates and levies have had to be used to fund navigation, instead of for flood defences. In the financial year ending 31 March 2016, that unfunded expenditure amounted to £178,000. The commissioners therefore seek to update and clarify their powers to enable them properly to regulate and fund their waterways. For comparison, the powers sought are similar to those already used by other large inland navigation authorities, such as the Canal and River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority.
The commissioners consulted on their proposals between February and June 2016. They notified affected parties, including navigation interests, land drainage interests and local authorities. They published newspaper notices and placed details on their website. Some 23 responses were received, 18 of which were supportive, with three neutral and two opposed. Supporters included the Inland Waterways Association, the East Anglian Waterways Association, the Association of Nene River Clubs, the National Association of Boat Owners, the Middle Level Watermen’s Club, the Residential Boat Owners Association, the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs and five local councils.
After the Bill was deposited, six petitions were received against it. They raise a range of issues to which the commissioners intend to respond in their evidence before the Opposed Bill Committee, but some significant work has already been done—assisted, I must say, by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—to respond to many of the issues raised in the petitions. Likewise, work has been done to respond to concerns raised by Members on 29 March 2017, although I was pleased to note that the Bill then had the support of both Government and Opposition Front Benchers. There was a pledge to respond to the issues in the Opposed Bill Committee, but that Committee could not sit before Parliament was dissolved for the general election.
The six petitions deposited against the Bill were from individuals with varying interests in the navigation of the waterways forming the Middle Level, as well as from the March Cruising Club and the National Bargee Travellers Association. It should be noted that none of the operators of the private marinas in the Middle Level has objected to proposals to include their marinas within the scope of the commissioners’ regulatory powers. The commissioners met all the petitioners in July and August, and responded to each of their petitions in writing in September. One of the petitioners has indicated that he is now willing to withdraw his petition, but the irony is that he cannot do so until the Bill is formally revived. I am advised by the commissioners that, as yet, no other responses have been received.
It should be noted that although some of the petitioners did not accept during those meetings that there was a need for the commissioners to raise funds from navigation users, more were concerned that the fees should be predictable and affordable, and that the commissioners would guarantee to provide improved services and facilities in return for those charges. In addition, none of the petitioners, as is logical, took issue with the need for vessels to meet the standards of the boat safety scheme or to carry third-party insurance, as required by the Bill. Another problem with the age of the existing legislation is that it dates from before modern considerations of boat safety and third-party insurance.
The commissioners intend to give an undertaking, and to propose amendments to the Bill before the Committee stage, if the Bill is revived. They include setting up a users’ panel that would discuss an annual programme of maintenance and improvements before each year’s charges were set. The commissioners propose an amendment to clause 5(3) so that Well Creek is not closed to navigation between Christmas and new year. They also propose an amendment so that the person in charge of a vessel is not required to provide the names and addresses of others on board.
If the Bill is revived, I am confident that the remaining outstanding issues will be appropriately considered by the Opposed Bill Committee. At that stage, both the commissioners and the petitioners will have the opportunity to give evidence supporting their cases before the Committee determines whether the principle of the Bill has been proved. In addition to the points I have outlined, I am aware that the commissioners, via their solicitors, have been in contact with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to deal with a number of the individual issues that they have raised, which they may wish to set out again in this debate.
I hope my speech will satisfy Members to the extent that they will agree to revive the Bill. I accept that some users of the waterway are happy with an arrangement under which they are provided with a facility that others pay for, yet the current situation cannot be sustainable, and the provisions in the Bill reflect the system used to manage other waterways.
It is worth noting that locks have to be maintained to provide access to the system—if this was purely about drainage, the locks could be converted into weirs. In response to the query raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I confirm that it is possible to get out of the system via those locks. That reflects the fact that this is not just a big drainage canal that happens to have some boat usage, but a system—built for drainage, and funded as though it was drain—that is actually maintained to provide access for motorboats and particularly for pleasure craft, which at the moment contribute absolutely nothing towards its maintenance and do not meet some of the most basic standards. I hope that that explains to Members why the Bill needs to be revived.
The commissioners accept that any use of new powers must be proportionate, and that the Bill will not give them anything beyond what other waterways have. A sign of their good faith is that some of the outdated byelaws, such as the requirement for a mast, are not enforced on the Middle Level. It makes sense to clear up the system and to remove some of those things that merely clutter up the statute book and inconvenience the organisation. Finally, as I have said, there can be no sensible objections to measures such as the implementation of third-party insurance and a requirement that vessels meet boat safety standards. It is my great pleasure to commend the revival motion to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Given that I come from Cambridge, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well wonder what my interest in the Middle Level is. The answer is that the river network is connected to the River Cam.
My attention was drawn to the Bill when I was contacted by a constituent, Eleanor Lad. I will briefly relay her comments, which express my concerns. She told me:
“Because use of the Middle Level is currently free, they are used by many boaters on low incomes, some of whom live on their boats, who cannot afford to use waterways where registration or licence fees are levied. Those who live aboard would be forced out of their homes due to an inability to pay.”
She continued:
“At present, the Middle Level is the one waterway system where boaters are not required to pay a fee or forced to agree to terms and conditions in return for the ability to navigate. Boaters will lose a safe haven where they can go if they are unable, through no fault of their own, to pay for a boat licence or to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by other navigation authorities.”
I appreciate the reasons why the commissioners are bringing forward the Bill, and I am grateful to them for meeting me to discuss these points. I was pleased to receive a communication from them saying that they
“confirm that the Commissioners will consult the NBTA, and any other organisations that are representative of houseboat dwellers, before making new byelaws under clause 9 or 10 of the Bill. They would be happy to give an undertaking to this effect before the Committee if the Bill is revived.”
I very much welcome that promise.
I would say, however, that consulting is not the same as taking account of people’s concerns. There is a real concern about people on low incomes who have nowhere else to go, and I very much hope that we will hear a commitment about dealing with what is a relatively small number of cases and a relatively small amount of money. I am sure that, with good sense, an accommodation can be reached that will satisfy everybody.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is great that, compared with when we first discussed the Bill, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has shown an interest in the subject, and I am glad that his constituents have taken the opportunity to brief him on some of their concerns.
The issue before the House is obviously quite simple—whether the Bill should be revived. My view is very much that it should not be revived, but should go back to the drawing board, because there is a lot more work to be done by the promoters and the petitioners in discussing some of the nitty-gritty issues, some of which have been referred to in this short debate.
I have been shown a copy of the commissioners’ response to the National Bargee Travellers Association’s comments in its petition. In the view of the association:
“The Commissioners’ response contains weak assurances concerning our concerns. We have little confidence in these assurances although we accept the Commissioners may have made them in good faith. Accordingly, we have not withdrawn our petition.”
The association encourages me and other parliamentary colleagues to continue
“to support boat dwellers, and…indeed all inland waterway boaters, by…opposing…this Bill.”
To take one example, paragraph 6 of the petition says:
“The Bill contains no protection for the homes of people who live on boats and it fails to recognise that Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provide boat dwellers with protection for their homes.
The legislation and enabled Byelaws could be used to evict boat dwellers, seize boats and carry out social clearance and discriminatory exclusion of boat dwellers from the Middle Level.”
That is quite a serious charge, you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Commissioners responded:
“Case law makes it clear, where the exercise of a power to remove vessels would interfere with the vessel owner’s Article 8 rights, it would be for the navigation authority to show that the interference is proportionate to their legitimate aims in seeking to enforce their powers.”
In other words, they do not deny that they would or could interfere in the rights of boat dwellers to continue to reside on their boats in the Middle Level. The commissioners continue:
“If the Commissioners could not do this, they would not be able to exercise the powers.”
That is a circular argument, and it typifies the problem that will continue to exist if the Bill makes progress. The commissioners have not responded adequately to the concerns expressed by people who have exercised the right to live on the Middle Level waterways, as has been the case for centuries, and to exercise navigation rights without being subject to penal charges and undue regulation.
As with many private Bills, as soon as such a measure is introduced all sorts of people come along and say, “Why don’t we regulate this? Why don’t we regulate that?” It is like a Christmas tree, with a whole lot more regulatory powers attached to it. Many of those powers, the House will find, are over the top and disproportionate, so I hope that in due course we can achieve a Bill that is much better than the current one. I had hoped that the Bill’s promoters would withdraw it and go back to square one, but they have not done so, which leaves us in the situation we are in. The agents acting for the promoters have been courteous and so on, but when they see what is going to happen next, I hope that their courtesy will be accompanied by a lot more substance, so that the serious concerns of Bargee Travellers can be met.
The last time we debated this, we heard a contribution from our then hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, Stewart Jackson. He took this cause very much to heart, and I thank him for the contribution that he made on behalf of his constituents and other Bargee Travellers. We owe it to him to be able to continue that campaign, and it is great that we have the hon. Member for Cambridge on our side as well.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I shall keep my contribution fairly brief, but I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on bringing the Bill back to the House in a revived form. I am talking about the Bill, not my hon. Friend. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for waterways whose constituency is served by canals, and as a boating enthusiast, I spoke on Second Reading, before the progress of the Bill was halted by the general election. I was therefore keen to make another contribution on the record today.
Across the country, we have benefited over the years from a network of canals, waterways and navigation systems. Once the means of transporting goods, today their use is much more leisure-oriented, but some of our waterways, as many of us know, still transport goods and some of them, as we have heard, are home to those who choose to live on the water. As a result of the work of organisations such as the Canal & River Trust, the Inland Waterways Association, voluntary groups and others, there has been a remarkable revival of our waterways. Canals, waterways, levels and drains all need ongoing maintenance, which can be expensive but is vital and integral to the operation of our waterways system.
Today’s debate focuses on the Middle Level, which is the largest section of the Great Level of the Fens, an area reclaimed through drainage, as we have heard. It is important to remember that in our deliberations. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay explained very clearly that the Bill sought to modernise the operational powers of the commissioners, allowing them to levy charges on use of the waterways and to require payment for their navigation functions. That is vital because, as we have heard, all the fenland in the Middle Level catchment is below mean sea level. The commissioners’ work, together with that of the internal drainage boards is vital in providing flood protection and water level management.
We have heard that under the current system, commissioners do not receive any income from navigation of the waterways—unlike arrangements for other waterways and canals that allow organisations to levy fees from licences. The measures sought in the Bill would help with the maintenance and navigation of the level, and would put it on a more sustainable footing. They are reasonable and rational, and I really hope that the Bill is allowed to proceed in its revived form and make progress. I recall that on Second Reading the question of consultation was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Reading background papers and listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay today, it seems as if the commissioners have taken the opportunity in the intervening period to seek to address those concerns, which is welcome. I therefore hope that the Bill is revived and that it can continue to make progress through Parliament, so that the funding and sustainability of the waterways is on a much firmer footing. That will enable the commissioners to maintain the fabric of our drainage systems and, in doing so, maintain our waterways for the benefit of all.
Kevin Foster
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond briefly to the debate.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) raised the issue of fees. The commissioners recognise that for people with houseboats fees must be proportionate, appropriate and reasonable. They cannot provide a definitive answer on the exact level of fees to be charged, but they have said that Environment Agency charges include a significant discount for houseboat dwellers. They believe that they are likely to adopt a similar charging structure: there will not be just one charge for a particular size of boat, but a sliding scale based on the nature of usage. I acknowledge the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about protections for houseboats, but it is worth remembering that in law and convention rights, any reaction must be proportionate, particularly when dealing with someone’s home. The idea that there are no legal protections if the Bill is enacted is not correct, but we can explore that in more detail in Committee with the National Bargee Travellers Association with a view to achieving a result with which everyone is comfortable.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who again showed her passion for waterways and spoke about the need to ensure that arrangements are effective and modern so that the relevant institutions can go forward and create income to make themselves self-sufficient. I welcome her support, and I am sure she is looking forward to serving on the Opposed Bill Committee, where there will be some interesting debates.
We have had an interesting debate, and I hope that Members support the Bill. It was right, given that it had received wider support and secured a Second Reading, to revive it with some amendments to take on board concerns that have been expressed, rather than going back to the drawing board, which would delay the process of getting on with a modern system of regulation for the Middle Level that will be of benefit to all users in the long run.
Question put and agreed to.
Backbench Business
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Rohingya and the Myanmar Government
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I warn Back Benchers that to give everybody a fair chance of being heard, there will be a four-minute limit on contributions after the opening speeches. Front Benchers winding up will have 10 minutes each. If we keep to that, we should be able to accommodate everybody.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that the treatment of the Rohingya by the Myanmar Government amounts to a textbook case of ethnic cleansing.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, to my co-sponsor the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and to the 73 Members who supported the application.
The Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar have been the subject of decades of segregation and racial discrimination. Over the past few years, they have repeatedly been indiscriminately targeted by the Burmese military, and in the past month they have witnessed human rights violations on a scale extreme even by the standards of Myanmar’s history. Following the 25 August attack on Government buildings by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, the Burmese military, led by Min Aung Hlaing, have been responsible for attacks that have led to more than 582,000 Rohingya fleeing for their lives by crossing the border into Bangladesh.
There are now almost 1 million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh: the 582,000 joined the 400,000 who had already fled there following previous periods of targeted attacks, notably in 2012 and 2016. There is a further influx of refugees from Myanmar who are being driven out of Rakhine state because food markets in the west of the region have been shut down and crucial aid deliveries restricted. Today, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that between 10,000 and 15,000 Rohingya people have been stranded since Sunday night at the Anjuman Para border crossing point between Bangladesh and Myanmar. These border pathways are particularly dangerous; Amnesty International accuses the Myanmar Government of having laid landmines in the path of fleeing women and children only a few weeks ago.
Last week, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published its rapid response mission report from Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. A team of three were deployed to Bangladesh in September following the reports of deadly violence and grave human rights abuses committed by the military from 25 August onwards. The UN team conducted 65 interviews with many refugees who had recently crossed the border. The UN’s job was to establish the facts about what was happening in northern Rakhine and its report makes uncomfortable reading.
Following the attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, the military started what it calls a “clearance operation”. Unimaginable violations of human rights have taken place during this time. According to the UN team, several victims reported the killing of close family members by random gunfire or described how the Myanmar security forces surrounded villages at some distance and then shot indiscriminately at houses and individuals alike.
The report also details witness accounts that attest to Rohingya victims, including children and elderly people, being burned to death inside their houses. As the UN mission progressed and the team spoke to more women and girls, horrific accounts of sexual violence were shared. According to the report, girls aged as young as five or seven were raped, often in front of their relatives—sometimes by three to five men all dressed in army uniforms taking turns. The report goes on to detail accounts of summary executions, cases of torture and disappearances. Alongside those horrendous human rights violations are accounts of forced displacements and the destruction of religious and cultural buildings and other items.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have given evidence in such situations. Are these war crimes being put forward by the United Nations for prosecutions? Those should start right now.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will take that as one of the action points of our Government, to build on the leadership that they are showing. We would like to see that item on the agenda.
The UN report backs up the comment made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in his opening statement at the 36th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council that the situation in Myanmar is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. That builds on the call, made by Yanghee Lee earlier this year, for a UN commission of inquiries, with which the Burmese Government refuse to co-operate.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
During Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions earlier, I asked the Minister for Asia and the Pacific—a good Minister—to comment on the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. I believe that he went further than the UK Government have gone before in saying that the situation was moving towards that. Does my hon. Friend agree that for the UK to have legitimacy on this topic, we should back up the UN’s assessment that the situation is a textbook case of ethnic cleansing?
Rushanara Ali
I very much hope that our Government will back up that definition.
The House will be aware that in 1993 the final report of the Commission of Experts, which was established following UN Security Council resolution 780, defined ethnic cleansing as
“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
That is a textbook definition to which the motion refers and against which we must measure what is happening in Myanmar. The question is whether the events in Burma amount to “a purposeful policy”. Are violent and terror-inspiring means being used? Is a specific ethnic or religious group being removed from certain geographical areas? The answer is yes to all the above. We are witnessing a deliberate state-sponsored policy of terror, murder, arson, rape and torture designed to remove the Rohingya people from their homes. There is now such an overwhelming weight of evidence of ethnic cleansing that Members cannot fail to agree and nor can the Government. It is vital that Members of this Parliament, which is seen as a beacon of democracy in the world, send a powerful message today that we will stand with the people being persecuted, the Rohingya population and other minorities in Myanmar.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and her powerful contribution. Does she agree that although we welcome the Government’s action on stopping training support for military personnel, the Government should pause all other such programmes that they fund, through the Department for International Development and elsewhere, while we reflect on how best to respond to the ethnic cleansing that she has so powerfully described?
Rushanara Ali
I believe that all humanitarian efforts and pressure on the Government for access should be retained but that other non-essential programmes should be reviewed so that we can consider what to do to bring an end to the violence and find a longer-term solution that brings peace to the region and protects the Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar.
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Burma, I have been aware of the discrimination and mistreatment that the Rohingya have endured for decades. In 2013, following a series of violent clashes in 2012 that left more than 100,000 people internally displaced, I visited Myanmar with Refugees International and the Burma Campaign. I heard stories of how Rohingya communities had fled violent attacks to remote areas of the countryside. In Rakhine state, the camps where Rohingya had been forced to live were horrific, with little or no access to humanitarian aid or healthcare. Some of that pressure was relieved, but international agencies had limited access. I travelled by boat to a UNHCR-supported camp in Pauktaw and have vivid memories of the shores nearby being covered in faeces and of dead rats floating just metres away from children bathing to keep cool in the unbearable heat. I remember being told stories of loved ones being killed and of children dying from a lack of healthcare and women from a lack of support in childbirth.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech, with which everybody in the House will agree. I hope she will be encouraged by a statement put out at last week’s plenary session of the Council of Europe by the Political Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, condemning the action and calling on all 47 Council of Europe member states to help with the humanitarian relief effort and to support Burma and Bangladesh. It shows that concern goes much wider than this House and that there is a huge international effort going on.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that we need short interventions if everyone is to have a fair chance to speak in this important debate.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful for that intervention and hope that other Governments will add their support to the humanitarian effort. The UN has stated that more than £440 million is required, but only a fraction of that has been raised. I hope that our Government will encourage other Governments, in the EU and the wider international community, to provide more assistance to the humanitarian effort in Rakhine, Bangladesh and other neighbouring states dealing with the more than 1 million refugees.
Much of the forced segregation stems from the Citizenship Law of 1982, which sets out that full citizenship in Myanmar is based on membership of one of the national races, a category awarded only to those considered to have settled in Myanmar prior to 1824, the date of the first occupation by the British. In Myanmar’s national census of 2014, the Muslim minority group was initially allowed to self-identify as Rohingya, but the Government later reversed this freedom and deemed that they could be identified only as Bengali, which they do not accept because they are not Bengali.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point about nationality, except that the British Government have shown to the Government in Nay Pyi Taw evidence kept in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office referring to a Muslim population in that part of what is now Burma going back many hundreds of years.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and former Minister for that intervention, as it corrects the misconception that the Rohingya population have no right to be there and are somehow refugees from neighbouring Bangladesh.
Eight months before polling day, the President of Myanmar revoked all temporary registration cards, leaving many Rohingya Muslims without any form of identity and hence unable to cast their votes during the transition to democracy. Despite Aung San Suu Kyi’s election victory, her renowned endeavours as a human rights and pro-democracy campaigner and her own sacrifice and fight for democracy for her fellow countrymen and women, many have expressed grave disappointment at her failure to speak out and raise her voice on behalf of the persecuted minorities of her country, particularly the Rohingya. I share that sadness and disappointment, as someone who, like many in the House, grew up admiring her fight for democracy and courage, but alongside that disappointment we need to focus on the military Government, who hold the balance of power and control the military, defence, policing, local government, the civil service and many other aspects of power. While the media rightly focus attention on Aung San Suu Kyi, an important international figure, we should not let the military and the generals off the hook; let us both hold the civilian Government and particularly the military to account.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What safeguards should the British Government apply before resuming funding for military training in Myanmar?
Rushanara Ali
I will come to that. I am grateful that the Government, in response to 170 parliamentarians urging greater humanitarian assistance, have stepped up and increased their assistance by £25 million and increased the level of match funding for the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, to which we are all grateful. The parliamentarians asked, however, for a suspension of training, and they were right to do so, especially given, as I understand it, there is no reference in it to human rights training or awareness and no attempt to change the behaviour of the military. It would be wrong to reinstate the funding until progress is made.
The Annan commission reported on the need for reconciliation and action to deal with the issues affecting the Rohingya and the wider populations impoverished in Rakhine. Sadly, the report’s publication coincided with the so-called operation by the military that led to the latest crisis. That suggests that the military, far from wanting a constructive solution, reconciliation and progress, is doing quite the opposite. The commission, which was commissioned, supported and led by Aung San Suu Kyi, has been undermined by the actions of the military, which says a great deal about its underlying objective, which is to undermine her. She, of course, is not helping herself, as many would agree, but let us not forget that the military has been instrumental in directing the attacks.
The international community needs to apply pressure on the military. To do that, our Government need seriously to consider a global arms embargo of the Burmese military, building on what we have done domestically and with our European partners. It will not work simply to wring our hands and say, “There is ethnic cleansing”, if we do not follow up with the courage of our convictions, act and apply pressure to the Burmese military. It is no longer acceptable to say that the transition to democracy will stop the military acting this way. It has not. In fact, the military is undermining the transition to democracy and the civilian-led Government led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. It is imperative that the international community do more to support the humanitarian effort and, in particular, humanitarian access within Rakhine state, which I visited in February once again. The lack of access to those desperately in need of food and healthcare in the internally displaced camps was shocking.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise these issues, and I very much hope that our Government will continue to build on our tradition as a country that speaks up for communities that have suffered. Particularly in this case, Britain has a unique responsibility because of our colonial legacy, and because of our interest in Myanmar. We all want that country to succeed and thrive, and we all hoped that the transition to democracy would be a new chapter. Sadly, this series of attacks, particularly after the elections, has left many of us with grave doubts about that transition. We must do everything we can to bring an end to the violence and to increase access, but, most important, to hold the Burmese military to account.
I call on the Government to seek that global embargo, and to apply pressure on our international partners to act. We cannot once again allow ethnic cleansing to happen. We must learn the lessons of what took place in Rwanda, in Bosnia and elsewhere. We cannot come back to the House and say “Never again” when we have watched ethnic cleansing happen, and regret not taking greater action and using all the powers and influences that we all have here in the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that there is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I call Anne Main.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Four minutes is not long enough to illustrate the suffering that I saw in Bangladesh only three weeks ago, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).
I pledged to the people whom I met in the camps—mostly women and children—that if nothing else, we would come back and give them a voice that could be heard. We went with a delegation from the Conservative Friends of Bangladesh, and we spent two days in Cox’s Bazar. We were not prevented from speaking to anyone. We went there with Bengali Sylheti speakers who could translate very well for us, and we asked questions of anyone we liked. Their stories were all the same. There were stick-thin children who looked as if they were literally within days of dying. There were women who were unaccompanied by their menfolk because they had been slaughtered, brutally attacked or separated from them, beaten up and taken away.
We visited both the Kutupalong camp and the Balukhali camp. In the Balukhali camp, we talked to workers in an aid hospital about the wounds that people showed as they came in. Many were gunshot wounds. While we were there, an elderly man was brought in, his face gashed and bleeding. He was distressed and had been beaten up. A few minutes later, his son was carried in, covered with a tarpaulin, within moments of losing his life.
Mrs Gillan
Four minutes is certainly not enough. I congratulate my hon. Friend and her colleagues who went out to see the suffering for themselves. I received a delegation in my constituency from my local imam because so many of our Muslim populations in this country have been appalled by the reports that have been coming back. I thank my hon. Friend on their behalf for what she has done, and for acting as an advocate for them today.
Mrs Main
I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has said, but we cannot possibly say enough. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) is absolutely right: the time to stop doing nothing is now. We must start doing things and start speaking up. Let me put in a plea for contributions to the appeal launched by the Disasters Emergency Committee, whose headquarters I visited with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. We have some good stories to tell. The DEC is ensuring that the aid goes to the right places, and the British Government have a lot to be proud of.
Let me go back to what we saw. We saw the most brutal attacks. We were taken to the border, and could locate the points where landmines—we saw pictures of them—had been laid. We saw the body of a man being dragged out of the flooded camps. The Bangladesh Government cannot be congratulated enough for how much they are doing, but the tide of misery is overwhelming.
Sir Hugo Swire
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She has talked of a tide of misery. Alas, the tide of misery does not just flow across the Bay of Bengal from Rakhine to Cox’s Bazar; it also flows from Rakhine down to Malaysia and other countries, where we have seen horrific evidence of the trafficking of the Rohingya people. People come down from the Bay of Bengal and pick them up in Rakhine—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I know that the former Minister has a lot to add to this, but I want to get everyone in. Interventions must be very short. Do not take advantage of other Members, please.
Mrs Main
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Time is very short, and I wish to keep within my limit so that others can make their points.
I must emphasise that the stories we heard were consistent. Any claims in the newspapers that the Rohingya are doing this to themselves are lies, fabrications and absolute fantasy. That is not true. No woman wants to trek with eight small children after one of her sons has been stabbed through the chest, her breasts dried up because she cannot feed her child, and with only some semolina to keep her going for days. The Rohingya are not doing this to themselves. If the world sucks up that nonsense, that lie, that fabrication, we are complicit; and we cannot be complicit.
We saw where those people were stranded in no man’s land, within yards of the border. We heard too many stories that were consistent: people were being machine-gunned from behind to drive them across, and the landmines were to stop them going back. These people have been brutalised. There are thousands of unaccompanied children. It has been said that there are 80,000, although it is hard to give an accurate figure because the number increases every day. Apparently there were 11,000 last Monday.
When we were last told, there were 80,000 pregnant women and 13,000 unaccompanied children. There are real issues of safeguarding and trafficking, and of disease. We used the latrines on the site; believe me, it was a relief to go back and wash off the slop and stench we had experienced those days—only to go back and see the people the next day, sitting there with no more than a piece of plastic over their heads. Some of them did not even have that: some had an umbrella, some had nothing.
We cannot turn a blind eye. We cannot pretend it is not happening. It is so easy once we are back to forget the sheer horror of it, but for them this is not just about now; it has been happening for years. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who so eloquently opened the debate, said, this has a very long history. But for those babies and children we saw, who are at any moment liable to be taken away with typhoid or one of the other diseases just waiting to rampage through that camp, we have got to say the world must join with Bangladesh on this.
I cannot say any more than that: the Bangladeshis have done their utmost, with a third of their own country underwater, and with rice harvests being lost. One should go there and look at the poor quality of the site; when we were there, an elephant trampled down the camp and there were landslides. This site is so fragile, yet Bangladesh has extended its arms to be as welcoming as it possibly can be. So I will not hear a word said against what they have been doing, but the rest of the world could do so much more. As the hon. Lady said, we must encourage our neighbours who feel this is someone else’s problem, because it very much is our problem.
I did not hear any anger from these people; they want to go back, but they do not want to go back to be driven across the border again and again and again. They want some degree of resolution to their plight, and I hope by talking about it on the Floor of this House today we can ensure their voice is heard by the world, because that is what I pledge. That is all I could say to the people I met: “We will make sure your stories get back.” And today I know the two colleagues who joined me are making sure their stories have got back, and the hon. Lady who opened the debate has spoken eloquently, and I know she is summing up—and I am sure that across the House today we will show that we will not accept this any longer.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
As we have heard today, the evidence about what has been happening in Myanmar is clear: there is a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. The military have used every kind of evil to create fear and trauma—men, women, and children tortured and killed; their families and neighbours forced to watch; children and elderly people burnt alive in their homes; gang rapes by soldiers, including of girls as young as five. All of these horrors are used as weapons to threaten and intimidate more than half a million innocent people into fleeing their homes, far too terrified to return. And who can blame them?
Hasina Begum lived in the Rakhine province, where the violence has been most intense, and her testimony is harrowing. She described how, first, the soldiers killed the men they found, cutting their bodies into four parts to make future identification difficult. Then they rounded up women and girls of the village, and forced them to watch as two teenage girls were raped by 14 of the soldiers. Hasina was forced to watch; she relives this horror in her nightmares.
These obscenities have clearly impacted on my community in West Ham. Last week I was given a petition signed by more than 750 constituents, and I have had many emails about this debate. They want the Government to get to the root of this crisis, not just condemn the most obvious abuses. I was deeply moved by their compassion, and I share their anger. Enough has not been done.
Aung San Suu Kyi has failed to live up to her responsibility as the head of Myanmar’s Government. I thought she was a great woman, but great women do not allow ethnic cleansing to take place in a country in which they have power, great women do not seek to deny facts when innocents are being slaughtered, and great women do not remain silent. The actions of the military, and her own inactions, have trampled the reputation of Aung San Suu Kyi. The generals must be loving it.
But let us be clear: the greatest responsibility for what has happened belongs to the military, and especially the head of the army, Min Aung Hlaing. I want every one of those responsible for these crimes against humanity to face justice, and I want to see Min Aung Hlaing and the other senior commanders on trial for their crimes. The only way for this to happen is if our Government are resolute in calling out these crimes, supporting strong and co-ordinated sanctions. I want to see a visa ban on military figures, a complete ban on all equipment sales to the military and a ban on investment in and business with military-controlled companies. These actions need to be taken at the widest possible level across the EU and across the wider world through diplomacy at the UN.
The immediate humanitarian crisis remains appalling, and I am not convinced that the funding that the Department for International Development has committed is adequate, given the enormous scale of the crisis. We are currently providing emergency funding for shelter for approximately 26,000 people, but that covers less than 5% of the refugees who have fled since August. I understand that we have been the largest single donor in this crisis, and I certainly welcome that, but given the enormity of the circumstances it is simply unacceptable that many people are still not secure and that their basic needs are not being met. There can be little doubt that more can be done, and I want the Government to commit to doing it today.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow three very passionate speeches. People feel very strongly about this, and there are statistics that we can all quote, but the human tragedy is the most important thing. We can talk about how much money we have spent, how much other countries have spent and how many people have been displaced, but we understand more when we watch the television news. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and others, I have not been to Bangladesh, but on last night’s television news I saw a mother who had seen her two children drown. She saw one of the bodies floating past her. There was also a son whose mother and brother had drowned, and there had been nothing he could do about it. Those are stateless people who are trying to escape persecution.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to be stateless—none of us in this Chamber is stateless and none of us is likely to be—but let us try to imagine generations of people who have had no home and no country to stand up for them. That is what we are talking about. This is about hundreds of thousands of families who are stateless, and nobody cares about them. However, Bangladesh has opened its doors, taken them in and looked after them. We need to support that initiative. Bangladesh has its own problems—it has floods, as it has done before—but it has welcomed those people. It has not passed by on the other side. It is looking after them, and it is incredibly important that we should step up to the plate to support it.
We must also say that there must never again be a genocide, because that is what this is. We have said it before, about Bosnia and about Rwanda—which I have had quite a lot to do with—but we must say it again now. We must step up to the plate and actually do something to stop this crisis continuing. A lot has happened and many thousands of people have lost their lives. Many more have lost everything they have, and they have little dignity left. This Government must please continue to work with every other country that can help to stop this happening, and they must do it now.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let us be absolutely clear: the Rohingya have been persecuted and mistreated in that region for hundreds of years, and the United Nations has labelled them the most persecuted people in the world. However, their past persecution pales into insignificance compared with what they have recently faced. They have been subjected to some of the deadliest violence over the past several months. Rohingya men, women and children are being murdered. Children are being beheaded and their bodies mutilated. Others are being burned alive, and there is rape and pillage on a scale fit for a medieval war. All of this amounts to some of the gravest crimes against humanity. The burning of Rohingya villages is not just an act of pure violence; it is also a calculated move by the Burmese Government to ensure that the Rohingya can never return to their homes, even if the violence subsides. Such a move—and the intent behind it—is a textbook definition of ethnic cleansing.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has indeed described the situation as a
“textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government must do everything in their power to bring an end to the horrific violence?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must not shy away from calling the situation what it is, particularly when it is followed by deadly violence. It is ethnic cleansing.
When this issue was last before the House as the subject of an urgent question, I asked the Minister to condemn the Burmese Government for their crimes. Regrettably, the Minister’s answer fell far short of that, and the situation continues to worsen. I accept that the Government have taken action by suspending military programmes and by ensuring that the crisis has been debated at the UN Security Council, but that should just be the starting point, not the full extent of the Government’s action, because it does not go far enough.
Those who have managed to flee the violence and persecution fare little better, and the refugee crisis is only getting worse. Some 700,000 Rohingya refugees have fled to Bangladesh, but that figure is most likely to be even higher and will grow further still. So great is the number of refugees fleeing Burma and so fast have they fled that the UN recently documented it as one of the worst emergencies by weekly outflow since the Rwandan genocide. The refugees face dire situations and squalid conditions not only in the overcrowded camps that await them, but during their journeys to them. The violence and the desperate situations represent only a snapshot of the emergency facing the Rohingya, and the situation will only get worse. Despite the action that has been taken, the Burmese Government remain undeterred in their campaign of violence. We have to take stronger action, and we have to show leadership.
Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I clearly want a transition to democracy in the region. We want the road to lead to democracy, but that road cannot be surfaced with injustice and hypocrisy. It cannot be paved with ethnic cleansing and genocide. It cannot be built on persecution. It cannot be stained with the blood of innocent men, women and children. That road does not lead to democracy; that road leads to The Hague. I implore the Minister to use this opportunity to condemn the Burmese Government, which he is yet to do, for the violence and the flagrant human rights violations. What is he doing to ensure that those who have committed these grave crimes against humanity are brought to justice at The Hague?
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is hard to put 600,000 people fleeing persecution into context until one has been to the camps and can visualise the thousands of desperate people. To try to put it into some context, however, the situation is roughly the same as if the population of Glasgow or Sheffield were all fleeing the most horrific persecution and violence. On arriving at the camps with my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and for St Albans (Mrs Main), we saw thousands of people—mainly women and children—thick mud, makeshift tents and shacks as far as the eye could see, terrible sanitary conditions, awful latrines, and makeshift schools. The scenes were horrific.
The Bangladesh Government are absolutely trying their best and, to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans, I do not think that they could be doing any more. Bangladesh is a relatively poor country with a population of 160 million people. A third of the country is underwater, yet they say, “If we can feed 160 million, we can feed another half a million.”
Sir Hugo Swire
As Bangladesh is a fellow Commonwealth country, does my hon. Friend agree that we should have some kind of Commonwealth response in the light of Bangladesh’s appalling amounts of additional work to feed and provide hospitality to these fleeing people?
Will Quince
My right hon. Friend makes a good suggestion that I hope the Minister takes on.
Bangladesh is doing a great job, but it is under considerable pressure. The movement of people, particularly within the past few months, is on an unimaginable scale—the figure was some 10,000 to 15,000 people just over the past weekend. What camp could cope with such numbers of people desperate for help?
We saw many people and discussed many different stories, most of them absolutely tragic. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans said, we picked the people to whom we spoke; we were not directed. Either this is the biggest conspiracy theory in history, or they are telling the truth, and I choose to believe they are telling the truth.
I want to tell the story of a lady whose house was burned, with her husband killed and son murdered before her eyes. She picked up her remaining children and what possessions she could carry, and walked for five days in the hope that things might be better somewhere else. She got to the camps. As I spoke to her, she held her eight-month-old baby, who looked around four months old because they were so malnourished. She was desperately trying to feed her baby as we spoke, but her malnourished body could not produce the milk to do so. As a father myself, it broke my heart. That story is not a one-off; it was the same with every person to whom we spoke, mostly women who had gone through such a horrific ordeal, and in some cases worse.
We visited a makeshift school in the camps and heard 30 or so children singing “We Will Overcome” in English, because hope is all they have left. I am incredibly proud, as we should all be, of the role that the Department for International Development and the United Kingdom are playing through UK aid. It fills me with pride to see UK aid from the British people used all over the camps. Can we do more? Of course we can.
This is my message to all those who sent me emails and Twitter messages after Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday to say that we should not be sending UK aid: “You are wrong. This is exactly where we should be sending UK aid.” I am incredibly proud of what we are doing, as everyone in this country should be. Yes, we have to do more through diplomacy and work within the United Nations. I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s response, and I know the Minister has visited the region and is as passionate as me about addressing this issue.
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend’s personal visit cannot be repeated by all of us who have read about the situation. Is there anything we can do to get aid more quickly to where it is needed? The speed of response seems to be one of the big problems in helping people on the ground.
Will Quince
There are many ways in which we can help, and I look to the Minister, and to DFID Ministers, to answer that question. The scale of the challenge is the issue. The Bangladeshi Government have recently set aside another 2,000 acres of land for the camps to expand, but they need money. That is why I encourage Members and people across the country to support the DEC appeal, which DFID is supporting with match funding.
The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) referred to landmines and helicopter attacks in his extremely passionate speech. We went to the border and saw that for ourselves. Yes, Bangladeshi military officials told us about it, but so did individuals. We saw videos on people’s phones of landmines, landmines being laid and people who have had their limbs blown off by landmines. There is no excuse anywhere in the world for landmines. We have to condemn the Myanmar Government in the strongest terms possible if they are using landmines, as I believe they are, and helicopter attacks to drive people towards the border. Whether the Myanmar Government are planting those landmines to prevent people from crossing the border or to prevent them from heading back into Rakhine state, it does not matter. This is wrong and we should absolutely condemn it.
I know the Minister is as passionate as I am about this issue, and I am proud of what we are doing. The Rohingya people are desperate to go home, but I just ask him to redouble our efforts to make sure that the UN, the humanitarian agencies and the NGOs can work in Myanmar not only to keep people safe, but to protect that all-important humanitarian aid.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and to concur with everything he said in his excellent speech. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), both of whom spoke incredibly powerfully, as has everyone else in this debate.
I am pleased to say that this morning the International Development Committee agreed to carry out an immediate inquiry on Burma and Bangladesh, and to start that inquiry by looking at the current Rohingya crisis. As of this month, more than half a million refugees have fled across the border between the two countries, increasing the number of displaced persons in Bangladesh to about 800,000. To put that number in perspective, UNHCR estimates that the total number of refugees who crossed the Mediterranean into Europe last year was 362,000, so we are talking about more than double that number in the single country of Bangladesh. That is why today’s debate is so important.
As we have heard, while these people—most of them women and children—have been making this perilous journey, they have been traumatised by landmines, gunshots, shrapnel and fires. Those who arrive safely in Bangladesh talk of the appalling violations of human rights that are being carried out in Burma. Let us have no doubt that, as the motion says, we are witnessing ethnic cleansing, and this House needs to say that loud and clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) rightly said, this is not something new. The Rohingya people have faced centuries of persecution and have so often been forgotten.
The need in Bangladesh is severe. According to the International Rescue Committee, which has carried out needs assessments in the region, more than three quarters of the refugees surveyed lacked the most basic food to live; about a third are being forced to defecate in the open; more than 95% are drinking untreated water; a staggering 87% of the displaced families have at least one member with an identified vulnerability—they may be elderly, pregnant, disabled or wounded—and nearly half of the pregnant women have not received medical care for their pregnancies.
I join in paying tribute to the Government and people of Bangladesh for their remarkable response to this crisis. Humanitarian organisations such as UNHCR have struggled to register new arrivals as they cross the border. The camps that have been set up for the fleeing Rohingya in Bangladesh are often located in low-lying areas that are either flooded or severely prone to flooding during the monsoon season. Although the Bangladesh army is planning to construct new camps for the ever-increasing number of arrivals, that will take time. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Bangladesh is not a party to the UN convention on refugees, which sometimes means that UN agencies and others have struggled to gain access to Rohingya refugees inside Bangladesh. Given such a massive humanitarian need, the Government of Bangladesh can show further strong leadership by expediting the registration process of refugees to those NGOs that are ready and willing to help. The IRC is a good example, as it is ready to scale up in a massive way and has just submitted its registration request. May I urge the Minister to indicate in his response today that the Government will use their good offices to seek to persuade the Government of Bangladesh to move on this very important point, as it will enable key NGOs to register refugees so that they get the support that they so desperately need?
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
It is important to note the history behind this issue. As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), the Rohingya Muslims have been in that part of Myanmar for many hundreds of years. When the British were controlling Burma, they used people from what is now Bangladesh, moving across what was then a very permeable border, for employment and labour. That started to muddy the waters, because we did not register those people or acknowledge them as Bangladeshi. That has given the Myanmar Government the excuse to set a new year zero and to deny these people, who have been there and had roots there for so many years, the right to citizenship.
When I was in Burma in February 2016, at the time of the transition Government, I was really hopeful. Everyone was incredibly optimistic that, as the country came into the light, we would start to see the desperately needed end to the ethnic conflict throughout the country. I ask all Members present, including the Minister, to acknowledge when they condemn what is going on in Rakhine state that the Burmese people are largely behind it, as shocking as that may sound. There are demonstrations in Yangon at which people say, “We stand with the lady, we stand with the army and we stand with the Burmese people.”
Aung San Suu Kyi was speaking at the same time as we were at Cox’s Bazar airport. We have all said that she needs to be far more forthright in condemning the actions in Rakhine state, but we must concentrate on the man who could stop this tomorrow: Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief. If we whip this up into “the west against a nationalist uprising in Myanmar”, we run a risk, because this is a man who might fancy his chances of presidency in 2020. We might end up with the military getting back into control via the ballot box rather than the gun.
Sir Hugo Swire
My hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily powerful point. We should all be familiar with the point that during the transition, the military retained 25% of control in the Myanmar Parliament. The commander-in-chief is no fan of Aung San Suu Kyi, so she is in an extraordinarily difficult position. Yes, we would like her to speak out more, but we must also recognise that in the longer term the progress we have seen in Burma could easily go backwards, and that would endanger peace throughout the country, not only in Rakhine.
Paul Scully
Members in the Chamber and people throughout the country are rightly passionate about the atrocities that are taking place and that were witnessed by a number of us who went over to Cox’s Bazar, but we must realise that the situation in the country is complex. Our response must absolutely reflect that so that we do not make the country close in on itself. If we do, the conflicts in Rakhine state will start to reignite in Kachin state, Shan state and all the other areas in which the peace process, under Kofi Annan’s commission, has started to have some sort of traction—although it is taking some time.
The military claims that what is going on in Rakhine state is a response to the Arakan Rohingya Solidarity Army, and that ARSA is a terrorist group. Let us assume that there are some terrorists there, although if there are, they number a couple of hundred at most—nothing like the 500,000 people who have crossed the border. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for St Albans (Mrs Main), I met a 60-year-old lady. She came over with her surviving grandchildren—and I mean surviving grandchildren. Her son-in-law had been stabbed in front of her and dragged away, and was assumed dead, and her 12-year-old grandchild was beheaded in front of her.
Paul Scully
Absolutely. We picked all of the dozen or so people to whom we spoke over two days and we had our own translators there, so it was absolutely verbatim. Another one of her grandchildren had their genitals mutilated and chopped off. As Members will understand, this woman was dead behind the eyes. There is no way that that woman was a terrorist. The response by the military is clearly disproportionate and needs to be called out. We must absolutely ensure that every time we have dealings with the Burmese Government and the military we call them out for what they do.
We need to plan things regionally, work with our Commonwealth friends, and try to encourage the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to have a regional response. At the moment, there is little movement from Thailand, and the Indian Government are rejecting the Rohingya Muslims who have settled in their country, so, as we have heard, this is not just a Burmese-Bangladesh situation.
The Bangladeshi Government are doing a fantastic job under difficult circumstances. The fact that the situation is not new is clear when I reveal that the Kutupalong camp is 30 years old. This is not a new camp that has just been set up; it is 30 years old. There are two treaties outstanding with Bangladesh and Burma dating back to 1978 for the safe return of Rohingya Muslims to Burma. They have been ignored by the Burmese Government, so we must ensure that a treaty, which is backed up by international support, is put in place to allow the safe return of the Rohingya.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for securing this necessary debate. I also thank my hon. Friend for the vital work that she has done in raising awareness of the persecution of the Rohingya. Sadly this abuse is not new. In 1992, a cross-party early-day motion criticised the “systematic extermination” of the Rohingya in Burma. Some 25 years later, the extermination continues.
The most recent UN report contains witness statements detailing shocking acts of violence and humiliation: children and elderly people burned in their homes; mass use of gang-rape, including soldiers gang-raping girls as young as five; victims, including children, forced to watch relatives and loved ones tortured and killed; and a pregnant woman raped, her stomach cut open, her unborn baby killed, and her nipples cut off.
Since August, more than 540,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh, taking the total now in Bangladesh to more than 800,000. Sickeningly, Amnesty International and some of our colleagues have said that there are clear indications that the Burmese authorities have been deliberately targeting the Rohingya as they flee, placing landmines at border crossings.
Paul Scully
Does the hon. Lady agree that landmines are terrible not just for those in the present, but in 10 or 20 years’ time when, hopefully, this has been solved and children are out playing?
Sarah Champion
That is the perversity of the situation, and we have our eyes wide open.
The Secretary of State for International Development has said that children are at risk of “sexual violence and trafficking”. The International Rescue Committee said that there are
“reports of girls in Rohingya camps being raped or abused when going to the toilet or collecting firewood.”
There are those who suggest that there are two sides to this story, and that paramilitary attacks mean that the Rohingya are to blame for the violence. Nothing can ever justify the horrors that innocent Rohingya are suffering. The UN report contains a witness statement of a 12-year-old Rohingya girl. She told the UN team:
“They surrounded our house and started to shoot. It was a situation of panic—they shot my sister in front of me, she was only seven years old. She cried and told me to run. I tried to protect her and care for her, but we had no medical assistance on the hillside and she was bleeding so much that after one day she died. I buried her myself.”
That was a 12-year-old girl. If a proportional response existed, that could never be it. The UN also said that
“security forces targeted teachers, the cultural and religious leadership, and other people of influence of the Rohingya community in an effort to diminish Rohingya history, culture and knowledge.”
This is planned and co-ordinated ethnic cleansing. I am pleased and relieved that the Secretary of State has echoed the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in describing it in that way, but we need not only strong language, but strong action. The director of International State Crime Initiative has called ethnic cleansing a “euphemism for genocide”. She adds that genocide is a process that takes place over many years. In 2015, the organisation described the violence towards the Rohingya as
“highly organised and genocidal in intent.”
The Bangladeshi Government have already called this genocide so I ask the Minister, if the UN finds that genocide or other violations of international law have been committed, will the British Government support a referral to the International Criminal Court?
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
It goes without saying that genocide is a legal term at the UN. If the UN goes down that path, of course the UK Government will be the first to be supportive of taking these matters to the International Criminal Court.
Sarah Champion
I am hugely grateful for that intervention.
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity to lead on this in a meeting of the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council. Sadly, the Foreign Secretary’s eagerness to lead at home is not matched by an eagerness to lead abroad. The only action from that meeting was the suspension of invitations to senior Burmese military officials to visit the EU. I agree with Burma Campaign UK that this is absolutely pathetic.
We must do everything in our power to protect the Rohingya and pressure the Burmese Government to immediately cease military operations. We must ensure the implementation of the recommendations in the Annan commission, particularly on the matter of citizenship rights. We must listen to aid agencies and ensure that resources are available to distribute food, reduce the threat of disease and help establish protection services for women and children. We have to remove the red tape so that that can happen. We must pressure the Burmese authorities to allow immediate unimpeded humanitarian access to Rakhine state. Fundamentally, we must no longer turn a blind eye. I urge this House to act now, before it is too late.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
In an article in The Wall Street Journal in November 2016, Ben Rogers—the vice-chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which I have the privilege to chair—wrote:
“A human tragedy approaching ethnic cleansing is unfolding in Burma, and the world is chillingly silent. In recent weeks, hundreds of Muslim Rohingya people have been killed, and more than 30,000 displaced. Houses have been burned, hundreds of women raped and many others arbitrarily arrested. Access for humanitarian-aid organizations has been almost completely denied. Thousands have fled to neighboring Bangladesh, only to be sent back. Witness all the hallmarks of past tragedies: Bosnia, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda… It’s also time for the international community to speak out. If we fail to act, Rohingyas may starve to death if they aren’t killed by bullets first…Let us act now before it’s too late.”
How right he was. That was almost a year ago. For many, such as the seven-year-old girl we just heard about, buried by her 12-year-old sister, it is already too late.
In a further article in February this year, Ben Rogers and the EU special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, Ján Figel’, highlighted the question of impunity, writing:
“Under the constitution, the military remains in control of the Home Affairs, Border Affairs and Defense ministries, meaning Ms. Suu Kyi’s leadership is tenuous. While she could have done more to speak out, she does not control the troops. Only Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the commander-in-chief, has the power to stop the killing and rapes.”
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I take my hon. Friend’s point about Aung San Suu Kyi, but it is not simply that Aung San Suu Kyi has not condemned the activities of the military; it is that she has actively apologised for them over and over again in interviews. Having gone from being one of the most celebrated people in the world for her courage in taking on the brutal authorities, she has become that brutal authority.
Fiona Bruce
It should be remembered that, yes, she could have done more to prevent this tragedy and to speak out when it began, but she does not control the army.
The article continued:
“The international community must now act to hold the Burmese military to account for its crimes.”
Those warnings were also made many months ago. Now a tragedy is unfolding on a far bigger scale and action is long overdue.
I welcome the action taken by the Government so far: initiating discussions at the UN Security Council, suspending training programmes with the Burmese army, providing £30 million in aid and pledging to match £5 million in donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal.
Paul Scully
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while it is absolutely right that we should suspend our military programme with the Burmese military, it is a matter of regret that the people left training the Burmese military at the moment are the Russians?
Fiona Bruce
I will come in a moment to the further action I want to challenge the Minister to take with regard to the military.
More surely can and should be done. When the United Nations Secretary-General describes the crisis as “catastrophic” and “a devastating humanitarian situation" and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that it is
“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”,
there is surely a need for a much more robust response.
So what other measures will the UK take to put pressure on the army and the Government of Burma to stop this appalling ethnic cleansing? What steps are the Government taking to demand that the military in Burma immediately cease operations in Rakhine state and that the Government of Burma allow unhindered access to all affected areas for international humanitarian aid organisations, human rights monitors and the media? What pressure will the Government put on the Government of Burma to ensure that Rohingyas can safely return to their home villages and that homes are rebuilt, livelihoods are secured, security is guaranteed, the recommendations of the Rakhine advisory commission, chaired by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, are implemented, a reconciliation process begins, and the military are held to account for their crimes?
Will the Government work at the UN Security Council to secure a global arms embargo on Burma and targeted sanctions to prohibit investment in Burmese military-owned enterprises? Will the UK urge the EU to extend its arms embargo to ban the sale of non-military equipment that could be used for military purposes and to impose a visa ban on senior members of the military? Will the UK work to reintroduce a UN General Assembly resolution on Burma, imposing specific measures to put pressure on the Government and the military in Burma to address this crisis?
I urge the Minister to consider introducing regular meetings at this critical time, either with himself or his officials, so that non-governmental organisations based in London that have much expertise in Burma can discuss the current crisis. I have referred to the expertise of Ben Rogers, but I also have in mind the Burma Campaign UK, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and, in particular, representatives of the exiled Rohingya community.
This tragedy requires our urgent attention and action now. It is time to act to prevent another ethnic cleansing from becoming another genocide.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I returned from Bangladesh just last week, and I felt moved to speak today. The Rohingya have been forced to choose between the perilous uncertainty of fleeing to another country and the certainty of the violent oppression in their own. The stories of suffering are simply too much to bear. Prior to being in this place, I had a career in the field of humanitarian emergencies, and I have rarely seen anything like this: entire communities fleeing with anything they could grab, only to see all their homes razed to the ground; children burying their younger siblings; multiple accounts of rape and torture; the woman who found her husband dead in her village yet still managed to find the strength over five days to take her three children to Bangladesh; the husband and father who saw his wife and some of his children murdered in front of him but still found the strength to take his remaining children to safety; the two little boys who made it into Bangladesh, despite having had their legs broken; the bravery that is second to none; and, as almost always in conflict, the hundreds—the thousands—of women who have been raped.
Is this ethnic cleansing? Without a doubt. It is a campaign of the most extreme violence, with physical and psychological trauma that will last for generations to come. While it is deeply shocking, it is, sadly, not surprising. We were warned. Three years ago, the group United to End Genocide said:
“Nowhere in the world are there more known precursors to genocide than in Burma today.”
Yet, these things have been allowed to happen. It follows decades of state-supported violent discrimination, social exclusion, and the relentless stoking of racial hatred. The desire to expel the Rohingya from Myanmar has been repeatedly laid bare, as even in the years when the world praised Aung San Suu Kyi’s path to democracy, they were demonised and massacred as “the other”.
I say this to Aung San Suu Kyi: “What we are seeing is not fake news. With its acts of barbaric, unimaginable horror, the campaign of ethnic cleansing taking place in Rakhine province shows the eternal truth that if you cannot see the essential humanity of people because you declare them to be “the other”, you will lose your own humanity.” It is a lesson that this country should learn well. It challenges us to ask, “What does our humanity spur us to do now?” Does it spur us to be brave and to challenge what is happening? Will we act? Will we call this what it is—ethnic cleansing?
The Rohingya desperately need us to step up. They may have escaped the Myanmar army, but they are not yet safe. They are malnourished. They are desperate. Pregnant women are in need of care; children are alone, subject to sexual exploitation. I have worked with, and spoken to on the ground, fantastic organisations such as Christian Aid and Action Aid. They need our help. Bangladesh, which has so bravely and kindly opened its borders, needs our help. We cannot allow the Burmese campaign of ethnic cleansing to succeed by giving up on the future of the people, and of so many children who have been through hell for a chance of survival. I call on the Government to accelerate and increase their support of those organisations and others working to support the Rohingya refugees. At Britain’s best, our humanity does not have borders; it is big enough to stretch overseas. Let it stretch and let us support the Rohingya Muslims who so desperately need our help.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this important debate. I hope that as well as getting a further commitment from the Minister to do all that he can to support the Rohingya people, we can get some of the western media to cover their plight, which has been ignored for so long. With more than 1 million minority Rohingya having fled Burma after witnessing murder, rape and pillaging of villages, we should not be afraid to call the actions of the Burmese authorities what they are—a deliberate, brutal, sustained and targeted campaign to cleanse the country of Rohingya and Muslim minority groups. It is a genocide.
The horror and the lack of an international response to the persecution of the Rohingya led the Foreign Affairs Committee to hold its first ever session on this issue last week. Tun Khin of Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK came and gave evidence. He confirmed that more than 10,000 homes have been burned or destroyed. The military are systematically going from village to village, looting and destroying everything. They leave nothing behind: there is nothing for the Rohingya to return to. The United Nations described what took place as crimes against humanity. The UN Human Rights Council established a fact-finding mission to investigate, yet the Government of Burma are refusing to allow it into the country.
The Burmese are applying North Korean public relations strategies and declaring that the reporting of rape, plunder and mass murder is some sort of media hysteria. I have here a letter that the Foreign Affairs Committee received from the embassy, which says:
“Accusations of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide’ are totally false…Assertions in the media that horrifying crimes have been committed against innocent people have only served to intensify the anxiety of the international community. While such claims might appear realistic at initial glance to an ordinary viewer, skilled observers”
would see otherwise. This letter is diabolical. By having this debate in this Chamber today, we can make it clear to the Burmese authorities that we will call out what we see.
Ms Ghani
Absolutely.
One slightly positive point was the establishment of the commission chaired by the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. However, while Aung San Suu Kyi was talking about implementing its recommendations, her social media, Facebook page and website were carrying flashing “fake rape” signs. At the same time, the UN was confirming the most horrific details of mass rape of Rohingya women.
Many other valid points have been raised today. I want to read out the testimony of one young woman, who writes to Aung San Suu Kyi:
“After suffering years of abuse at the hands of the military junta, your peace prize inspired us, a people who have suffered decades of oppression. We were proud to call ourselves Myanmarese.”
Forgive me if I have pronounced that incorrectly. She continues:
“Growing up, my grandfather always spoke highly of you. He would choose the biggest goats and cows to slaughter when members of your party, the National League for Democracy, would visit. He would graciously welcome them…In 2010, when you were finally released by the military from house arrest, we rejoiced. But seven years on, we, the Rohingya, remain victims of a brutal and genocidal state. This time, at your hands. Since your general election victory in 2015, you pushed out Muslim representatives from your party. It was the first sign of your political cowardice. A few months later, your administration launched ‘clearance operations’ in northern Rakhine State. During those months, countless civilians were killed and women were gang-raped. Despite widespread international condemnation, you denied the crimes.”
Some Members may know that people of Rohingya heritage cannot go to university. This young girl goes on to say:
“I just received information that my home was burned to the ground. While many will say it was the army or vigilantes that burned it down, I feel as if it is you—Aung San Suu Kyi—that is to blame. Not only did you burn down my home, you also burned my books. I had always dreamed of becoming an author, studying English at Sittwe University, but as you know, the Rohingya are banned from enrolling or studying there, so I sought inspiration from books and articles. You burned Nelson Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom…You burned Leymah Gbowee’s Mighty Be Our Power. And you burned your own book, Freedom from Fear. You are the one who is responsible for setting my hopes and dreams on fire.”
I agree with this young girl that the Nobel peace prize should be removed from Aung San Suu Kyi, because it has been tainted with the blood of the Rohingya.
I applaud what the Minister is doing. I know that he was the first western visitor to the region, and I know that he is trying to build a consensus on the five priorities, to tackle poverty and injustice in the area. I urge him to move forward with that.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Rohingya are the most persecuted minority in the world, and their persecution is not a recent phenomenon; it is of long standing. People are being rendered stateless in their own land. If they are not being beaten, murdered or raped, they are being starved, literally, because of the closure of food markets in Rakhine state.
The scale of what the Rohingya face is unimaginable, and we have heard many moving examples from Members from across the Chamber. This is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing—let there be no doubt about that—with all the horror that that entails. We have heard about the more than 500,000 refugees who have fled in recent months to Bangladesh, and about the more than 200,000 who were already there, having fled violence previously.
I have been reflecting on the fact that we have had so many debates in this House about whether we should take a few thousand unaccompanied child refugees into our nation—one of the most prosperous on earth—from the ravaged land that is Syria, while Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations on earth, is housing 800,000 refugees. I do not know that we would be so generous if we faced the situation that the Bangladeshis face. As other Members have said, not only must we offer every assistance to the Bangladeshi Government—I welcome the efforts that have been made already—but we must strain every sinew to provide humanitarian assistance and use our particular expertise to support the Bangladeshi Government as fully as we possibly can, and we must implore the rest of the world to do the same.
Shabana Mahmood
I will not, because of the shortness of time; I apologise.
I agree that we should keep a laser-like focus on the military, and I support Members’ calls for arms bans and visa bans for military personnel and their families in Myanmar. I hear the argument about Min Aung Hlaing, the military leader; as others have said, he could stop this overnight. However, I do not want us to get away from the moral responsibility on Aung San Suu Kyi. I take on board the points about the military leadership—I hear the argument saying that she does not have power, that this country is transitioning to democracy, that she has to tread a fine line and that there is a fear of overthrow by the military leadership—but the compromise of transition to democracy cannot come at the cost of turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing. That is abhorrent, and a total corruption of democracy and everything that democracy stands for.
There is an idea that Aung San Suu Kyi has no power, but for many years not only did she have no power, but she did not have liberty, yet she used the one power she did have—the power of her voice, the power to speak out—and now she has fallen silent and brought her Nobel peace prize into disrepute. If she has not been utterly silent, all she has done is to act as an apologist for the military regime and to deny the truth of the crisis that has fallen upon the Rohingya in Burma.
The point about Aung San Suu Kyi raising her voice is so important because she must stand up and make the argument for democracy. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority having a vote and persecuting a minority. It is founded on the principle that human rights are universal, and the universality of human rights must be accepted in Myanmar if it is ever going to be a democracy worthy of the name. That is the argument that Aung San Suu Kyi could and should make, and we in this House must call her out. If we, in the mother of Parliaments, do not stand up for the true nature of democracy, I fear all will be lost.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
In effect, there is no debate in this place this afternoon, because we are all of the same voice and of the same opinion, as we know from the words that right hon. and hon. Members have read out by way of testimony from the Rohingya people who have suffered in this dreadful genocide, and from the right hon. and hon. Members who have seen with their own eyes and listened with their own ears to the plight of these people.
As it turns out, the Rohingya people have been persecuted and treated appallingly not just by the Burmese authorities, but sadly, often by many of the Burmese people themselves, and not just for years, but for decades if not centuries. This is a long-standing problem, but it is now of a scale that is absolutely, totally and without any doubt unacceptable. I praise the British Government for being at the forefront in calling out the terrible, terrible persecution of these people, and for the aid that has been provided thus far.
Our hearts do go out to Bangladesh. It is not exactly one of the world’s richest countries, yet the people of Bangladesh have opened their borders, opened their hearts and given of their limited resources to people who are in the most appalling of situations of flight and plight. One cannot sit in this place and not have been touched to one’s core by the words of the real testimonies we have heard about this atrocious act of inhumanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Those words are all the right ones to use—they convey right hon. and hon. Members’ passion and emotion—but words are not enough. We now need not only action from our Government, with all that they have done, but for our Government to continue to lead across the world in saying to the Burmese authorities that this is not acceptable and we will not tolerate it, and in doing more to put full pressure on the Burmese authorities.
I must say two further things. The first is that I very much join right hon. and hon. Members in the words they have said about Aung San Suu Kyi. She was a woman who I always believed had shown great courage in her overriding humanity, and I am afraid she has let herself down, never mind the Rohingya people. All of us believed so much in what she stood for, and I gravely fear that she has put her own position in the history of our world at peril. How can I argue against those who are calling for her peace prize to be removed from her?
My other point is that when the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and I went to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, we saw people who had been there for four or five years, and she told me about her work in Palestinian refugee camps and about the people who have been there for 15 or 20 years. It worries me more than perhaps anything else that these wonderful, good people may be living in refugee camps for decades to come. They want to go home, and it is our duty throughout the world to make sure that the camps are not still there in decades to come. We must make sure that these people, like all refugees, can go home.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The right hon. Lady mentioned refugee camps in different parts of the world. What is happening to the Rohingya is horrendous, given the testimony that we have heard today. In common with many past disasters, is it not absolutely vital that there is access for agencies so that they can go in and gather evidence and testimony, so that the case can be made and the people responsible for perpetrating the atrocities are brought to justice in the international courts?
Anna Soubry
I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said. I am absolutely sure that all those things will be done. As the Minister explained, the Government have not stood back on any of that. In fact, they want to step up and assist. Somehow, somewhere along the line, it has to be more than words and the sticking-plaster that refugee camps can almost become. We do wonderful things through our great aid agencies and DFID. We are proud as a country that we provide aid in that way, but there is a danger that we do all those great things but do not solve the real problem, which is genocide, racism and hatred of a good people for no other reason than that they happen to be Muslims. It is not good enough, and the world must step up and say, “We will not tolerate this. We will stop this.” It is 2017. The history of the world is ridden with all sorts of genocide. Too often we have stood back; now we must step up and make sure that it never happens again.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
May I begin by conveying to the House the extensive number of responses that I have received from my constituents and others about the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar? I have been contacted by people involved in fundraising efforts and grassroots protests, which provide an outlet for their outrage and dismay. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I have done whatever I can to provide support, particularly by raising funds for refugees in Bangladesh, but we can all do more.
Let us be direct: what we are witnessing is ethnic cleansing. More than half the Rohingya population has fled. Starvation is a new tool that is being used to drive the Rohingya from their homes, in addition to the burning of villages, looting, and the mass use of gang rape, including of young girls and pregnant women. The recent violence is the result of decades of persecution.
I would like to make three short points. First, we should not restrict our criticism to the Burmese military. Aung San Suu Kyi has been a symbol of democracy, the rule of law, and resistance to oppressive regimes for decades, but she has disappointed us all. Not only has she failed to speak out, but she has denied that this is happening. I agree with many of my hon. Friends who have asked for her Nobel prize to be revoked. Supporting freedom and democracy in Myanmar is a laudable aim, but it means nothing if we ignore ethnic cleansing.
Secondly, the Government need to spell out what concrete action they will take to end the persecution of the Rohingya beyond ending the training of Burmese armed forces. At a recent Security Council meeting, the UK’s ambassador to the UN set out five ways in which the Myanmar Government should resolve the crisis. What steps have the Government taken to encourage them to comply? We should look at what economic sanctions the global community could exert to put further pressure on Myanmar and end the violence.
Finally, I would like to raise the issue of sexual violence. The coalition Government drew international headlines with the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict that they arranged in 2014. In response to a written question that I submitted, the Government said that they had urged Myanmar to accept a visit by a Human Rights Council fact-finding mission to investigate allegations of sexual violence. That mission was announced months ago—in March. What additional pressure have the UK Government exerted on Myanmar in response to the recent escalation of violence in Rakhine? We cannot afford accusations of peddling empty words; these issues are too serious to be cheapened by rhetoric.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Some years ago, I secured a Westminster Hall debate in which I said to the Government that although we had been told that there had been a transition to democracy in Burma, its military and junta were still carrying out rapes, murders, systematic discrimination and persecution against the Rohingya people. I said then that we should not have lifted sanctions and been supplying arms to Burma; we should have waited until the Myanmar Government started treating people—especially the Rohingya people—fairly. Sanctions should not have been lifted, and development funds and military assistance should not have been given.
I am afraid that the Government did not listen. Nobody paid any attention. Unlike some Members, I do not accept that the Government have done enough. This issue has been pointed out for a number of years and nothing has happened. After we came back from the recess in September, I raised an urgent question about the current crisis, and I was very disappointed when the Minister for Asia and the Pacific effectively said that what had happened was the fault of the Rohingya. At that time, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty reports showed satellite images of Rohingya villages being systematically burned. Even at that point, more than 100,000 Rohingya people had fled as refugees into Bangladesh. I am afraid that the ministerial response was not good. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are looking a little puzzled, but I can refer in Hansard to the Minister’s suggestion.
Mark Field
This is a very serious issue. It is fair to say that the latest element of the crisis, triggered on 25 August, came about when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army killed a dozen of the security forces. At that time, I made it very clear how massive was the overreaction of the security forces. However, it is also worth pointing out that at the UN, as I shall discuss in my speech, the President of Turkey and Head of State of Malaysia also made the point that this latest element of the crisis had been triggered by ARSA, a paramilitary group.
Yasmin Qureshi
But there has been systematic abuse of the Rohingya people for years. The fact is that Governments around the world—not just ours—and also the UN have been approached about this issue, but nobody has taken any notice.
More recently, things have gone to the extreme. More than half a million people are now in Bangladesh. The situation in Myanmar is such that those people will not be able to come back. We have heard real, cogent evidence of children being raped and murdered in front of their mothers’ eyes. I do not know what proof the world needs that genocide and ethnic cleansing are taking place right now. I am afraid that the international community seems not to have done enough, if anything, to deal with the issue.
It is all very well people saying, “We’ll give you more money,” or, “We’re going to provide money for the people in Bangladesh,” but that is not enough. Loads more money is needed, but the Rohingya people still in Burma now need to be looked after, and what is happening to them needs to be stopped. The powerful nations of the world need to get together and tell the Burmese to stop. Only when they do so will the Burmese actually do that.
I remember the Libya debate in this House. There were fears then that people might get killed. The world came together: we were able to get a UN Security Council resolution and bomb the place. I am not necessarily saying that we should start bombing, but there seems to be a complete lack of action compared with what happened in Libya, although the Foreign Affairs Committee found that the threat there had perhaps not been as imminent as everybody had suggested. Over there, we did not even know who the good guys and the bad guys were; in Burma, it is clear who is carrying out the ethnic cleansing: the Myanmar Government, the army and the military junta. One general clearly said, “This is unfinished business,” so we know what they want. They want to prevent the Rohingya from going back to Burma, where they belong and have lived for centuries.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that because actions speak louder than words, we need to do more now? This has been going on for years, yet we sit back and do nothing, which is the opposite of what we should be doing. Does she agree we should do more now, make a stand, and do all we can to stop this genocide?
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree entirely, which was why I said at the start of my speech something that I think no one else has said today. I said, with respect, that our Government have not done enough. We saw what we could achieve when we invaded Iraq and when we intervened in Libya, and I am not even asking for military intervention. We could do more to stop the situation in Burma. Myanmar is not a rich country. I refuse to believe that if members of the international community put their heads together they could not stop what is happening—the ethnic cleansing, systematic genocide and rape.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady talks about doing more but says she is not asking for military intervention. What would she like us to do rather than say?
Yasmin Qureshi
Years ago, when I raised this matter in Westminster Hall, I said that the sanctions should be maintained, that military assistance should be stopped, and that the sale of weapons from across the world to Burma should be stopped. People need to get together and talk. I do not believe for one minute that if the richest countries in the world said to the Burmese generals, “Stop doing this,” they would not stop doing it—they would. If all the money and military aid was pulled out, they would stop. I am sorry to say, however, that the international community is still sitting and watching while genocide and ethnic cleansing take place.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate, and I am grateful to be called to make a brief contribution, acknowledging the disaster befalling the Rohingya people, described as ethnic cleansing by the UN.
I endorse many of the comments that colleagues have made this afternoon in their many passionate contributions. I pay tribute to the Government for what they have done so far to help the international aid effort, and I look forward to the Minister updating us on the latest from UK Aid Direct when he winds up. I commend the Disasters Emergency Committee for its efforts to raise awareness and funds to combat the human tragedy that continues to unfold, and I praise the efforts of the Bangladeshi Government, as have many others, to help the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have descended on their territory. I also want to mention the efforts of two small UK-Bangladeshi charities, the Sreepur Village orphanage, of which I am a patron, and Shishu Polli Plus. Our founder, Pat Kerr, has collected clothes from the garment factories around Gazipur and taken them to Cox’s Bazar to do what she can to help. I am sure that her efforts are replicated by many small likeminded charities, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the atrocities and the disaster we have heard about this afternoon.
I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations global goals for sustainable development last month when it was addressed by Achim Steiner, the new head of the UN Development Programme. When asked about the situation in Myanmar, he described it as “democracy hanging by a thread”. That thread, in my view, is Aung San Suu Kyi. The Lady has been under house arrest or arrest for 15 of the last 21 years, her country has been a democracy for only 18 months, and my understanding is that the military, under a constitution that it drafted, is guaranteed 25% of the places in both legislative houses and therefore has an effective veto in Parliament over every major decision, since every such decision requires a 76% majority to pass. The military controls Parliament and the forces, so it is the military that is carrying out the atrocities. In addition to that distorting effect, allegations of corruption at the highest level of the military, negative influence from foreign interests trying to exploit Myanmar’s natural resources, and armed movements in regions such as Shan and Kachin—which were mentioned earlier—show that the challenges to the country’s fledgling democratic status are huge.
I would be grateful if the Minister told us what we are doing to encourage Aung San Suu Kyi to live up to the promises that she made in her speech in the capital, Nay Pyi Taw, on 19 September. She did not go anywhere near as far as all of us would have wanted, and I share the disappointment, confusion and frustration that her words have caused, but what are we doing to press her on the invitations that she did issue to the international community to attend, assist, observe and pronounce on her and her Government’s efforts?
I should be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance, for the Rohingya victims and also for Myanmar’s democracy. If democracy—with all the attendant respect for human rights for every citizen—does not prevail, the atrocities suffered by the Rohingya for so many centuries will continue.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this important debate—although, as other Members have said, it is not really a debate, because most of us agree. We are all horrified. We have heard the details of atrocities for weeks in the House, and none of us can have failed to be shocked by the child beheadings, the rape, the murder and the burning of homes—the ruthless targeting of innocent civilians.
The recent outbreak of violence against the Rohingya people began on 25 August, nearly eight weeks ago. I want to know—and Members in all parts of the House are asking this question, as are my constituents—what the British Government have done in the meantime. I applaud the efforts that we have heard about today, but do they go far enough? My constituents want to see an end to the military action that the Rohingya are still facing in Myanmar. They want to see the naming and shaming of the military leader. They want to be sure that humanitarian aid is reaching the people in Myanmar and the camps in Bangladesh.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that access to Myanmar is crucial, and we must ensure that the United Nations and non-governmental organisations have access to those who are left there in a vulnerable state, living and enduring this nightmare?
Julie Cooper
Absolutely, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point.
My constituents and I—and, I am sure, many Members on both sides of the House—want to see the British Government lead not just in respect of the naming and shaming of the military and on humanitarian aid, but in the long term, when the current crisis has calmed down, in respect of a permanent solution that will implement the recommendations of the Rakhine commission. That is vital. Points have already been made about the British Government’s taking a lead, and I would say, “So we should.” We have a moral obligation: our history dictates that ours should be the loudest voice in the world on this issue. We should not be content to leave it to the United Nations or the European Union.
There is a strong perception that we have still not done enough, and that more must be done. Indeed, nearly eight weeks on, not much has been done, and Burma Campaign UK is very critical of our lack of action. I know that we may have gone further than it is suggesting, but we have not gone far enough, and we must do more. I want ours to be the loudest voice. I hope the Minister will confirm that when we have delivered the humanitarian aid, when we have stopped the violence and when we have taken the honours from Aung San Suu Kyi, we will lead in securing a permanent, peaceful settlement for democracy and the rights of everyone in Myanmar, particularly the Rohingya Muslims.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this important and impassioned debate. I pay tribute, too, to all those who have contributed to the debate, particularly those who visited the area recently and have given their accounts in graphic detail; that has greatly helped to ensure that the debate be taken more seriously.
The Rohingya Muslim population in Myanmar has faced persecution for decades. They have been marginalised and victimised, and have had their rights withdrawn by a Government who do not recognise their ethnicity, their language or their customs, and who have sought, through different ways and means, to oust them from land the Rohingya have occupied for centuries.
The disproportionate and overblown retaliation by the Myanmar military, which began on 25 August following the violence by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, which left 12 police officers dead, has now been publicly declared by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as
“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”,
and we have already heard some of the reasons why.
The Myanmar military and its civil Government led by the now disgraced Aung San Suu Kyi have refused to allow humanitarian agencies to enter the country to inspect the situation. If I may digress, I would like to point out that Sheffield has already taken steps to remove the freedom of the city award from Aung San Suu Kyi over her silence on the violence that has unfolded, and I hope that the Nobel Committee will also review and reconsider revoking her peace prize.
The reports of systematic human rights abuses are harrowing, and no doubt we have also seen the shocking images broadcast of the Rohingya fleeing their homes and livelihoods. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that the Myanmar military forces, often accompanied by individual Rakhine Buddhist villagers, have surrounded entire Rohingya villages, firing indiscriminately at villagers, setting houses and land on fire, and threatening villagers nearby that if they do not flee the same will happen to them, with the effect of both expelling Rohingya from Myanmar and giving them no option of return. These actions were, as the report notes,
“executed in a well-organized, coordinated and systematic manner”.
The same report gives first-person accounts of young and teenage girls having suffered sexual violence, a tactic we see too often in war and conflict. In one account quoted by the report a 25-year-old woman recounts the moment she heard her sister being raped, saying that four men
“in uniform took my sister when we were hiding in the hills; they raped her in front of us as we were hiding behind the trees.”
Over 500,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh, and they tell similar stories of destruction, killings and sexual violence. What we are witnessing, after proclaiming “Never again” so many times before, is surely
“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.
This is all happening in the view of all of us and the international community.
I urge the Government to explore what more they can do to support the efforts to tackle the humanitarian crisis and to continue to lead the international pressure to address the root causes of the crisis: the policies of the Myanmar Government and the actions of the Myanmar military.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this timely debate. With the world sitting and watching the events unfold in Burma with fear and trepidation, we need to bring the Rohingya people some hope—some hope that we can help them find a solution, some hope that one day they can return to what is left of their homes as real citizens of a country they are very much a part of.
Many of my colleagues have talked movingly about the systematic rape, murder, pillaging and burning of villages. Human Rights Watch says that as of this week almost 214 villages have been destroyed. We have heard accounts and seen videos of children and the elderly being burnt in their homes, of mass rapes and murders, and the forcing of the Rohingya people from their country.
The numbers, the methods and the actions show a clear and systematic intent, and it is essential that we continue to repeat UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s description of the Government operations in northern Rakhine state as
“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.
Is it acceptable for the Burmese Government to defend the actions of their military and militias while systematically carrying out the eradication and removal of a people, and for them to escape proper censure from the British Government?
Yesterday I welcomed a Bangladeshi human rights activist, Mokon Miah, to Bradford. He told me of the pressures that Bangladesh is facing in dealing with this crisis. The country faces its own challenges, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) succinctly outlined earlier. We need to support not only the Rohingya but Bangladesh and the work that it is doing.
Only two weeks ago, I was approached by a delegation from the British Rohingya community, whose UK headquarters are based in my constituency of Bradford West. They are currently in Bangladesh supporting refugees. My office has worked closely with the Rohingya diaspora community in Bradford, including individuals who have lost members of their direct family in violence in Burma. We must come together and find a way of ending this violence. We know that the distribution and routes of aid within Burma are still difficult and that the Government there are still blocking access, which is despicable. They have already taken so much; now they are leaving people to starve to death. What progress has been made on providing aid within the Rakhine state?
The persecution of the Rohingya is sadly nothing new, as many Members have said today, but maybe this is the time—if our Government can be stronger and if the institutions can show some strength and protect people globally—for us to find a way to help to change these people’s future. The eyes of the world are on the situation in Burma, and the generosity of the British people in giving to the relief effort demonstrates the global will to eradicate this form of evil from our world. The conditions are right to find a sustainable and long-term solution to the identity conflict that exists.
I plead with the Government to consider introducing targeted sanctions against the Burmese military and to look at their business interests in that area. Only then will we get the Burmese military—not just the leadership—to accept what is going on and change the status quo. Great Britain has the power to bring in targeted sanctions, and I ask the Minister to tell the House what is stopping us taking this action that is so needed. Hundreds of thousands of people are relying on us to act and to show them the support that they so desperately need.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
I would like to begin by congratulating my honourable colleagues for securing this important debate, and of course I echo many of the concerns that hon. Members have already raised. I am pleased that there are so many people here today to add their voices to the call for an end to violence against the Rohingya people. This is the third time in recent weeks that I have raised the persecution of the Rohingya people with the Government. Unfortunately, despite continued pressure from myself and many other Members on both sides of the House, very little progress has been made on this issue. I welcomed the long overdue announcement of the suspension of British military ties to the Myanmar armed forces, but there is still so much more that must be done. We are here today to urge the Secretary of State to do more.
The persecution of the Rohingya people has been allowed to continue for decades. Indeed, the UN has referred to the situation in Rakhine state as a
“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”,
and yet the international community has stood back and watched as the Rohingya people have suffered at the hands of the Burmese authorities. This most recent outbreak of violence is the most aggressive that we have seen in recent years, and we cannot remain silent. I am sure that many Members will have seen the harrowing reports from those who have escaped from Rakhine state, and we have heard many horrific stories in the debate today. We have heard reports of elderly people being burned alive in their homes; of innocent civilians being shot as they tried to flee; of girls as young as five being sexually assaulted by soldiers; and of expectant mothers giving birth on the hillsides as they made the journey to Bangladesh. The levels of suffering and brutality that these people are facing cannot be imagined by the majority of us here today.
It is unbelievable that that has been allowed to happen in the 21st century, yet it has become a daily reality for the Rohingya, over half a million of whom have been forced to flee to Bangladesh after being driven from their homes by violence, fear and starvation. The situation is becoming increasingly dire in Bangladesh, where close to 70% of refugees are without adequate shelter and half have no safe drinking water. The efforts of the Bangladeshi authorities and the aid agencies simply cannot be sustained without more support. The international community must do more.
This truly distressing situation has inspired many to take action to support the Rohingya, and I want to take this opportunity to commend the work of two of my constituents. Mohammed Abubakar Ahmed and Mohamed Amir Siddiq exceeded their initial target of £6,000, raising over £30,000 to help the Rohingya. They are travelling to Bangladesh entirely at their own expense to support the refugees in any way they can. That is just one example, but I know that it being repeated across the UK.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Before the recess, I handed in a petition on behalf of my constituents, and I have received several emails since then requesting that I ask the Government to do more. They have suspended the training of Burmese military, but that is not enough. A constituent of mine also pointed out that the media were slow to pick up on the situation, so I want the Government and everyone else to note that the media should have starting reporting a lot sooner.
Faisal Rashid
I totally agree that the media have a great responsibility to raise awareness of the issue.
It is now the Government’s turn. Will the Minister commit today to take further action, such as imposing travel bans and freezing assets, to ensure that the civilian and military authorities in Myanmar put a complete end to any further violence? Will he commit to providing financial aid directly to the Rohingya through non-governmental organisations to ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the needs of the refugees who have been forced to flee their homes? Will he also ensure that the British Government take action so that those responsible for these horrific crimes are held accountable for their actions? In the face of systematic persecution, we have a duty to humanity and to the Rohingya people to speak up and take action. We must fulfil that duty.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
For the purposes of this debate, I declare that the Prime Minister of Bangladesh is my aunt.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this important debate. As everyone has said, the situation is not a recent phenomenon. Myanmar’s history shows that the systematic oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya has been going on for decades.
I hope that Members will allow me to speak about the experiences of my mother, who visited the refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh last month. The UN states that, as of 5 October, half a million Rohingya are living in those refugee camps, and the stories that my mother told me are harrowing. She spoke about a woman whose baby was ripped from her bosom and thrown into a fire by military personnel. Another woman told her how a toddler was snatched away from its parents, put on the ground and stamped to death by the military. Young children have been raped in front of their elderly grandparents. There has been systematic abuse and gender-based violence against the Rohingya.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
What my hon. Friend and other colleagues have recounted is horrifying. Does she agree that, in addition to physical humanitarian aid, we urgently need to get psychological and psychotherapeutic support into Bangladesh to help the people who have suffered such appalling horrors?
Tulip Siddiq
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. My mother described the women and children. Women are the largest group in the refugee camps, and they are dead behind the eyes.
My mother is not a stranger to suffering. She fought in Bangladesh’s independence war in 1971, in which 3 million people were killed—it is called a genocide. She said that what she saw in the refugee camps has all the hallmarks of a genocide. It has been going on for so long, but the acceleration of violence in recent months means that the world has finally woken up to what is happening in Myanmar and to the fate of the Rohingya.
What can the Government do? I implore them to do a few things. First, they should push Myanmar to allow these people, who desperately need it, to access humanitarian aid. They should build on the sanctions already in place at EU level. They should ensure that we cut all links with businesses and investors that have anything to do with the military in Myanmar. They should join the UN’s global arms embargo.
On a lighter note, I am often asked the Norman Tebbit test. I always support the underdog because I am a socialist, so in cricket I always support England. I am proud of what Bangladesh has done. As hon. Members know, Bangladesh is a very poor country. Having lived and been to school in Bangladesh, I know there is enormous poverty in that country. Bangladesh has opened its doors and accepted people who are so vulnerable, and I call on the Government to support Bangladesh because it cannot handle the sheer numbers of Rohingyas who are crossing the border. Those people are desperate to live, but they do not have the means and resources to go on.
Tulip Siddiq
The hon. Lady has done an enormous amount of work both in the Rohingya camps and, more generally, in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh. The situation is so disgraceful because this is not fake news; it is real human suffering. I will be going to the Rohingya camps in December, but I do not need to go there to know what is happening on the ground. We need to speak up for the most vulnerable people in the world right now.
My mother told me there are women in the camps who wait and look over the sea desperately hoping that their men will join them soon. They have not let go of that element of hope, but all they see are the dead bodies of people who have tried to cross to safety—the journey is too dangerous. Urgent help is needed.
Returning to the Norman Tebbit test, I am proud of Bangladesh, but I would like my Government, the British Government, to help it to ensure we stop this ethnic cleansing and genocide so that people point to my country, England, where I am an MP, and say, “They are the people who helped to stop this crisis.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes. If there are interventions, some people will not be able to speak at all.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who is no longer in her place, for enabling us as parliamentarians to bear witness to this atrocity and to hear extremely powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House; but sadly, speeches are not enough.
Anyone who heard the testimony a few days ago of the mum whose young daughter’s hand slipped out of hers in the raging sea as they tried to reach the sanctuary of Bangladesh on a boat that was barely seaworthy, or who heard the young son who carried his skeletal, disabled mum, barely alive, talk about how he watched the soldiers burn his village—he is unsure where the rest of his family have ended up—or who heard about the three children and their mum who were trampled to death by wild elephants as they slept, having been forced to build their temporary shelter on elephant walkways owing to the unprecedented numbers of refugees huddled in the forested hills of Balukhali, cannot fail to be heartbroken.
These are people—people like all of us in this Chamber. They are women and children, exhausted, injured and traumatised after walking for days. More than half of all new arrivals are children, and one in 10 is a breastfeeding mother. They are human beings who deserve to live in peace. We cannot stand by; we must call it out. The scale of suffering is unimaginable. Over half a million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. They are destitute, scared and hungry. But the Myanmar Government refuse to accept what the world knows to be true: we are witnessing ethnic cleansing. Farah Kabir from ActionAid has said:
“'In nearly 15 years of working on humanitarian disasters I’ve never seen a crisis on this scale. The scale of need is far outweighing the response.”
If anyone saw the recent posting on Twitter of a drone flying over the refugee camp in Bangladesh, they would have seen that the conditions for those who do manage to escape are barely fit for animals, let alone human beings.
Yet it seems as though the world is holding the coat of the oppressor, standing by, wincing when it is all too much, but doing nothing to protect the victims. We need political will. We need to pressure the EU to support a UN-mandated global arms embargo. Yesterday, EU representatives met to discuss the crisis and issued a joint statement suspending invitations to military leaders, reviewing defence co-operation with Myanmar in the light of the disproportionate use of force against the Rohingya minority—
Tracy Brabin
I will keep going. The EU had also placed an embargo on weapons and equipment. That is all good, but it is not enough. We need to ban new investment in and business relationships with military-owned companies and members of the military and their families. We need to reinstate the annual General Assembly resolution on human rights in Myanmar. The international community, including the European Union, has failed the Rohingya, and hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children, have paid the price. To do nothing is unacceptable. To speak without taking action is unacceptable. It is time to have courage to do the right thing. The Rohingya are counting on us because we are all they have got.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I had a speech ready and, as happens on all these occasions, I might as well just put it down on the Bench. However, I do not need to say a lot of what has been said already, because the way in which people have articulated the plight of the men, women and children who have suffered and these human stories has been touching; there were points during the debate when I could barely keep composure. In some ways, that is what makes me proud of this Parliament and proud to be British—the fact that our values drive our decisions, and that we do not allow inhumanity to take place and stand aside as though it had nothing to do with us.
I am proud of the contribution my constituents have made. I attended an event in Coldhurst where people were fundraising and I know the mosque community has raised tens of thousands of pounds for the refugees. But in many ways what people really want is for the end to be in sight, and it feels as though that is so far away. The plight of people who are fleeing will continue, as will the uncertainty about whether they have a homeland to go back to at all. Even if they do, what is there to go back to? Their homes have been torched and there is no infrastructure. Even before this—35 years before—they were denied their citizenship. They were denied education, the right to free movement and the right even to hold government jobs. This community has been persecuted for a long time, while the international community has stood by and allowed it to happen because this is not quite important enough to be on the agenda.
The time has come for us to have the courage of our convictions, to stand up for the values we stand for as a country, and to say that we will not stand by and allow ethnic cleansing—genocide—to take place on our watch. We do have a historical legacy there and we cannot deny that, and it is right that we put that right. If people in Britain question why the UK Parliament is discussing an issue in a land far away, as some have said online and on social media, let me say this: bring this back home and consider what it would be like if it was your daughter who had been raped when she was five years old, your son who had been killed when he was 12 years old or your father who had been burned to death in the house you once lived in. Just imagine if you were in that situation. What would you want to do? You would hope to God that there was somebody in another land who was willing to step up and do the right thing to save them, wouldn’t you?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this incredibly important debate and for all the work she has been doing to ensure that the Rohingya have their voices heard. I thank her and all the other hon. Members for their powerful speeches this afternoon, calling out ethnic cleansing for what it is. I am not going to repeat the catalogue of horrors that others have documented so clearly in all their terribleness, but I do want to say how important it is that this place is speaking out so powerfully. It is shameful that we have not heard that same level of urgency and outrage from our Government. It matters because people throughout the country and further afield are watching, and they do notice what we say and do not say. They cannot understand why there has not been greater condemnation, and not only from here in the UK; we heard from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) what happened at the EU meeting yesterday, with those present failing even to use the words “ethnic cleansing”.
The repercussions of this conflict and the lack of response to it go right around communities far from Myanmar. I recently had a meeting in my constituency with the Brighton & Hove Muslim Forum, at which community members powerfully expressed their shock at the senseless nature of the atrocities that are being committed. They also shared their deep concern that inaction from international leaders and the relative silence on matters that affect the Muslim diaspora have the potential to isolate Muslim communities here at home. The danger of inaction is not only yet more terrible suffering overseas, but the potential for greater radicalisation here at home. Young people are asking why the mass-scale scorched-earth campaigns, the blocking of access for humanitarian organisations, the deep concerns about the repatriation of refugees and the need for EU action are not getting more attention. Community leaders in my constituency warn of the risk that young people’s anger and sense of injustice might make them even more susceptible to being recruited to go over there and fight. We must act on this appalling human injustice, not only because such terrible atrocities are being committed, as we have all heard this afternoon, but because in so doing we will be able to demonstrate to our Muslim communities and young people that we in Parliament share their outrage at this appalling crime against humanity.
There is so much more to be done. In the 20 seconds remaining to me, I simply wish to add my name to those of all the people who have called for much greater action from Governments. They have called for support for a UN-mandated global arms embargo, for humanitarian aid access, for the revival of the UN General Assembly resolution on human rights in Burma, for visa bans on military personnel, and for the military to stand trial for the crimes against humanity that they have committed.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I shall break with the conventions of the House by not repeating what has already been said by other Members. In the limited time I have on the clock, I wish instead to focus on what additional things need to be done in response to the most unspeakable ongoing atrocities affecting the Rohingya in Myanmar.
What discussions has the Minister had with the military and civilian authorities in Myanmar about improving humanitarian access to northern Rakhine and the other parts of the state that are currently inaccessible to NGOs? The Government have faced criticism for not being as strident as they might have been in their criticism of the Myanmar Government. I wonder whether that has borne some diplomatic fruit, but I have certainly recognised that the Government’s language has strengthened as we have seen a lack of progress from the Myanmar Government.
We must consider the question of regional leadership, and particularly China and India’s roles in influencing the Myanmar Government. Will the Minister say something about that?
Members from all parties have rightly commended the Government of Bangladesh. The humanitarian response of one of the poorest countries in the world really ought to make this country—one of the richest in the world—blush when we think of debates in this Chamber about our response to refugee crises on our own shores. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in EU member states and other countries around the world about how they can support the Government of Bangladesh? Money is of course important but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, there is also a need for psychological support and other capacity building to support the Government of Bangladesh.
What conversations has the Minister had with his counterparts in Bangladesh about the registration of refugees, and particularly about the risk that some refugees might be treated unfavourably, depending on the route they found themselves taking across the border?
The International Organisation for Migration has been tasked with leading the response co-ordination so far, which has of course been welcome, but is it not now time for the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to step up to ensure better co-ordination, particularly bearing in mind the upcoming conference in just over a week?
On operational space and planning, accommodation is understandably trumping other services, including nutrition stabilisation. What more can we do to support the Government of Bangladesh to make sure that sufficient space is available for such critical services? People have praised the Government of Bangladesh, but there have been some issues with how the Bangladeshi military is confining people to the camps. What support and training can be provided on that?
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Let me add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this debate. On behalf of many of us, may I say to her and to the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and for St Albans (Mrs Main) that the debt that we owe to them for the courage with which they have borne witness and given testimony this afternoon is really very significant? The level of violence that they have described has sent a very clear signal to all Members that what we are watching in Myanmar today is the creation of a new dark heart in Asia.
The incalculable violence is simply the prelude to what is a strategy of scorched earth, with the destruction of hundreds of villages, the landmines across the border, and the destruction of cultural and religious institutions. What Members have described this afternoon is certainly ethnic cleansing and certainly war crimes. It is a level of barbarism that we have seen in places such as Rwanda and Bosnia, and we have to say very clearly this afternoon that that will not go unpunished.
The message that we send from the House this afternoon is that we will not look away. We will ensure that justice is delivered and that, whenever we can, we will see the leaders of these atrocities in The Hague on trial for war crimes.
All totalitarian regimes down the ages have traded on delusion, fear and silence. We are not under any illusions in this House. We are not afraid and we will not look away until justice is finally done. We will not tolerate this and we will certainly not appease it. We are not an empire, thank God, but we have a moral responsibility. We are, thank God, still members of the EU. We still have membership of the UN Security Council. We are still a leader of the Commonwealth.
This House expects the Government to use every instrument at their disposal to mobilise the international community around the aims set out in this debate. We must be unflinching in our determination to see justice. I hope that the Minister will be able to set out clearly why we should not see an EU ban on arms sales and new investment. Why would we not expand the visa ban on military personnel and others of interest? Why would we not see an end to all EU co-operation around training for senior personnel in Myanmar, and why would we not reinstate the annual General Assembly resolution on human rights in Myanmar? The arc of history is long and it does bend towards justice, but we do not have forever. We need to end this injustice now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, although this is not an easy subject to talk about. Some of the experiences that we have heard about today are heartrending and bring tears to our eyes. I have spoken about this topic before, and am happy to speak on it again and to say very clearly that this persecution must be brought to an end as a matter of urgency.
Some years ago, I watched the film “The King and I”, in which the King of Burma sent a slave as a gift. That was make-believe, although perhaps it was partly from history, but now it is a reality that takes place every day for many thousands of people. The Rohingya have been denied identification cards, all freedom of religious practice, and access to employment and most social services.
The UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have described the violence as “textbook ethnic cleansing”. Myanmar has received billions of dollars in aid since 2011, but has now prohibited aid organisations from delivering lifesaving food and humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya Muslim population. Can the Minister tell us what has been done to address that issue of getting aid through to the people who need it the most? As other Members have said, the Bangladeshi Government have stepped up to provide limited humanitarian aid to Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, and some 30 NGOs have been cleared to operate in the region since September. I am worried that Bangladesh still has plans to forcibly relocate Rohingya refugees to Thengar Char, an uninhabited, undeveloped coastal island that is often flooded and submerged during monsoon season.
Christian minorities in Myanmar, such as the Kachin, Chin and Naga peoples, have also been persecuted by the state. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there have been incidents of intimidation and violence against Christians, the forced relocation and destruction of Christian cemeteries, violent attacks on places of worship, sexual violence in church compounds, torture, and an ongoing campaign of coerced conversion to Buddhism. To date, approximately 120,000 Christians out of that massive number of 800,000 refugees have been forced to flee their homes.
There is concern among some NGOs that although Bangladesh has been more hospitable to Rohingya refugees since the most recent wave of violence, that policy could change. I ask the Minister for a commitment to financial assistance for Bangladesh to ensure that it can continue. The Minister is a compassionate man and a man of feeling who understands the issues—I mean that genuinely and sincerely—so will he call for the Myanmar Government to review or repeal the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law to grant the Rohingya their citizenship rights? If that happens, they could have some hope that they might someday return. What more can be done and would the Foreign and Commonwealth Office be prepared to do it?
This House stands with the voiceless. We stand for and alongside those who have been tortured, and who have suffered pain and violence.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The latest data show that 164,000 people born in Bangladesh held British nationality in December last year. In addition, there are many tens of thousands of British citizens who were born in this country, but whose parents were born in Bangladesh. This country has strong family ties with Bangladesh, and we all benefit from sharing, both economically and culturally.
The Bengali community in Ipswich is seriously concerned about the plight of the Rohingya. Bangladesh itself went through a period of oppression, with thousands of refugees created there before that nation’s independence, so the people of Bangladesh and the Bengali people here in the United Kingdom understand the ordeal that the Rohingya are suffering. I am glad to be able to say that non-Bengali residents in Ipswich are also joining in the campaign to assist the refugees, in solidarity with their Bengali neighbours.
More than half a million Rohingya have fled across the border to Bangladesh in the past couple of months. That is a cautious estimate, as the number is probably now well over 800,000. This number is the same as or greater than the total immigration of non-UK nationals to this country in the whole of last year yet, according to the International Monetary Fund, the GDP per head in Bangladesh for 2016 was just £2,700 in purchasing power parity terms. For the UK, the figure was £29,500—more than 10 times as much.
It is often said that the poorest countries are the most generous, and it is certainly the case that the Rohingya who have managed to reach Bangladesh have found a ready welcome, and real sympathy and support, but we cannot stand by watching this humanitarian crisis unfold and expect Bangladeshi people to be able to deal with it on their own. Private individuals do a lot. I am pleased to hear about the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) who have raised so much money, and I fully intend to work with the residents of Ipswich to do the same, because they care, but I call on our Government to do more to support the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and the Bangladeshi Government, who are faced with this humanitarian crisis in their midst and really are not able to cope on their own.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on organising and leading such an important debate.
More than half a million people—mostly Rohingya women and children—have fled violence in Rakhine state, seeking refuge in Bangladesh. The latest reports from Amnesty International speak of massacre, murder and brutality on a huge scale, with women raped and tortured, and children shot in the back by the Myanmar military as they flee. The latest arrivals in Bangladesh have said they were driven out by hunger because food markets in Myanmar’s western Rakhine state had been shut down and aid deliveries restricted by the Burmese authorities.
The Government have donated £30 million in aid and pledged to match £5 million in donations to the DEC appeal for people fleeing Burma. The public response to this humanitarian crisis is profound. I pay tribute to all the fundraising efforts in my constituency of Bedford and Kempston—from the efforts of faith groups, mosque leaders, schools and charities to individual giving. That fundraising shows human nature at its best, and I am sure it will make the difference between life and death to those who are suffering terribly.
Families in Bangladesh are living huddled beneath sheets of plastic, with no access to clean water or toilet facilities. Let us not forget that that is the fate of the survivors. It is difficult to know exactly how many people have been executed, burned alive, raped or slain in their homes and villages, but it is in the thousands. Those responsible must be held to account. Myanmar’s military cannot simply sweep serious violations under the carpet by announcing another sham internal investigation.
While aid is vital, we know that money can only do so much. We must find a political solution to end this barbaric persecution so that the Rohingya can return home in a dignified way to rebuild what is left of their devastated communities. The international community must help to ensure that no Rohingya refugees are forced back to Burma if they remain at risk of serious human rights violations.
Aung San Suu Kyi has been rightly condemned for her refusal to intervene in support of the Rohingya, but she has since pledged accountability—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his contribution is at an end. I did not mean that unkindly—he has done very well—but his time is up.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Much has been said about the situation, and I will say nothing more about it. I merely want to add my voice to the concern expressed at the reaction of the British Government and the international community as whole.
On issues of human rights in recent times, the global north has been very long on rhetoric and very short on action. We have seen the atrocities in Darfur; we have seen the great city of Aleppo turned to rubble; and now we have this situation in Myanmar and the terrible plight of the Rohingya people.
There is something that connects so much of this. Is there a crisis in the UN itself when China and Russia refuse to accept a resolution that would condemn what we are seeing and that would see action? Is there a crisis in some countries including our own, because as we turn inwards, with huge concern about immigration, we turn away from the refugees fleeing atrocities across the world and we have so little to say?
This country was at the centre of the UN declaration of human rights in the first place. That came out of the huge atrocities committed by Hitler and out of the holocaust. That was a time when we learned that the plight of refugees is something we must face directly. It was also a time when we learned that ethnic cleansing and genocide should be condemned robustly and bravely.
Because of Britain’s historical relationship with Bangladesh and Burma, there is a moral responsibility in this House and on this Government to lead the charge across the world as we see human rights in crisis. These people are among the very poorest. Just as we have seen, on the continent of Europe, Greece, one of the poorest countries, picking up the burden of refugees from Syria and north Africa as most of Europe looks in the other direction, we now expect Bangladesh, in Asia, to do the same. This needs strong condemnation and a country aware of its own history and global history. This is a moment to stand up bravely for human rights.
Mr Speaker
I ask the representative of the Scottish National party not to exceed seven minutes because—I emphasise this to the House—a lot of people have put questions and I think it is important that the Minister has a proper opportunity to respond. I also want the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) to have a minute or two to respond at the end, in conformity with the usual practice on these occasions. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) is an obliging fellow, and I am sure he will oblige us.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try to reduce my speech significantly because the key points have been made, particularly on the awful atrocities that have been happening to the Rohingya people in Myanmar. We have heard horrific stories from Members around this Chamber, beginning with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). Those atrocities include Government soldiers stabbing babies, cutting off boys’ heads, gang-raping girls, shooting 40 mm grenades into houses, burning entire families to death, and rounding up dozens of unarmed male villagers and summarily executing them. That says it all. When the UN branded the Burmese Government’s actions as “textbook ethnic cleansing”, that was being polite, to say the least.
For those who have survived to get into Bangladesh, the torture continues—not directly from the Burmese military but from malnutrition, cholera and other diseases. Save the Children has warned that over 14,000 children are already suffering acute malnutrition and over 250,000 refugees need food urgently. Sixty per cent. of all refugees going into Bangladesh are children—more than half. This is the story that should be dominating our national newspapers and on our television screens day after day, instead of the Cabinet’s squabbling, yet it goes largely ignored. We have heard about the history of this. It has been going on for decades. As Human Rights Watch has said, the Rohingya have faced
“decades of discrimination and repression under successive Burmese Governments. Effectively denied citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law, they are one of the largest stateless populations in the world.”
As we heard earlier, the International Development Committee has just begun an inquiry into the situation in Myanmar for our first report on the subject. My colleagues and I on the Committee will be going to Myanmar and Bangladesh and reporting back here as soon as we can. It is encouraging that the Department for International Development announced on Thursday that it will pledge £2 million to the crisis in addition to the £3 million it has already donated. The Scottish Government have also played a key part in pledging £120,000 to be made available for the emergency response.
I want to turn my attention to the UK Government’s decision to provide UK taxpayer-funded training to the Burmese army to the tune of £305,000 a year. The UK Government initially claimed that the training related to human rights, but were later forced to admit that only one hour in a 60-hour training course covered human rights. Considering the history of the Burmese military, the decision to train and trade with them is a spectacular failure of this Government’s foreign policy. The UK Government announced only last September that military training contracts between the British military and Myanmar would be immediately suspended, and I welcome that. However, ending the free training programme should be just one small part of a wide range of measures that put pressure on the military to end its violations of international law.
For too long the international community has tolerated the intolerable. Therefore, the UK must put strong international pressure on the Burmese civilian and military Government to stop the persecution and help negotiate a process for the protection of the remaining Rohingya in Myanmar and the return of those who have been forced to flee. There must also be a full restoration of international sanctions and a global arms embargo on Myanmar, and this needs to be imposed now. The UK Government must take the lead in building international support for this.
I was sorely disappointed when Aung San Suu Kyi refused to speak out against the violence as Myanmar’s de facto leader. In fact, her silence was so deafening that even fellow Nobel prize winners such as Desmond Tutu urged her to intervene to help with the crisis. Aung San Suu Kyi has been a hero of mine for a long time. She was imprisoned for nearly two decades after calling for democracy and human rights under the country’s oppressive military. She played a part in inspiring me to become involved in politics, as I am today. In a recent speech to Myanmar’s Parliament, she denied that there had been any “armed clashes” or “clearance operations” since 5 September this year. However, last week, in a welcome move, she announced plans to set up a civilian-led agency with foreign assistance to deliver aid and help to resettle Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state.
I appreciate that Aung San Suu Kyi may need to be careful not to inflame the situation further, as her adviser has said, and that she may have little influence over the powerful military. However, as a politically elected representative of the Government, and as someone who has championed human rights for decades, she has a moral responsibility, as well as a political one, to do right by all her people, which includes the Rohingya.
Many parts of the UK have already taken action. Glasgow City Council has written to Aung San Suu Kyi to give her one month before she loses the freedom of the city. My own city of Dundee is in the process of writing, and I have spoken out publicly. I would like to send a message to Aung San Suu Kyi today in the strongest terms. Her Government must now speak to the military, community leaders of Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists and the international community to end the cycle of persecution and violence, to prevent further loss of lives and homes, to restore law and order, to prevent violence from spreading to other parts of the country and to stamp out the online xenophobia that has been watched by the world.
I would like to end with some important words that inspired me in the past:
“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”
Those are not my words, but the words of Aung San Suu Kyi. I therefore urge her to act fearlessly in the face of power, in the face of those who surround her and in the face of those who are committing—all of us in this Chamber can call it what it is—genocide on this earth as I speak.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. We can now enjoy the brilliance from Bishop Auckland for a maximum of seven minutes.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for initiating this debate, to the Backbench Business Committee for giving it time, to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for describing the testimonies that she has heard and to the other 28 Members of the House who have spoken so passionately this afternoon.
The whole country has watched in horror as hundreds of thousands of people from Myanmar have been forced out of their homes and across the border into Bangladesh. The motion before us this afternoon is surely right. The UN defines ethnic cleansing as
“a purposeful policy…to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”
It includes murder, torture, rape, severe physical injury to civilians, forcible removal, displacement, deportation of a civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks as well as the destruction of property, and robbery. These measures are clearly present in Myanmar. The office of the UN human rights commissioner found grave and serious violations, including the rape and murder of children. Rohingya villages in Rakhine state have been destroyed so as to ensure that the refugees cannot return to their homes. If they do, it would be to a barren wasteland that once held their crops, livestock and livelihoods.
The scale of the violence inflicted on civilians by the Myanmar military cannot be justified as a proportionate response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. In fact, the UN makes it clear that a strategy was pursued to drive out the Rohingya before this, violating their rights and traumatising them. It is very disappointing that Aung San Suu Kyi did not immediately condemn the military actions. I saw the Minister’s dispatch from his recent visit on the BBC, and I have to take issue with the way he expressed himself. No one is asking her to emote, as he put it. The horror of the crimes needs simply to be acknowledged. They speak for themselves. It is vital that we all put responsibility squarely where it belongs: with General Min Aung Hlaing, who has overseen the calculated attack on the Muslim Rohingya over many months, if not years.
I wrote to the Minister in September about a number of things, including Amnesty’s report on landmines. He replied to me, but he did not mention that. Could he please also raise that with the Myanmar Government?
The UK has a special duty to both Myanmar and Bangladesh due to our historical ties. The Foreign Secretary evidently knows them well, but reciting Kipling is not appropriate. We want to express our understanding in the form of an effective policy. The British public have been typically generous in responding to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, and I urge people who are concerned to give in that way. It is the most effective way to help the Rohingya refugees, and I am pleased Ministers are matching the funding from the DFID budget.
It is now vital that we press the Myanmar Government to allow full humanitarian access to Rakhine and full, unhindered access for the UN Human Rights Council’s independent international fact-finding mission, and to allow independent media organisations to report freely. Will the Government encourage other countries to contribute to the £437 million target, which is the UN estimate of what is needed? It is essential to get the information that will secure the prosecution of those perpetrating crimes. Will the Minister go back to his colleagues to see whether more money can be made available from the British Government so that disease is not the next thing to be visited on the refugees?
It is now evident that the British Government need to be prepared to take a tougher line with the military of Myanmar. Will the Government please consider imposing personal sanctions and visa restrictions against the military and their families; promoting an international arms embargo mandated by the UN along the lines of the EU’s; and halting investment in and business with military-owned companies, and ending any aid flows to parts of the country that they control?
We need a long-term, sustainable solution. Myanmar has the highest number of stateless people, and until all minorities in Myanmar are equal under the law and are able to gain political representation, the transition to democracy for which so many have struggled for so long will not be complete.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for initiating this debate. I think all of us admire her heartfelt dedication and commitment to the Rohingya, and I appreciate the strength of feeling shown in the House during the debate. Given the constraints of time, I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I deal in writing over the next few days with some of the specific issues that have been raised.
I very much welcome this opportunity to update the House on the Government’s actions to address the appalling situation facing the Rohingya in Rakhine state. This has of course been a fast-evolving crisis over recent weeks. I pay tribute particularly to the hon. Lady, but also to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who have been there recently, for what they said about what they saw, at least from the Bangladeshi side of the border.
As many hon. Members will know, the recent and continuing violence in Rakhine is, tragically, only the latest manifestation of very long-standing hostilities. The Rohingya have suffered terrible persecution over several decades. Their already very limited rights, if we can call them that, have been eroded by successive military Governments, and as people without citizenship—stateless folk—they have become increasingly marginalised in Burma and, indeed, at times in Bangladesh as well.
The Rohingya have previously been victims of outbreaks of sustained violence and displacement, including in 2012 and as recently as October 2016, but the movement of people since 25 August and the violence by the security forces have been on an unprecedented scale. Deadly attacks on Rohingya communities by vigilante groups have also been reprehensible, and it is deeply concerning that these incidents have reportedly been carried out in collusion with the Burmese security forces.
As I have said, the consequences of this violence are appalling. I saw that for myself when I travelled there at the end of last month, as the first western Minister to visit Burma since the crisis began. What I heard in Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine state, was truly heartbreaking. When I visited camps in Burma, the descriptions of murder, rape and other human rights violations and abuses that I heard about—they had taken place only a matter of weeks earlier—were horrifying. Over half a million Rohingya refugees have fled their homes and crossed into Bangladesh. Others, including members of other ethnic communities, have been internally displaced within Rakhine in recent times. This is a human tragedy and a humanitarian catastrophe.
I want to say something slightly personal in relation to the issue of ethnic cleansing. Many Members recognise that we are reluctant to use that phrase. There is a personal reason for that and a broader reason. We have been trying diplomatically as far as possible to secure movement from the Burmese Government. In fact, there has been quite significant movement by Aung San Suu Kyi, which I shall come on to. There is also a more personal reason, which goes back to the rather provocative statement from the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). My mother was ethnically cleansed as a German national in the early months of 1945. She moved from the part of Germany in which my forefathers had lived since the 1720s, and to which she was able briefly to return as a visitor in her 50s. I have never seen that part of the world.
It is because the phrase “ethnic cleansing” is loaded with great emotion and a sense of finality that I have been relatively reluctant to use it. That is not in any way to disrespect the Rohingya, but we still maintain hope that many of them will be allowed to return safely to Burma—it may be a forlorn hope. However, I accept that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that the situation seems like a textbook case of ethnic cleansing. I conclude, I am afraid, that that appears to be an increasingly accurate description of what has happened.
What is essential now is that the Burmese Government and the security forces enact the positive measures announced by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi on Thursday evening. That includes the establishment of a new civilian-led body to oversee the return of those who have fled and the development of Rakhine into a state, perhaps with martial aid, in which all communities can live together sustainably. The security forces should ensure that the Rohingya feel safe to return. They must, in my view, permit a massive upscaling in international humanitarian relief in Burma that is desperately needed to reach those who remained in Rakhine or, we hope, will return there.
Within the international community—I am glad to say that most Members, although I accept not all, recognise this—the UK is playing a leading role, and it is right that we should do so for historical reasons, in seeking a solution to this political, diplomatic and humanitarian crisis. We continue to engage extensively with the Burmese Government to seek an end to the violence, and to secure full humanitarian access to Rakhine and the return of those Rohingya who have fled. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Aung San Suu Kyi twice in recent weeks, and I held face-to-face negotiations and discussions with her in Nay Pyi Taw, the capital of Burma, on 27 September. During my visit I pressed civilian and military officials to stop the violence, to allow humanitarian access without delay, and to commit to the safe return of the Rohingya.
Ministerial colleagues across Government have been putting pressure on the Burmese Government and military. We have suspended military visits from Burma as well as our defence education co-operation. We are calling on the EU to do likewise. In response to the terrible humanitarian situation across the border in the refugee camps in Bangladesh, DFID is providing extensive assistance, and I want to thank my colleagues in that Department for playing an important role in mobilising international support. Bangladesh, as we know, faces an almost insurmountable challenge in providing genuine assistance to those refugees. Within days of the latest outbreak of hostilities, the UK Government, as has been pointed out, pledged an additional £30 million in support. Those funds are providing essential shelter, food and water to those in desperate need. We want to do more—far more—and the message from the House today will be heard loud and clear in that Department.
I visited Bangladesh after Burma last month, together with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). We met Bangladeshi Ministers and senior officials, the UN and other development officials, and expressed our appreciation for the support that they were providing. In turn, they appreciated the UK’s leadership in providing humanitarian aid on the ground. We have also been working tirelessly to focus international attention and pressure on the Burmese security forces. We have raised the subject of Burma three times at the UN Security Council, and convened an international meeting in New York with Kofi Annan only last Friday. The Foreign Secretary also convened a meeting of Foreign Ministers at the UN General Assembly in New York on 18 September, and I was the only European Minister to address a meeting on Burma organised by the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation the following day, at which the UK Government were specifically singled out by the OIC’s secretary general, a Saudi Arabian gentleman, for our diplomatic, political and humanitarian leadership in response to the crisis.
Through that engagement, we have galvanised the international community around a five-point plan: the security forces must stop the violence—no major violence has been reported since 5 September; full humanitarian access within Burma must be secured; refugees must be allowed to return to Burma in a voluntary, safe and dignified manner; the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, chaired by Kofi Annan, must be implemented rapidly and in full; and above all, Burma must grant access to, and fully co-operate with, the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission.
Although the civilian Government have started to make progress on these points, the Burmese security forces have not yet heeded the call. We are discussing the next steps in the Security Council to increase the pressure. However, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) discussed, getting a UN Security Council resolution requires the co-operation of both China and Russia, which we reckon would be likely to veto any such resolution.
My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon has made our concerns clear at the UN Human Rights Council, where we have mobilised the UN’s human rights machinery to address the situation. We have helped secure a six-month extension of the UN fact-finding mission to Burma so that it can properly examine the serious reports of human rights violations coming out of Rakhine, as well as the other conflicts in Kachin and Shan states. The role of neighbouring countries in restoring peace and security will inevitably be vital. That is why we continue to talk, despite our differences, with China, and with India and other regional states, to encourage them to play their part in resolving the crisis.
As I mentioned earlier, I also held talks with State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi when I was in Burma. I very much understand the criticism and grave disappointment felt by many in the House, who previously regarded her as a heroine. However, if we fail to acknowledge—in part, at least—the pressures she is facing, that does not help us move towards solutions. She is walking a very fine line between international condemnation and Burmese public opinion, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) pointed out, overwhelmingly supports what the security forces are doing, terrible as that may sound.
Weakening Aung San Suu Kyi strengthens the military’s hand. Given how the security forces have attacked and persecuted the Rohingya in recent weeks, that is a terrifying thought. We must all help make a better future for the Rohingya still in Burma and for those who return. We also want to represent all the other people in Burma—there are many from all communities—who yearn for the human rights and democratic freedoms that we all enjoy. During our talks, Aung San Suu Kyi reiterated her pledge for a transparent process to allow for the return of all Rohingya who have fled to Bangladesh. She pledged to me that she would start immediately to implement the recommendations of Kofi Annan’s Advisory Commission on Rakhine State.
As I mentioned, in the past week Aung San Suu Kyi has publicly outlined a plan and vision for resolving the crisis, including the establishment of a civilian force to deliver humanitarian assistance, the resettlement of refugees, and long-term development. The UK Government are watching closely to ensure that her positive words translate into swift action. We will keep challenging her to ensure that our five-point plan is implemented. I think I can speak for everyone in the House when I say that we stand ready to ensure that she gets whatever international political and technical support that is required to put the plan into place.
It was all too clear from my heartbreaking meetings in Rakhine with Rohingya Muslims, ethnic Buddhists and Hindus—civilians who had been forcibly displaced from their homes and had witnessed almost unspeakable atrocities—that communities in Burma remain deeply polarised. A palpable sense of mutual fear and mistrust remains.
The terrible events in Rakhine have been the saddest of reminders of these divides and of just how far Burma still has to go to become an effective civilian democracy. Resolving the current crisis and helping democracy truly take root will require sustained diplomatic and humanitarian engagement. Ultimately, however, only a democratic transition can embed any long-term progress and rights for the Rohingya. We will continue, through diplomacy, slowly but surely to press the civilian Government for rapid progress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said in his wise speech, the UK is unpopular in Burma for its activism on Rakhine, but there is much that the UK Government have already done and much that we shall continue to do on the humanitarian front. I must add in conclusion, however, that we also have vital diplomatic and political work to carry out. We cannot allow the humanitarian issue to crowd that out. If we do, future military dictatorships will believe that they can act with the same impunity in similar circumstances.
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House for their moving contributions, for the unity of purpose and for their support for the motion. In particular, I thank those who spoke from direct experience of visiting camps and who spoke out about the appalling situation facing the Rohingya. Their testimonies were extremely powerful. It is vital that we continue to let the world know of the plight of the Rohingya refugees.
I also pay tribute to the British people for their support for the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and to the people of Bangladesh for their generosity in campaigning and providing humanitarian assistance on the ground, where they now have a million refugees to host. I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution and the representations he has made on behalf of our Government, but I must emphasise the importance of the UK playing a leadership role in seeking a global arms embargo. Even if China, India and Russia oppose it, it is important that we can defend our position and that we do not regret our own lack of action or failure to put pressure on the military. It is also important that targeted sanctions against the business interests of the military be taken seriously and that the Minister provide an update on that point, which he did not address in his response.
Finally, I want to reiterate that we have been here before: in 2012, when more than 100,000 Rohingya Muslims were displaced; last year, when the military instigated this scorched-earth policy; and again in September. It is going to happen again. It is the military’s intention. Unless our Government and the international Government put pressure on the military, we will be back here again. I hope that we are not.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that the treatment of the Rohingya by the Myanmar Government amounts to a textbook case of ethnic cleansing.
Mr Speaker
I thank all colleagues who took part in today’s important debate. We come now to the Adjournment debate on the sale of puppies. Notwithstanding the excitement among colleagues, it is inexplicable that anybody should now choose to leave and not wish to hear the debate, both for the eloquence of the initial speech and with a sense of anticipation as to the Minister’s reply, but if colleagues insist on leaving, I know that they will do so quickly and quietly so that we can hear Mr Chris Evans.
Sale of Puppies
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss the legislation relating to the sale of puppies in Great Britain, and the need for stricter enforcement of licences and inspections of breeders.
Owning a puppy can be a rite of passage for so many people. Being responsible for a dog is part of growing up. I still remember the very first puppy that we owned. I remember my mother going to Aberdare Corn Stores to buy a small puppy, which we called Pep, for £5. He lived until he was 17: he was one of the lucky ones. Even today, I am delighted that my own son Zac will grow up knowing the companionship, the loyalty and the friendship that owning a dog brings.
As I said, my mother paid £5 to Aberdare Corn Stores for our first dog, but those days are long gone. More people shop online now than ever before, so why should finding a puppy for sale be any different? Puppies are found and purchased without the buyer ever knowing where the dog has truly come from, or having any information about the breeder. People buy on the assumption that the puppy must have been bred in humane conditions. Sadly, that is not always the case, which is why there is now a need to discuss and review the problems with the current pet sale legislation and the licensing of breeders.
The sale of pets in Great Britain is governed by the Pet Animals Act 1951, which covers breeders as well as third-party sales groups such as pet shops. It is old legislation, predating the internet. Let me put the Act in perspective. When it was passed, Winston Churchill was leader of the Conservative party and Clement Attlee was leader of the Labour party. It was passed three years before Elvis Presley would have his first hit record, and teddy boys were walking the streets of Great Britain. All those are long gone.
That means that there is currently no law in the UK to regulate the sale of pets online. It would seem to be madness for us to legislate today for technological developments that will come 60 years in the future, but effectively that is what happened 60 years ago. The lack of regulation has consequences. Many unlicensed breeders have slipped off the radar of the local authorities responsible for them. Without regulation, the welfare of animals is compromised and unscrupulous breeders make tens of thousands of pounds in tax-free profit from naive buyers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman brings great issues to Adjournment debates and other debates in the House, and I congratulate him on that. Does he agree that simple humanity should dictate an end to puppy farm breeding, and that there must be legislation to formalise standards for anyone who wishes to sell a puppy, whether it be a pedigree dog or a mongrel?
Chris Evans
Of all the Members whom I expected to intervene on my speech, I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to do so in particular. He is a fantastic parliamentarian and I know that he loves this place. Again, he has made a very good point. I do, however, ask him please to let me continue my speech, in which I will answer his question.
Battersea Dogs & Cats Home suggests that 88% of puppies born in the UK are bred by unlicensed breeders. Many people are falling into the trap of buying puppies from third-party sellers such as puppy farms, and some puppies are illegally smuggled from Ireland and Eastern Europe. Those who run puppy farms and puppy-smuggling businesses are rarely concerned with the welfare of their dogs and puppies. The mothers are treated like machines, bred within an inch of their lives, producing far more litters of puppies in a year than is legally allowed. They are kept in horrific conditions. “Unpicking the Knots”, a report produced recently by Blue Cross for Pets, found that many dogs were kept in enclosed spaces such as rabbit hutches, and without water. As an animal lover and a dog owner, I find that completely abhorrent.
The puppies and their mothers are seen not as sentient beings, but merely as pathways to profit. Puppies are seized from their mothers long before the 12 weeks for which they are supposed to stay with them are up and are sold, malnourished and without vital vaccinations, to unwitting buyers. As a result, many irresponsibly bred puppies end up with life-threatening illnesses such as parvovirus and kennel cough. New dog owners are then faced with the financial and emotional hardship of ongoing veterinary treatment or, in many cases, the death of the puppy, which means that the buyer has essentially spent hundreds of pounds on a dog who lives for no more than six months.
Although, as I said earlier, our dog lived for many long years, I remember the first thing that happened when we brought him home from the pet shop. His hair fell out because he was infested with mange. We took him to the vet and found out that he was only two and a half weeks old. His eyes had just opened. I accept that that was many years ago—in 1989—but it still happens in this day and age.
Snatching puppies from their mothers too early can have ongoing impacts on the lucky dogs that do make it. The first 12 weeks of a dog’s life are its most important, with those crucial moments socialising with its mother and littermates dictating the dog’s future temperament as an adult. As a result, dogs born of irresponsible breeding often grow into anxious and aggressive adults, which can lead to additional costs being incurred in training and behavioural classes for the owners.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman describes very well the puppy farms, which are disgraceful and operate in agricultural terms in southern Ireland. Does he agree that Operation Delphin at the port of Cairnryan in my constituency, which to date has led to the seizure and return of over 500 puppies, has been a huge success? Does he also welcome the fact that that pilot scheme has been extended for another year, so it is to be hoped that the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will now be able to get on and send even more puppies back to the farms they came from, and stamp out this illegal trade?
Chris Evans
I know of that case in Dumfries, and it is a brilliant example, but as I will say later, this is all about enforcement, as there is only so much the Government can do through legislation. They should, however, look at the examples the hon. Gentleman has raised as a way forward.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am listening with great interest to the powerful case the hon. Gentleman is unfolding about the horrors of this trade. He mentions enforcement, but does he agree that there might be a role, in addition to the legislative aspect he is looking at, for education for the public, so that people know the questions to ask of the seller? If they know there are certain red flags to suggest the puppy has come from an illegal source, that might help.
Chris Evans
To make a wider point, a fantastic aspect of this debate is that so many people have come to me with solutions. The hon. Gentleman is right: there should be a multifaceted attack on puppy farms and illegal dog breeding, and it should include education and raising red flags, as he suggests.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I am pleased to be attending it. Good friends of mine who are intelligent human beings who really worry about the care of animals have been taken in by puppy dealers, and by the role played by the child of the puppy dealer, pretending that the puppy in question is a loved puppy that has been with their family for ages. They can be completely unscrupulous in the stories they tell and the ways in which they dupe members of the public.
Chris Evans
These puppy breeders will go to any lengths to make a case and secure a sale; it is all about profit.
I will use the example of my current dog; he is a fantastic dog with a great temperament. The key difference between the purchase of my first dog, which my mother bought from a pet shop, and that of my current dog is that I went to a reputable dealer, and met the mother and father, and saw what the puppy was like. The dealer also provided examples of what other puppies from that litter were like. There was a lot of further important information, too. I also had an information pack, so I knew who I was dealing with. We have had a fantastic time with the dog I have now.
In this age of modern technology, consumers are increasingly turning to online shopping to purchase their goods, and it is no different when buying a puppy. However, as I have mentioned, online sellers are slipping through the net and are becoming increasingly difficult to regulate and identify.
Blue Cross has been working in partnership with classified ad site Gumtree, which has been able to track repeated advertisers of puppies. It found that online sellers were using multiple email addresses, placing hundreds of adverts over the course of 24 months, and selling in multiple local authority areas—all the classic signs of a puppy farmer.
These cases are only a drop in the ocean of the wider problem of unlicensed breeders abusing the legislation. The Pet Animals Act 1951 must be updated in line with modern internet use. I know the Department has in the past said that it believes the definition of a pet shop to be wide enough to include the sale of pets online, but the horrific reality of what is happening says otherwise. However, updating the legislation is only one way in which we can tackle the problem. It is also vital that we are firmer with the enforcement of licences and with inspections of breeders, which must be more frequent and thorough.
In Wales, we are steps ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to regulating dog breeders. The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014 enabled the Welsh Government to enforce stricter rules for those wishing to breed dogs for profit. This is certainly a step in the right direction and I urge England and Scotland to follow suit, but the legislation is only as strong as the practices of the licensing officers. As elsewhere in the UK, local authorities in Wales are severely underfunded, and licensing officers are therefore not fully equipped or trained to do the job at full capacity. Many juggle multiple job roles, from inspecting food outlets in the morning to assessing dog breeders in the afternoon. Without full animal welfare training, licensing officers are unable to properly assess how fit a breeding establishment is for purpose. As a result, many puppy farms are issued licences. It is important to realise that this is not a Wales-only problem, a Scotland-only problem, a Northern Ireland-only problem or an England-only problem. It is a problem not only for the four nations but across European borders, and we need joined-up thinking on this.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing forward the debate this evening. As a fellow Welsh MP, he will know that one of the great embarrassments for us is the fact that puppy farming is quite prevalent to the west of our constituencies. My opinion on puppy farming has changed considerably since I went on a DEFRA Committee visit there last year. I was for puppy farming, but having visited a puppy farm, I changed my mind completely. The dogs were not allowed to be dogs; they were just breeding machines. I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must point out that in Wales the law is already there and that the problem lies in its enforcement.
Chris Evans
That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman and I are both south Wales MPs. If anyone visiting Pembrokeshire drives down the road from Swansea to Carmarthenshire, all they will see are signs saying “Puppies for sale” and “Dogs for sale.” They might wonder why people are constantly selling puppies and dogs. Enforcement is the real issue; it is the crux of the problem. We might have the legislation but we also need strong enforcement.
I understand that in enforcing stricter and more robust licensing laws, the work of the already thinly stretched and underfunded local authorities will increase. There is an urgent need for additional funding for local authorities, but the expertise of the third sector can also have a role. That is why I advocate charities such as the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the RSPCA working alongside the local authorities to aid them with inspections and with the enforcement of licensing standards. We cannot rely solely on the third sector to fix all our problems, but it is important that we foster collaboration between local authorities and the animal welfare charities that are experts in the area.
We cannot talk about licences without talking about fees. There are no standardised licensing fees for dog breeders, and prices per local authority vary from £23 to £782. It is no wonder that many responsible breeders are so put off applying for a licence. One way of rectifying this is by introducing a risk-based approach to licensing, with the level of risk that a breeding business poses determining the fee. There could be a rating system, with those with higher points and adhering to higher standards of breeding being awarded lower licensing fees. Such financial incentives would encourage compliance with higher standards and better practice—almost like the road fund licence in relation to polluting cars.
In addition to the aforementioned proposals, we need to look further at third-party sales of puppies. Yes, we could call for a ban, but it is clear that the internet is like the wild west at the moment. It is so unlicensed that it would be difficult to clamp down on those third-party sales. I am therefore asking the Government to introduce an information campaign and to make it mandatory for a buyer to see the puppy interacting with its mother and its littermates before purchase; but we would need to ensure that such a requirement could be enforced. As unlicensed breeders become increasingly savvy in working round the regulations of breeding, it could only work if local authorities were given the necessary resources, perhaps using the proceeds of a licensing fee for that purpose. We should also contemplate forcing breeders to provide full seller information when posting adverts, and introducing the practice of assigning every breeder a unique identification number, as France has recently done.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is great that my hon. Friend has secured this Adjournment debate. I have received many letters on this issue, and I want to let the Minister know that it is a real matter of concern for many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.
Chris Evans
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a diligent Member of Parliament and a good friend since I came to the House.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to review the current legislation surrounding sales of puppies and other pets in the UK. The 1951 Act must be updated to regulate online sales of puppies. More importantly, we need to ensure that local authorities and licensing officers receive full appropriate training to do their jobs properly. Once that has been established, we can consider a ban on third-party sales.
This debate has shown the House at its very best, and I know that many Members will support me on this initiative. Dogs bring so much joy to our lives and help us in so many ways. Whether we keep dogs for work, as a health aid or simply for companionship, it is high time that we gave something back to our four-legged friends and afforded them the protection they deserve. My life has been enlightened by owning a dog. Dogs are important to me, and I will own dogs for the rest of my life.
Finally, I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Blue Cross, RSPCA, Dogs Trust and the International Fund for Animal Welfare for their tireless work to improve welfare standards for dogs and animals across the country, and for bringing often ignored issues to the country’s attention. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the constructive suggestions that we have heard in this debate.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate on a subject that is dear to many hon. Members’ hearts, including mine. He gave an account of his first family pet when he was young, and I never give up the opportunity in such debates to talk about Mono, a rather erratic border collie that I adopted from the RSPCA. He lived to a good age and, certainly in the last seven years of his life, had a good life on our farm.
As a Back Bencher and a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I campaigned to change the rules around the licensing of puppy breeding. I was therefore pleased to have the opportunity to become a DEFRA Minister, and then to become responsible for companion animals. For once, I was in a position to see through something that I had sought for some time. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many people and organisations have been calling for more restrictions on the breeding and selling of dogs. I initiated a consultation, which Lord Gardiner has continued, and I now have the opportunity to update the House on some of our plans.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that many of the ideas that he outlined are exactly what we are planning to do and exactly what we have already consulted on. The Government will be replacing existing laws on the breeding and selling of dogs with a stricter licensing regime. The regime will, for the first time, be linked directly to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and will introduce several important changes. First, we will lower the threshold under which a dog breeder needs a licence, moving it from five litters or more to three litters or more, thus ensuring that more commercial dog breeders will be required to have a licence.
Secondly, we will require all dog breeders and the sellers of all pet animals, including dogs, to adhere to statutory minimum welfare standards that will be linked to the welfare needs set out in the 2006 Act. That is important for raising standards and improving consistency in the licensing regimes that local authorities put in place. Thirdly, we will remove the exemption through which some people who breed from their own pet dog claim that they do not need a licence to sell puppies. Fourthly—the hon. Gentleman made this point—we intend to reward licensees who are considered to be at low risk of breaching the new regulations with longer licences and fewer inspections. We could, for instance, recognise those who sign up to United Kingdom Accreditation Service-accredited schemes run by groups such as the Kennel Club, and the new regulations will provide for that.
Finally—this goes to the heart of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised—we intend to make it clear that anyone in the business of selling dogs online will need a licence from their local authority. As he says, our legal view has always been clear that the 1951 Act, which regulates the licensing of pet shops, already provides that anyone in the business of selling dogs, whether they have a shop on the high street or are selling online, requires a licence, but we have accepted in the consultation that there may be a sense of ambiguity. We therefore want to place the requirement beyond any doubt, so I reassure him that we will be doing precisely what he asks for.
There have also been calls for more robust inspections. The statutory minimum welfare standards will have to be applied by local authorities, and the regulations will be accompanied by guidance to which local authorities must have regard. The regulations will require all inspectors to be suitably qualified, and the guidance will set out what “suitably qualified” means.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am pleased to hear about some of the proposed changes. However, who will bear the cost of training suitably qualified inspectors at the local authority level?
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady knows, local authorities already have budgets for such things and departments that deal with animal welfare. We will be addressing exactly what is required by “suitably qualified”. Most local authorities already have people who are suitably qualified, although they might require additional training.
George Eustice
Local authorities are already required to carry out such activity. They already have animal welfare departments and dog wardens, and they already issue licensing conditions for a range of things. They already have trading standards departments. I think I have addressed that point, so I will move on, because other important issues have been raised.
Chris Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for all his welcome proposals. One thing that we have not tackled so far is illegal imports. Supply does not equal demand in this country, because people want more puppies and dogs than the breeders in this country can supply. How do the Government plan to address that real problem? As we have heard, puppies often travel in difficult conditions and die within a few weeks of being in this country.
George Eustice
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I intend to return to that issue.
I conclude on the licensing point by thanking the many stakeholder organisations and animal welfare groups that have already contributed to our contribution and the formulation of these draft regulations. The hon. Member for Islwyn raised a point about the sale of puppies under eight weeks old, and he said that the first dog he had was sold at two and a half weeks. A couple of things are being done. First, the microchipping regulations that were introduced two years ago already require that no dog can be sold until it has been microchipped, and it is unlawful to microchip a dog until it is eight weeks old. In the normal course of events, it is already the case that no dog under the age of eight weeks can be sold.
Again, there is some ambiguity under the 1951 Act, and some people have identified the fact that a small number of pet shops might have been able to sell dogs under eight weeks old. We will put the situation beyond doubt in the regulations by making it clear that no puppy below that age can be sold.
I want to move on to maximum sentences for animal cruelty as that is another important area in which we have recently made some announcements. The issue has been raised a number of times, including in private Members’ Bills promoted by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). The Government have made it clear that we will increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years’ imprisonment. The maximum sentence needs to be increased for the most horrific acts, such as deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour. The offences for which that would apply could include causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and holding organised animal fights. The existing six-month limit does not allow judges to pass the most appropriate sentence in such circumstances. We want to send a clear message that animal cruelty is not acceptable in our society, and a Bill to effect the necessary changes to the Animal Welfare Act will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I turn now to the question of a ban on the third-party sale of puppies. This issue is often raised and the hon. Member for Islwyn, to be fair, rightly pointed out the difficulty that enforcing such a ban might involve. We do not believe that a ban on third-party sellers is necessary, and that view is shared by many stakeholders. We believe that a better approach is to aim for more robust licensing of pet sellers, as well as continued encouragement that people source dogs from reputable breeders and see any puppy interact with its mother, and consider a rescue or re-homed dog first, alongside consumer pressure to drive down the sales of dogs from third parties such as pet shops. The evidence shows that that is already happening, with as few as 4% of pet shops now licensed to sell dogs. That figure is always declining, and the reality is that even fewer shops actually do so.
We want to drive up animal welfare standards rather than introduce bans that are difficult to enforce. That is why the new regulations will set statutory minimum welfare standards for all commercial pet sellers that the local authority must apply when considering whether to issue a licence. There will also be an opportunity to apply higher standards, with pet sellers and dog breeders able to earn recognition so that the better performers have a longer licence, with fewer inspections and a lower fee. We are developing a star system similar to that which applies to food hygiene, and that will be backed up by statutory guidance. The use of a risk-based assessment of operators and an emphasis on cost recovery will enable local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities and target enforcement on the poorer performers. It will also assist the public to make an informed choice when choosing a pet provider.
I turn now to the issue of online sales. I particularly wish to point out to hon. Members that the Department established the Pet Advertising Advisory Group some years ago. DEFRA has already published guidance on buying a pet and has worked closely with PAAG to drive up standards for online advertisements. It is important that we give credit where it is due, so I should like to take this opportunity to praise PAAG’s work, which has resulted in six of the largest online sites signing up to agreed minimum standards for sites that advertise pet animals for sale. The types of measures that have been introduced include: a requirement that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised, with no pet advertised for transfer to a new owner before it is weaned and no longer dependent on its parents; a permanent ban on vendors on a “three strikes and you’re out” basis, so that those who attempt to post illegal adverts can be blocked indefinitely from advertising on any of these sites; and steps to ensure that every “view item” page includes prominent links to PAAG’s advice on buying and selling a pet, which can ensure that someone who is searching for a dog or any other pet is targeted with informative emails to tell them what they need to know so that they will be able to care for that pet. The standards are being applied by half a dozen or so sites, including the main ones. People who are looking online should be advised to keep to those sites that have signed up to PAAG’s minimum standards.
Angela Smith
The Minister is being generous in giving way. I, too, applaud PAAG for its work—it has been very successful—but some advertisements are disappearing only to be found on sites other than the big six. Surely the Minister agrees that the Government have done part but not all of the job of dealing with problems relating to online sales.
George Eustice
As I pointed out earlier, with the new regulations we are putting it beyond doubt that anyone selling online requires a pet licence. That is how the UK Government can address the issue. The hon. Lady will understand that we do not have jurisdiction over a classified ads operation based in Australia, for instance. What we can do, however, is to ensure that anyone who attempts to sell via the internet, wherever the classified ad website might be registered, will nevertheless require a licence. We continue to apply many of the other standards of the code, including the requirement that licensed breeders or sellers must display a licence number, and the need for an advert to include a photo of the pet and to set out its age. We have made good progress on online sales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) asked about the responsibility of buyers. It is a sad fact that unsuspecting buyers sometimes unwittingly provide a lucrative market for rogue dog breeders and dealers. Potential buyers need to take great care when they are considering taking on a puppy. They should always insist on seeing the mother when they purchase a puppy. My hon. Friend asked whether there are warning signs. If someone arranges to meet at a motorway service station to sell a puppy, that should be a warning sign. Before people buy a puppy, they should consider whether they have the right lifestyle to look after a dog for the next 10 to 15 years and, if so, what type or breed of dog is right for them. They should also consider whether they are prepared to spend the sort of money and commit the sort of time needed to look after a dog for the duration of its lifetime.
There is plenty of advice out there to help people to make the right choice when they buy a puppy. Such advice includes making sure that the breeder is a member of the Kennel Club’s assured breeder scheme or signed up to the puppy contract, which is of course supported by many animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Such advice can help to inform buyers before they make purchases. In addition, the new regulations I have outlined will help to ensure that puppies born in a licensed dog breeding establishment have a better chance than those born in backstreet breeding establishments.
Finally, I wish to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) about illegal puppy imports and to talk about some of the work we are doing on that. We are aware that some puppies may be smuggled into this country from abroad to be sold as pets. DEFRA takes the illegal puppy trade seriously. Responsibility for deterring the illegal movement of puppies starts with their country of origin. Dogs, including puppies, and cats, including kittens, that move to the UK from EU member states, or from other low-rabies-risk third countries, must have received a rabies vaccination at not earlier than 12 weeks of age, after which there must be a wait of 21 days to allow immunity to develop. In practice, that means that puppies or kittens that enter the UK legally will always be a minimum of 15 weeks old.
The UK carries out more pet checks at the border than most member states. All pet animals that travel on approved routes are checked for their compliance to travel. Enforcement at the border also has an important part to play in combating the illegal trade. We are grateful for the Dog Trust’s continued support of the Dover puppy pilot. This partnership between the Dogs Trust, transport companies, Kent County Council and the Animal and Plant Health Agency has so far resulted in 649 non-compliant animals being seized and placed into quarantine since December 2015. DEFRA’s Animal and Plant Health Agency has also played a leading role. Crucially, it has helped to age puppies and identify those that have been illegally smuggled into the country when they are too young.
If a transport company suspects that undeclared pets are present in a vehicle, it can alert the appropriate authorities so that they can take the necessary action. Border Force and local authorities share intelligence and monitor movements, and Border Force officials are constantly searching vehicles for a range of things, and when they detect animals being smuggled in illegally, they alert APHA.
The Government are responding to concerns about the welfare of puppies. This issue has been dear to my heart both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister. I am sure that the hon. Member for Islwyn will be reassured to hear that the Government are already implementing many of the measures that he seeks. Indeed, perhaps reading our consultation gave him some thoughts about this area. I am clear that the measures that we are implementing will improve the welfare of our dogs and give them the respect that they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
There is a crisis in mental health staffing levels. Does the Secretary of State accept that today, throughout the country, there are 2,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were when he took charge five years ago?
Mr Hunt
What I accept is that we have 30,000 more professionals working in mental health than when my Government came into office. There has been a decline in the number of mental health nurses, but we have in place plans to train 8,000 more mental health nurses, and that will make a big difference.
[Official Report, 10 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 163.]
Letter of correction from Mr Hunt:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to a topical question.
The correct response should have been:
Mr Hunt
What I accept is that we have 30,000 more professionals working in the NHS than when my Government came into office. There has been a decline in the number of mental health nurses, but we have in place plans to train 8,000 more mental health nurses, and that will make a big difference.
Petitions
The Redwell fields, Wellingborough
Glenfield Children’s Heart Unit
Finance Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 17th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance (No.2) Act 2017 View all Finance (No.2) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 October 2017 - (17 Oct 2017)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, perhaps I should make a few preliminary announcements, which may be helpful to the Committee. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. I remind them that no refreshments other than the water provided should be consumed in the Room. Please would all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or switched to silent mode during sittings. Document boxes are provided, for Members to keep their Bill papers in between sittings if they wish. It would be much appreciated if they could return the boxes to the cupboard at the end of the sitting.
As a general rule, my fellow Chair and I do not intend to call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in a Public Bill Committee is three working days; therefore amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on Tuesday.
Not everyone is familiar with the procedure in Public Bill Committees, so it may be helpful if I briefly explain how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate, if it is required, is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report any written evidence. Then we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the Room, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar and related issue. The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye in order to speak to the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once, depending on the subjects under discussion. At the end of the debate on the group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they want to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wants to press any other amendment in the group to a Division, they will need to let me know in advance.
The assumption is that the Government wish the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Decisions on new clauses will therefore be taken at the conclusion of line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Where a group includes the words “clause stand part”, that means that Members should make any remarks they want to about the content of the clause during the course of the debate. There will then be no separate debate on the question that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Where it is already indicated on the selection list, Mr Walker and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses or individual schedules. Clause stand part debates begin with the Chair proposing the question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. There is no need for the Minister or any other Member to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 October;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 October;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Clauses 6 to 14; Schedule 1; Clause 16; Schedule 2; Clause 17; Schedule 3; Clause 18; Schedule 4; Clauses 19 and 20; Schedule 5; Clause 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 to 24; Schedule 7; Clauses 26 to 29; Schedule 8; Clauses 30 and 31; Schedule 9; Clauses 32 and 33; Schedule 10; Clause 34; Schedule 11; Clause 35; Schedule 12; Clauses 36 to 55; Schedule 13; Clauses 56 to 61; Schedule 14; Clauses 62 and 63; Schedule 15; Clauses 64 and 65; Schedule 16; Clause 66; Schedule 17; Clause 67; Schedule 18; Clauses 68 to 72; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 26 October.—(Mel Stride.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mel Stride.)
The Chair
Copies of any written evidence that the Committee receives will be available to Committee members.
Clause 1
Taxable benefits: time limit for making good
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
May I say at the outset what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth? I look forward to serving under the chairmanship of Mr Walker in due course, and to having a constructive and positive engagement with all Committee members over the next couple of weeks.
Clause 1 makes changes to ensure that there is a clear and consistent date for making good on non-payrolled benefits in kind. Those changes will provide greater clarity and help employers and employees to understand their obligations.
As the Committee will be aware, a benefit in kind is a form of non-cash employee remuneration. The cash equivalent of a benefit in kind is subject to tax and employer national insurance contributions. Making good is where an employee makes a payment in return for a benefit in kind that they receive. A making good payment has the effect of reducing the taxable value of a benefit. For example, a television manufacturer might provide an employee with a television with a taxable value of £1,000; if the employee makes good by repaying the employer £1,000, the taxable value is reduced to nil.
There is currently a range of dates by which employees need to make good on benefits in kind, and for some no fixed date is prescribed in legislation. Employers, large accountancy firms and representative bodies have told us that that often causes confusion and have asked for greater clarity about the deadline for making good. Clause 1 will set the date for making good for non-payrolled benefits in kind as 6 July following the end of the tax year in which the benefit in kind is provided. That is the date by which employers have to notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of any taxable benefits in kind on their P11D form. For that reason, it is also the date by which many employees already make good in practice. This approach has been greatly welcomed by employers.
The change will take effect for benefits in kind that give rise to a tax liability for the 2017-18 tax year and all subsequent tax years. This small but sensible change will bring greater clarity for businesses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Taxable benefits: ultra-low emission vehicles
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
‘(5A) After section 170 (Orders etc relating to this Chapter), insert—
“170A Review of changes to appropriate percentages etc for cars
(1) Prior to 31 March 2018, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the forecast effects of the amendments made by subsections (1) to (4) of section 2 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.
(2) The review shall consider in particular the effects on—
(a) the use of zero and ultra-low emission cars as company cars, and
(b) air quality in towns and cities
in each year from 2020-21 to 2030-31.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”’
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the changes to be made by Clause 2 in advance of their implementation.
Anneliese Dodds
First, I apologise to colleagues —I am full of the cold, and I had a nose bleed this morning given the excitement of the topics that we would be discussing, but I hope that I will be able to struggle through.
We tabled amendment 13 because we believe that it would be sensible for HMRC to undertake a review of the changes to be made by clause 2 in advance of their implementation.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. I am sorry about her cold, and about the excitement that caused her nose bleed. I assure her that there will be no further nose bleeds, because there will probably not be much excitement as the Committee continues, but that is where we are.
Before I respond to what the hon. Lady said about amendment 13, let me remind the Committee about what the clause seeks to achieve. Clause 2 changes the taxation of company cars to support the uptake of the cleanest zero and ultra-low emission cars. As the Committee will be aware, the taxation of company cars is linked to carbon dioxide emissions to promote the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicles. The appropriate percentages for company car tax increase each year in order to ensure that there is always an incentive for company car drivers to choose the most environmentally friendly vehicles.
By 2020-21 the current ultra-low emission vehicle bands in the company car tax regime will no longer support the uptake of the cleanest cars using the latest technology. The changes being made by clause 2 will address that by updating the current two ultra-low emission vehicle bands. From April 2020, the graduated table of company car tax bands will include a differential for cars with emissions of 1 to 50 grams per kilometre based on the zero-emission range of the car. A separate zero-emission band will also be introduced. In addition, the clause will increase the appropriate percentage for conventionally fuelled cars by 1 percentage point in 2020-21, to sharpen the incentive for people to choose ultra-low emission vehicles instead of more heavily polluting ones.
The changes in the clause mean that in 2020-21 a basic rate taxpayer driving a popular battery-powered company car, such as a Nissan Leaf, will be £720 better off compared with 2019-20. That is a saving of £750 per year compared with a basic rate taxpayer choosing an average petrol-powered car such as a Vauxhall Corsa. Legislating in advance will provide certainty and stability for industry and give companies and employees the chance to make informed choices about the future tax implications of their company car.
Amendment 13 proposes that the Chancellor should publish a report reviewing the impact of these changes, focusing on the effects on the use of zero and ultra-low emission vehicles as company cars, as well as air quality in towns and cities in each year from 2020 to 2030-31. I appreciate that the hon Members are trying to ensure that policies are being assessed to ensure they are supporting the uptake of greener vehicles, but a report on our forecasts is not the way to achieve that.
Company car tax rates are set three years in advance, so that companies and employees are able to make informed choices about the future tax implications of their company car. Of course, we have had to take a view of how the market will develop, including for ultra-low emission vehicles, when we set the rates. However, the amendment is asking us to provide a review of the effect of the measure before it has been implemented. It is also not appropriate for the Government to provide commentary on their forecasts, as that could lead to uncertainty that we could make last-minute changes to our proposals. That would go against our policy to announce CCT rates three years in advance for taxpayer certainty.
Hon. Members should also bear in mind that the 2020-21 rates have come out of an extensive consultation with our stakeholders that we carried out in the summer of 2016 into how CCT should be structured. That consultation looked specifically at how to encourage company car drivers to choose the cleanest vehicles. That is what clause 2 seeks to achieve by updating the current two ultra-low emission vehicle bands. Increasing the incentive for people to purchase cleaner cars will help to ensure we meet our legally binding carbon emissions and air quality targets, helping to improve the air quality of our towns and cities and protect the environment for the next generation. Of course, we continue to review the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles as part of our wider strategy on improving air quality. On that basis I believe that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
To conclude, the clause strikes the right balance between supporting the purchase and manufacture of ultra-low emission cars, and ensuring that all company car drivers and their employers pay a fair level of tax. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Pensions advice
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 5, line 22, leave out “£500” and insert “£1,000”.
This amendment would increase the income tax exemption in relation to pensions advice from £500 to £1,000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
“308D Review of use of provisions of section 308C
(1) Within one year of the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the use of the provisions of section 308C in tax years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the use of the relief by persons over 55, and
(b) the use of the relief by women born on or after 6 April 1950.
(3) The Commissioners shall consult the Financial Conduct Authority in carrying out the review under this section.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the use of the new income tax exemption for pensions advice in the first two years of its operation.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
“308D Review of effectiveness of provisions of section 308C
(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effectiveness of the operation of the provisions of section 308C in tax years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the estimated value of the exemption in each tax year,
(b) the effects of the Conditions in subsections (6) and (7) , and
(c) the effects of the provisions on the availability and accessibility of relevant pensions advice.
(3) The Commissioners shall consult the Financial Conduct Authority in carrying out the review under this section.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the new income tax exemption for pensions advice in the first two years of its operation.
Clause 3 stand part.
Peter Dowd
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The extent, nature and quality of advice received by a person wanting a pension is of great importance and significance. That is particularly the case considering that, in 2017, 30% of the working age population is at state pension age or older. The Department for Work and Pensions recently summarised perfectly the importance of pensions advice on its website:
“For most people in the UK, their pension savings will be their largest financial asset, which they will save towards over the course of their working lives”.
That gets to the nub of the matter. Hopefully, most of us will be saving towards a pension for the majority of our lives and we are ultimately relying on that to secure a good-quality standard of living when we retire. Therefore, the advice received matters a great deal.
For many, the securing of pension advice is, given the nature of their employment, for example, not as problematic. People who work in certain sectors, such as the finance sector, on the whole will find that their companies automatically cover pension advice. For others, the cost of such advice is minimal in the grand scheme of things. However, it has to be said that, for those who do not have much disposable cash and whose retirement is dependent on making wise investments with their pensions and ensuring that they save the right amount, good-quality advice is the key to a more secure retirement. I am sure that that will be greeted with unanimous nodding from Government members, if nothing else.
As Committee members know, the financial advice market review was launched in August 2015
“to explore ways in which government, industry and regulators could take individual and collective steps to stimulate the development of a market that delivers affordable and accessible financial advice and guidance to everyone.”
That is a laudable endeavour if ever there was one. It set out a strong and compelling case that there is a retirement “advice gap” for those without significant wealth. Research by Unbiased, an organisation of Financial Conduct Authority-regulated advisers who are independent of product providers, found that those who sought retirement advice increased their retirement savings by an average of £98 a month. However, less than one third of people have accessed financial advice on their pension. The financial advice market review found that many people perceived financial advice to be unaffordable or “not for people” like them.
The advice gap is not getting any smaller. Although the introduction of the exemption for the first £500-worth of pensions advice to employees is welcome, particularly as it replaces the provisions that limited the advice that people could receive—the cap was set at £150—we think that that does not go far enough. Most people in the pension advice sector would reasonably point out that £500-worth of tax-free advice is a relatively small figure given the importance of the decisions that people face. There are genuine questions to be asked about the impact that such a figure will have on the current pensions advice gap and, importantly, on the quality of that advice.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the affordability of pensions advice, but the trustworthiness of pensions advice is also an issue. Even I—I am fairly numerate—do not trust the advice I am given, although fortunately the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority gives better advice than most. Many ordinary people not only think that it is not for the likes of them and are rather nervous, but fear that they are not given correct and disinterested advice.
Peter Dowd
That is a very valid point that people should listen to. As I said before, that goes to the nub of the situation.
In the light of that, I have a number of very reasonable amendments that the Committee members certainly will agree are pertinent, which need to be asked for and which need answers. Perhaps the Minister, who I know is the epitome of helpfulness, could explain to the Committee how the figure of £500 was reached, who was consulted on the figure, and the basis of the figure, in terms of the pensions advice market—or is the figure arbitrary? Dare I say, is there a smokescreen?
I am sure that the Government do not want to be seen to be acting without providing adequate funds to address the root problem. The cost of financial advice will inevitably inform the value of the advice. That is why we have put forward the amendment, which would raise the threshold for tax-free pension advice from £500 to £1,000. Pensions advice is, after all, the greatest protection against the threat of fraudsters keen to prey on some of those in vulnerable positions. Because we are talking about large sums of money that people rarely engage with until the end of their lives, pension savings are often an active target for scams.
We must recognise that as technology makes it easier for us to access our pension pots, it also increases the risk of fraud. This is also true of the reforms brought in by the Government under the previous Chancellor, giving pensioners greater freedom to withdraw a portion of their pensions earlier. That has been a benefit to some pensioners, although it has brought with it substantial risks and the problems that we continue to see today. The Money Advice Service website outlines the common signs of pension fraud. They include unsolicited approaches by way of a phone call, text messaging or emails. Other practices include a firm not allowing a person to call it back, and people being pressurised and forced into making a quick decision, or being encouraged to transfer pensions quickly and to send documents by courier. Contact details provided are mobile phone numbers only, or a post office box address.
Other tactics include claiming to be a person who can help to unlock a pension before the age of 55, which is sometimes known as pension liberation or referred to as a personal loan. This is possible only in very rare cases, such as very poor health. People say they know of tax loopholes, or they promise extra savings. They offer a suggested high rate of return on investments, but claim that the risk is low.
The Money Advice Service recommends that people looking for pensions advice check against the FCA register of approved pension advisers. The Opposition welcome the loosening of the advice that an individual can claim under the tax-free allowance, as I indicated earlier. Over the past few years, it has become apparent that people not only are concerned about the level of savings in their pensions, but have taken a greater interest in where their pension savings are being invested. Of course this is a good thing, and ultimately pension funds should be accountable to the person whose savings they invest.
All these issues that I have raised so far summarise the Opposition’s concerns about this clause and why we have put forward an amendment that would require a review of the effectiveness of the tax-free relief in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. It is important that the Government accept the review, rather than rushing ahead with further reforms that may be considered tinkering around the edges. We are suggesting an increase from £500 to £1,000, and a review of the allowance system in due course.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in another Finance Bill Committee, and I am looking forward to another one coming later this year. It feels like we have been discussing this one for quite some time, so I am glad to finally be at the Committee stage in a Committee Room. Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I wanted to highlight our amendment on this. There have been a huge number of changes in the pensions landscape in relatively recent years. In my working lifetime, we have seen a move away from a final salary pension scheme to career average for the majority of people, even in the public sector. We have seen changes to things such as the lifetime individual savings account and the ability to withdraw pensions. Those are pretty significant changes in the landscape; pensions for people my age look very different from how they looked not that many years ago.
We have also seen changes to the Women Against State Pension Inequality issue, and the equalisation problem. A number of people have come through the door of my surgery and talked to me about how they have been caught by the WASPI issue. If they had had different pensions advice, they would not have retired in the way they did. More than one person who took early retirement now finds that they are caught by the WASPI issue when they should have retired under ill health, which would have given them a completely different outlook on their pensions. If they had had more appropriate advice when they were deciding when to retire, they would have been much better off.
I welcome the Minister’s proposal to make the first £500 of pension advice tax-free; that is an important change and one that we all generally agree with. I agree with the shadow Minister, however, who asked whether £500 is the most appropriate amount. Should it be £1,000? Should it be less? The amendment we have put forward specifically asks about the issues for women born on or after 6 April 1950, because they are the ones who have been caught by this WASPI issue. I am keen to see an increased uptake of pensions advice by those women, because for some of them changing the way in which they retire would make a difference.
Those women have been failed by the system. They have been failed by the Government, who have moved the goalposts and changed the date on which they expected to retire. Some of them retired not long ago and were completely unaware of the change. Those are people who would have read every bit of paper that came through their door. A medical secretary came to my surgery the other day. A medical secretary is someone very diligent about reading bits of information that come through the door, particularly about financial matters that are important for her future, and I believe that she would have chosen a different route to retirement if she had had appropriate advice, and if she had known what would happen on state pension equalisation and what would happen to her.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government have a pretty dire record on protecting pensioners, not least on the WASPI issue, but even on the winter fuel payment?
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely correct; I have seen people come through my surgery door to complain about that as well. I did not quite realise the difference in temperature between London and where I live until I became an MP. In London, I could quite easily not have the heating on at all through the entire year, whereas in Aberdeen my heating is on in September, or even earlier. Heating costs significantly more, so the winter fuel payment is hugely important for a number of my constituents and makes a significant difference to their lives. Those people are in fuel poverty; they have been failed by the system, and it is important to note that.
I will not stretch this out too much, but I must be clear that a number of people have been failed by changes to the goalposts. Those changes might be in how their pension is structured and what kind of pension they will get in the end because of movements away from final salary pensions, or because their state pension age has been moved, or because of things like the Government’s wonderful lifetime ISA, which means that if someone becomes sick, their lifetime ISA is considered a savings pot for benefits and held against them when they try to claim benefits. Therefore, a lifetime ISA cannot be seen as something that can be used instead of a pension, because it does not provide the level of safeguards that a real, proper pension pot does.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes some valid points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. My question is: given that Which? uncovered back in 2015, the fact that the average cost of independent retirement advice on a £100,000 pension pot was £1,863, does she feel that £500 is an appropriate limit for tax relief?
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which highlights the issue. It would be useful to hear from the Minister about why £500 has been chosen, given that a £100,000 pension pot is not the biggest of pension pots and some people will have more in their pension pot than that. We need to hear from the Minister the reasons behind choosing that figure. It would also be useful to hear about how this might affect those women caught up in and disadvantaged by the Government’s changes to the state pension age, particularly those who have not been told about these changes.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Member for Bootle and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to the Committee and the part that they will play in the debates that lie ahead.
Before I respond to some of the detailed points raised, including the amendments, I will set out the purpose of clause 3. As we have heard, the clause introduces a new income tax exemption to the cover the first £500-worth of pensions advice provided to an employee in a tax year. That will increase the affordability and accessibility of financial advice for those saving for retirement through a workplace pension.
The success of the Government’s auto-enrolment policy means that more people than ever are saving into a workplace pension scheme, as the hon. Lady recognised. There has been quite a change to the general territory of pensions. On top of this, the Government’s historic pension flexibility reforms have given people better access to their retirement savings and control over their money, but with more money and more options, individuals may have a greater need for professional financial advice.
The recent financial advice market review conducted by HM Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority concluded that there is a particular advice gap in relation to pensions. The Government are keen to ensure that financial advice is accessible and affordable to consumers, especially those nearing retirement. We want to encourage employers to provide advice to their employees to help them to make informed choices about what to do with their pension savings.
As I said, the changes made by the clause will introduce a new tax exemption to cover the first £500-worth of advice in a tax year. It will apply to advice provided to an employee on pensions savings, and on the general financial and tax issues relating to pensions. The exemption applies whether the employer pays or reimburses the employee for the cost of that advice.
Amendment 14 would double the tax exemption to cover the first £1,000-worth of pensions advice provided to an employee in a tax year. We believe that £500 is an appropriate amount. As the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, that more than triples the current exemption. It also balances the cost to the Exchequer with the objective of encouraging more employers to provide access for their employees to affordable advice. Increasing the tax exemption to cover the first £1,000 also risks inflating the market and making advice too expensive for employers and employees. I can report that we are already seeing the emergence of new forms of tailored advice at a more accessible price of about £500.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about consultation. We have not formally consulted on the changes. As he pointed out, the matter was covered by the financial advice market review consultation, which received 268 responses. Respondents supported the introduction of tax measures to help consumers to afford financial advice. A wide range of stakeholders responded, including employers, individuals and financial services firms. The FAMR also conducted regional roundtables and sought the views of an advisory panel of industry and consumer experts. Consultation on the measure has been deep and meaningful.
On the question whether £500 is the correct amount, as I have explained, this is a tripling of the amount hitherto available. In addition, each employer can utilise the £500 exemption, so an employee who works for two companies may be provided advice by each and benefit from two allocations of the exemption. Although advice can be more expensive, the Government expect more affordable advice propositions to be launched as a direct result of the FAMR. For example, in May 2016 the Financial Conduct Authority launched its advice unit, which will provide regulatory support to firms developing cheaper, automated advice propositions.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of protections against pension fraud. The important point to bear in mind is that this measure covers all formats of pensions advice, as long as the advice is regulated financial advice delivered by an FCA-authorised adviser. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister said the effectiveness of the provisions will be kept under review. Will he commit to ensuring that the review is published at some point?
Mel Stride
As I said, the FAMR body will be conducting a review, which is expected to be published in 2019, and the Government will keep those matters under review on an ongoing basis, as we do all measures of taxation, whether impositions or reliefs.
Peter Dowd
It is crucial that we send the message that the Government are serious about helping people with their pension advice. Although the figure has gone up from £150—a fairly small amount in itself—to £500, we believe that still does not send the proper message about seeking sound advice. Given that, and notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, we will press the amendment increasing the figure to £1,000 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Dowd
Given the assurances from the Minister, no, Mr Howarth.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Legal expenses etc
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
‘(7A) After section 716B (Employment intermediaries, etc), insert—
“716C Review of effectiveness of changes to reliefs for legal expenses
(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effectiveness of the changes made to this Act by section 3 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.
(2) The review shall consider in particular the estimated value of the additional relief provided as a result of the changes in each tax year.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.””
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the changes relating to relief in connection with legal expenses in Clause 4.
Peter Dowd
We all agree that the current model of legal expenses or indemnity insurance for employees is wholly inadequate to the modern workplace. It is worth getting a plug in here in relation to the household insurance that people have for when they wish to defend their position in court, whether criminal or civil. I have experience of some of these policies not being fit for purpose. That goes to the heart of some of these issues, although it is not directly related. I am sure that other Members have had people come to them with insurance policies that they bought thinking they would cover them for this, that or the other, only to find that they are not fit for purpose. It is worth this Committee sending the message out that some of those policies are not up to scratch.
Getting back to the point, under the current system, only an employee who has had an allegation made against them can claim for legal expenses, which will be deducted from their earnings. Potentially, if a person is called as a witness at a public hearing, he or she will immediately be put out of pocket for any legal expenses. Similarly, if an employee is to give evidence at a public hearing, perhaps in one of our Committee Rooms in this building, under the current system they will be out of pocket if they need legal counsel. That is a deterrent to both employee and employer. The measure would tidy up and expand the current, rather vague, provision to cover employees giving evidence at public hearings, which we welcome; however, I have a number of questions.
How many employers will the new measure cover? Will it cover all employers? How extensive is it? Are any particular sectors affected by the measure? What is the estimated cost of such a measure to the Exchequer? Does the measure include cover for employment tribunals? That has been a bone of contention in the past few months, in the light of the Government’s introduction of quite significant fees for people making employment tribunal claims.
Kelvin Hopkins
There is evidence that thousands of people have been deterred from bringing a case to employment tribunals simply because of the fees.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important to tease out the issues. People get confused and deeply worried about these matters, so we need clarity.
Our concern is that the measure will, in essence, be used as a tax break for employers, to the detriment of employees. I am not saying that that is the intention, but it is important to get clarity. Given the lack of detail, we believe that a review of the impact of the changes on the coverage of legal expenses is in order. It would focus specifically on the effectiveness of the measure, the value of the relief and, of course, how many employers and employees it brings within its purview. I reaffirm the point: it is important that this area is clarified and that people know the direction of travel, which is why we moved the amendment, to keep tabs on the proposal.
Mel Stride
Before I address Labour’s amendment 16, I will set out the purpose of clause 4.
The clause makes changes to ensure fair and consistent tax treatment for employees who receive legal support from their employer. Currently, employers may provide legal support or a legal indemnity insurance to their employees tax and NICs-free but, as the hon. Member for Bootle rightly points out, that only applies when employees have had allegations made against them in connection with their employment. Construction workers, nurses or surveyors, for example, may have legal indemnity insurance to provide legal advice in case they are accused of negligence. No equivalent tax treatment for relief is available in relation to proceedings in which no allegation has been made against the employee, such as when an employee is asked to give evidence before a public inquiry.
The changes made by the clause will extend the existing provisions to correct that unfairness. The relief will be made available for expenses incurred in employment-related proceedings where no allegation has been made against the employee. In addition, the clause extends a relief for individuals on termination of their employment or for individuals now deceased, so that a deduction is allowable if the relevant costs are met by the employer on behalf of the individual.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, in particular about the cost to the Exchequer of the measures, which will in fact be negligible. We expect fewer than 1,500 employees in total to require the benefits of the measure.
As we have heard, amendment 16 would require HMRC commissioners to complete a review before 30 June 2019 of the effectiveness of the changes. Such a review would be disproportionate. As I have explained, this is an important but small change to correct an unfairness. As there is no tax to pay, employers do not need to report information about the legal support or legal indemnity insurance provided to their employees. Indeed, it would be burdensome for employers to have to provide such information simply for the purposes of the review sought by the hon. Gentleman. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
The Government acknowledge that legal inquiries can be a challenging and unfamiliar time for employees. The clause will make the system fairer by extending the existing relief for all employees who may require legal advice, helping to ensure that they get the support they need. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Peter Dowd
Again, I appreciate the Minister’s explanations and assurances to some extent, but this is one of those areas that is of importance to people. It is very technical, but teasing the issues out is important. A review might be of specific areas, but reviews often bring up other issues and signpost for us where regulations or the law may need to be changed or tightened. For that reason, it is important for us to send the message that this is something that we will review. Notwithstanding the assurances given, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mel Stride
Clause 6 makes changes to simplify the PAYE settlement agreements process, by allowing employers to propose PAYE settlement agreements without the need to agree that with an officer of Revenue and Customs beforehand. PAYE settlement agreements, or PSAs, were introduced in the 1990s as an administrative easement for employers and HMRC. They allow employers to settle, in a single payment, the income tax liability on behalf of their employees for certain benefits-in-kind and expenses.
In their 2014 review of employee benefits and expenses, the Office of Tax Simplification highlighted a number of issues with the PSA process. In response, the Government launched a consultation in the summer of 2016 on proposals to simplify the process for arranging, and clarifying the use of, PAYE settlement agreements. In line with the Office of Tax Simplification’s recommendations, the changes being made by clause 6 will simplify the PSA process. Employers will no longer be required to submit a request in advance of their year-end reporting obligations. Instead, they will be able to submit their PSA request at the year end and make ad hoc requests throughout the year. It also removes the need for PAYE settlement agreements to be agreed with an officer of HMRC. In addition, HMRC will develop a digital tool to replace the submission of paper returns. HMRC’s guidance will be strengthened and updated, in order to reduce errors and provide certainty for employers.
The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burden for employers. In line with recommendations made by the OTS, clause 6 will help to simplify the PSA process and provide certainty and stability for employers. I therefore move that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Peter Dowd
Although the Opposition have not tabled an amendment on this clause, Members will be aware that we have wider concerns about the overall intention of the measure and, for example, its relationship to the Government’s wider digital tax strategy. We have been clear that, although we support the gradual digitisation of taxation and the capacity it has to remove the administrative burden from HMRC, the self-employed, small and medium-sized businesses and larger companies that have to submit tax returns, we are concerned about the Government’s rush to introduce this timetable, which in our view is ill thought-out—as we have said many times.
In principle, we agree with the aims of the measure, which appears to allow employers the ability to settle income tax liabilities for certain benefits and expenses in a more efficient and timely manner. I do not think any of us would want to argue with that. However, we are concerned about the removal, without assurances, of the agreement of the officers of HMRC in this process. I am sure that that is mere coincidence, given that the measure is being introduced at a time when the Government have reduced HMRC staffing levels by 17% since 2010. I would like to take it on good faith from the Minister that the removal of the need for agreement with an officer of HMRC has little to do with the falling numbers of staff.
The clause explicitly states that this measure aligns with the principles of HMRC’s wider digital transformation strategy and therefore it seems impossible to discuss the clause without also referring to clauses 60 to 62, which introduce the digital reporting of VAT and income tax. Given that link, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about the overall digital transformation strategy at HMRC.
First, how far along is HMRC with this new digital solution that the Government plan to develop? How many pilots have been run of the new software needed at HMRC? How many of those pilots were successful? What is the cost to HMRC of the new software? What is the cost to an employer of using that software? How will HMRC be able to intervene manually to mitigate compliance risk?
The Government have made much of the huge administrative burden that employers face, and of how this measure, along with others, will ensure that employers can submit their PAYE settlement agreement requests at the end of the year and make ad hoc requests during the year, but that is surely completely inconsistent with the Government’s plans to mandate quarterly digital reporting for income tax and VAT. It will remove some administrative burdens for employers with regard to income tax on the one hand, but add further burdens on the other. I would be grateful if the Minister helped us out with that.
Mel Stride
As we have set out, clause 6 makes changes to simplify the PSA process. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Bootle appears to welcome those changes. The Government believe that it is extremely important to lower the burdens on our businesses, which create the wealth and pay the taxes that pay for the public services that, as a civilised society, we all want.
The hon. Gentleman raised making tax digital and the digital changes to the way that tax will be reported. He will know that I laid a written ministerial statement a little while ago that set out a changed timescale for the roll-out of that element. Consequently, no businesses will be involved in making tax digital until 2019 at the earliest, and even then only those at or above the VAT threshold will be involved, and only in respect of VAT reporting. No further roll-out will occur in any other areas until 2020 at the earliest. The Government are in listening mode, and we have listened extremely carefully and reacted extremely positively to feedback from businesses.
The hon. Gentleman raised several pertinent and legitimate questions about the piloting of the making tax digital process. They were very specific, and I do not think for a moment that he expects me to have all the answers in my head, talented though I am.
Mel Stride
And modest—quite. I will ensure that we write to the hon. Member for Bootle to answer the specific questions that he asked in that context.
Peter Dowd
I take the Minister’s assurances. I am sure that he has all the answers in his head, but he does not want to share them at this point. I will be able to read the letter that he sends over a nice cup of tea.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Money purchase annual allowance
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 15, line 11, at end insert—
‘(4A) After section 227G (when pension rights are first flexibly accessed), insert—
“227H Review of effects of changes to money purchase annual allowance
(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effects of the changes made to this Act by section 7 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the change to the tax charge applied in each tax year, and
(b) the behavioural effects of the changes.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”’
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effects of the change to the money purchase annual allowance in Clause 7.
Peter Dowd
The money purchase allowance has its roots in the latter days of the previous Chancellor’s tenure at the Treasury. The pension flexibility measures that were introduced in 2015 gave pensioners those flexibilities if they wished to pay anything further into a defined-contribution pension, but restricted the contributions on which they could receive tax relief. The Government set the money purchase allowance at £10,000, limiting the tax relief that pensioners could receive. The clause will cut that drastically, to £4,000.
The Minister says that the clause is, in effect, an attempt to stop individuals who have already accessed pension savings recycling that cash back into pensions, thereby benefiting from tax relief a second time. I completely acknowledge the concern about that, but a number of pensioners will no doubt be caught by the change. In fact, the submissions that we all received by email and were circulated today allude to that, and I will come to that in a bit more detail.
How much notice have pensioners been given of this planned change? What marketing and targeted awareness campaigns have the Government conducted to ensure pensioners are aware of the change? How much has the Treasury or other Departments spent to ensure that pensioners are aware of the change? I come back to the point I made earlier that this is about the security of people’s retirement. People have planned and are planning for retirement and, what with Brexit and lots of other things going on in the world, we want to keep the uncertainty in life to an absolute minimum. I am sure that everybody agrees with that.
How much does the Financial Secretary believe that the measure will raise? The Opposition feel that there is a clear need for the level of the money purchase annual allowance to be reviewed, and many of the stakeholders who have written to us agree. It is important that the Government take the necessary steps to ensure that pensioners who are caught out by the change are not at an unfair disadvantage.
One submission to Members in the bundle that has been circulated indicates:
“The reduction of the Money Purchase Annual Allowance to £4,000:
a. will create an anomalous position
b. may encourage manipulation of pension arrangements to use the small pots rules to circumvent the MPAA rules
c. will create a differential position between members of occupational arrangements and personal schemes”.
The submission gives a perfectly reasonable example of that, which I will not go into now.
Another organisation, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, also has concerns. It was set up by the Chartered Institute of Taxation to give “a voice to the unrepresented”. I will quote from its submission, because it is pertinent:
“The money purchase annual allowance of £10,000 is very unlikely to catch out too many people who might do this. But reducing it to £4,000 from April 2017–equating to savings of £333 a month–is much more likely to cause problems for these people; especially if thinking about it in terms of someone choosing to save money they might have previously been paying on a mortgage. This is even easier to see as being a problem if we consider that the net of basic rate tax contribution–the amount the individual pays–would be £3,200, ie £266 per month. Such a monthly sum could well be half the person’s previous mortgage repayments and therefore an easy sum to find for topping up their pensions”.
The review laid out in our amendment seeks to review the effectiveness of the measure, how many people it affects and the impact of cutting the money purchase allowance on the overall level of pension contributions.
To conclude, I cannot reiterate this point too much. I do not think it is necessarily a question of our wanting to replace the £10,000 with £4,000, £6,000 or £8,000 or any other figure, for that matter. If the Government have made that decision—and it is reasonable to adjust the figure up or down, whatever it might be—given that this is about people’s pensions and their future in retirement, it is important that we are clear what the impact is going to be. That is why we ask for the review. We all need to satisfy ourselves that when we are dealing with this area, for which people have planned, they are not going to be detrimentally affected at a time in their lives when they may be vulnerable.
Mel Stride
Amendment 17 would require the Government to undertake a review of the effect of the change to the money purchase annual allowance under clause 7. Before I set out why that review would be unnecessary, I want first to remind Committee members of the background to clause 7, and what it seeks to achieve. The historic pension freedoms introduced in April 2015 have given people with savings in money purchase arrangements greater flexibility to get access to their pension savings. Once a person has accessed their pension savings flexibly, further tax-relieved contributions are restricted to the money purchase annual allowance.
Peter Dowd
In the spirit of co-operation and the assurances the Minister gave, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment in relation to a review. None the less, serious concerns have been identified by organisations. The Minister alluded to the fact that there did not appear to be much concern, but that is not what I am hearing, hence the need for a review. However, in the light of the Minister’s assurances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Dividend nil rate for tax year 2018-19 etc
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 8, page 15, line 17, at end insert—
‘(1A) After section 13A (income charged at the dividend nil rate), insert—
“13B Review of effects of changes to dividend nil rate
(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effects of the changes made to this Act by section 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.
(2) The review shall consider in particular the effects on the self-employed.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”’
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effects of the change to the dividend nil rate in Clause 8.
Anneliese Dodds
As colleagues know, the clause changes, from 2018-19 onwards, the amount to which the dividend nil rate applies down to £2,000 under section 13A of the Income Tax Act 2007. The Opposition are particularly keen to hear the Government’s position on what the impact of the change is likely to be for the self-employed, who could be significantly affected. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that today.
That change is occurring in a context where existing changes to tax arrangements for self-employed people have not always been adequately dealt with. For example, HMRC’s electronic portal is frequently raised with us as an issue by tax practitioners. I do not mean to sound like a stuck record in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, but that is occurring in the context of considerable structural change in HMRC, and we know that many people are already struggling to get through to it to receive advice on making tax returns. This measure will clearly have interaction with other allowances, so greater clarification would be welcome.
That is why we are calling for a review. There needs to be more consideration of these issues and the tax system’s readiness to deal with the change. The amendment would therefore require HMRC to undertake a review of the effects of the change to the dividend nil rate in the clause.
Kirsty Blackman
I hear the hon. Lady’s words, but I would probably go even further. We do not agree that the change should be made to the dividend nil rate for a number of reasons. To begin with, those people who are self-employed may have been planning their self-employment for some time and may have been relying on the fact that the dividend nil rate is currently £5,000 in their financial planning. I do not think that there is enough notice for those people who have been making plans to become self-employed. It is not good enough from the Government. There is not enough notice, and the change they are making is pretty rubbish. People on pretty low incomes are going to be hit by some of the change. It is really important that, for example, people who are becoming self-employed for the first time have the nil rate allowance that they thought they were going to have. Those people have not been given enough time to make considerations.
The point raised by the hon. Lady in relation to getting through to HMRC is relevant, particularly given the closures of tax offices and the difficulty that my constituents are having when trying to contact HMRC. The guidance and forms on its website tend to be black and white, but the answer might be somewhere grey in the middle, so people have to phone to get the advice they need to fill in the form online appropriately. As I said, one of our concerns about the general movement towards making tax digital is how people can get advice on filling in online forms, never mind anything else. It is difficult for people to get through to HMRC, and that is a relevant consideration. We are inclined to vote against clause stand part when that comes. However, we would support the amendment, were it to be pressed to a vote.
Mel Stride
Before I respond to the amendment as well as the other points raised in the debate, let me first remind the Committee of what the clause seeks to achieve. As we have heard, it reduces the tax-free dividend allowance from £5,000 to £2,000 from April 2018. The change will ensure that support for investors is more effectively targeted and helps to deliver a fairer and more sustainable tax system. It will also help to reduce the tax differential between individuals working through their own company and those working as employees and self-employed. Crucially, it raises revenue to invest in our public services, raising approximately £2.6 billion out to 2021-22.
Since the tax-free dividend allowance was first announced, the landscape for small business owners, savers and investors has changed. The hon. Member for Oxford East specifically asked about support for businesses in the context of these changes. I can assure her that, as the party of business, we are wholeheartedly behind businesses. First, we have supported businesses by reducing the main corporation tax rate to 19%, which is now the lowest rate in the G20. Secondly, for savers, we have increased the amount of money that an individual can save or invest tax-free through an ISA, by the largest amount ever, to £20,000, nearly doubling the limit since 2010. Thirdly, we have continued to increase the personal allowance to £11,500 this April. We have committed to increasing it further, to £12,500, helping individuals keep more of the money that they earn.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a specific point about response rates from HMRC to telephone contact. That is one of the measures that we are constantly looking at—how good are customer services—and I reassure her that it is one measure where HMRC performance has been relatively strong recently.
The clause should be considered in the context of that wider support for business and the need to deliver a tax system that works for everyone. We also need to take account of the ongoing trends in the different ways in which people are working. The design of the current tax system means that individuals who work through a company can pay significantly less tax than individuals who are self-employed or who work as employees. That can be true even when those individuals are doing very similar work.
At the autumn statement last year, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the faster growth of new incorporations, compared with the growth of employment, would reduce tax receipts by an additional £3.5 billion in 2021-22. By that year, HMRC estimated that the cost to the public finances of the existing company population will be more than £6 billion.
The Government are committed to helping all businesses to succeed, large and small, and in all parts of the United Kingdom, but to deliver and maintain low taxes for everyone, we need a tax base that is sustainable. The cost to the public finances of the growth in incorporation is clearly not sustainable. It is, therefore, right to make the small but sensible change to reduce some of the distortions to which I have referred.
As we have heard from the hon. Member for Oxford East, amendment 18 would commit HMRC to undertake a formal review of the effect of this change to the dividend nil rate by the end of June 2019. It has been specifically proposed that such a review should consider in particular the effect of the change on the self-employed. Such a formal review is not necessary.
As I have mentioned, the change needs to be considered in the context of the wider support that the Government have provided to business owners all across the United Kingdom, from reducing the rate of corporation tax to giving the self-employed the same access to the state pension as employees, worth almost £1,900 more per year, to introducing successive increases to the personal allowance, which is available in addition to the dividend allowance.
Indeed, the Government have given careful consideration to the impact of reducing the dividend allowance. A £2,000 allowance ensures that support is more effectively targeted following this change. Around 65% of all recipients of dividend income will continue to pay no tax on such income. That includes around 80% of all general investors. Typically, a general investor will still be able to invest around £50,000 without paying any tax on the resulting dividend income. Those investors who are affected will have, on average, investments worth around £100,000, which will put them in the top 10% of wealthiest households in the country. I therefore invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
The Government are delivering a tax system that works for everyone, including businesses, savers and investors. As the OBR has highlighted, there is a rising and unsustainable cost to the public finances of the growth in incorporation. The clause would help to address that by reducing the tax differential between those who work for a company structure and pay themselves in dividends and those who work as employees or self-employed, while ensuring that support for investors is more effectively targeted. I, therefore, urge the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 18, while I commend clause 8 to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, we still feel that this is a substantial change. Despite his helpful comments, it does not appear that there has been sufficient consideration, specifically of the impact of this new measure on the income of the very entrepreneurs we should support, especially when they are beginning the life cycle of their new firm. We are concerned that, in effect, many of those live off the income from dividends at the beginning of their business and we do not feel that we have had the assurances that we require that there will not be a negative impact on their income. Therefore, we would like to push this amendment to a vote.
Anneliese Dodds
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 9, page 17, line 45, at end insert—
“512B Review of operation of sections 507A and 512A
(1) Prior to 30 June 2020, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of sections 507A and 512A.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the number of applications made under each section,
(b) the number of occasions a gain was recalculated on a just and reasonable basis under each section.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the new provisions for requests for new calculations in relating to wholly disproportionate gains by policyholders.
Anneliese Dodds
Clause 9 removes tax liability where wholly disproportionate gains inadvertently are made from surrendering life insurance. We can understand the motivation behind the measure. We know that the clause aims to introduce an application by which policyholders who part surrendered or part assigned their life insurance policies, including capital redemption policies and contracts for life annuities, and generated a wholly disproportionate taxable gain, can apply to HMRC to have their gain recalculated on a just and reasonable basis. None the less, we are concerned about the lack of key safeguards and the exercise of what is essentially a discretionary remedy by HMRC. The measure is not backed by the fundamental safeguard of a statutory right of appeal to a first-tier tribunal of the officer’s decision on what constitutes a just and reasonable basis for the calculation. It would be helpful if the Minister explained the reasoning for not making express legislative provision for a right of appeal, which we feel is a fundamental safeguard in the exercise of a discretionary remedy. Therefore, our amendment asks for greater consideration of that and other issues through a review, and I hope the Government will accept that request.
Mel Stride
Clause 9 makes changes to ensure that policyholders who take value from their ongoing life insurance policies in such a way that a wholly disproportionate gain is generated, as the hon. Member for Oxford East pointed out, can apply to HMRC to have the gain recalculated on a just and reasonable basis. Recent litigation has exposed circumstances in which cash withdrawals from life insurance policies, known as part surrenders, can give rise to a wholly disproportionate taxable gain. That could also occur following an early sale of part of a policy, also known as a part assignment. In particular, large early withdrawals of cash from a policy that shows little or no underlying economic growth can generate taxable gains that are wholly disproportionate in size and effect. Usually, if cash had been taken by a different method, little or no gain would have arisen.
At Budget 2016, the Government announced their intention to change the tax rules on part surrenders and part assignments of life insurance policies. The changes made by clause 9 will introduce an application process through which policyholders who trigger wholly disproportionate gains can apply to HMRC to have their gain recalculated on a just and reasonable basis.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of appeals. Although taxpayers do not have a right of appeal, they have strong safeguards through the complaints procedure, which provides a simple and straightforward way for policyholders to express dissatisfaction with a decision and have it scrutinised independently. Recalculation applications will be dealt with by a small team in HMRC, ensuring consistency and quality of approach. If taxpayers are unhappy with the decision made, they can complain, and any complaint will be dealt with fairly and impartially by someone independent of the original decision maker. If taxpayers are still not satisfied, the complaint can be referred to the adjudicator or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
The changes will provide a fair outcome for policyholders who inadvertently generate disproportionate gains. An important point is that the measure is expected to affect fewer than 10 policyholders per year and to have a negligible cost to the Exchequer. The impact on life insurance companies, which broadly support the measure, is also expected to be negligible.
The Opposition amendment would require HMRC to complete a review of the operation of these changes by June 2020. The proposed changes in the clause provide a fair outcome for the very small number of policyholders—around 10—who inadvertently generate these gains. As mentioned earlier, we expect fewer than 10 policyholders to be affected. A formal mandated review, followed by a report to the House of Commons, would be an excessive requirement for changes so narrow in scope and for such a small number of individuals affected. I therefore ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
To conclude, clause 9 will provide a fairer outcome for a small number of policyholders who generate wholly disproportionate gains. I invite the hon. Lady not to press her amendment, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
We are willing to withdraw the amendment, but we want to ensure above all that the information and advice about the provisions are definitely made available to the albeit small number of policyholders. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Graham Stuart.)
Finance Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 17th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance (No.2) Act 2017 View all Finance (No.2) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 October 2017 - (17 Oct 2017)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Mr Howarth made some preliminary announcements this morning regarding Committee proceedings, including permission for Members to remove their jackets if they wish to do so in this October heatwave. Before we come to clause 10, I understand that the Minister wishes to raise a point of order.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
On a point of order, Mr Walker. I believe that in this morning’s sitting, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Bootle, I may have inadvertently suggested that the Bill’s changes to the money purchase annual allowance regime will result in a £70 million per annum cost to the Exchequer. I should have said that £70 million of revenue will be raised for the Exchequer in each year.
The Chair
I thank the Minister for that clarification, as I am sure does the entire Committee.
Clause 10
Personal portfolio bonds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. Clause 10 provides the power to amend by way of statutory instrument the property categories that the holder of a life annuity, life insurance policy or capital redemption policy can select without making that policy or contract a personal portfolio bond.
The personal portfolio bond rules introduced in 1999 countered avoidance arrangements where an individual could select personal investments, such as property portfolios, in life insurance policies to defer the tax charge on any resulting income or gains. The legislation treats a policy as a personal portfolio bond if it allows the holder to select the property held in that policy. A policy will not be a personal portfolio bond if it permits only the selection of property specifically listed in the legislation. The categories of property listed in the legislation have features that ensure that the policyholder cannot customise them to allow personal property to be placed within the policy.
The list of permitted property has not materially changed since the rules were introduced in 1999. Since then, various new types of investment vehicle have been developed that similarly cannot be manipulated to include personal property. Up to now, those have not been added to the list. That unnecessarily narrows the range of investment choices for policyholders.
The clause provides the power to make secondary legislation to amend the categories of property listed. The power will ensure that, in future, the rules can be updated more quickly to accommodate new types of investment vehicles. Following Royal Assent, the Government will lay regulations using the power to add three investment vehicles as permitted property: real estate investment trusts, overseas investment trust companies and authorised contractual schemes. Draft statutory instruments have been provided to the Committee. The power will allow the Government to respond quickly as new methods of investment develop, to enable legislation to keep pace with changes in the financial services industry and ensure that tax rules do not needlessly impede innovation and competition in the sector.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for providing clarification. Is there any evidence of the extent of awareness among fund advisers regarding the existing restrictions, and how will they be made aware of the new rules? That is particularly important if new rules are to be adopted through secondary legislation. We have heard about the new categories of property that might be incorporated, but there is likely to be less spotlight on them in future if we do not discuss them in the context of a Finance Bill. At present, it is possible for fund advisers to accidentally acquire non-permitted assets for a client’s policy, which rules it out as a PPB and means that the rules on yearly deemed gain do not apply.
Mel Stride
I reassure the hon. Lady that there has been extensive consultation on the measure. The consultation on reviewing the list of properties ran from 9 August to 3 October 2016 and explored adding three types of investment vehicle. The majority of respondents welcomed the proposed addition of the investment vehicles discussed. Many suggested further additions, which will require further review before any recommendation is made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
EIS and SEIS: the no pre-arranged exits requirement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 make changes to the tax-advantaged venture capital schemes: the enterprise investment scheme, the seed enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. The changes provide small but useful easing of the rules, which I shall explain in more detail. Following the calling of the general election and subsequent negotiations between the Government and the Opposition, these clauses were removed from the Finance Act 2017. As all the clauses are wholly relieving, the Government have introduced retrospective legislation to ensure that taxpayers can still benefit from the changes being made from the original commencement date.
The tax-advantaged venture capital schemes provide a range of generous tax reliefs to encourage individuals to invest directly or indirectly in certain smaller and higher-risk early stage companies. These small companies would otherwise struggle to access the funding they need to grow and develop, because they have little or no track record to attract funding from the market.
Clause 11 makes changes to an anti-abuse rule, the no pre-arranged exits requirement, in the enterprise investment and seed enterprise investment schemes. The rule prevents tax relief from being provided if arrangements under which the shares were issued might lead to a disposal of those or other shares in the company and so potentially put the future continuation of the company at risk.
Many companies include such rights in their standard documents. However, rights allowing for share conversions in the future carry no risk to the integrity of the scheme, as excluding the rights can be administratively burdensome for some companies. The changes will allow companies to qualify for relief if they issue shares that include rights to a future conversion into shares of another class in that company. The changes are wholly relieving and will apply retrospectively, with effect for shares issued on or after 5 December 2016.
Clause 12 makes technical changes to clarify the law and ensures venture capital trusts can provide follow-on funding to certain groups of companies. The changes ensure that the VCT rules work in the same way as those for EIS. The rules for VCTs and EIS were changed in late 2015 to target the schemes more closely on early stage companies. However, the rules do allow older companies to receive tax-advantaged investments in some situations. These include follow-on funding provisions. Broadly speaking, follow-on funding may be provided to an older company as long as the company received its initial tax-advantaged funding at a time when it met the basic age limit. The changes made by clause 12 ensure that, where certain conditions are met, VCTs will be able to provide follow-on funding for companies that have been taken over by a new holding company after the initial funding was received.
Clause 13 makes changes to extend a power for the Treasury to make regulations on the exchange of certain investments held by a VCT. A VCT may hold non-qualifying investments, but only in very limited circumstances. Regulations under the current power ensure that VCTs are not at immediate risk of losing their approved status when they are obliged to exchange a qualifying investment for a non-qualifying investment. However, the power to make regulations applies only where the original investment is a qualifying investment.
The new regulations will provide broadly similar protection to VCTs where the original investment is a non-qualifying investment and the VCT is similarly required to exchange the investment as part of a commercial reorganisation or buy-out. Without the new regulations, VCTs would continue to rely on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs exercising its discretion to avoid immediate loss of approval when a non-qualifying investment is exchanged. Draft regulations will be published for public consultation later in the year. The regulations will provide certainty to a VCT regarding the treatment of the new shares or securities obtained when it exchanges non-qualifying investments.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 make technical easements to reduce administrative burdens and smooth certain rules within the tax-advantaged venture capital schemes. I therefore hope that they will stand part of the Bill.
Anneliese Dodds
I have two questions about clauses 11 and 12. First, EIS and SEIS are two of the four tax-advantaged venture capital schemes, alongside venture capital plus and social investment tax relief, which we will discuss under a later clause. In addition to the features mentioned by the Minister, the schemes share in common the fact that advance assurance applications and submissions of statutory compliance statements are often sought by those seeking to reassure potential investors about the tax treatment of their investments. Clearly, the new requirement will widen eligibility for EIS and SEIS, potentially leading to a greater number of requests to HMRC for these kinds of ex-ante assessments. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure us that HMRC will be able to satisfy those requests in a timely manner.
I understand from the Minister’s response to my parliamentary question on this matter that there is no time limit on an advance assurance application, and while the target for more complex cases is 40 days, he admitted that more complex cases may take longer. Although I agree with him that the changes will simplify the administrative side for business to an extent, they could complicate qualifying criteria from HMRC’s point of view. How will the Minister ensure that that does not lead to greater pressures on an already struggling HMRC?
On clause 12, my second question is perhaps more fundamental. As I understand it, EU state-aid rules generally suggest that the operation of such tax reliefs should focus on genuinely promoting new growth rather than on the acquiring of existing businesses, given that we are talking about the state exempting certain categories of firms from tax that others must pay. Will the Minister provide us with a taste of how he has assured himself that this relief genuinely will focus on the promotion of such new growth?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. On clause 11, she has been in touch with the Treasury about the important matter of advance assurances from HMRC, which always does its utmost to provide advice in as timely a manner as possible. The change proposed by the clause, however, is to remove a requirement on HMRC to opine on the approach that some companies intend to take, which will introduce greater certainty.
Clause 12, which relates to VCTs and the introduction of a parent company, is also likely to ease the investment decision because it will take away the uncertainty that would otherwise accrue by having a parent company inserted into the corporate structure under consideration. These technical amendments therefore make important changes to existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Social investment tax relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in schedule 1, page 103, line 37, at end insert—
“10A After section 257TE (minor definitions etc), insert—
“257TF Review of operation of this Part
(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of social investment tax relief.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the effects of changes made to this Part by Schedule 1 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, and
(b) the effectiveness of the anti-abuse provision.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.””
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of social investment tax relief, including the changes to it made by Schedule 1.
That schedule 1 be the First Schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 14 and schedule 1 make changes to increase the amount of investment that newer social enterprises can raise through social investment tax relief. These changes will make social investment more attractive to a wider range of enterprises and investors. Excluding lower risk activities will ensure that the scheme is well targeted and delivers value for money.
Would it be in order, Mr Walker, to speak now to amendment 20 and schedule 1?
Anneliese Dodds
As the Minister has indicated, amendment 20 is to the schedule, which is grouped with clause 14. We have a number of concerns about the proposed changes to social investment tax relief, which is why our amendment asks for a review of their effectiveness and impact.
As colleagues will be aware, social investment tax relief is aimed at supporting social enterprises, comprising those businesses that plough their profits—or at least a proportion of them—back into a social and/or environmental mission. With this relief, where investments by individuals are eligible, they can reduce an individual’s income for income tax purposes by almost a third. It is clearly a significant relief and one that, while having many positive impacts, has been suggested as leading to abuses, with the social or environmental impacts from investment in some anecdotal cases being cosmetic rather than actual.
There are also underlying issues about whether there is a level playing field between social enterprises and the public sector when it comes to the delivery of some public services, which could be intensified by the development of additional scope or type of tax reliefs when it comes to social enterprises. Indeed, for those reasons, some people have entirely rejected even the principle of social investment tax relief in the first place. I understand Dame Hilary Blume, director of the Charities Advisory Trust, was concerned about the creation of the relief in the first place, saying it would attract those interested in profits rather than social good to the sector.
In my experience as a constituency MP—and others may share this experience—social enterprises that operate in my constituency, such as the charity Aspire Oxford, undertake work that the Government either have never done or which they have abandoned due to a lack of resources, such as the enormous reductions in support provided through probation services. It is important that organisations such as these, which genuinely deliver additionality, are supported. Nonetheless, in that context, we have a variety of concerns about the currently proposed changes and it is for that reason that we ask for a review. I would be grateful—even if our amendment does not pass—if the Minister could provide answers to a number of these concerns, presently or by letter in the future.
The first concern we have is about the process surrounding these measures. As colleagues will know, rather confusingly, not all social enterprises qualify for social enterprise relief. Predominantly, the relief is focused on community interest companies, charities and community benefit societies. For that reason, before receiving investment, many social enterprises ask HMRC for advance assurance—this topic pops up again—that they will qualify for SITR. I am concerned to have learned from the sector that assessors seem to have been taking decisions already about whether social enterprises will qualify for SITR on the basis of the rules we have in front of us today, which have not yet been passed by Parliament, rather than on the basis of the current rules.
I know the rules would have retrospective impacts: in practice they would be for investments dating from 1 April. It seems strange, however, for assessors to be taking decisions already on the basis of the new rules and this is potentially a disadvantage for social enterprises that are negatively affected by the new rules.
I have also heard concerns about the new treatment of leasing within the new provisions. As I understand it, the Government conceive of leasing as an inherently low-risk activity and therefore not worthy of subsidy, but it is not clear to me that all the implications of this position have been thought through. An example is that of a specialist facility, such as a rundown heritage swimming pool. In fact, many of us may have those in our constituencies—as we know, many have closed. It is very difficult for local authorities to redevelop those facilities in current financial circumstances. We could imagine an example where a social enterprise might want to take on that pool, purchase it, attract investors into that project, but not run the swimming pool themselves as they do not have the expertise to do so. They might then want to have a leasing arrangement with a specialist leisure provider to deliver the services from that swimming pool. The problem with the new changes is that, in this context, even though the risk of that new approach would be reduced because the specialist provider would have more experience of running swimming pools than the social enterprise, the latter would be left in an invidious position, because it would lose the tax break if it engaged in that kind of leasing arrangement.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the importance of trying to make these kind of rules work for the reality of how social investment often happens in our local communities. Does she agree with me that there is also a concern that by excluding asset-leasing, things like community pubs and community land trusts might also be excluded by the Government, probably unintentionally? Many of us know of small community groups that may want to take over pubs in our communities that would be excluded by this measure and unintentionally actioned against. Surely we should be acting on that.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree that this could apply to a range of different facilities. In many circumstances, this kind of arrangement is the only way to keep those facilities going. We could see them entirely disappear—we all know about the sad disappearance of community pubs in our areas—so I am grateful to her for making that point.
In addition to those potential issues, we are also concerned about the differential treatment of social enterprises by age, with the £1.5 million cap being lifted for social enterprises under seven years old. Will the Minister explain why there is precisely this seven-year limit? It may in practice be that local authorities are relying on well-established, well-run and highly experienced social enterprises to help to provide essential services and facilities in conditions of extreme budget cuts, but it is those older enterprises that are potentially disadvantaged by this scheme. I hope that we are going to learn the exact decision-making process on this seven-year cut-off point. If it is specifically to advantage younger social enterprises, why is that the point? Is it the case that youth is being viewed as a proxy for the ability to take on risky activities? If so, where is the evidence basis for that?
I point again to the example of Aspire in my constituency that operates a range of programmes, including one that supports offenders going into work—people who would not normally necessarily be taken on by different employers. Surely that is a highly risky activity, but it is one at which they—as an established social enterprise—excel. Age does not necessarily appear to be a good proxy for the ability to take on riskier activities. If this seven-year cut-off is not there to encourage younger social enterprises, then why has it been instituted? We need more information on this.
Finally, we feel that additional evidence on the effectiveness of the anti-avoidance clauses within the new provisions is required. Social enterprises in the voluntary sector have a long history in areas such as hospice care, specialist domestic violence and mental health services where they have often genuinely driven innovation. Other social enterprises, such as those I mentioned earlier, have merely donated some of their profits to charity, rather than having a genuinely social or environmental mission. May we have more clarification on how abuse will be identified and dealt with?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I do not want to speak for long, but I wanted to say that the hon. Member for Oxford East made a comprehensive, passionate and well-informed case on the amendment. If the Labour party seeks to press the amendment to a vote, we will support it. If the Minister responds to any of the comments by letter, I would be keen to see some of his answers, so I would appreciate being copied into that response.
Mel Stride
Compared with typical companies, social enterprises face greater difficulties in accessing the funding they need to grow and develop. Social investment tax relief provides a number of generous tax reliefs to encourage individuals to invest in social enterprises that deliver social or community benefits. The current limit to the amount of investment that a social enterprise can receive through SITR is around £300,000 over three years. We announced in 2014 that we would look to expand the scheme, and we are now doing so.
The changes made by schedule 1 will increase the investment limit to £1.5 million over the lifetime of all social enterprises using SITR. In order to target the relief more effectively at the social enterprises that most struggle to attract investment, those under seven years old will no longer be bound by the three-year rolling investment limit of £300,000. I think this addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East about why the period is seven years. There is a greater vulnerability when social enterprises start up and they are fresh and young. They have yet to have a track record on which they can build, in order to grow. For those we are removing the roaming £300,000 over three years requirement. Social enterprises older than seven years can still use SITR for investment up to the three-year rolling investment limit of £300,000, subject to the lifetime limit of £1.5 million.
Schedule 1 makes a number of other changes to ensure that the scheme is well targeted at activities that will genuinely achieve socially beneficial aims, and provides value for money. That includes targeting SITR at social enterprises with fewer than 250 employees. Some activities have always been excluded from the relief so that it is not used as a tax-advantage route for low-risk investment. The excluded activities list will be updated to exclude a number of low-risk activities, including leasing assets and raising finance to lend on to others.
I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Oxford East’s assertion about the importance of these social enterprises. She mentioned Aspire, for example, in her own constituency and many of us can think of similar organisations in our constituencies. On the more detailed process points that she was interested in, particularly around HMRC and advanced assurances, I am happy to write to her.
On the specific issue of leasing, allowing those activities to benefit from SITR would risk diverting finance away from higher risk social enterprises. We must not lose sight of the fact that the whole purpose of this scheme is to encourage those kinds of organisations and all the good works that they do, which might not otherwise come forward for the reason of being high risk. Of course, those organisations struggle the most to raise finance. Leasing assets typically provides a reliable income stream, which makes it a lower risk activity. Allowing social enterprises to raise money to lend on to other enterprises would be complex to administer and would leave the scheme open to misuse.
Stella Creasy
As a Co-op, as well as Labour, MP, I am rather passionate about the idea of social investment. The Minister seems to be a little short-sighted about the idea of assets—after all, there are many people looking at running community pubs, for instance, which is a great example of a community asset that we might want to support. I would not see that as an example of a low-risk venture. Surely, if he accepts our amendment, we can look at some of those issues and make sure that he is not missing out on some of the things he would like to see investment in because of a concept of risk that is rather narrow, rather than recognising some of the boundaries of co-operative and social investment.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I guess there is a trade-off between getting very detailed and more precise in where we target these kinds of reliefs and, on the other hand, sometimes having complexity and confusion. It can be difficult to winkle out the precise anomalies that she may be alluding to. However, I can reassure her that, under the EIS scheme, many pubs, including community pubs, can qualify. They may be excluded under certain circumstances within the SITR scheme, but under EIS she will find that there are at least possibilities.
On the general issue of anti-avoidance, we are seeking to avoid situations where these schemes—whether they are EIS, SITR or VCTs—are simply being used as places to preserve capital at very little risk and to give a tax return as a consequence of the scheme. It is important that we have tight, sensible and effective avoidance measures in place.
Finally, further provisions to align the rules more closely with the enterprise investment scheme, including anti- abuse provisions, will also be introduced. Amendment 20 would require a review of the effects of the scheme, including the effectiveness of the anti-abuse provision and other changes being made by schedule 1. The Government have already committed to a full review of SITR within two years of its expansion. An early review would make it impossible to adequately gauge the effectiveness of the provisions that we are introducing now. Further, these anti-abuse provisions were introduced in direct response to HMRC becoming aware of the creation of aggressive tax-planning structures designed to exploit this relief. We estimate that around 800 social enterprises will benefit from the relief over the next five years. By 2021-22, SITR is forecast to cost £65 million per year, £30 million more than if the scheme was not enlarged.
We have had an interesting debate on the scheme. As we have already committed to a full review, I ask the hon. Member for Oxford East to withdraw amendment 20. Schedule 1 will increase the amount of investment that social enterprises can raise through SITR making it attractive to a wider range of enterprises and investors. Other changes will ensure that the scheme is well targeted and delivers value for money.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification, which has been enormously helpful. However, he referred to winkling out particular anomalies and we feel that that is exactly what we need a little more of. On the issue of the seven years of activity as a social enterprise before qualifying for the three-year £1.5 million cap, I am concerned, despite the Minister’s helpful comments, that we are not focusing on the exact loci of risk. We seem to be assuming that risk is inherent in the age of the social enterprise concerned and not on the activity that it is engaged in. It is perfectly possible—I mentioned an example earlier—for an older social enterprise to try to attract funding in order to undertake a very risky activity. Dealing with some of those risky activities is what we need social enterprise to be engaged in, particularly as we have many areas where local authority funding is no longer available and there are also market failures. We really need to have community facilities and different services preserved. I therefore wish to press the amendment.
Mel Stride
I think we are in total agreement with the hon. Lady on the issue of focusing these funds and incentives on riskier social enterprises, in other words, the ones that would not naturally happen without this kind of intervention. However, while those that are less than seven years old will be subject to the £1.5 million cap, which is a considerable increase in what we have had before and will not be restricted by the £300,000 maximum investment in any three-year period, those social enterprises that have been trading for longer than seven years, can still have access to £1.5 million in total, albeit in any three-year period they are restricted to £300,000 maximum to be raised. It is not as if there is a terrible cliff edge between the two. We will still be providing a lot of support for older social enterprise.
Anneliese Dodds
I thank the Minister, but I am still concerned about why exactly seven years has been chosen as the cut-off. Listening to his helpful remarks, I imagine that we could see some gaming around this, because there is a significant tax advantage from having a younger social enterprise. Would we see social enterprises being created out of previous ones just to qualify for the different tax treatment when actually they would be focused on the same activity? It seems peculiar to me and I do not understand why the seven-year figure has been chosen. My dad was an accountant; he always said to me, “You’ve got to keep your bank statements for seven years”, so I can understand seven years from that perspective. Why is there no gradation? Why seven and not another figure—three, five, 15 or 20 years? Perhaps some clarification can be provided.
Mel Stride
I suppose we are saying that whatever number of years we chose, the hon. Lady’s argument would always be relevant, in the sense that it is an arbitrary figure. It happens to be seven years in this case. In terms of anti-avoidance and gaming at the margins, to which she referred, there are some strong anti-avoidance measures in the Bill that, for example, seek to address directly the specific issues she raised of perhaps one social enterprise taking over another that has a different age profile and in some way gaming the system as a consequence. Those elements are addressed in the anti-avoidance measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Social investment tax relief
Amendment proposed: 20, in schedule 1, page 103, line 37, at end insert—
“10A After section 257TE (minor definitions etc), insert—
“257TF Review of operation of this Part
(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of social investment tax relief.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the effects of changes made to this Part by Schedule 1 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, and
(b) the effectiveness of the anti-abuse provision.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.””—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of social investment tax relief, including the changes to it made by Schedule 1.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 16 makes changes to ensure that landlords can use the cash basis to calculate their profits for tax, and simplifies the treatment of capital expenditure within the cash basis.
At Budget 2016, the Government announced that we would explore options to simplify the tax rules for businesses, self-employed people and landlords. Trading businesses have been able to use the cash basis method of calculating their profits for tax since 2013. The method calculates profits on a cash in, cash out basis and minimises the need for complicated accounting adjustments. It has been well received; more than 1 million trading businesses have chosen to use the cash basis since its introduction. Extending and improving the cash basis is a significant step to simplify the tax rules.
Following consultation, the Government announced that from April 2017 they would increase the cash basis threshold for traders to £150,000, extend the cash basis to some landlords, and simplify the treatment of capital expenditure in the cash basis. The increase to the cash basis threshold for traders was implemented by secondary legislation, so does not appear in the Bill.
The changes made by the clause will allow more than 2.3 million property businesses to choose to use the simpler cash basis method of calculating their profits for tax, which will provide administrative savings to approximately 1.8 million of them. The changes to the treatment of capital expenditure in the cash basis will allow capital expenditure to be deducted from income, unless it relates to specific types of assets listed in the legislation. That will mean that, including any additional property businesses, nearly 3 million businesses using the cash basis will have a clearer idea of what they can deduct for tax, and when.
The clause legislates for measures announced at spring Budget 2017 and takes effect from April 2017. It therefore has retrospective effect. The measures will simplify tax on many businesses and landlords, who will benefit from the use of the cash basis and the reform of the capital expenditure rules in the cash basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 17
Trading and property allowances
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 155, line 15, at end insert—
“Chapter 3
Review of chapters 1 and 2
783BR Review of operation of this Part
(1) Prior to 30 June 2020, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of the provisions of this Part.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the use and effects of full relief,
(b) the use and effects of partial relief,
(c) the use of relief in relation to trading income, and
(d) the use of relief in relation to property income.
(3) The review shall compare the effects on the Exchequer in each of the first two years of its operation with the effects forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of—
(a) the 2016 Budget, and
(b) the 2016 Autumn Statement.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the new trading and property allowances in the first two relevant tax years.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
I appreciate that the strictures of Finance Bill procedure commonly give rise to the overwhelming excitement of review amendments, so I ask the Committee to withhold its lack of surprise that amendment 21 would introduce yet another review. The Government’s sensible stated aim in introducing the allowance is to recognise that many taxpayers no longer fit within a neat and simple model of PAYE-only income or self-assessment-only income. We all recognise that that is the reality, but we should not get too carried away by the idea that online hobby trading is an entirely new activity triggered by the advent of the online sharing economy; I suspect it is more like old wine in new skins. Spending a weekend repairing a few clocks as a hobby and then selling them on eBay for extra income on the side is not an entirely new phenomenon. People 20 years ago did the same through car boot sales, antique fairs or classified ads; this is just a modern version.
Modernising the tax system to recognise the multiple sources of income that taxpayers may now receive is sensible, but we should not always imagine that the problems that we are trying to solve are entirely new, nor should we make too hasty a stab in the dark for solutions. The Association of Taxation Technicians says that, as drafted, the provisions discriminate against individuals who, in addition to having the type of microbusiness to which the trading allowance is intended to apply, also have a sole trader business which cannot benefit from the trading allowance. In that situation, the provisions prevent the microbusiness from qualifying for the trading allowance. The ATT’s concern is that the allowance is potentially discriminatory.
The Government state that the aim of the allowance is to provide
“simplicity and certainty regarding Income Tax obligations on small amounts of income from providing goods, services, property or other assets…and to help the UK become leaders in the digital and sharing economy”,
but it could easily end up creating new complications for taxpayers, or lead inadvertently to perverse incentives. The Chartered Institute of Taxation’s Low Incomes Tax Reform Group welcomes the aim of the measures, but has said that it is
“very concerned that unrepresented low-earners will struggle to understand some of the more complex rules, especially if they have overlap profits, more than one trade or source of income or have not elected, as often will be the case, to use the cash basis of accounting.”
Its concerns stem especially from the fact that this relief’s intended group of users is less likely to engage professional accountants or other advisers. As a result of the complications involved in having to choose a particular accounting basis or work out the types of income that apply, the allowance may fail to benefit that group of users. It may instead become yet another strand in the complex web of allowances that professional advisers throw into the mix when helping their clients to avoid tax.
Anneliese Dodds
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments about the role of personal advisers; the same point came up this morning. Moreover, has not HMRC’s online system for calculating the taxes payable on relatively small amounts of income already been found wanting? As a result of the interaction between the four different allowances—personal savings, tax-free dividend income, the savings starting rate and the personal allowance—individuals have become liable for more tax than they should have to pay, because the online system is not calibrated appropriately. In theory, the new provision is meant to obviate the need to declare income for those purposes, but does my hon. Friend not agree that it must be designed carefully to avoid the flaws that affect people with small incomes who qualify for the allowances?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; that is an excellent forensic point that the Minister will have heard, and will, I hope, take up, especially in relation to our amendment.
The potential problems might be still bigger in the case of property income where the new relief interacts with existing schemes such as rent-a-room relief. Taxpayers will need to work out which relief applies before determining whether and how they need to make a self-assessment return. Although I am confident that the Minister is genuine in his desire to help more people get on the right side and make the right declarations for their taxes, I worry that the added complexity could easily put off more people from making the correct declaration. I suspect that none of us wants that, including him, because it is not particularly sensible. In many cases, it will not be due to anyone’s desire for dishonesty; it will be because taxpayers used to operating only within pay-as-you-earn will be confronted with a confusion of options in considering how they must declare to HMRC.
The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has rightly highlighted the complications that might arise for lower-income households. The new reliefs might free taxpayers from the need to declare very small amounts to HMRC, but will not have the same effect of releasing their obligations to account to the Department for Work and Pensions if they are universal credit claimants. Those are the households that would benefit most from simplification, rather than finding themselves subject to the most bewildering requirements to account to the state. I do not wish to waylay the Committee with the ongoing issue of universal credit implementation, as we will undoubtedly have a debate about that tomorrow, but the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group highlights a fair point: so-called simplifications involving tax and social security can sometimes have the opposite effect on those expected to use them. I think that we have all witnessed that to a greater or lesser degree.
Our amendment proposes an HMRC review, to report by 2020, of the use of the reliefs and the resulting effects on the Exchequer. I know that the inclination is to resist all Opposition amendments, but I can see little cause to resist this one. Inevitably, just like other measures discussed earlier, the reliefs will be revisited, unpicked, reworked and recalibrated in future Budgets. Sensible and calm review by HMRC must be in the interests of everybody involved.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. It is said that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any other country, probably because the complexity of our tax system means that we all need to use one. However, in this situation, as he said, the amounts involved might be small, and the cost of an accountant might be quite high. That could deter people from using accountants, getting them into more difficulty.
Is there not a case for a proper review by HMRC, which knows the score because it deals with such things on a daily basis? HMRC could advise the Government on introducing appropriate changes that would simplify the tax system as well as helping those who would benefit from tax reliefs in a more practical and pragmatic way.
Mel Stride
Clause 17 and schedule 3 introduce two new tax allowances so that, from April 2017, individuals with gross trading or property income below £1,000 no longer have to declare or pay tax on that income. Digital platforms are allowing more and more people to supplement their income by sharing property, resources, time and skills. It is perhaps a rather more rapidly growing segment than the hon. Member for Bootle recognised. The UK is a world leader in the sharing economy; a report by PwC shows that the UK sharing economy has grown at the fastest pace in Europe, with transactions worth about £7.4 billion in 2015. This is expected to grow to £140 billion in 2025.
As the economy changes, the tax system should keep pace. For this reason the Government want to support the sharing economy and ensure that the tax system is not burdensome for those making small amounts of income, whether through selling goods, providing services or renting out their property. This could include those advertising their plumbing services through an online platform or those renting out a driveway space, for example. The changes made by clause 17 will introduce two new income tax allowances so that the individuals with gross trading or property income below £1,000 will no longer have to declare or pay tax on that income. Many individuals engaging in these activities on a small scale are not aware of their tax obligations. The new allowances make these obligations clear and straightforward, providing much needed clarity for people making small levels of extra income.
The trading allowance will also include miscellaneous income from providing assets or services, creating certainty for individuals, who will not have to understand tax case law to determine whether their activities should be taxed as a trade. The Government estimate that at least 700,000 individuals could benefit from the allowances. Over three quarters of these are basic rate taxpayers who could save up to £400 in income tax each year.
The Opposition raised a number of points. One was the lack of availability of this allowance to those who are already making self-assessments to HMRC, because they are already sole traders. Part of the reason for that is to ensure that we do not have any diversion of activity from those individuals’ general work arrangements into this scheme driven solely by an attempt to lower taxation. The point has been made about the importance of simplicity in the scheme. Certain aspects of the scheme clearly make it simple: people with that kind of income are not required to make a submission to HMRC, and there is a “miscellaneous” category of income that can address the complications around whether this is trading income—“miscellaneous” is quite a wide-ranging term.
The hon. Member for Bootle raised a fair point on rent-a-room tax relief arrangements; that is why HMRC’s efforts in detailing its guidance on the gov.uk website are so important. All the allowances will be very carefully explained. The guidance is being prepared alongside representative bodies and will include clear, step-by-step explanations and a number of examples, so it will be very easy for people to follow exactly how the arrangements work. Support will also be available via the HMRC helpline.
Amendment 21 would require HMRC to complete a review of the cost and effectiveness of the allowances by 2020 and the effects on the Exchequer in each of the first two years. Such a review is unnecessary. As I have set out, the two new allowances ensure that the tax system is not burdensome for those making small amounts of income. Their effect will be to support the enormous contribution that the sharing economy is making to the UK economy, while simplifying the tax system to support the job creators of the future. As there is no need for taxpayers to declare this income to HMRC, any review would impose a disproportionate burden on taxpayers and be inconsistent with the core rationale for the reliefs. In addition, the Bill also includes specific clauses designed to prevent abuse, and HMRC will carefully monitor the reliefs to ensure that they work as intended. I therefore urge the Committee to resist this amendment.
The two new tax allowances will help micro-entrepreneurs by removing complexity and uncertainty for those wanting to earn small amounts of extra income. There will be no forms to fill in and no tax to pay. It is a tax break for the digital age, furthering the Government’s commitment to simplify the tax system and help the UK become a global leader in the digital and sharing economy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Peter Dowd
We will not press the amendment to a vote but the Minister acknowledges, de facto, that the economy and the world of work is changing fast. There are so many developments out there—apps, online, the whole kit and caboodle—which is all the more reason for the Government to keep on top of this issue. That is why we want the review, because the world changes so quickly.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Obviously, universal credit is being rolled out. That will be a particular detriment to people on very low incomes who are self-employed, because they will be deemed to earn the minimum wage on 35 hours a week throughout the year: around £13,600. If their actual income is below that at the moment, they can receive tax credits and are eligible to apply if they have children and a family. Under universal credit, they will not be able to receive such payments, though they may be liable for tax. That is another reason why a review after the roll-out of universal credit would be particularly useful, to see the impact on the self-employed and people with micro- businesses.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is not quite as simple as the Minister would like us to believe, although I am not suggesting that he is trying to cajole us into it. The bottom line is that we will not push this to a vote today but we hope that the Minister takes into account the views we have expressed. If he does not wish to take account of our views, I exhort him to consider those of at least the two organisations that sent us documentation on the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 18
Carried-forward Losses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in schedule 4, page 230, line 37, at end insert—
“188FAA Review of operation of this Part
(1) Prior to 30 June 2020, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of the provisions of this Part.
(2) The review shall consider in particular—
(a) the use and effects of reliefs under this Part,
(b) the effects on the Exchequer in each year of operation,
(c) a comparison of the amounts referred to in paragraph (b) and any official forecasts of those amounts prior to the introduction of this Part.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the provisions for group relief for carried-forward losses.
Amendment 23, in schedule 4 page 247, line 2, at end insert—
55A (1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.
(2) The review shall consider the changes made in—
(a) paragraphs 24 to 26 of this Schedule in relation to insurance companies,
(b) paragraphs 27 to 46 of this Schedule in relation to certain creative industries,
(c) paragraphs 47 to 55 of this Schedule in relation to oil activities.
(3) The review shall consider in particular and in relation to each of the sectors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) the use and effects of the changes made,
(b) the effects on the Exchequer in each year of operation,
(c) a comparison of the amounts referred to in paragraph (b) and any official forecasts of those amounts prior to the introduction of this Part, and
(d) any effects on the economic activities of companies and others in each of the sectors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this paragraph before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”
This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the provisions for carrying forward trade losses for insurance companies, creative industries and oil activities.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 19 stand part.
Peter Dowd
These two clauses and the schedule represent the most complicated measures in the Bill, as I suspect everybody acknowledges. The corporate tax system and its rules on carrying forward losses present a maze of regulations and rules to be navigated by the heads of companies before they can claim relief. There is, therefore, some merit behind the Government’s measures to relax the rules around losses.
Under these measures, companies can set losses arising on 1 April this year against the total taxable profits, rather than particular types of income of a company and its group members. The amount of losses they can carry forward will be restricted to 50% and will apply to any losses incurred at any time. Of course, on top of that, each company or group will be entitled to a £5 million annual allowance of unrestricted profit, ensuring that 99% of companies are unaffected by the restriction.
I would like to ask the Minister how the £5 million figure for the annual allowance was reached. In addition, what consideration has the Treasury given to lowering or raising the threshold for unrestricted profit? The reforms being discussed today were first announced at the 2016 Budget. The Government then consulted on the measure in the business tax road map, as it was called, which I understand has led to this package of clauses and schedule.
The changes to the current rules have been encouraged because, under the old system, companies could offset all their eligible taxable profits through losses carried forward. That led to a situation where in some instances a large company pays no tax in a year when it makes a substantial profit. The majority of G7 countries already have restrictions of this kind in place.
I believe it is important to look at international comparisons and examine how other countries deal with this complex issue. From my research, it is clear that the big distinctions on how countries focus on carried-forward losses are: the length of time losses can be carried back; the length of time losses can be carried forward; and when losses can be shared with other companies.
Kelvin Hopkins
There is a lot of evidence that the banks are still engaging in risky gambling on the international exchanges, and compensating for that by squeezing ordinary taxpayers, ordinary bank customers and small businesses in particular to back up their gambling losses. Would my hon. Friend say that we are still facing danger in the future because of the banks’ behaviour?
Peter Dowd
We always have to be vigilant—that is the key. Vigilance is crucial. Virtually no one had experienced anything like the banking crisis in living memory. Given that, we have to be on our guard that we do not all breathe such a sigh of relief that it was so long ago that we lose our vigilance.
It seems to me that strong regulations, which will not only protect the taxpayer and their savings, but develop practices at the heart of the industry, are the only bulwark against another financial crisis being created and enacted through reckless banking practice. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that, particularly given that when we finish the summer-autumn Finance Bill we will immediately start the winter Finance Bill. Given the Government’s delayed and, I have to say, sometimes chaotic timetable, it will no doubt end up being called the spring Bill instead. Dare I say it, we have a Minister who is the man for all seasons in that regard. [Interruption.] Don’t give up the day job, as they say—or perhaps hon. Members would like me to.
Many of the stakeholders to whom the Opposition spoke raised concerns about the complexity of the proposals and the speed with which the Government have attempted to take them through.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for running through many of the problems that stakeholders have mentioned to us. One addition to the many ambiguities he mentioned is that, to my mind, a clear rationale does not seem to have been provided for the decision to loosen the rules so that past losses can be offset against any type of profit, rather than the current position of only being able to offset them against the same type of profit—for example, only offsetting trading losses against trading profits. That is yet another change for which we perhaps require further information and debate.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes another good point. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has criticised the Government—“criticise” is the word I use, although I am not sure it would say that; it would most probably say it has brought this to the Government’s attention—for not balancing
“its desires to raise some modest revenue with its duty to produce legislation that can be followed with predictability and certainty.”
Other financial organisations have argued that the measure is likely to create winners and losers. Small groups unlikely to have £5 million of losses, for which this is a high proportion of the total, will benefit from the change. For large groups that wish to access the group relief changes, it is less clear. Deloitte has argued that the slowdown in offset of brought-forward losses for large groups may in fact mean an acceleration in the tax cost for larger companies. Will the Minister offer more clarity on how the group relief will work in practice—particularly the nomination process, whereby a specific company has to be nominated to manage the whole group relief?
The measure seems fraught with potential dangers. For starters, the Bill makes no mention of what happens when a company chooses to join or leave a group that benefits from the group relief. Will the Minister explain whether such a mechanism will be built into the legislation, or whether we will need a further clause in a future Finance Bill that tinkers with carried-forward losses once more? Given the uncertainty felt by many in the business community, the Opposition believe it is only right that the Government submit a review of the operation of the group relief in the carried-forward losses, assessing the cost and impact of the new restrictions and how they will impact on large companies.
Mel Stride
Clauses 18 and 19 and schedule 4 make changes to the rules for corporation tax losses, as we have discussed. They modernise the losses rules by increasing their flexibility, while at the same time ensuring that companies pay tax in years when they earn significant profits. When a company makes a loss, it can carry it forward and use it to offset the tax liability of certain income in future years. Carrying forward losses is an important feature of the tax system and ensures that the tax paid by companies is proportionate with their profits over the long term.
However, these loss relief rules are not reflective of the way businesses operate and are out of step with international practice, which I shall come on to in a moment. First, carried-forward losses can typically only be set against profits from the activities to which they relate, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, rather than the profits of other activities in a company, or the profits of other companies within a group. Secondly, the absence of any restriction on the amount of taxable profit that can be relieved by carried-forward losses means businesses making substantial UK profits may not pay any corporation tax due to losses incurred on historic activities.
The clauses will have effect from 1 April 2017, in line with the commencement date previously announced by the Government. The changes made by clause 18 will mean that rules will be relaxed for losses arising from 1 April 2017 that are carried forward, such that those losses can be set against the profits of different activities within a company and the taxable profits of its group members. As we have said, the amount of annual profit that can be relieved by carried-forward losses will be restricted to 50% from 1 April 2017, subject to an allowance of £5 million per group.
The hon. Member for Bootle asked specifically about that £5 million figure, and about whether the Treasury has looked at international comparisons and factored that into its thinking on this matter. I assure him that it has. This rate is more generous than the rates in a number of other countries. In Germany, for example, the rate is €1 million. As he pointed out, the main rationale for focusing the restriction above £5 million is to bear down on the top 1% of profitable businesses in the country without going further down the spectrum. We believe that we have achieved the right trade-off between the level of the figure and the number of companies that will potentially be affected by the restriction.
Peter Dowd
I tried to set to out as comprehensively as I could, without getting too complicated, complex or specific, why we were concerned to keep tabs on this. Trying to keep tabs on the Government’s proposals has been today’s theme, and that is why we have asked for reviews. In the current climate, when there are so many pressures on public services and a range of challenges for the country, we are all concerned to ensure that organisations that benefit from our fantastic country and from the protection of the rule of law pay their dues. That is not to point the finger at anyone specifically to say they are not paying their dues, but to ensure that we to some extent guard the guards. That is what we are trying to do today: to guard the guards; that is our job and our responsibility. Given the Minister’s explanation, we will not press the amendment, but no doubt we will come back to these issues in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Graham Stuart.)
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Healthcare in Oxfordshire
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of healthcare in Oxfordshire.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I, at the outset, thank colleagues from both sides of the House for attending and the Minister for replying? I have deliberately left the wording of the motion quite open, because I want all colleagues to have the chance to set on the record any of their thoughts about the future of healthcare in Oxfordshire.
This is a multifaceted, complex topic. I will of course concentrate on west Oxfordshire and hope I will be forgiven for doing so. We all have particular concerns, and this topic perhaps matters to our constituents more than any other. I would like to broadly separate the debate into the following sections. I will review what was done within the first phase of the sustainability and transformation plan process, how it was handled, the split of the consultation into two phases, how the public were involved in the matter and the outcomes. I will then look forward to phase 2, the proposed changes that have been included and how the clinical commissioning group can work better with the public and all stakeholders throughout the process. I will explore ways in which we can move forward and give Members the chance to raise specific concerns from their constituencies. I will review the past, but for the sake of learning for the future.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Horton General Hospital is unique in that it serves not only Oxfordshire but Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and even Gloucestershire. I was very concerned about the lack of engagement by Oxfordshire CCG with relevant stakeholders in Warwickshire in phase 1 of its consultation. There was very little communication between the Oxfordshire and South Warwickshire CCGs, despite the fact that there is obviously a knock-on effect on Warwick Hospital. Why was there not greater communication? Colleagues have raised that repeatedly, but with few outcomes.
Robert Courts
That intervention precisely illustrates the point I will make in the course of this small speech about a lack of public consultation. That is most marked in the areas we will be talking about—in my case, Witney in west Oxfordshire, and in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), Banbury and the Horton. The point is that the issues surrounding the Horton go far further than Banbury; they relate to Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and the north of west Oxfordshire. The lack of engagement is perhaps the main theme of my speech, so I am grateful for that intervention.
I will start by talking about Deer Park surgery. I was elected just under a year ago today, when I faced an unfolding local press crisis. There was a lot of press attention and, understandably, an extremely distressed patient group centred around the closure of its much-loved practice, Deer Park medical centre. To give a short history, the practice was run by Virgin Care. The contract ended and was retendered, and Oxfordshire CCG health bosses received a bid from Virgin that, in their view, did not meet the requirements they were looking for, so they decided to close this small but very well-performing and popular surgery that provided an outstanding and much-needed service for Witney and its immediate surroundings.
The real kicker was that there was no real or meaningful consultation with the people of Witney before that took place. There was little discussion with the district or county councils as to how they may be able move things forward or help or to discuss the building that was coming down the line, nor with patient groups, who might have been able to suggest a way forward. The patients and elected representatives were simply told that it was happening. I met the CCG, Virgin and the patient groups many times, including here in Parliament, but the CCG was resolute: it had decided that the practice would close. Its view was that the lower level of service offered in the tender was not sufficient and that it could not justify spending that money on the surgery, even though the significant growth, to the tune of thousands of houses that we know Witney will have in the years to come, means that the need for the practice is not only present now but will remain so in the future.
The decision to close the practice led to legal action by a patient, funded by legal aid, to keep it open. After sustained campaigning by myself, the patient group and local councillors, the Oxfordshire joint health overview and scrutiny committee voted that making that change without consulting was a substantial change in service, which—I hope I am not going beyond my remit in saying this—it clearly was.
The matter was referred to the Secretary of State for Health, who referred it to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. That was the first time a primary care decision had been referred to that level—the highest possible level. Ultimately, the IRP ruled that the CCG did not have to reopen the practice, but it did provide specific strictures about the way the decision had been handled and about consultation. It specified that the CCG needed to improve the way that it engaged and further to consider Witney’s healthcare needs.
I hope everybody will forgive me if I quote a short chunk of the IRP report that is pertinent to my point:
“The CCG should immediately commission a time limited project to develop a comprehensive plan for primary care and related services in Witney and its surrounds. At the heart of this must be the engagement of the public and patients in assessing current and future health needs, understanding what the options are for meeting their needs and co-producing the solutions. This work should seek to produce a strategic vision for future primary care provision in line with national and regional aims and should not preclude the possibility of providing services from the Deer Park Medical Centre in the future.”
It is quite clear from that report that the CCG requires a separate project to assess the primary healthcare needs of Witney. Its immediate surrounding areas are included, but that wider reading should not include the entirety of west Oxfordshire, which would enable the CCG to—as it seems to wish—simply wrap this piece of work into the wider STP work it is carrying out in any event.
The IRP is clear that the CCG is required to produce a specific, specially focused piece of work on Witney and its primary care needs. That is what the people of Witney should have. That should include a consideration of the impact upon projected housing growth in and around the town and a roadmap for primary care, covering what will be provided, by whom and at what place. Above all, the people of Witney should be presented with a range of options and scenarios, because if there is only one, there is no consultation. The CCG’s approach is a little bit like Henry Ford saying to the customer, “You can have whatever colour car you like, provided it’s a black one.”
I opened with that story and took some time over it because it is a microcosm of the problems that west Oxfordshire is facing with its CCG, and I suspect—we will hear from them in due course—that other Members in Oxfordshire feel the same. Oxfordshire has been facing a systemic issue with its CCG. The public have not been fully consulted and engaged in a dialogue about the overall picture of the future of healthcare in Oxfordshire any more than they were over the future of Deer Park medical centre.
The CCG is embarking on a consultation regarding primary care in Oxfordshire over the next month, and I am sure all colleagues will join me in engaging with that process, but there are lessons to be learned from Deer Park. I focus on it today because I want those lessons to be learned, and I am keen that we look at how we can avoid this happening again, rather than simply look back and dwell on the mistakes of the past.
Let me be quite clear: I am not a doctor. I do not presume to tell doctors, healthcare professionals or those who commission them how to do their job. I am one of those who feel that, by and large, the profession should be left in peace to do what they do best and to practise their job. However, I expect the people of Witney to be consulted at all times. I expect their voice to be heard and listened to, and for their needs to be met.
The impression should not be gained that I am against any change. I accept that healthcare professionals must allocate their resources in the most efficient way to ensure the best treatment for patients. I might not disagree with changes being made per se, if there was a clinical need, they worked well with other healthcare provision in the area and they were in the interests of the people of Witney and west Oxfordshire, including when we consider the challenges of the future, particularly in respect of housing. I might not be against what is suggested, but if there is to be change, the public and local stakeholders must be fully informed and involved in decision making at the earliest opportunity. The local community must not be surprised by changes being sprung on them. They must be aware of how any proposed changes will affect them and why those changes, in the CCG’s view, need to be made. If the changes are indeed for the better, the sensible, reasonable people of Witney and west Oxfordshire will support them, provided that they are properly explained.
I shall move on to the far wider issue of the STP process across west Oxfordshire. As I said, I do not necessarily disagree with decisions that are made from a clinical perspective. I might or might not agree with decisions, although let me be clear that I do disagree with some of the decisions that have been made. However, what always concerns me in every case is the way in which they are handled.
I have made my response to phase 1 of the STP publicly available—it is on my website—and it clearly outlines my concerns. I will not go through it all in detail now, but I will go through the headlines. The first is “Process”. I do not feel that the STP should ever have been split into two phases, and I made that abundantly clear to the CCG at the time. It is a simple headline point. How can we assess Oxfordshire’s healthcare needs when we hive off the decisions for the Horton, which have an impact on Chipping Norton, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, and then say that there are some other decisions that are linked inextricably to the first section that we will look at at some future point—a date that keeps going further back into next year? The whole point of the STP process is to look at healthcare needs in the round, not piecemeal, with penny-packet decisions made earlier, making that process impossible. As I have said, the CCG has a duty to the public to provide multiple viable solutions to enable true choice and real consultation.
I shall give an example of how local communities have not been involved. The projected ambulance times from the Horton or Chipping Norton to the John Radcliffe Hospital are simply improbable. Indeed, the journey times are wildly optimistic. There is an over-reliance on Google Maps. Anyone who lives locally in Chipping Norton or Banbury can tell us how long it actually takes to get from either of those towns to the John Radcliffe in traffic, because they do that journey all the time. There is a serious lack of indication of any involvement with South Central Ambulance Service, and they are the people who will be taking heavily pregnant mothers in the late stages of labour from north Oxfordshire or the north of west Oxfordshire to the John Radcliffe. The decision permanently to downgrade maternity services at the Horton, which was made by the CCG board in August, has been unanimously referred by the health overview and scrutiny committee to the Secretary of State, alongside the judicial review appeal that we know about. I go no further at this stage than to say that that indicates a seriously flawed decision-making process.
I make it clear at this stage that for those who live in the north of my constituency, around Chipping Norton, the downgrade of the Horton is greeted with utter dismay. It is important to understand why. Chipping Norton is rural. It is one of the highest places in Oxfordshire; it is one of the few places that still gets snow in winter—people do not get it anywhere else, but they do in Chipping Norton. A journey to Oxford takes, with traffic, the best part of an hour, or more if someone is in one of the outlying villages. I made it clear in the baby loss debate last week that I fear the consequences of an absence of proper obstetric services in the north of Oxfordshire, even more so if the Horton midwife-led unit does not have a standby ambulance. Those proposals are simply not safe, and the deeply moving baby loss debate reminded us last week, if we ever needed reminding, of the consequences of getting this wrong.
For the same reasons, the services at Chipping Norton hospital itself must be safeguarded. Chipping Norton is seeing significant development and needs its own NHS services, which are based in a new building alongside a superb GP medical centre. Perhaps the best example of the mess caused by the split consultation is the confusing reference to the possible closure of the Chipping Norton MLU in phase 1, which purports to deal only with the Horton. How on earth can we say, “We’ll have as a possible solution in phase 1 the possible closure of Chipping Norton; oh, but we won’t make any decisions about Chipping Norton until we come to phase 2”—which will be at some stage in the future—when that clearly impacts on the Horton? How can we decide what is right at the Horton unless we know what there will be at Chipping Norton? It is the same point again. We cannot decide on the future of Oxfordshire’s services unless we look at them as a whole. They ought not to be hived off piecemeal.
Let us look ahead to phase 2. I hope that it is clear from the points I have made that the consultation around phase 1 was inadequate. I stress again that I am not a doctor. If the decisions are in the interest of public safety, I of course appreciate their importance.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon will be heartened by the hon. Gentleman’s speech so far. The points have been extremely well made and the nail has been hit on the head about the lack of proper engagement. As he probably knows, Abingdon Community Hospital is part of phase 2, and there is a real risk that beds will be removed from the hospital without the meaningful engagement about which he so eloquently speaks. Does he agree that the approach is not just flawed because it misses out that local knowledge, but erodes public trust in the democratic process?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady foreshadows remarks that I will make in due course, because the issues that relate to Abingdon and Witney are linked. It is absolutely right to say that the approach erodes trust in the decision-making process and even in the democratic process. One has to have the support and understanding of the people in the communities that one is serving. That is just as true in Oxford West and Abingdon as it is in Witney and west Oxfordshire. I am very grateful for that intervention, which encapsulates precisely the point that I am making. I am interested to hear that the same things are occurring in Oxford West and Abingdon.
I stress yet again that I am not a doctor and am not seeking to tell healthcare professionals how to do their job, but as the hon. Lady’s intervention shows, all of us expect there to be proper engagement and the support of the public. I suggest that the past year and a half has been littered with mistakes and characterised by rushed and lazy consultation or no consultation at all. Now we are looking at phase 2, which is not just about the relatively isolated issue, however important, of the Horton and Chipping Norton, but about the entirety of Oxfordshire’s healthcare.
I understand that we are looking to go to full public consultation in summer 2018, with the final decisions to be made towards the end of 2018. At least, that is the case that the CCG makes; my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury may have comments about it in due course. We understand that the plan is to enhance certain regional community hospitals so that they can handle much more in house and become locality hubs, ensuring that fewer patients have to make the long journey along the A40 or the A34 to the John Radcliffe in the centre of Oxford. The aim is people being treated closer to home. That is, in itself, a laudable, sensible, clinically wise decision. It is an aim that we all have. No one wants to trek into Oxford if they can be treated in Witney, Abingdon or Chipping Norton. We are told that there will also be neighbourhood hubs, providing a centre for district nurses, general practitioners and physiotherapists.
The proposals already, at this early stage—we do not have the full proposals yet—suggest that although there is the promise of joined-up thinking and a structure for facilities, further points have not yet been fully considered. We have seen the re-emergence of some of the same issues that bedevilled Deer Park. I am talking about stroke beds at Witney Community Hospital. I hate to say it, but the CCG does not appear to have listened to the lessons that were learned in the first phase and with regard to Deer Park. We are seeing the same thing: specific issues are hived off from the wider STP process and forced through on their own, without consultation. The wider changes are meant to be considered in the round, looked at in conjunction with other facilities, with due regard to population growth. That is the whole point of an STP. We should not be seeing this balkanisation of the STP process so that within west Oxfordshire, decisions are taken outside the STP process and without the full consultation that is required.
For example, stroke beds, of which there are currently 10 each in Witney Community Hospital and Abingdon Community Hospital, will all be moved to Abingdon in November, which is only a few weeks away. The CCG’s case is that this will increase patient safety, as staff will not be spread across two sites. Again, I do not pretend to be a doctor, a healthcare professional or a clinical expert. There may be a case for that, but there are worrying signs already that it has not been thought through. For example, physiotherapy facilities have been retendered and awarded to Healthshare, which is moving into the former Deer Park medical centre in Witney. The flaw is that stroke patients needing rehab physio will now be 10 miles away in Abingdon, rather than those services being together. That also seems not to take account of the human aspects of rehabilitation: it is important to see friends and family.
Layla Moran
The problem in Abingdon is that people are concerned that the physiotherapy unit has been moved away. That point about access is incredibly important, especially in our area, where we frankly cannot get anywhere for the traffic.
Robert Courts
I am grateful for that intervention, which is the mirror image of the point that I am making about Witney. The hon. Lady and I face exactly the same problem, but from other ends of the same road. We have the A40, the A34 and the roads inside and around Oxford. Whichever direction a patient is going in it is not a happy prospect for them, whether they originate in west Oxfordshire or in Oxford West and Abingdon.
Again, my point is that this has not been consulted on in any meaningful sense. It has been sprung upon the public when everybody understood, until now, that the future of the wider services would be considered in the round as part of phase 2 of the STP. Suddenly, these proposals were made public at the county council’s joint health overview and scrutiny committee meeting in September, only a matter of weeks ago.
The devil lies in the detail, as always. When we consider what we do not yet know, it becomes clear why it is so important to have a consultation. I would like to see, for example, a map showing where stroke patients come from—where the preponderance of those treated at Witney or Abingdon happen to be, so that we know where they can best be treated. That is not something the public have seen. We should know whether the Witney catchment area includes just the town, or whether it includes west Oxfordshire or Chipping Norton to the north of it. What will the interplay be between Witney hospital and the physiotherapy that is to be just down the road at Deer Park? What hours of care are being delivered now, and what is proposed for the future?
There may or may not be force to those points. We simply do not know. Once again, without a comparison of the status quo and the proposed changes, it is impossible to know whether what is being proposed is a downgrade to, and a reduction in, the services provided. That is the whole point of scrutiny. That is the whole point of consultation. That is not what we are seeing in Witney and west Oxfordshire at present. All this comes just a couple of months before the changes are due to come into effect, with no consultation in any meaningful sense, over a very compacted time period. It simply is not good enough for the people of Witney and west Oxfordshire.
The public can hardly be blamed if they wonder what the future of their hospital in Witney is, whether a ward is going to close or whether the hospital itself is in danger of closing—whether this is the beginning of a death by a thousand cuts, where Witney hospital becomes less and less viable as specialisms are removed from it. The ball is firmly in the CCG’s court. The public need to be reassured loudly and clearly by the CCG that no beds are closing. They need to be reassured that the loss of a specialism is not the beginning of a death by a thousand cuts, where the hospital is downgraded to the point at which it becomes unviable. They need to be reassured that a new specialism for the beds will be proposed, so that Witney hospital can look forward to a bright future in which it receives more services through phase 2, perhaps becoming a locality hub, building on the excellent, innovative emergency multidisciplinary unit that is already in place.
Of course, the CCG’s response will be that that work has not yet been done, but that just is not good enough. Why are we hearing the proposals now if some of the work that is still to be done lies a year in the future? At best, this is a situation that could result in exemplary healthcare services, structured to face the pressures on healthcare of a modern town, and the public are only seeing the negatives. At worst, something is being hidden. We need clarity. This is not about cuts or a lack of funding. This is about a failure to communicate with the public about what is happening to their treasured services. The future of Witney Community Hospital is paramount, and I look forward to the CCG making a statement that makes its bold and bright future clear very soon.
Hon. Members will be glad to know, I am sure, that I am coming to the end. I am very grateful to the Minister, to you, Sir Roger, and to all hon. Members for having listened to my rather wide-ranging speech. I have focused on Witney, with regard to Deer Park and the community hospitals, because those happened to be live issues recently, but the same issues apply to Chipping Norton hospital, which was a particularly live issue six months ago and I know will become an issue again in the future.
We have a CCG that does not seem to understand the duty—it is a duty—to involve the public in its decision making. That does not mean it necessarily has to bend to the will of what people say. It is entitled to come up with proposals itself, but it does have a duty to explain them and to explain why it feels that what it is proposing is in the interests of the people that it serves. It cannot just explain the decisions that it has already made, without explaining what is coming up on the horizon.
The fact that there have been three referrals by the HOSC to the Secretary of State in a year—over Deer Park, the temporary closure of maternity services at Horton and the permanent closure of full maternity and obstetric services at Horton—and multiple judicial reviews by the public, local councils and NHS groups, shows that there is a real danger, if it has not already happened, of a breakdown in relationships. That needs to be fixed, as the whole structure of decision making around healthcare in Oxfordshire is being called into question. I hope that this situation is unique to Oxfordshire and is not systemic across the whole country, but in any event, what has been happening over the last year is no way to construct the future of Oxfordshire’s healthcare.
I finish by saying that I and everybody here would like a constructive relationship with the CCG. That can be achieved, and it will be achieved when the CCG takes a look at the health services of Oxfordshire in the round; when it works in partnership with the county and district councils and the patient groups, which have so much to offer; and, above all, when the public and their representatives alike are properly consulted and not simply told of decisions. I know we can get to that stage and I very much look forward to doing so in the months ahead.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Mr Howell has indicated to me very courteously that as one of Her Majesty’s trade ambassadors he has an unavoidable commitment. I know that the Opposition and Government Front Benchers will understand that he will therefore not be able to be present for their winding-up speeches, but he has undertaken to read them in Hansard.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Roger. I do apologise that I have to go to meet the Minister of Agriculture from Nigeria. He is here at my own invitation, so I can hardly be absent from the meeting.
Let me say straightaway that I chair a group of Oxfordshire MPs who meet approximately every six weeks to discuss their relationship with the CCG. The meetings were started in order to discuss delayed discharges of care, and I have to say, from the last meeting that we had, they are going very well. Oxfordshire had the difficulty that it was one of the worst performers in delayed discharges, but is now coming back to being one of the best. I have been outside the STP process because my area was handled separately in advance. Townlands Hospital in Henley needed a multi-million pound investment before the STP process started, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) that the process of consultation that was started by the CCG left a lot to be desired. As a former professional in the area of consultation, I looked with some disdain at what was taking place, but I appreciate that the CCG had a particular difficulty in seeing the hospital as Henley’s or south Oxfordshire’s, which they deliberately intended it to become. In the villages outside Henley that make up the largest proportion of people in south Oxfordshire, there was enormous support for the proposals. It was only in Henley that people took the opportunity to complain about the lack of beds.
Let me turn to the lack of beds. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney spoke about treating people in hospitals close to them. I fully agree with that, but a better model would be to treat them in their own homes. That healthcare system is called ambulatory care. I have spoken about that in this Chamber at length, so I will not repeat all of what I have said before. Ambulatory care requires a full integration of social care activities and medical activities in an area, because it turns the hospital into an extremely efficient medical campus-type facility, with very few people needing to stay in overnight.
In fact, if people stay in overnight, the effects on them are quite horrendous. Anyone over the age of 60 who stays in for four or five days is immediately incontinent. Without wishing to comment on people’s ages, some of us in the Chamber would look at that with great horror. If people stay in for a lot longer than that, other bad effects come from that.
When the consultation took place, there was a tremendous amount of antagonism about the beds being put—
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Dunne
I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful, constructive contribution to the debate, would not want to give colleagues the impression that of necessity, someone over the age of 60 would become incontinent if they spent four nights in a hospital. I think he is trying to suggest that there is a greater risk of adverse effects the longer one stays in hospital.
John Howell
I thank the Minister for that point; I was not suggesting that it was an inevitability. However, at this stage let me extend an invitation to him to visit the hospital so he can see how it works and how it has integrated social care with the medical activities there. It is based around a RACU—a rapid access care unit—which is similar to the EMU—emergency multidisciplinary unit—in Abingdon that is being proposed elsewhere. As I said, it turns the hospital into a diagnostics hospital, similar to a hospital developed in Welwyn Garden City that I went to see.
I saw the difficulty for the CCG with regard to its consultation when I went to a SELF—a South East Locality Forum—meeting. People from Henley were sitting around the table with big beaming smiles on their faces saying how wonderful the hospital was, and a member of the CCG had to stop them and say, “Well, it is a pity you didn’t say that when we were developing the hospital. Right to the end of the consultation you were attacking us on this and on taking the beds out and putting them in a care home at the side of the hospital. That is working very well and now you say that it is absolutely wonderful.” The fact is that, apart from some minor snags with the new hospital, it is a fantastic new investment by the Department of Health. It shows the way a community hospital should be developed not just in Oxfordshire but across the country. I repeat my invitation to the Minister to come and visit.
The great thing about the hospital was not the consultation initiated by the CCG but the support that I got from the Royal College of Physicians, which came out very strongly in favour of an ambulatory healthcare model and very favourably in support of the hospital. That is an interesting point, which goes back to my comments in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney about the lack of consultation experience on the part of the CCG. That organisation is willing to learn, and I hope that it will. I also hope that we, as MPs who meet it from time to time, will be able to keep up our pressure on it to deliver the sort of services that we feel our constituents want.
Nadhim Zahawi
On the point about learning, the Oxfordshire clinical commissioning group has only one district council from Warwickshire—Stratford-on-Avon District Council—on its board. In phase 1 of the consultation, which began in January, it only met the council in March; the council’s overview and scrutiny committee had requested a much earlier meeting. Should that not be part of the learning process?
John Howell
I fully agree that it should be. As I said, I am not here to defend how the CCG does its consultation. If I had the chance, I would make many changes to the consultation, and including others on the list of people who will be consulted as part of the decision-making process would be an important part of that.
I think I have probably said enough both to support my hon. Friend the Member for Witney and to make the point that it is possible to get through even a bad consultation by a CCG and get a fantastic hospital—ours is doing a brilliant job for all the constituents of south Oxfordshire, not just for one town.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing this important debate. He spoke with verve and passion; in fact, throughout his speech I was grateful that I was never prosecuted by him when he was at the Bar, because I would not have stood a chance. He made his points cogently and those were ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). I, too, am a trade envoy—I missed a trick in not informing you of that before the debate, Sir Roger—but I wish my hon. Friend luck with his forthcoming meeting, and I quite understand why he cannot stay for the entire debate.
Let me speak briefly, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) also wants to speak and she is particularly passionate about this subject. I fully support the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney made about the consultation process, which has been, not to put too fine a point on it, pretty tortuous. That has not been helped by the fact that the chief executive and the chairman of the clinical commissioning group both left in the summer, although this gives me an opportunity to congratulate the new chairman, Kiren Collison, who has just been elected on a 97% turnout of GPs in Oxfordshire.
There is clearly great passion for health services in our county—an affluent county that is capable of providing very good services to the people here. But we are getting older, and over the next few years, the population of people aged over 85 will rise by almost 100% and the population of those aged over 60 will increase by 58,000. We are also getting more houses, which are much needed, but that also means that the population as a whole will rise from its current 700,000 to almost 900,000 in the next decade or so. There are great pressures on our local health service, and it has not been helped by this consultation period.
Let me highlight three issues in my constituency, starting with Wantage Community Hospital, a much loved local amenity, which previously had maternity services, with about 60 births a year. I regularly bump into people in Wantage who were born there—many of my constituents were. The hospital was closed in April 2016 because legionella kept being found in the pipe system. Some 4,000 people signed a petition asking simply for the physiotherapy and maternity services to remain open. As I said, there is huge support and there have been great demonstrations in favour of it.
The process that has followed has been appalling. The consultation was due to start in October 2016, but as my hon. Friends know, the clinical commissioning group split the consultation into two phases, with the first covering acute hospitals and the second covering community hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury might comment on that strange way of going about a consultation. In any event, the first consultation did not take place until January 2017, three months late. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) pointed out, community hospitals are not covered in that phase.
In addition, we have now lost our physiotherapy services. They were retendered, and Healthshare won the tender, but it informed my local newspaper that it would not provide physiotherapy services in Wantage as it otherwise would have done, because it was not offered the opportunity. The only service that the hospital can offer is limited maternity care; it has effectively been closed for more than a year, and will have been closed for two years when we get to the phase 2 consultation that might decide its future. That is a completely unacceptable position. I have said again and again to my constituents that I will support anything that provides good healthcare services in Wantage, whether in the community hospital or elsewhere, but at the very least I would like the consultation to start so that my constituents can participate in the discussion.
That leads me to my next point about the pressure on some of my local GP surgeries. For example, Wantage health centre, which could provide some of the services formerly offered by the community hospital—not maternity care, clearly—is home to two practices and is located in a relatively new building on a large site, purpose-built with a view to expansion in future. Its current capacity is 29,000 patients, but over the next 10 years it is likely to reach 45,000.
The landlords, Assura, made a bid to EFTA in March 2016, offering to meet the capital provision and proposing to ask Oxfordshire CCG to meet the additional rent reimbursement. That bid was not successful. I am told that Assura is still committed to investing in the building and that any capital provided by the NHS will be offset by reduced rent, but it needs reassurance that the NHS wants to progress the project; otherwise, it will have to consider alternative uses for the land. The current rent reimbursement is around £350,000, and would rise to around £550,000 with the increase in capacity.
The trouble is that Oxfordshire CCG has not engaged in any imaginative approach to the conundrum that the building is owned by a private landlord—albeit one that is a specialist healthcare provider—meaning that it would incur a revenue cost to the NHS rather than a capital cost. However, at least some sense that a creative discussion is taking place is needed, and I am afraid that there is none.
The White Horse medical practice in Faringdon also has problems. It is two practices merged in one large building, but the internal configuration is far from ideal: for example, it has two waiting rooms. The practice put in a bid for £375,000 to enable internal alterations that would provide five much-needed extra consulting rooms. It received funding for the plans to be drawn up and costed, but was unsuccessful in the final bid, and the CCG has no funding for this project. I do not necessarily lay the blame at the CCG’s door, but it is intensely depressing that relatively small sums of capital that would make a tremendous difference seem to be completely unavailable.
Finally, the Elm Tree surgery in Shrivenham faces issues as well. It is managed by a different CCG in Swindon. The trouble is that because Swindon is mainly an urban area, the CCG has drawn up plans that are perfectly sensible for urban areas, whereas the Elm Tree surgery is a rural practice with completely different needs. Inappropriate decisions have been taken, such as about payments and the surgery’s relationship with care homes. I have met GPs from the Elm Tree surgery and written to Swindon CCG to highlight the problem, but although I have requested a meeting, Swindon CCG has refused, which I find slightly disheartening.
I conclude by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who opened this excellent debate. The whole consultation process has been completely unacceptable. All of us recognise the pressures on the local health authorities and the pressures from a changing population; all that my constituents ask for is a reasonable, open and transparent conversation about the services that they need in their towns and communities.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I made my first speech about the Horton General Hospital when I was seven. I apologise that many people in this Chamber will have heard it before, but I do not know that you have had that pleasure, so with your permission, I will carry on.
Let us remember what we are talking about. The Horton is not a community hospital. It has been a pleasure to listen to colleagues talk about their community hospitals; we have heard about Wantage and Abingdon, and one rarely meets my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) without hearing him mention the Townlands, of which he is very proud. I love community hospitals too; my mother helped run Brackley Cottage Hospital for most of my childhood and until recently, and I think that the marvellous hospital in Bicester still has untapped potential. However, the Horton General Hospital, which I will talk about, is quite different.
The Horton has hundreds of beds and treats about 39,000 people in accident and emergency every year—nearly one third of Oxfordshire’s A&E attendances. What happens at the Horton affects all my colleagues, due to the knock-on effects of closure. Our surgeons are among the top five in the UK for neck and femur operations. It is not a community hospital; it is a fully functioning, very busy district general.
We feel beleaguered. For more than 40 years, the John Radcliffe Hospital has viewed us as a smaller and less academic sibling that can be treated with contempt when staffing is short. In 2008—this is not ancient history; it is nine years ago—the Independent Reconfiguration Panel was asked to consider the last proposed downgrade of paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology and the special care baby unit. It conducted, as I hope it will again, a full five-month review and made five excellent recommendations, which I will read once more.
The first recommendation was:
“The IRP considers that the Horton Hospital has an important role for the future in providing local hospital-based care to people in the north of Oxfordshire and surrounding areas. However, it will need to change to ensure its services remain appropriate, safe and sustainable.”
On the proposed downgrades, it said:
“The IRP does not consider that they will provide an accessible or improved service to the people of north Oxfordshire and surrounding areas.”
Other recommendations were:
“The PCT should carry out further work with the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust to set out the arrangements and investment necessary to retain and develop services at the Horton Hospital. Patients, the public and other stakeholders should be fully involved in this work… The PCT must develop a clear vision for children’s and maternity services within an explicit strategy for services for north Oxfordshire as a whole… The ORH must do more to develop clinically integrated practice across the Horton, John Radcliffe and Churchill sites as well as developing wider clinical networks with other hospitals, primary care and the independent sector.”
I am afraid that none of that happened. The recommendations were made nine years ago, but none of them were followed. The only things that changed were that the traffic got worse and the population of the area grew. Our district council, I am proud to say, tops the leader board for house building.
Less than 10 years later, we now have no obstetrics or SCBU. They went in the blink of an eye, without any real attempt to address recruitment issues or work with us to do so, although we offered and offered. Locally, we remain deeply unhappy and frightened. Patients in the later stages of labour are travelling for up to two hours, and emergency gynaecological operations take place in a portakabin in the Radcliffe car park. We have heard stories locally—in fact, they are all people talk about—of babies born in lay-bys and in the back of ambulances. The data that show statistics of complete births—defined by when the placenta has been delivered—tell a different story; they do not register the reality of people’s experience.
I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said about Google Maps. Locally, the impression is that the CCG and the trust massage the figures and use them when it suits their argument. I conducted a travel survey of nearly 400 people on their real-life experiences of how long it takes to get from our area to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. Sadly, those data were not taken on board in any of the CCG’s reports, although the data set was bigger and better than the CCG’s. The CCG provided real data only when we had harangued, pestered and begged it to do so.
I will not go on about how worried I am; I will focus on what we can do to put the situation right. It is true, as all hon. Members have said, that local health providers do not talk to one another. Health Education England’s decision to remove training accreditation for middle-grade obstetricians was the straw that broke the camel’s back for recruitment, yet it remains aloof and makes decisions in a vacuum. Its recent decision to remove accreditation from certain grades of anaesthetists puts all the acute services provided by the Horton at risk. The dean did not communicate that decision to decision makers at the trust or the CCG; I had to tell them at a meeting in August. I do not think that that is an acceptable way to run a healthcare system.
The trust usually tells the CCG what to do. When it does not agree, there is stalemate. The trust, the clinicians and everyone else locally know that the A&E at the Horton cannot possibly be shut, because the knock-on effects on the rest of Oxfordshire and the surrounding counties would be catastrophic. The CCG, however, is determined to press ahead with its consultation that suggests otherwise. Owing to this impasse, we have ended up with a split consultation that means nothing to any of us. Patients’ needs appear to be an afterthought. South Central Ambulance Service, which bears the brunt of the transfers, is carried along as a consultee with no voice at the table when decisions are taken.
One of the main complaints is that local health decision makers do not listen to us. Our latest consultation report described the “universal concerns” of more than 10,000 people from my area who responded to our consultation. I cannot overemphasise the strength of local feeling. We all feel the same: all the elected representatives, of whatever party; a great campaigning group, Keep the Horton General; and even the local churches, which are praying for sense in the clinical commissioning group’s decision making. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) laughs, but I am afraid it is impossible to overstate how essential our local hospital is to people in our area. He may think it is funny, but we do not.
Victoria Prentis
Quite.
At our last meeting, the trust’s chief executive told me that my fears about the Horton were “irrational”, but those fears are shared by the IRP—at least they were nine years ago, and I hope they still are—and by about 170,000 people who are served by the Horton. Rather than try to answer my questions, the chief executive simply dismissed them. I do not think that that is an acceptable way to behave.
We still do not know whether a father can transfer with a labouring mother from the midwife-led unit at the Horton. If not, how on earth is he supposed to get to north Oxford while she gives birth? We still do not know—although I have asked more often than I care to remember—whether the static ambulance will be stationed permanently at the Horton while all this is sorted out. As we have heard from all hon. Members, the CCG and the trust do not communicate with us elected representatives or with the general public, and often not even with each other. It has been left to me to organise public meetings locally. NHS Improvement was absolutely appalled when I showed it the pile of unanswered letters that I had written to the CCG and the trust. Hon. Members beyond the county boundary whose constituents use the Horton are completely overlooked.
Local health services may well be devolved to commissioners and providers, but if this is devolution, Minister, it is not working. The chief executive and the clinical lead of the CCG are leaving before the end of the year. I cannot pretend that I am unhappy about that—I have hardly been uncritical of how the CCG runs its affairs—but I have to say that I am not optimistic that the necessary changes will be made. The new clinical lead, whose appointment was announced yesterday, will be the former maternity lead. Although I will work with her, and I hope very much that she will engage with the issues we face, I am not optimistic. The CCG is hellbent on continuing the split consultation, despite various judicial reviews—I can tell it that there will be more to come, if necessary—and three referrals to the IRP, which presumably will not have changed its mind since nine years ago, particularly given the unprecedented growth in the town. Whoever takes on the CCG job is inheriting a poisoned chalice.
I am not going to give up, and nor are the constituents I represent. After all, I do not think that Banbury elected a bereaved mother with a passion for maternal safety, 20 years’ experience of judicial review and a 15-year background of voluntary work for the trust by accident. In 2008, local GPs were pivotal in the fight to save the Horton, but this time, poor leadership and an ever increasing workload—particularly given the town’s growth—have prevented them from being the vocal force that they once were. However, I have found allies in NHS Improvement, which has been investigating the trust, and in the Care Quality Commission, which can prosecute. I look forward to working further with those allies.
If help with recruitment is the answer, we need the Department to step in. Salary supplements for trainee GPs are really welcome, not just for rural or coastal areas but for market towns that face unprecedented growth. The catchment is predicted to increase from 170,000 to 207,000. We really need obstetricians. The district council has made sensible suggestions for developing and improving the Horton site; I just wish the CCG and the trust would look at them. They were included in the response to the consultation—I also made a very extensive response—but when I mentioned them at the last meeting in August, none of this had registered with the decision makers. I do wonder about the depth and quality of the work they do.
I know that the Horton has a future as a provider of acute services. I am sorry to use the language of war, but I welcome the sight of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney defending my right flank, as he so often does. Ever since he was elected, he has been a real ally and friend in this fight. We in Banbury are most grateful to him for all his work and for securing this debate. I also welcome the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who are both in Cabinet this morning but will be interested in this debate. They both feel as we do about our hospital in Banbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) was present earlier; his district council has been a great ally, has brought one of the judicial reviews, and continues to support us—even though, as far as I can tell, it is not consulted about anything by the Oxfordshire CCG. I really feel that we are beleaguered, so it is lovely to see hon. Members appearing like battalions, with patients and GPs in their wake, to support all of us who use the Horton General Hospital.
We are not irrational, but we are passionate. We want a reasoned and evidence-based conversation about the future. We are very, very determined, so I am afraid everyone in this Chamber will have to listen to this speech many, many more times.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for securing a debate on this important subject. It gives us an opportunity to discuss a subject that I would suggest goes beyond Oxfordshire.
Forgive me if I am not as familiar with the healthcare scene in Oxfordshire as many of the hon. Members who have spoken today, but I have listened closely and what they have described resonates with similar situations across the country. I applaud their commitment and dedication on behalf of their constituents, which, by the sound of things, are quite justifiable. It is clear from what hon. Members have said that the people of Oxfordshire seem to be very unhappy about the proposals, and my research shows me that perhaps they have good reason to be.
The proposed changes will mean less hospital beds; changes to acute stroke services; changes to care at the Horton General Hospital, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) has just explained to us in great detail; changes to critical care; changes to maternity services; and changes to the special baby care services. I gather that there has been lots of vociferous opposition to these proposals on the ground, which has been reflected in hon. Members’ comments today. I understand that local people have said in a petition that they believe these proposed changes will lead to poor services, a cheaper service, overcrowding and long waits. I particularly noted what a local A&E doctor said about the process way back in August:
“This is just awful. Working in A&E is particularly difficult, and has been all year. We often have significant nursing and medical rota gaps, and long waiting times. Despite it being August, every shift has patients on trolleys in the corridor, with the time waiting for a bed over 12 hours…We are not coping”.
I also note that there is a proposal to reduce the number of hospital beds in the first instance by 110 further beds. Clearly, no one is listening to the NHS staff there in Oxfordshire.
Oxford City Council has also expressed its concerns and has quite rightly commented on the lack of a workforce plan. Interestingly, however, it also said that it understands the position that the clinical commissioning group finds itself in. We have heard a lot of criticisms of the CCG this morning and it has obviously been remiss in its consultation process. However, the council says it understands that the CCG is up against national policy.
That point is very important, because what we have heard this morning is not only a problem that affects Oxfordshire. The hon. Member for Witney spoke about his constituency being one of the few that still has snow. My constituency, too, still has snow—lots of it—and we also have in common a great dissatisfaction with the health services that we are receiving, particularly as we look forward, or maybe dread, the introduction of the sustainability and transformation plans.
At this stage, we have a national health service, and the changes that we have heard about this morning are Oxfordshire’s response as part of the STP group that takes into account Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and west Berkshire. The STP ordered by Government is one of the 44 they have ordered. In total, those STPs will look to save the NHS £22 billion and the share of the savings that have to be made by Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and west Berkshire is £480 million. That, I would suggest, is at the root of the changes.
Victoria Prentis
I accept that I could not possibly expect the hon. Lady, coming from Burnley as she does, to have the encyclopaedic knowledge of Oxfordshire health services that, sadly, we Oxfordshire MPs have to, but the changes to the Horton General Hospital apparently stem from recruitment—the inability to recruit obstetricians—and not a lack of money. Indeed, the changes started when the STP was just a twinkle in someone’s eye, so the situation is slightly more nuanced.
Julie Cooper
I note the hon. Lady’s points, and there is another issue we could talk about. Our NHS has a crisis on three fronts—a funding crisis, a workforce crisis and a systemic crisis—and I think that is what we are looking at today: some of the systemic problems.
Going forward, £480 million has to be saved. This is not something that the CCG has decided to do, and it does not matter how transparent the consultation is—it sounds like it needs to up its game on that—because it still has to make its share of that saving.
As for the national health service, I note with absolute horror that, when it comes to the percentage of GDP that we spend on our NHS, we are well down the league—indeed, we are close to the bottom—compared with nations that we would expect to be up there with. We are behind France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, New Zealand, Portugal and Japan—I do not have time to list them all, but we are well down the list.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) quite rightly mentioned the issue of beds and how it is not really a bad issue—people ought to receive care at home where possible. I totally support that; the problem is that the cart is being put before the horse. The care, including social care, is not there in the first instance to allow us to reduce hospital beds and provide the excellent care in the community that we all want to see. When it comes to the number of hospital beds per head of population, we are again close to the bottom of the league.
For obvious reasons, healthcare in the modern NHS is delivered in a different way. In all comparable nations, the number of hospital beds has reduced, but nowhere near to the extent that it has been reduced in England. I particularly note with horror the reduction in maternity beds and mental health beds. There has been a lot of talk about standing up for the mentally ill, but beds in mental health care have actually been reduced by over 90%. That is very worrying when we all see that the necessary care is not there in the community. In fact, Oxfordshire County Council has said it is worried that there would be no impact assessment of some of the proposed changes. How was the community going to cope? Were the services in place in the community to provide support when, for example, hospital beds were removed? The council was not convinced that that was the case.
So, we are bottom of the league on spending as a percentage of GDP and close to the bottom—we are just bumping along the bottom—on hospital beds.
Robert Courts
I understand that the hon. Lady has her job to do, but I am quite keen that this debate, which is about a much more complicated local healthcare issue, is not reduced to one in which—if she will forgive me for saying so—some rather crude political points are made. For what they are worth, the statistics are that the NHS Oxfordshire CCG has received a funding increase of 2% in 2017-18 compared with the previous financial year, and another 2% increase is forecast for the following financial year, so more money is going into the CCG. What is clear—the CCG was quite open about this in the phase 1 consultations instigated and organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and I—is that the issue is not funding. It is about transparency of consultation and organisation, so I would be grateful if the hon. Lady did not reduce this debate to a political or money issue.
Julie Cooper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sorry that he thinks I am reducing the debate; actually, I am looking at the national health service—we do still have a national health service, and I am thankful that we do. I take the points that he has made. These local reconfigurations of healthcare services are very complex; I understand that. However, underpinning all this—it is well documented—is that the STP for the region must make a saving of £480 million. That will be the funding gap if things continue as they are. The changes are not being made for patient gain, and that is why right hon. and hon. Members are rightly upset. They listen to their constituents, and their constituents, as they begin to see the changes coming forward, know they are definitely not an improvement. There is a financial motivation behind them.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney for introducing the debate. It is really important. I sympathise with the people of Oxfordshire, as I do with people across the country in the 44 different STP groups—we are hearing the same story in each of them. I hope that the Minister will address the points raised and that he will encourage clinical commissioning groups to consult more widely, thoroughly and transparently and will equip them with the tools they need. In case anyone does not believe me, did anyone really think that Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, was lying when he said that the NHS did not have enough funding? When the chair of the Care Quality Commission said that social care was close to its tipping point—that has a bearing on this matter—did anyone think he was lying? Of course not. These are very important issues, and I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is part of a Government’s national plan for our health service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he spoke. I share the admiration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) of the forensic skills he has brought here from a former life, and I feel somewhat fortunate that I am sitting on the same side of the Chamber as he is.
We have heard many powerful contributions about the strength of feeling in Oxfordshire from its many impressive elected representatives, and about how a large number of the service changes that are under consideration in the county have suffered from a lack of engagement, with the clinical commissioning group in particular failing to explain to local residents the purpose of and the objectives behind the changes. I take that on board, as something that needs to improve, and I will come back to it at the end of my remarks.
It is very clear, from the Government and the Department of Health, through the NHS leadership, that all proposed service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients. That is at the heart of why service change is proposed. We have made an explicit commitment to the public that all proposed service changes should meet four tests. Just to rehearse them, they are that they should have support from GP commissioners, be based on clinical evidence, consider patient choice and, most specifically for the purposes of this debate, demonstrate public and patient engagement. In the case of the service change proposals that have been made thus far in Oxfordshire, when they are capable of coming to us for determination, for ministerial decision making on appeal, my colleague the Secretary of State and I are placed in some difficulty, because we need to remain impartial and consider the issues on their merits. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney and other colleagues will therefore appreciate that I am unable to offer opinions on the merits of the proposals from the two transformation consultations, whether actual or anticipated.
We recognise that Oxfordshire, like many areas across England, faces unprecedented demand for its services. We are all aware of the growing number of older people, many of whom are living with more complex, chronic conditions, partially thanks to the success of the NHS in keeping people going for longer, but we have also heard from a number of colleagues that Oxfordshire faces particular population pressures, with welcome increases in house building planned for the coming decades. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) said when she intervened on the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), there are particular challenges in recruiting high-quality NHS staff into many of our facilities, not just in rural and coastal areas but across the country. We accept that, and are looking to increase the numbers of medical and nursing staff being trained. There was an unprecedented 25% increase in doctors in training, announced last year by the Secretary of State, and earlier this month a record increase of 25% in the number of nurses in training was announced for the next two years. Those are all reasons why the Oxfordshire transformation programme has been reviewing the model of care to ensure that future health service provision in the county is clinically and financially sustainable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney began his remarks by referring to the closure of the Deer Park medical practice in Witney. I will not go into the full history, but he acknowledged that the closure took place in March this year. In the previous December, a judicial review had been requested and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, this was the first time in recent years that such a thing had happened to a primary care facility. The judge who heard the case refused permission to bring it for judicial review, and it was therefore passed to the independent review panel in March of this year. The panel concluded that the referral was not suitable for full review because further local action could address the issues raised.
The Secretary of State considered and accepted the recommendations—some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney read out—and the Oxfordshire CCG is now working to address them. Foremost among the recommendations was that all former patients of Deer Park medical practice should be registered at an alternative practice as soon as possible. My understanding is that, of the 4,400 patients who were registered with the practice, more than 4,000 had been reregistered, as of mid-September, and that the CCG is acting to encourage the remaining 400 patients to register at one of the three other GP practices in and around Witney, whose lists remain open so that patients can register at a practice of their choice, as long as they live within its catchment area. I believe that a further letter will be sent out to all those remaining patients, to encourage them to register with another GP.
The second key recommendation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney also referred to, was that a primary care framework be developed to provide direction for a sustainable GP service in Witney and the surrounding area. That is at the crux of his concern about the way in which the CCG engages. I happen to have a copy of its locality place-based plan for primary care, and I note that the consultation on how primary care services should be developed for west Oxfordshire opened last week. I strongly encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the CCG and to encourage his residents to do so, so that it learns from the lessons of the Deer Park lack of consultation and, in devising services for the future, fully takes into account local residents’ concerns. I believe that the consultation period is six weeks and is due to conclude at the end of November. A common theme in colleagues’ contributions today has been that lack of engagement, as they see it, with the local CCG.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised again today her historic championing of the cause of Horton General, which clearly goes beyond primary care into secondary care. She gave us another history lesson. She has been campaigning on this issue since she was seven years old, and I think she could probably trump any Member who wanted to stand up and say that they had been consistently campaigning on any issue since a young age. Having said that, I suspect that one or two older Members have been campaigning on the same issues for longer, but certainly not from such a young age.
My hon. Friend referred to the temporary suspension last October of the obstetric-led service in the Horton because of the difficulties in recruiting doctors and midwives. It has temporarily become a midwife-led unit. As she also pointed out, at a public board meeting this August, the CCG accepted recommendations following consultation. [Interruption.] She may regard that as inadequate, but there has been some consultation. Those recommendations include one to centralise Oxfordshire’s obstetric facilities in the John Radcliffe Hospital and one to make the midwife-led unit at Horton General a permanent establishment. As she has pointed out, that decision is subject to judicial review and referral to the Secretary of State, so no action will be taken to make that recommendation permanent until the referral process has run its course.
My hon. Friend has referred to a number of the challenges posed for local residents and for pregnant women in labour in getting access to Horton General. I have taken note of the comments made by her and other Members on the reliance on Google Maps to determine travel times. I understand that the CCG has undertaken an extensive travel survey. If a mother is in labour and is in an ambulance, she has the benefit of the blue light service to get through the traffic. That can mean a more rapid journey time than ordinary residents would expect or experience.
Victoria Prentis
I am so grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the comments he is making. Most people who go to hospital while in the later stages of labour to have a baby are not in an ambulance. The ambulance times relate only to transfers from the midwife-led unit to the Radcliffe. Although a significant number of the people who give birth in the MLU have to transfer during or immediately after labour—we are told that it is up to 40%—that is nothing compared with the vast majority of women, who travel in a private car, if they are lucky enough to have one.
Mr Dunne
Indeed, I recognise that. If we are moving to an obstetric-led service at the John Radcliffe, any mother who is high-risk or is expected to give birth will have time to travel in good order, rather than in an emergency. I accept that emergency transfers do take place from midwife-led units during the course of labour.
I have heard the criticism about the overall transformation programme for Oxfordshire being divided into two phases. At this point, we are where we are. The first phase has come to a conclusion, and we are entering the second phase. I recognise some of the criticisms that it is hard to comprehend a coherent system without seeing it all laid out together.
Mr Vaizey
I hate to interrupt the Minister’s flow as he is getting stuck into the STP, but as time is running out, will he prevail on his officials to write to me after this debate and answer two questions? First, when will the next tranche of capital funding be available for GP surgeries in Oxfordshire? Secondly, what engagements could his Department facilitate between Assura, myself and the clinical commissioning group to try to break the logjam at the Wantage surgery? I do not want to waste any more of his time, and I feel reluctant to prevail upon his officials’ time, but that would be very helpful.
Mr Dunne
I can do better than that; I can answer my right hon. Friend’s first question directly. The bids for STP capital funding have been made by all 44 STP areas. They are being assessed at the moment, and we will be making submissions to the Chancellor for the Budget to see whether there will be a capital release for phase 2 of STPs. It is a competitive process. I can confirm that the STP area covering Oxfordshire has made a bid, but I cannot confirm whether it will be successful, because we will not know until we know how much the Chancellor is prepared to release in the Budget. I will happily write to him on his second question and his concerns about Wantage.
Members have said much about some of their concerns about their community hospitals. In his absence, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for his invitation to visit his hospital and look at the rapid access care unit. I am pleased that he supports the impact it is having in ensuring that elderly and frail people are seen quickly and can return to their homes without needing to be admitted. As he pointed out, and I think we all agree, care at home is how we should be seeking to treat as many people as possible, because that allows people to lead longer independent lives instead of having a prolonged stay in hospital.
The second phase of the Oxfordshire transformation programme is continuing. As has been pointed out in the debate, the CCG leadership is going through a transition period. We have a process under way to recruit a new chief executive, who is expected to be in post in the coming weeks. I am sure that the chairman will read this debate and take note of the comments that have been made on the challenges in engaging in recent years, as will the new clinical lead, who was appointed only yesterday. It is important that Oxfordshire CCG undertakes full public engagement for the second phase of the transformation, and I am aware that that is what it is intending to do. It is likely to begin early in the new year, and I strongly encourage all Members to engage with that consultation in as forceful and impressive a way as they have with this debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. I pay tribute to the passion with which everyone has spoken about their commitment to their local residents in providing high-quality healthcare in Oxfordshire.
Robert Courts
I thank every Member who has contributed with such passion, in such detail and in such a thoughtful way to a debate that is of overriding importance to all our residents in all our constituencies.
In particular, I thank those Members who have brought extra elements into the debate. I am now under time pressure, but I am grateful to Members for listening to me when I spoke in some detail on some things. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned ambulatory care; as we all know, treatment close to or at home is ideal. He also told us about his community hospital of which he is so proud. It sounds very much as if it is the way in which things should be done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned the population growth of 700,000 to 900,000, which illustrates the challenge we face in Oxfordshire. I also thank him for mentioning the pressure on GP services, including on a number of the surgeries in his constituency. Through pressure of time, I have not been able to mention all those in my constituency, but I am well aware of the pressures on primary care, which go wider than Deer Park. Other hon. Members will feel the same.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the lack of an imaginative approach to the use of buildings, which is absolutely right. That is what I asked the CCG to do and that is really why I was talking about engagement with the local community and with patient groups; they are the ones who have those imaginative ideas.
We all bow down before the passion and knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). She is a formidable voice in fighting for her constituents at the Horton and more widely. She quoted the IRP recommendation from nine years ago, and it is extraordinary how that almost directly foreshadows the remarks I made. As she said, patients must be fully involved.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) for attending. She is in the Opposition and so has a political job to do, but I slightly regret her tone, because the issue is not political. She does not realise that locally this has been a cross-party issue. I am grateful to people from other parties in Witney—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury feels the same—where we have been fighting for the common good.
The Minister gave us some statistics, but there are many others. I alluded to the increase in funding received by the CCG, and I thank the Government for the fact that we have record investment in the NHS, record numbers of doctors and nurses in training, and record investment in mental health in particular. Let us not lose sight of that. The issue is clear and it is not about funding—I echo that now.
I thank the Minister for his understanding. I understand the limits of what he can say. Service charges must be based on clear evidence—that is absolutely right. I shall of course engage with the primary care location plan. Oxfordshire is a wonderful place to live and if we all work together with the CCG we will secure the future of Oxfordshire’s healthcare.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Lowland Curlew
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered lowland curlew.
It is a pleasure to talk about the natural environment under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, as you have spoken out forcefully for animal welfare and the natural environment during your time in Parliament. One of the great things about this forum is that is allows Members of this House to indulge their passions. I am proud to call myself a passionate bird lover.
I applied for this debate in the context of a crisis of species decline across these islands. For me, the curlew is special. It is one of our largest waders, with a beautiful, haunting call, but this species of bird is in serious trouble across large parts of Britain. Across many counties, species of birds, mammals, invertebrates and plants are going extinct. The curlew is already extinct in my county of Berkshire, and it is estimated that there are just 300 pairs of breeding curlew left south of Birmingham. At the current rate of loss, they will disappear from southern England in the next eight years. Like the nightingale and corncrake, these once-common and much-loved birds are silently vanishing. The reason is simple: curlew chicks are being killed by predators. In one study site in Shropshire, 63 eggs in 19 curlew nests were monitored by volunteers, and not one chick fledged. The majority were predated by foxes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who has just left the Chamber, is extremely proud of the volunteer operation to protect curlew in Shropshire and is desperate to know more about what can be done to protect the remaining curlew in his county. Sadly, those facts about predation are not unique to Shropshire. Sites in Hampshire and Devon reported 100% nest failure last year. Those dire results prompted me to request this debate about the failure of existing conservation approaches to face tough decisions.
We need to recognise that this species is slipping away because our national approach to conserving species does not work well enough. Ten years ago, the Environmental Audit Committee identified that a new approach was required to address the dramatic biodiversity loss that is occurring in England, but that never happened. I thought that I was helping it to happen with “Biodiversity 2020”, which was published under my watch at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2011, but it was not enough.
Over the past decade or more, politicians and large conservation organisations have become locked in a doomed pact. Both want to achieve change through legislation and increasing regulation. The logic is simple enough, and it suits both sides: they can both take the credit for acting without ever having to undertake a day’s conservation themselves. Should that approach fail, they can demand a further increase in regulation and take more credit. The problem, as the curlew illustrates, is that it does not work. The music has stopped, and as last year’s “State of Nature” report highlighted, 56% of UK species have declined. The curlew declines are a reminder of that failure.
As a DEFRA Minister, I experienced lobby groups proposing that regulation would reverse losses. They were naive. In every area of life, regulation is important—I am the first to agree with that—but we never expect it to deliver success on its own. Yet some conservation lobby groups suggest that it is possible; it is not. With the exception of some coastal areas, to which upland curlew migrate, curlew are vanishing from southern England because the young are being eaten by predators such as foxes and crows. Predators do not comply with regulations. Even putting electric fencing around nests does not yet work. In the Shropshire study, volunteers watched as foxes simply waited for the chicks to walk outside the protection of the electric fence—we can imagine the rest.
If we want to increase curlew numbers, we need to stop being squeamish and start killing some of the predators that eat the curlew young. A few will be uncomfortable with that, but it is time to focus on what works, not on what we like. I am not squeamish about killing animals such as foxes. I do not want to do it myself, but I would if I had to. I get no pleasure from it, save the satisfaction of protecting a rare and threatened species.
Some lobby groups have been incredibly successful in building their income through recruiting a large membership and then seeking to use it to influence policy. For the curlew, that has not worked. That is because, to maintain their popularity, big membership organisations avoid acknowledging that the approach they have been advocating for decades does not work, and they do not like the approaches that do work.
That lack of flexibility has resulted in farmers being paid to manage beautiful grass meadows for nesting curlew, but not to kill the animals that subsequently come along and eat the chicks. We would never allow that failure to continue for decades in other areas of Government spending—money being paid to people for no effect. Why should any conservation organisation want to use its significant lobbying power to block what works, just because it might lose a few members? One farmer in Kent said that
“predator control does seem to raise strong feelings as some policy-makers have, over the years, become separated from the realities of conservation management”.
In Ireland, which faces a similar crisis, this problem is being gripped. Plans have been announced to employ staff to cull foxes, mink, crows and magpies in the vicinity of curlew nests. How refreshing to hear that that will be happening alongside habitat management—the other key factor in species conservation.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. I want to bring his attention to my own experience on farmland. We allowed patches in fields where we know we get a lot of ground-nesting birds left among crops, but to our dismay we found, a few weeks later, that carrion crows came in, took the eggs and destroyed the nests. Those areas stood out like a sore thumb, so the crows prioritised and attacked them.
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Sometimes the spatial measures that one tries actually draw the attention of the predator. As a Minister, I went up to Northumberland, where I saw layer upon layer of conservation designation, and lots of public money and public bodies protecting a very special site, but nothing had been done about the cloud of crows that were going to wipe out the lapwing they were seeking to protect. We need to reassess how we do this.
The contrast between Ireland and the UK is stark. The 50 organisations that published the comprehensive “State of Nature” report last year did not mention the curlew once in its 88 pages. I do not know whether that is because the plight of the curlew is too embarrassing; it is unlikely that they simply forgot. Only a year earlier, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others published a paper suggesting that curlew are our
“most pressing bird conservation priority”.
They were right to flag that up. Our Eurasian curlew are classified globally as “near threatened”, and since we are home to 25% of the global population, we have to look after them. We should not forget that two of the other curlew species—Eskimo and slender-billed—are already assumed to be globally extinct.
Twenty years ago, English Nature, as it was then called, produced the first curlew nesting study, which reported that 64% of chick mortality was caused by predation. Study after study kept making similar observations. As the studies continued, the curlew population fell slowly and silently by 46% in just 15 years. Regulation and legal protection were not enough. The drop would have been even more dramatic if the curlew were not thriving in the north of England on driven grouse moors. On those moors, the population is maintained because fox numbers are controlled by gamekeepers. There are actually more curlew on one grouse moor in Yorkshire than there are in the whole of Wales. On farms in the south of England it is an equally bleak story.
One organisation, of which I am proud to be a trustee, has undertaken much of the available research on controlling predators and recently launched a website offering information and practical advice for those who have curlew on their land. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust is a charity bucking the trend. It is part of a groundswell of smaller organisations that believe the curlew will be saved only by putting farmers, not big organisations, back in control. If we do not, it fears the only place we may soon be able to see curlew in southern England will be on nature reserves where someone is paid to control predators. Those are some of the same organisations that object to the Government funding of fox control on farmland. I would go further and suggest that we should stop funding curlew conservation projects that do not include effective predator control options. We have to do what works, not what is popular, before those wonderful birds vanish completely.
Research carried out by the GWCT revealed that predicted populations of curlew will increase by 91% where predation control takes place, and populations will reduce over the same period by 64% where it does not. So please, no more research; we need action.
I am pleased to hear of the various workshops and meetings that have taken place in recent months that have brought together many of the different groups that share my anxiety about the potential extinction of the lowland curlew. I was pleased to hear from the RSPB:
“We are investing £1.8 million in an ambitious five-year Curlew recovery programme... One of our main objectives is to test the response of breeding Curlew to a combination of habitat and predator management work.”
It specifically links foxes and crows. It stated:
“Working with a range of partners, the trial management is happening across six key sites in upland”—
not lowland—
“areas of the UK: two in Scotland, two in Northern England, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland. This will help us identify what we need to do (and how) to help Curlew breed more successfully in the wider countryside. This might include developing policy and practice to reduce the numbers of predators in the landscape and shaping new agri-environment options to support land managers who want to do positive things for birds like the Curlew.”
That is great, but it means more research and I do not think we need more research. I do not think we need to demand more money, as some are. It seems that some want more money from a post-Brexit agricultural support mechanism that is targeted towards species such as the curlew. That is fine, but I suspect some sort of agri-environmental plan that a curlew project could slot into is already on the cards and being worked on by my hon. Friend the Minister and her team. Anyway, if we wait until 2022 when the current arrangement for farm support ends, that might be too late for the curlew in lowland England.
Then there are some who want Government money to support the voluntary work currently happening in certain areas. I am happy to support that if it is focused in the right way, but what would it be for? I would not advocate money for project officers to go around telling farmers what they should or should not do. Farmers, landowners and land managers are key to the success of any recovery project. Most already buy into plans, even at their own expense.
After 20 years of studying curlew, we know enough to take action. We need to empower, not criticise, farmers. The recent highly successful conference last week on cluster farms showed how an enlightened non-governmental organisation and charity can get huge environmental results by getting farmers to work together to pool resources and deliver real conservation in a short space of time across large landscapes.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
By way of an example and to reinforce my right hon. Friend’s comments on predator control, on the island of Caldey, just off Pembrokeshire, it was decided to simply eliminate the resident population of rats. It cost £75,000 of private money and was a straightforward operation. No permissions were necessary. Within less than a year, puffins have returned and the skylark population is improving. A relatively modest investment has brought about a transformation and, most importantly, the pest control has been profound. It has come at no social or economic cost, but I suspect that is because the problem concerned rats rather than foxes.
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend talks my language. When I was briefly relevant, I managed to shoehorn some money out of the Treasury to assist the RSPB, which did a superb job in annihilating mice and rats on South Georgia and other islands. As a result, South Georgia is on the fast track to returning to the pristine environment it was before the whalers arrived at the end of the 18th century, but I digress.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I stop when I see a fox. I love looking at them in the context of the environment, but when a species is threatened we have to treat all animals in the same way. We have to do things humanely in an understanding way and try to maintain a balance of nature. We cannot see species wiped out. We have to face the facts of the research that we know exists and take action.
Most land managers, like me, love their wildlife. Since they do not have large memberships to please, let us give them the practical tools and support that they need to take action. Only our farmers and land managers can save our southern curlew now. I have the highest respect for the Minister and look forward to hearing what she says. She has proved to be a fantastic listener in her role and also a fantastic doer. I hope the combination of what we say today will be a cause for celebration.
I have had the rare pleasure of lying in a meadow in Fermanagh listening to the rasping call of the corncrake. I will never hear that in Berkshire because the species now lives only in an existential state in the margins of these islands. We must not let that happen to the curlew. We owe it to future generations to do whatever we have to do to save this rare and special bird.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing this debate. He has set out a compelling and passionate case for saving, preserving and enhancing the life of the curlew in this country. As we know, he was one of my most successful predecessors. I appreciate his years of valued service and experience, and indeed the advice he has given me from his time when he was the Minister responsible for the natural environment.
As my right hon. Friend highlights, the curlew is among the UK’s most widespread wading birds, but its breeding range has contracted substantially in the past 50 years. As a result, and as he set out, 10 years ago the species was moved to the globally near-threatened category of the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list of threatened species. As was noted earlier in the debate, in the past 20 years the curlew population has decreased by about a half.
Supporting a quarter of the summer breeding population and a fifth of the overwintering population in global terms, the UK has an important role to play in protecting curlew. This is reflected in the fact that declines in the UK have a greater impact on the global population than in any other country. As my right hon. Friend knows from experience, the Government are absolutely committed to reversing the declines in bird populations, including curlew and other wading birds.
Declines in the curlew have been caused by a reduction in breeding. Although adult curlew are long-lived birds, very few breed successfully, and the few remaining lowland populations that have been studied show that very few, if any, chicks are produced each year. There are two principal causes of the decline in production in lowland areas. My right hon. Friend set out very clearly the predation of nests and chicks, but there is also the intensification of grassland management, especially earlier rolling and cutting of grasslands, which crushes nests and can kill chicks.
On protection, the curlew is a migratory species and there is an obligation to classify special protection areas under article 4 of the birds directive, which requires the provision of SPAs. The UK network of more than 270 SPAs covers about 2.8 million hectares of key habitats. There are currently 87 SPAs in England, of which 13 have been classified for non-breeding curlew. There are currently no SPAs classified for breeding curlew in England or elsewhere in the UK, but reviews of the network show that the north Pennine moors—admittedly not lowlands—are the single most important site in England for breeding curlew.
A third of curlew overwintering in Britain use habitat provided as part of those SPAs. I recognise that that is only part of protecting the species, but increasing that suitable habitat and then focusing on breeding success in upland and lowland grasslands is vital. We have to have an international action plan for curlew. We are contributing internationally to actions to address that in our role as a signatory to the African-Eurasian migratory waterbird agreement, notably through the national implementation of our international action plan for the species, which was adopted two years ago. The long-term goal of that plan is to restore the favourable conservation status of the Eurasian curlew throughout its AEWA range, and for it to be assessed by 2025 as “least concern” against the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list criteria. The short-term aims are to stabilise breeding population declines, to improve knowledge relating to the population and conservation status, and for any hunting activity to be sustainable.
In spring last year, an Ireland and UK curlew action group was formed by a range of organisations, including our country’s conservation agencies, the RSPB and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust to co-ordinate conservation measures. The group is meeting for the third time, but as my right hon. Friend points out, talking is challenging when it is time for action.
Activities already under way include Natural England working with the RSPB on a recovery programme aimed at providing a co-ordinated approach to the management of curlew habitats, including predator control, to increase breeding numbers. That forms part of the international action plan to address the “near threatened” status of the curlew.
My right hon. Friend argued passionately for the increased use of predator control in the protection of curlew, and was reinforced in that by my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). I absolutely agree that control of predators such as foxes and stoats has a role to play in the recovery of rare or declining species, particularly ground-nesting birds.
As my right hon. Friend knows, predator control already takes place throughout the countryside as part of normal farming and game-keeping practice. It is true that predation at the egg stage is common in some areas and control of those predators has a role to play in their recovery. However, that control should be effective and not lead to making the predators themselves extinct.
A number of species predate curlew nests and chicks in the lowlands, including red fox, carrion crows and badgers. The relative importance of different predators differs locally. Land-use changes can have an impact on curlew populations through support of predators, so there is sometimes the interesting challenge of fragmented landscapes—where we may introduce patches of woodland —that have often been shown to support greater numbers of predators, but can be beneficial in other aspects of biodiversity.
Areas where predators are managed, such as areas managed for grouse shooting, have higher rates of breeding success, as my right hon. Friend illustrated, and we have seen a threefold increase in curlew abundance. The question of predator-prey interactions, however, is not straightforward. A variety of research shows that predators are part of a complex mix of factors that can influence prey populations. I am assured by my scientific advisers that the research shows that, although predation is the main reason for egg and chick losses in many bird species, most can withstand high levels of predation. There may be local short-lived benefits and we need to consider long-lasting measures.
Richard Benyon
Will the Minister go back to her officials? I entirely accept that populations of certain species can withstand levels of predation as long as there are plenty of them, but when there is a very small number of a declining species, there is no margin for error. We can do as much habitat preservation as possible, but if we do not include this part of the piece—predator control—then that margin for error means that we will continue to see a decline.
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend, dare I say it, needs to wait for the conclusion of my speech, which I have rewritten during the debate.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to empower farmers. He will know that our agri-environment schemes have been designed with the aim of encouraging habitat management to promote conservation in targeted areas, whether that is about suitable nesting or foraging conditions. We are delivering significant areas of habitat for wading birds, including the curlew. About 600,000 hectares from the predecessor schemes are managed for wading birds, and since 2016 Countryside Stewardship has provided 10,000 hectares under the new schemes.
A payment-by-results approach currently being piloted in the Yorkshire dales includes looking at habitat, but I want to stress to my right hon. Friend that farmers are able to manage the land as they wish. They are paid on the suitability of the habitat that they provide, but they can undertake predator control. That is farmers’ choice. It is important to stress that they have absolute clearance from the Minister responsible. It is about managing habitat, but they are also free to use techniques to ensure that predator control does not undermine the intended outcome of the project.
In highlighting projects to help curlew decline, my right hon. Friend rightly praises the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, including their action for curlew project launched earlier this year. However, GWCT states that it is not just about predator control. We have to make sure that we get a balance of dry nesting areas, wet foraging areas and insect-rich grassland for chicks in spring and summer. Through that combination of proactive habitat management and predator control where required, we can bring about positive change for curlew.
I am also conscious of the RSPB’s upper Thames wader project, which is working with more than 200 farmers to create, restore and manage wetland grasslands to support species including curlew. That area now supports the largest population of curlew on lowland farmland and again demonstrates the importance of providing habitat and feeding resources for birds and chicks.
My right hon. Friend may well be aware of the curlew country project in Shropshire, which brings together local communities to raise awareness and monitor local curlew populations. I understand that, although they may not be having quite the impact that he rightly demands, in raising awareness and bringing communities together to work to preserve the curlew, they do valuable work that we should not underestimate.
I am genuinely grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. He will be aware, from his time as a Minister, that in a portfolio as wide as the natural environment, it often does take debates to get some focus on a particular topic. He has passionately set out why we need effective action, and I agree. That is why I will be asking Natural England and policy officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include the use of predator control in all current and future projects that we fund. It is important to me that it is at least considered, and that reasons are given for why it is or—equally importantly—why it is not included in a particular scheme.
My right hon. Friend will understand that we need to undertake an appropriate mix of actions, including protecting important sites, working with farmers and other land managers to manage these habitats carefully, and targeting legal predator control to halt, and then reverse, the decline of this iconic species. The curlew is too important to be lost from our world’s biodiversity. As I set out earlier, our actions matter because a substantial proportion of these birds winter or breed in the United Kingdom. We need to make this a success, so that England and lowland curlew can continue to have the bright future for which my right hon. Friend hopes.
Question put and agreed to.
Safeguarding Adults with Learning Disabilities
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered supporting and safeguarding adults with learning disabilities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, as we consider this hugely important issue. How we better support and safeguard adults with learning disabilities is a subject on which I have been seeking to secure a debate for some time, following the most appalling case involving a young man with learning disabilities from my constituency and his violent death back in June 2015.
The circumstances leading up to Lee Irving’s killing have been the subject of a safeguarding adults review which was published in June 2017, following the trial and sentencing of those responsible which finally concluded in December 2016. I will return to Lee’s case and the outcome of the review in more depth, but first I will briefly provide some context to the debate.
About 1.4 million to 1.5 million people with a learning disability are estimated to live in the UK, of whom some 350,000 have a severe learning disability. The charity Mencap, which describes itself as the leading voice of learning disability, replies to the question, “What is a learning disability?” by explaining:
“The answer is that it’s different for every person who has one. But there are some things that are true for everyone with a learning disability, and some common (and not so common) conditions that will mean you have a learning disability.”
Mencap goes on to state:
“A learning disability is a reduced intellectual ability and difficulty with everyday activities—for example household tasks, socialising or managing money—which affects someone for their whole life.
People with a learning disability tend to take longer to learn and may need support to develop new skills, understand complicated information and interact with other people.
The level of support someone needs depends on the individual.”
Importantly, Mencap concludes:
“It’s important to remember that with the right support, most people with a learning disability in the UK can lead independent lives.”
I saw that for myself in Dinnington in my constituency when I visited the home of the then 18-year-old Joe to hear about how he was being supported by the national charity United Response during the transition from childhood to adulthood. That involved providing Joe with tailored assistance in a supported housing setting to help master tasks such as managing money, basic cooking skills, cleaning the house, keeping up with the laundry, managing his coursework on his construction course at the local mainstream college, and being able to use public transport safely.
One of the concerns that Joe raised with me during that visit was his disappointment that he had been prevented from securing an apprenticeship because he was unable to achieve the required grade C in maths and English at GCSE. I am pleased, as one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, that that requirement has recently been lifted for people with learning disabilities, following a review conducted by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
I am regularly lobbied by constituents with learning disabilities who, with the support and encouragement of the Newcastle-based charity Better Days, are able to send me easy-read letters about issues of concern, such as the lessons to be learned from the independent review of deaths of people with a learning disability conducted following the tragic death of Connor Sparrowhawk, or the Government’s decision no longer to provide funding to the National Forum of People with Learning Disabilities, which meant it closed in March 2017, having been operational since 2001.
There is a variety of good support out there, but we all know that many people with learning disabilities, and their families and carers, will face a series of enormous challenges, barriers and indeed discrimination throughout their lives, all of which inevitably puts a great deal of strain on family relationships. What do those barriers involve for people with learning disabilities?
Mencap highlights that children with special educational needs are twice as likely as other children to be bullied regularly; 40% of disabled children live in poverty; and 75% of GPs have received no training to help them treat people with a learning disability. The House of Commons Library has noted the evidence that people with a learning disability experience inequalities in healthcare and the fact that, on average, men with a learning disability die 13 years sooner and women with a learning disability 20 years sooner than those without learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Today has reported on a survey that found that almost two thirds of parents of children with learning disabilities said that they missed social engagements in the past year due to the fear of how other people would react to them; one in four young people with a learning disability had been bullied by members of the public at nightclubs or concerts; and only 30% of people would feel comfortable sitting next to someone with a mild learning disability at a show or a concert.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying about GPs. Does she think that it would be useful if training were made available to MPs and their staff to deal with such situations?
Catherine McKinnell
That is an interesting suggestion. As a constituency MP, I work closely with the organisations I have mentioned so that I may correspond with and represent people with learning disabilities. There are local solutions and, potentially, national ways to support MPs. That is a good suggestion to ensure that those voices are heard in Parliament, and the intention of this debate is very much to give voice to some of the concerns. I am sure that other hon. Members are present for the very same reason.
The issues that I have outlined are just some of the frankly depressing ones faced by people with learning disabilities. Such issues were commented on by Mencap in its response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report, “Being disabled in Britain: a journey less equal”, which was published earlier this year. In responding to the EHRC report back in April, Mencap commented:
“Rather than move forwards in the past 20 years this report shows how inadequate action and a constant stream of cuts have condemned disabled people to a life of poverty and inequality.
With the employment rate for people with a learning disability currently standing at less than 6% and with cuts to Employment Support Allowance coming into effect this week, it’s not hard to see why so many disabled people are struggling to find money for things as basic as food. People with a learning disability also face inadequate housing, poor access to health care and a society that misunderstands them.”
One challenge facing people with learning disabilities and their families is of course being able to access the right social care support at a time when adult social care budgets are at breaking point after years of punitive cuts to local authority funding since 2010, combined with rising cost pressures. The Local Government Association outlines that some 127,725 adults in England under the age of 65 were receiving long-term social care from their local council for a learning disability in 2015-16, meaning that about one third of councils’ annual social care spending, or approximately £5 billion, is used to support adults with learning disabilities.
The LGA also highlights, however, that the number of adults with a learning disability needing social care is set to rise by 3% a year, piling further pressure on local authority finances. Overall, councils face a £2.3 billion shortage in funding by 2020. I therefore strongly urge the Chancellor to address this issue next month as part of his autumn Budget, as well as the ongoing and serious concerns about the potential historic and future costs associated with sleep-ins, following the change in Government guidance on them, which have significant implications for the future provision of support to adults with learning disabilities.
As I said, there is a particular reason that I secured this debate, which I have been trying to do so for several months. Undoubtedly, all Members of Parliament frequently have to handle very distressing issues, and I have dealt with a lot.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a valiant attempt. This is a very difficult subject and she is talking about a very distressing and tragic case. To go back to the point about greater public awareness, I have been a Member for 12 years and have certainly never been offered any training about learning disabilities. There is so much to know and she has just given us a useful range of facts. I encourage the Minister to take away what my hon. Friend has just raised as things we should all know.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is hard to imagine a more harrowing and disturbing case than that of Lee Irving. My thoughts remain very much with Lee’s family, particularly his mother, Bev, who I know is determined to ensure that something positive comes of her son’s death. I am sorry; I must do this subject the justice of staying composed. I am particularly conscious that Lee’s mother is watching this debate online in Newcastle and that having to relive what happened to her son clearly will always be upsetting. However, it is important that right hon. and hon. Members appreciate the gravity of this case.
Lee was a 24-year-old vulnerable young man with learning disabilities from the West Denton area of my constituency, who was tragically murdered in 2015. In the months leading up to his death, he was living on and off—perhaps existing would be a better word—with a group of people he had befriended and trusted, at their home in the Kenton Bar area of Newcastle. During that time, he was the victim of sustained abuse and exploitation. Lee’s mother, Bev, had reported him missing on three occasions in the weeks before his death, and indeed had alerted the authorities to where he was staying and of her serious concerns about Lee’s safety, given the previous behaviour of those individuals towards her son.
Tragically, Lee’s badly beaten body was found on 6 June 2015, dumped on a grass bank near the A1 in Newcastle, not far from the house he had been occupying with those who were accused of his murder. The cause of Lee’s death was given as respiratory failure due to multiple severe injuries that were inflicted upon him at the house in Kenton Bar between 28 May and 5 June 2015. The injuries included fractures to his nose and jaw, the fracture of 24 ribs and damage to underlying organs, after he had been drugged with a combination of morphine, Valium and buprenorphine—medication used by heroin addicts—which enabled his attackers to conduct sustained physical beatings against him. The four people responsible for Lee’s death also prevented him from receiving the urgent medical attention that he clearly required on several occasions.
Following Lee’s death, a safeguarding adults review was established to hear from the myriad organisations and agencies involved in providing support to Lee and his family during his short life. The review explains:
“The relationship between Lee Irving and his killers was described as one of subservience with Lee beholden to the primary perpetrator”—
James Wheatley—
“for drugs and shelter and where Lee looked up to the primary perpetrator and desperate to fit in tolerated continued violence and abuse. This coercion and drugging were used to control him, prevent him seeking help and over a period of time drawing him back to the house at 33 Studdon Walk.”
Indeed, Mencap has informed me of its concern that Lee’s case is not an isolated one, commenting:
“There are many examples, both reported and unreported, of people with a learning disability who have been abused physically and psychologically by people who they thought were friends. This has given rise to the phrase ‘mate crime’, where individuals take advantage of someone’s vulnerabilities, bullying them physically, psychologically or stealing money or possessions.”
I believe that the safeguarding adults review instigated after Lee’s death raises serious issues, not just for Newcastle, but about how we, as a wider society, support and safeguard adults with learning disabilities. Vida Morris, chair of the Newcastle Safeguarding Adults Board, said after the review had been published:
“Lee’s story will be used locally, regionally and nationally to improve safeguarding and protect vulnerable adults.”
That absolutely must be the case.
It is evident from the review that Lee’s vulnerabilities, which were the result of his learning disability, were clearly identified by a number of local agencies some years before and right up to his death. On six occasions between 2010 and 2014, different organisations considered the risk to Lee to be such as to merit formal multi-agency adult safeguarding written referrals. Examples of Lee’s known vulnerability include an assessment undertaken by Percy Hedley School when he was nearly 18, which described him as
“socially immature and impressionable, a very vulnerable young man who could not ignore people who are distracting him, naive in social situations, easily influenced by others, and unable to identify people’s motivations and intentions.”
The national probation service in Northumbria had numerous interactions with Lee, as he was arrested 30 times between May 2011 and March 2015 for various offences. In December 2012, Lee was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for the offences of burglary and theft, and was
“treated as an adult fully responsible for his own actions and able to understand the consequences of the measures imposed.”
Yet the year before, in 2011, the NPS carried out an assessment of Lee and identified that he was
“incredibly vulnerable to the influence and harmful behaviour of others he encounters; that he was financially vulnerable from others. In addition, he was assessed as being vulnerable in custody and in a hostel setting.”
A further NPS assessment stated:
“Lee seems to understand that he is being used and bullied but seems to put up with it rather than be rejected by his peers.”
Another commented:
“Lee is not aware of the risks that he places himself in e.g. spending time with homeless people, sleeping rough, sharing taxis with strangers and giving his clothes and money away. His level of Learning Disability means that he behaves in a way which is focussed on pleasing people, to develop acceptance within groups and possibly to gain kudos through offending for others.”
Despite those assessments, no safeguarding alert was raised by the NPS about Lee Irving during its interaction with him in 2011 and 2012.
An assessment carried out in 2010—five years before Lee’s death—under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 confirmed that Lee’s overall reasoning and thinking abilities were the same as or better than only 0.2% of adults his own age. In other words, Lee’s intellectual abilities placed him in the bottom 1% of adults his own age. There is also a concern that Lee’s intellectual ability may at times have been overestimated, because his relatively better verbal skills may have masked his deficits in other areas.
In March 2015, shortly before Lee’s death, a further Mental Capacity Act assessment was undertaken, at which both he and his family were present, after his family reported that he had returned to live with the people who were exploiting him. That assessment identified that he did not have the capacity to make decisions to keep himself safe when alone in the community. The assessment resulted in an exploration of supported living options, which were still being explored at the time of his death.
The safeguarding adults review notes:
“Throughout his long engagement with services Lee failed to attend nearly half his numerous appointments with various services. While in his early teenage years his family often ensured his attendance, when in his late teens, his family’s influence declined and his chaotic lifestyle led to less frequent attendance at appointments, making it…difficult for…agencies to deliver the care and support that Lee needed.”
I find it hard to understand why that behaviour did not set more alarm bells ringing about Lee’s welfare, given that his vulnerabilities were well documented.
The review further states that
“Lee’s life slid into a chaotic cycle of offending, being reported missing and associating with so called ‘friends’ who exploited him. In October 2014 a decision was taken to award Lee with a direct payment—giving him control of some of his monies in order to directly purchase services or other forms of support… later that control passed to Lee himself.”
Again, given the circumstances in which Lee was living and the fact that his mother was already reporting that he was being financially exploited, I find that hard to understand.
Tragically, given what was to happen later, the police actually attended the address at which Lee was being held between 28 May and 5 June 2015, when we know that Lee was inside the house and already injured. However, no search was conducted, despite Lee having been reported missing by his mother, her belief that he was at the house and the police being aware of the extensive criminal records of those living at the property, including for violent offences.
The safeguarding review notes:
“It is clear that all agencies tried hard to deliver a service to Lee and/or his family but on many occasions this was made difficult due to Lee’s lack of engagement and his determination to keep bad company…these efforts were not adequately co-ordinated or led by each of the main agencies…Throughout the long engagement with agencies the lead changed according to the circumstances…Therefore, no agency was able to take overall responsibility for co-ordination and leadership, however, as noted in the report agencies were in contact on a regular basis with each other.”
The review adds:
“Lee Irving was a difficult person to help. His reluctance to engage with services and his failure to attend appointments made it extremely difficult for agencies to support him and his family. Despite this, agencies persisted in their attempts to help and protect him. It is clear that all agencies approached Lee Irving with the best of intentions.”
I continue from the review:
“Many agencies were involved in Lee’s complex case over a lengthy period. They saw him in different ways according to their discipline and…many did not appreciate the risk attached to his lifestyle and disability. There were, however, clear indications of Lee Irving’s vulnerabilities and recorded Safeguarding Alerts pointing to the threats present at the house at 33 Studdon Walk where he lived latterly and where he was killed…his specific vulnerabilities were accurately identified. The cumulative effects of these risk factors were not, however, weighed or considered in a multi-agency forum when planning for his care.”
The review also made clear:
“Perhaps as a consequence of a lack of co-ordination a number of options for intervening in the case of Lee Irving were not considered. No legal advice was sought from agencies solicitors and the possibility of Court of Protection proceedings or other legal options”—
deprivation of liberty—
“were not pursued.”
Whether any of those options would have succeeded in intervening in Lee Irving’s decline and eventual death will never be known.
Extremely worryingly, the safeguarding adults review suggested that:
“The behaviour of Lee was perhaps interpreted by some professionals as consistent with his choice of an antisocial and criminal lifestyle. Whilst not held by all agencies this interpretation meant that his criminal conduct was not always considered as a symptom of his disability, increasing vulnerability or the exploitation that he was subject to.”
Of particular concern to Lee’s mother, Bev, following her son’s death, are the challenges that parents of adult children with learning difficulties face in continuing to be involved in decisions about their care. The safeguarding adults review outlined that Lee’s family
“described the difference in the way professionals were able to respond to Lee as an adult as being frustrating and difficult to understand…Lee was…classed as an adult while his mental capacity remained that of a child”.
It also recorded that, on Lee reaching adulthood, Lee’s family
“felt excluded from some of the key decisions about his care. They felt that some professionals excluded or disregarded them and that decisions about options for the ongoing care of their family member were made without their input. In particular, they express severe concern that despite their specific warnings about Lee’s living conditions at the home at Studdon Walk, the measures taken to protect him were unsuccessful.
In conclusion, the family felt that while more should have been done to protect Lee towards the end of his life such was Lee’s determination to place himself at risk that only secure accommodation would have protected him. Whilst they had resisted this option at the time, with the benefit of hindsight they recognise that other measures were unlikely to have succeeded.”
Indeed, following the publication of the review in June, Lee’s mother, Bev, commented:
“Nobody listened to each other, but my main concern was nobody listened to me. If I had been listened to, then my son would still be alive now. I had my son reported missing three times in the previous few weeks up until his death and they wouldn’t bring him back. They wouldn’t inform me where he was, which I find very, very hurtful. It’s disgusting.”
In response to that, the director of people at Newcastle City Council stated:
“I know that Lee’s family felt excluded from some of the decisions that were taken about his care and that their warnings about his living conditions were not acted upon effectively. For that we are truly sorry.”
The safeguarding adults review highlighted that Lee’s family “had two main recommendations” following their son’s death. First, that
“the move from Children’s to Adults’ services be better managed to ensure a smoother transition without loss of support and that services consider the capacity rather than the age of the individual.”
Secondly, that
“families remain part of the decision-making process in the case of vulnerable adults and be fully involved/consulted on ‘best interest’ and other decisions relating to family members.”
Bev Irving has explained that she hopes those changes will be made so that, in her words,
“Lee’s name can live on in the name of Lee’s law”.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the recommendations and whether the Government can act on them to help ensure that the lessons from Lee’s case are genuinely learned across the country.
There is one further aspect to the case that I find deeply concerning. James Wheatley was found guilty of murdering Lee in December 2016. His mother, Julie Mills, his then girlfriend, Nicole Lawrence, and Barry Imray, who also had learning disabilities, were found guilty of, or admitted to, conspiring to pervert the course of justice and causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable person. Wheatley was sentenced to a minimum 23-year term and the original sentences of Mills and Lawrence were increased after the Crown Prosecution Service successfully appealed them as being unduly lenient, with the support of the Solicitor General. I know that the family are grateful for that.
Both the CPS and Northumbria police believed that the multiple and horrific offences perpetrated against Lee were motivated by his disability. Indeed, the safeguarding adults review commenced with that view. However, the trial judge, in his sentencing remarks, told Wheatley that
“In order to reach the conclusion”
that the offence was aggravated by disability
“the statute requires me to be sure that, at the time of committing the offence or immediately before or after doing so, you demonstrated hostility towards Lee Irving based on his disability or that your offence was motivated by hostility towards persons who have this or any disability. I am not satisfied on either basis. Although your texts”
to one of the other accused
“show repeated use of the repellent word ‘spastic’, I am not able to infer that such language was used towards Lee Irving at the time or immediately before or after your murderous assault. Furthermore, in my judgment you were motivated in this offence not by hostility towards those with disability but by your vicious and bullying nature which particularly takes advantage of those who are unable or less able to resist.”
That calls into question whether the current legislation—section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for an aggravated sentence—is fit for purpose, as it is unclear how anyone could prove a disability hate crime under the threshold unless the perpetrator made such an admission. I raised this issue with the Solicitor General, to which I received a response that the judge’s
“finding that the offences were not motivated by hostility is a finding of fact. Such findings are incredibly difficult…to challenge on appeal to the Court of Appeal, since I need to satisfy the court not only that the judge was plainly wrong, but also that it is in the interests of justice to overturn his finding of fact.
My decision was that I would not succeed in overturning the finding of fact in this particular case. I only reached this conclusion after receiving advice from the leading counsel at trial, the CPS’ hate crime stakeholder manager, and a senior barrister who is a specialist in these kind of cases. I also looked at general advice from First Senior Treasury Counsel, the Government’s most senior barrister in criminal matters, on how to apply the hate crime provisions.”
I am aware that the CPS has recently published revised guidance setting out the factors to be taken into consideration when reviewing cases and prosecuting offences classified as disability hate crime. However, in Lee Irving’s case the issue was not with the police or CPS not recording or prosecuting the barbaric offences committed against him as disability hate crimes but that the judge could not be sure that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or afterwards, the perpetrator demonstrated hostility towards Lee based on his disability, or that the offence was motivated by hostility towards people with disabilities—the threshold set in the existing legislation. That is concerning at a time when we know that disability hate crime is a significant issue.
Mencap highlights that some 73% of people with a learning disability and autism responding to a 2016 Dimensions survey said that they had experienced hate crime, while recorded hate crime based on disability has increased by 44% since last year. The true extent of the problem is being masked by people with a disability or learning disability who are too scared or do not feel able to report incidents. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that the Government look at this issue again, in the light of Lee’s case, although I am conscious that it is not within her departmental remit.
I fully recognise that I have raised a number of wide-ranging issues this afternoon, many of which do not fall directly within the Minister’s portfolio. However, I am pleased to have been able to put on record the different, and very important, concerns that Lee’s mother has raised with me following her son’s death. Those ultimately responsible for Lee Irving’s horrific abuse and murder are now locked up in prison where they belong. Indeed, thanks to the intervention of the Solicitor General, some sentences were increased for being unduly lenient. However, the current legislation needs to be reviewed, because if Lee’s case could not be regarded as a disability hate crime, it is hard to know how the current threshold could be met.
I have also outlined how important it is for adults with learning disabilities to receive the right care and support to enable them to live independent lives where that is appropriate. However, I have real concerns about the issues raised by Lee’s case, and the fact that those charged with safeguarding Lee—an extremely vulnerable adult—did not get the balance right between independence and protection. Nor does it appear that the many agencies that interacted with Lee shared information with each other about his vulnerabilities, or properly listened to or acted on the concerns repeatedly raised by his family, which might have resulted in Lee still being here today.
It is critical that lessons are learned from Lee Irving’s case as quickly as possible, right across the country. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how she intends to ensure that that will be the case.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I will not make a long intervention, but I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for raising that case, which was clearly a distressing one, as the emotions she has shown illustrate. What she said about the safeguarding rules is absolutely crucial, and all our county councils could take note of those and ensure that they follow them clearly. My concern is always about the gap that might exist between the safeguarding rules that apply to children and those that apply to young adults. The gap that can emerge there causes many problems, so the more we can do about it, the better.
I make a suggestion to the hon. Lady. She has raised a lot of concerns about the law, and I wonder whether, if she could gather together enough evidence to make a presentation to the Select Committee on Justice, it might be willing to take up an inquiry into a review of this area, which would provide further support for her efforts to change the law. I cannot speak for the Justice Committee, even though I am a member of it, but I think it is worth her trying to gather as much information as possible to take that forward.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to look after people with learning disabilities. In my constituency we try to do that in a number of ways outside the country council system. First, the Ways & Means Trust’s operation in my constituency tries to provide in-work experience for young people with learning disabilities by providing them with garden centre experience. They are trained in how to look after flowers, how to bag pots—if hon. Members see what I mean—and eventually how to sell them. At Christmas time in particular, it is a useful place to go to get wreaths and things like that, made by people with learning disabilities. That is a good way of showing that we care and of providing them with enormous opportunities to fulfil their lives by holding jobs that are meaningful and keep them in work.
Secondly, an event called the Regatta for the Disabled occurs in my constituency every autumn. I have been involved since its commencement some seven years ago, usually in opening and compering it. The regatta provides an opportunity for people with physical and learning disabilities to enjoy the river. It provides boat trips for them and allows them to share with others their enjoyment of life and what they can do. One would need to be there to see their physical enjoyment of life; it is absolutely catching. I point that out as a way in which my own constituency tries to look after people with learning disabilities.
Finally, every year, with the help of Mencap, we bring together all those people with learning disabilities who are able to come in the town square in Henley, and we sing to the population who come along and do their shopping, stop and have a cup of coffee and listen to the singing. The quality of the singing and the enthusiasm with which people with learning disabilities take it up are amazing. I am convinced that, by putting the effort into ensuring that we understand and care for people with learning disabilities, we can achieve a vast amount.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and to sum up the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. It is customary at this stage to congratulate the hon. Member who has brought the debate, but those words do not do justice to what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has brought before us.
This is an incredibly tragic, harrowing and cruel case, and she has done her constituent and his family a great service in bringing it to the House. She should be congratulated on her perseverance in ensuring that the story was heard today; the manner in which she covered such tragic and horrendous issues was commendable and incredibly honourable. I pay considerable tribute to her for her contribution and I thank her for it, and I am sure the House does also. I am also sorry that there were not more hon. Members in the Chamber to hear what happened. I am sure we all, as constituency MPs and representatives as well as parliamentarians, will have taken note of what happened in Lee Irving’s case, and will hopefully have learned lessons for ourselves and our local services as well.
The case that the hon. Lady raised covered unspeakable cruelty and was harrowing and devastating to hear; it was probably one of the hardest things I have had to hear in my time as a parliamentarian, particularly in the Chamber. Most concerning are Mencap saying that this is possibly not an isolated case and the history of missed opportunities in the handling of Lee’s case, with clear warning signs and failures from a variety of services that should have supported him to get on, but sadly let him down.
I am also very sorry for Lee’s mother, Bev; if she is watching and listening, this will be incredibly difficult. As a father, my worst nightmare must be losing a child, but to do so in such cruel and painful circumstances must be an incredible torment. My heart goes out to her. It is unspeakable, and I am so glad that, in the end, it appears that justice has been done and that those murderers are behind bars and serving the time they deserve for their horrible crime.
Most aspects of the issues discussed are devolved, so forgive me for raising some of what is happening in Scotland. It would not be right for me to comment too heavily on aspects of the case, as much of it is a matter for England and Wales. The SNP Government acknowledge that transformational change is needed for disabled people of all ages to realise their full potential. That is why the Scottish Government are working with partners towards the long-term ambition of halving the disability employment gap in Scotland. In 2015, the employment rate in Scotland for those who were Equality Act-disabled was 42%, compared with 80.3% for those who were not. It was 73.1% for the total population aged 16 to 64. We will work to reduce the barriers to employment for disabled people and will redress the imbalance of disabled people making up only 12% of the private and public sector workforce in Scotland.
The SNP Government are also working with the national skills agency, Skills Development Scotland, to make modern apprenticeships more open, attractive and available to people with disabilities. The SNP is also committed to promoting and protecting equality and human rights for disabled people. We want to make sure that disabled people can take part fully in all areas of daily and public life. We are working to break down the barriers to independent living that people may face. Living an independent life is important to people with learning disabilities. That means having the same choice and control in their lives that others have.
The Scottish Government have taken practical steps such as supporting disabled and young people and their families from birth, through school and into the world of work. We are also investing £5.4 million over the next two years to improve learning disability services in Scotland. We are continuing our work to create a fairer and more equal society through our draft delivery plan, which sets out the steps we will take over the next four years to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We are also consulting disabled people and the organisations that represent them, including the likes of Mencap, to bring the voice of disabled people into the heart of Government in Scotland.
We are committed to the independent living fund and will protect the funding for it. The Deputy First Minister announced in April 2014 that the new Scottish independent living fund would be set up following the decision here in Westminster to close the fund. On 1 July 2015, the Independent Living Fund Scotland came into force and now administers the Scottish and Northern Irish independent living fund service users’ awards. The scheme will safeguard more than 3,000 disabled people across Scotland and will build on existing care through a £5.5 million investment, which will reopen to new users, ensuring its long-term future.
Clearly, there is more work to be done with ILF Scotland, but I am confident that Scottish Ministers can and will continue to support that service. We also passed the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, which embodies the ideas of equality, human rights and independent living. The Act is designed to give those who require community care more choice and control over the social care they receive and will integrate the language of self-direction into support in legislation. The Scottish Government also legislated to better integrate the provision of adult health and social care with more joined-up working between local authorities, health boards and third sector organisations.
Again, I congratulate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North. I wish to put on the record my deep condolences again to Bev, Lee’s mother, at a time when the cruel and unspeakable death of her son is being raised in such a public way again. If nothing else comes from this debate, I desperately hope that the fact that this case has been heard today in such a public setting will trigger the people responsible for the care of vulnerable adults with learning disabilities to always press a little bit harder to save a life.
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
Order. I got the procedure the wrong way round and called the SNP spokesman before the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), so I apologise for that.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Wilson. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and it is always a pleasure to follow the spokesman for the SNP who, during my time as the Minister for Disabled People, was one of the most constructive Opposition Members and engaged regularly with good proactive ideas.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who set out the horrific case of Lee Irving. There is no other way of describing it. Nobody could fail to be touched by the pure emotion that was shown, which is no surprise, because the system failed somebody so vulnerable. It should never have happened.
We have two Ministers here today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who I know care deeply about the most vulnerable people in society. They have listened and, I have no doubt, will take this matter forward. I hope that one of the commitments today will be for them to meet with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and with Beverley to learn the lessons. We cannot put the clock back, but we need to make sure that such a case never ever happens again.
What horrified me most was all of the warnings and the fact that the family had flagged up that they felt they were not part of the decisions. The hon. Lady summed it up when she said that Lee was treated as an adult, but really he was a child. Yes, he was. We have to do everything we can collectively to make sure that the lessons are learned. The two Ministers are best equipped to do that. I know that they care deeply. It is good that the matter has been flagged up today because that is the best way that we can make a difference.
I was proud to serve as a disabilities Minister. I did a lot of national news and interviews, which were normally quite tricky. That was when I heard for the first time the statistic that only 6% of those with a learning disability could expect to find employment, in contrast with around 80% of people across the population. That is by far the worst statistic of any disability. Yet at the same time, when we meet anybody with a learning disability, particularly young people, they have an incredible amount of enthusiasm, energy and determination. It is not necessarily the case that all of them will be able to have a full-time job. For some, an hour a week is the equivalent of landing a dream job. We talk to their families and friends, and people with learning disabilities are all united in wanting an opportunity to contribute and to feel part of society.
I was greatly impressed when I visited Foxes hotel in Bridgwater. It was one of my favourite visits. The hotel had taken part in a TV programme, which I had seen, so I recognised some of the young adults when I went there. I was star-struck and demanded lots of photographs.
The hotel offered a three-year course for the young adults. There were two roles. In the first role, they developed independent living skills. They would start by being heavily supervised and over the three years would become more and more independent until the end of their three-year experience, when they would go into a separate house. That equipped them with the skills they needed to have the best chance to live independently, because once people get to 25, they really need them. A lot of these people rely on their family and friends, and the biggest fear for family and friends relates to when their health starts to fail, because who will be there to look after them? The course was brilliant and the young adults were really well equipped.
The second part involved developing skills that would give the young adults an opportunity to work. The hotel worked with the other hotels, restaurants and care homes across Bridgwater and the surrounding areas to train them in the skills where there were job vacancies. It was key that there were job vacancies for them. Towards the end, they would spend their final year working in the hotels, restaurants and care homes and taking on different roles. They were supervised with patient training, because it takes them longer to pick up a role, but by the end the vast majority remained in employment. Some 80% remained in employment, of which half were paid.
The course was brilliant. One lad I saw celebrated his birthday shortly afterwards. His employers baked him a cake and they sent me a wonderful picture. I was really touched by that. We made sure that each and every one of those young adults was given the best opportunity to have an independent life and to participate and engage constructively in society, and the employers benefited. They were not doing this for charity, but were filling skills gaps. Yes, they had to be more patient with the training, but they ended up with somebody who was enthusiastic, who always turned up on time, who always had a big smile on their face and who made their workforce better, so they came back year after year.
I called the headteacher involved and she was very cynical about politics, which she made clear in her speech. We all hear those. We go on visits and they do not always roll out the red carpet when we turn up. However, she saw my enthusiasm and acknowledged that in her speech. I said to her, “I need to talk to you in more detail. I need to understand why there isn’t a Foxes hotel in every single constituency,” so she came to Parliament.
Ultimately, it came down to two things. The first was the postcode lottery of funding. In some towns we have brilliant examples where things go really well, but there are too many towns where the system is not joined up, where there are not the opportunities and where there is too much demand and not enough supply.
Secondly, that final year, which is a supervised work placement, was very expensive. That capped the number of young adults who were given that amazing opportunity. That was when I said, “Why is this not an apprenticeship?”. It is work-based learning, something that all politicians support. We all want more apprenticeships. They said they could not access the apprenticeship system, because most of the young adults would not get a grade C in GCSE maths and English.
I therefore organised a meeting with the then Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). I said to him, “We have got to get this sorted,” and he agreed 100%. His officials fell about on the floor and had to be scraped back up and gently reminded him, “We don’t want to dilute the perceived quality of apprenticeships.” I said, “I don’t care; rename it. Call it a disability apprenticeship. We just need access to the funding. I am not proud how we do it.” We came up with a cunning plan to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, to head a taskforce. We gave him about four weeks, because we suspected we might not be the decision makers beyond that time, and we were right. We needed to get things in motion and I am delighted that the proposal is now coming on line. I hope that it will allow the left and right hands to join together, to give those young people an opportunity.
The Solicitor General has been fantastic about disability hate crime. When I lobbied to make the justice system better, he was really engaged. It is great that there has been an increase in reporting. The system is getting better, but there is still a long way to go, and the case that we have heard about today highlights that hate crime was not recognised. My legal knowledge is based on watching “Columbo” on a Sunday, so I do not profess to be an expert, but it is clear that advantage was taken of Lee’s disability. In my mind there is no discussion: the offence should have been categorised as disability hate crime. The Government, including the Solicitor General, are engaged on that issue, and we should all keep passing on examples of how the law is or is not working. The Government are determined to get that right.
I have four quick requests. We must embrace innovation and technology. I loved going to events where we, as a nation, were spearheading brilliant new products to help people with learning and other disabilities with their everyday lives. We can be a world leader in that.
Secondly, let us not forget the power of sport. Nothing matches the time when I took part in a learning disability netball game. I thought the other participants were going to explode with excitement. They were people who had never had the opportunity to exercise and many of them were overweight. One young adult had lost three stone over the summer. I have never seen people more enthusiastic about an opportunity to engage. I urge the Minister to continue to remind Ministers at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about the power that sport has. Thirdly, tackling the postcode lottery is an absolute must.
Finally, we should not forget the families. They face a huge challenge. Many of those I met were families that had a good network of support, which was how they got through the postcode lottery, but many carers are not best equipped to navigate an incredibly complicated system, and ultimately it is the vulnerable people for whom they are responsible who miss out. We must all collectively do much better to improve the system. There is a lot of good practice; we just have to make sure that it is a given.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Wilson. As other hon. Members have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). It is usual to congratulate another Member on securing such an important debate, and she has been persistent in trying to secure this one; the dignified and passionate way in which she set out a deeply tragic case made it an important speech to listen to.
As my hon. Friend said, Lee Irving’s extreme vulnerability due to his learning disability was known about three years before the tragic murder of her constituent. It is disturbing that, despite knowing that, the national probation service did not raise an alarm or a safeguarding alert. As we heard, Lee was being treated as an adult, not a vulnerable adult. The failings highlighted by the safeguarding adults review in the case of Lee Irving included a failure to involve his family in decisions about his future. Mencap has also highlighted the fact that only 1% of hate crimes reported against disabled people result in prosecutions.
Mencap has also called for greater public awareness of learning disabilities. It is important that we have talked about that issue in this debate, and that we have realised that MPs do not have much training on it. Clearly, there is much to know, and many of us could help with that and bring about greater public awareness. I shall say more later about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the impact that it can have on the families of people with learning disabilities, and their ability to stay involved in decisions about vulnerable people such as Lee Irving. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North that lessons must be learned from his case. There is much to learn.
I want to mention the campaign Justice for LB, which was set up to campaign on learning disability issues following the tragic death of Connor Sparrowhawk while he was in the care of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North touched on the case earlier. We have discussed issues at Southern Health a number of times in debates, because Members of the House have had deep concerns about the safety of the care and services provided by the trust. Connor Sparrowhawk was left to drown in a bath; and there were many other deaths. The Mazars investigation, commissioned by NHS England, looked at all deaths at the trust between April 2011 and March 2015. It found that during that period 10,306 people had died. Most deaths were expected, but 1,454 were not. The likelihood of an unexpected death being investigated by the trust depended on the type of patient. The most likely group of deaths to be investigated was deaths among adults with mental health problems, of which 30% were investigated. For those with a learning disability the figure was just 1%. Parents and families left bereaved and grieving want to see accountability, but too often they do not.
There has not, for example, been accountability at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. In fact, the opposite has happened. Last October, I asked the Health Secretary to investigate the way the Southern Health Trust created a sideways move, to an advisory role at the same salary, for Katrina Percy, the chief executive who was criticised for leading the trust through the time when it failed to investigate all those patient deaths. Six weeks later she resigned from that newly created advisory role and received a £190,000 salary pay-off that was signed off by the Department of Health and the Treasury. How does the Minister think that makes bereaved and grieving parents feel? Justice for LB called the pay-off “utterly disgraceful”, and I agree with that, but the Health Secretary would not investigate it.
Campaigns such as Justice for LB are asking that provision for people with learning disabilities should be an integral part of health and care services—not a specialist branch that can be ignored, as it appears to have been ignored at the trust in question. They believe that the law should be changed so that every unexpected death in a secure or locked unit is automatically investigated independently. It is also an important point of crossover with the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North put so well today that they want to stop the Mental Capacity Act 2005 being used to distance families and isolate people—particularly young people.
The Justice for LB campaign, which obviously focuses on different issues from those relating to Lee Irving, has asked for a critical look to be taken at the system of inspection and regulation under which catastrophic events have happened—as they have: from Winterbourne View to the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust there are too many. Sadly, failures carry on over many years. Last week, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust was fined £125,000 after a prosecution in the case of a patient who fell from the roof of the mental health complex of Melbury Lodge in Winchester. The prosecution was brought following the injuries sustained by a patient known as Mr AB. Since 2010, a number of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 had climbed onto the roof of Melbury Lodge in a bid to abscond. The trust’s own security review had recommended safety measures, including anti-climb guttering, but those improvements had not been made.
Mr AB had climbed on to the roof earlier, in March 2012, slipping twice and nearly falling before he was brought down. Three years later, he was admitted to Melbury Lodge again. His family were so worried that he might try again to abscond and climb on to the roof that they asked the staff to keep a close eye on him. However, in the early hours of a morning in December 2015, Mr AB again climbed on the roof of the lodge and fell to the ground, sustaining very serious neck injuries. Despite that accident, three more patients were able to gain access to the roof in February 2016, two months later, and one of them was injured.
The court was told that the trust had not taken action to deal with the risk as there was no money to spend on the remedial work. This is a trust that paid a consultancy firm more than £5 million for a contract originally tendered for £288,000, while another firm was awarded a contract for £600,000, for which it did not even have to bid. It makes things worse that both companies awarded contracts were run by former colleagues of the trust’s chief executive, Katrina Percy. Nearly £6 million of NHS funding went from that trust to a company called Talent Works, described as experts in culture and behaviour change. It is not good enough that an NHS trust spends £6 million on culture and behaviour change consultants when it cannot get the basics right and safeguard its patients or a young person put in its care.
Those events, and everything we have heard in the debate, leave us questions to answer, which I will put to the Minister. Why were only 1% of the unexpected deaths of people with learning disabilities at a trust such as Southern Health investigated? Why do only 1% of hate crimes against people with learning disabilities result in prosecutions? Parents from both campaigns for better safeguarding of people with learning disabilities urge us to stop the Mental Capacity Act being used to distance those families and isolate people, particularly young people.
My hon. Friend spoke powerfully of the need to give families of adult children with learning disabilities much clearer and increased rights over their adult child’s welfare. She highlighted well the horrific events that can occur when families do not remain part of the decision-making process. I will repeat, because they are important, the two recommendations of Lee Irving’s family. The first is that the move from children’s to adults’ services be better managed, to ensure a smoother transition without loss of support, and that services consider the capacity, rather than the age, of the individual. That was clearly an important factor in the case of Lee Irving. Secondly—and very importantly, because this matters to many families—they recommend that families remain part of the decision-making process in the case of vulnerable adults and are fully involved in and consulted on best interest and other decisions relating to family members.
In a dignified and passionate speech, my hon. Friend also argued convincingly of the need to introduce a new offence of disability hate crime, to send a clear message that what happened to Lee Irving will not be tolerated in 21st-century Britain. It is unusual to have such a small debate, but it has been worth while to lay out that case and make other points. We must continue to have an informed debate about the status of adults with learning disabilities as full citizens, but more important than anything is that we should listen to them and their families. We should remember the deeply disturbing words of Lee’s mother, Bev:
“nobody listened to me. If I had been listened to, then my son would still have been alive now.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I join everyone else in paying tribute to the dignified and passionate way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) outlined her case. It is truly heartbreaking. Lee’s mother is watching today. She put her trust in the institutions of the state to care for her son, and we failed her. It should never have happened, and for that I am truly, truly sorry. I give the hon. Lady and Bev my commitment that I will take lessons from this. I hope the hon. Lady will act as my conscience in ensuring that I do so. The issues highlighted across the Chamber today need to be acted upon, to ensure that we do our best by all our constituents.
I was struck by the way that the hon. Lady talked more generally about people with learning disabilities. It is, frankly, the reason we all get involved in politics—we get involved in politics when we see the state failing and to make sure we do the best for everyone in society and for the people we can see being failed. I do not think that any group is failed more than people with learning disabilities. They have potential and the ability to live independently, but all too often they have been parked. My hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) outlined examples of where, with some support, people with learning disabilities can lead very productive lives, but it requires support and investment. Sadly, that is not always forthcoming, and without it, they are very vulnerable, as this tragic case all too clearly illustrates. We owe it to them and to ourselves, in order to make the best of society, to do all we can to help people with learning disabilities to live independent lives.
We need to do more to tackle the whole issue of prejudice. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said she has been very persistent in trying to secure this debate, but perhaps it is fitting that the debate is happening in the middle of National Hate Crime Awareness Week. That is the perfect backdrop against which to address her case. It is fair to say that we are still early in the day when it comes to hate crime prosecution. There is slowness in reporting all hate crime, and suddenly people have become more aware.
People with learning disabilities are generally victims of quite widely held prejudice. It is not just the fact that they are targeted because of their disability; the agencies that should support them do not necessarily give them the support they need because of their disability. We have seen across the board, in so many examples of abuse, that particular social groups who are not the best at representing themselves do not always get a fair deal at the hands of the organisations that support them. We should look at that under the umbrella of hate crime, but it is slightly different; it is about prejudice more generally that we can all help to tackle. It is a very real inequality that we are tackling.
Central to our job as Members of Parliament is supporting people who have been victims of maladministration and who are not getting enough support from the state. In many cases, that is people with learning disabilities. I have always found that some of the most rewarding work I do as a Member of Parliament is in supporting people with learning disabilities. It is also the most inspiring, and it is great to see the enthusiasm that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon referred to.
Unfortunately the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), is no longer in her place, but the fact that she was here is testimony to her support for this work. We are very keen that people with learning disabilities receive more attention. I give the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North that commitment, and we will continue to engage with her as this work develops.
I agree with the hon. Lady that people with learning disabilities are among the most vulnerable in our society, and it is the responsibility of all of us to protect them from risk. I will not pretend that we have got this perfect—there is a hell of a lot more to do. There has been significant progress in identifying and managing risk, but it is not consistent, and there are too many occasions when it just does not happen.
The hon. Lady articulated clear views on a specific case of hate crime. She will appreciate that that falls outside my bailiwick, but I will make a few observations, in so far as I can without treading on other Departments’ toes. As she said, the judge concluded that hate was not a factor in the motivation behind the crime. That is a matter for the courts, and it is for them to interpret, but I come back to the issue of prejudice. That case throws up a number of issues that we all need to be more vigilant about. We know that people with learning disabilities are very vulnerable to bad people, and bad people will find vulnerable people to prey on. I am aware that young women with learning disabilities are often preyed upon sexually, which is a real hidden issue that we need to think about. There is also the whole issue of modern slavery. People with learning disabilities are often subject to that. In this case, Lee was obviously being exploited financially by the people who murdered him.
Barbara Keeley
I did not manage to raise the very important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) raised about the fact that Lee Irving was labelled as difficult to help and classed as an adult who could choose a lifestyle, with such tragic results. That has echoes of other forms of abuse because, as my hon. Friend so clearly pointed out to us, his intellectual skills and reasoning were at 0.2% of those of adults of his age. Why were agencies saying that he could choose that awful lifestyle, which ended up having such a tragic result?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. As she says, we have seen that in other cases of abuse. We can look at Rotherham and how the agencies behaved there. It is almost as if there is a view that, “He’s a bad ’un; he doesn’t deserve protection.” That is absolutely not the case. We need to be thinking about the person in a very person-centred way. It was very clear that Lee had a learning disability and did not have the capacity to act as an adult, yet he was treated as one. That is one of the real lessons of this case.
With specific regard to the requests of the family, the whole area of transition is certainly of concern to me. We see this issue in relation not just to learning disabilities, but to mental health. In both cases, families are often completely unable to influence support or care for their loved one; they are utterly powerless because they are in the control of institutions. We need to be learning the very clear lessons there.
We need to raise awareness of hate crime against people with disabilities. Too often, we look at hate crime through the prisms of race and gender. To be honest, we look at hate crime through those prisms because it is the victim of a hate crime who will raise it as such and, frankly, people with disabilities are in less of a position to do so. That said, things are getting better. As I said, it is early days for the offence and prosecution of hate crime, but I am told that in the past year the police have recorded an additional 5,558 disability hate crimes; the number is up by 53%. That suggests that people are more inclined to report it and that the police are more inclined to identify hate crime due to disability, but we continue to monitor the situation and see what else needs to be done to protect the vulnerable.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the response that the Minister has given, but the increase in reporting of hate crime is very concerning. There are potentially two issues here. One is that people are more motivated or able to report hate crime, but it may be that there is a significant increase in hate crime as well. It is incumbent on the Government to find a way of monitoring that, so that we can understand whether this is a growing problem or whether there is just more success in terms of the reporting of the crime. We should not confuse the two.
Jackie Doyle-Price
That is a fair point. Data is everything, and as time progresses, we will build up more meaningful data, but certainly if crimes are being reported, they are more likely to be prosecuted. Even if the behaviour has been hidden, or if it is on the rise, at least prosecution can happen, but we need to tackle the behaviour first and foremost, to be frank. Prevention is always better than cure.
Under the hate crime action plan launched in July 2016, we committed to providing funding to community-led projects aimed at tackling hate crime. In the first year of the scheme, we funded nine projects across England and Wales covering all types of hate crime. We funded a project in Carlisle involving Mencap. It was to develop an education resource to raise awareness of disability hate crime and how to report it. The great thing about that was that it was created by people with learning disabilities for people with learning disabilities, so it was enabling and empowering the victims. I am advised that three of the projects for the second year of the programme will focus on tackling disability hate crime, but clearly there is more to do.
On 21 August 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service published revised public statements and legal guidance for all strands of hate crime, as well as a support guide for disabled victims and witnesses. One of the most telling things about the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North was that it was in the interaction with the criminal justice system that perhaps the most decisive intervention to support Lee could have occurred. Again, we can do more. The Solicitor General is well aware of this matter and, I am sure, is already having discussions with the legal agencies about how we can spread good practice and perhaps look at guidance.
Safeguarding was obviously the real failing in this case. Clearly, we need a system that protects those at risk and acts on issues effectively; that did not happen in this case. As we have heard, once someone becomes an adult, it is very important that it has regard to their feelings and wishes, but the whole issue of mental capacity needs to be determined. In the Care Act 2014, there is a clear legal framework for safeguarding, which gives clear instruction on the responsibilities of local authorities and the rights of adults, but it is also important to involve their families and loved ones as and when necessary. Again, that is a very troubling aspect of this case.
We need to do better. We need to make clear what is expected of the various agencies under the Care Act. We are pursuing Making Safeguarding Personal, which is a sector-led improvement programme that aims to reinforce the placing of the individual at the centre of safeguarding. We are also working with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to improve that.
To come back to the issue of the criminal justice system, that was a missed opportunity to give Lee support. During the past two years, we have been working very hard to expand liaison and diversion services. It has been a good news story: more than 71,000 vulnerable adults have been taken out of the criminal justice system and instead put on an integrated health and justice pathway, helping them into health services and away from custody where appropriate. I can assure the hon. Lady that that is still a key part of how we will approach this issue. In fact, I met the team doing that work just last week.
To address the specific recommendations made by the family, the transition from children’s to adults’ services is clearly key. That is where things go wrong; we need to ensure that it is joined up. I always say that if we have a weak link in a chain, we can usually get over that, but if we have a succession of them, that is when things go terribly wrong. As the hon. Lady outlined, there were probably half a dozen in this case.
We are determined that young people with learning disabilities will be properly prepared for adulthood. We are looking at four specific areas: employment, good health, independent living and community inclusion. From the way the hon. Lady articulated Lee’s circumstances, I do not think he could have been judged to be meeting all four of those criteria by any stretch of the imagination, so we must ensure that the support network is in place to help to steer individuals through that, for as long as it takes. It can take a number of years, but the end goal is a good one if we are prepared to make that investment. If people are not ready, they must have support to prevent them from being exploited by those who would exploit people who are vulnerable.
Many people think that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is very complex legislation, and clearly in this case not everyone knew their obligations under it. There was not a clear understanding of how far the family should have been involved when Lee’s mental capacity was clearly not that of an adult. We want to do a lot more work on educating people in this space. In 2015 we established, with the Ministry of Justice, the National Mental Capacity Forum, specifically to develop those messages and good practice across the sector.
We also have to look at deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Law Commission has recently published its report on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty, and I welcome the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North in the light of this case. Like all Law Commission reports, it is a very well-thought-out piece of work. It has had lots of investigation and engagement with stakeholders. We need to make sure that the law is proportionate in respecting people’s liberties, but can also be used to protect the vulnerable. That is clearly the test that we will apply.
We have heard that Lee struggled to navigate the system and that agencies did not work well to support him. Another important tool that will perhaps avoid cases like Lee’s in future is having a named social worker who owns the individual and their needs, and makes sure that those have been satisfied. I think that would make a big difference. We have the named social worker pilot scheme so that more people can have that personalised care and support. They can hold every agency responsible under care plans and be really person-centred, recognising that this is an individual with his own personality, needs and circumstances. That is a very important piece of work. It is our response to the 2015 consultation, “No voice unheard, no right ignored”, which sought views on strengthening the rights of people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions, to enable them to live more independently.
The hon. Lady raised the case of Southern Health and Connor Sparrowhawk. I think we agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant, so all NHS trusts are now required to publish estimates of how many deaths they could have avoided had they been better. That includes the deaths of people with a learning disability. From June next year, trusts must also publish evidence of learning improvements that happen as a result of those data. We expect that the leaders of trusts should show some real accountability and leadership in how they deal with their duties under that requirement.
I want to give the hon. Lady plenty of time to speak at the end, because this is clearly a very important subject for her, but I will quickly add that one of the most important things we need to get right in supporting those with learning disabilities is to invest in good quality supported housing. That is central to encouraging independent living and to having the infrastructure in place to protect them from any potential exploitation.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of costs and challenges. It is to be celebrated that people with learning disabilities are living longer—for a long time they were dying prematurely. That is a massive improvement in justice, but it does bring with it cash challenges, and obviously we are facing cash challenges across the sector. I wish that was easy to fix. It is not, but it is at the top of my in-tray, as I am sure both she and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) will understand, and we are very keen to address it. On the specific issue of sleep-ins, which I know Mencap is very worried about, we are actively involved in discussions about how we can support the sector to deal with that.
To conclude, what happened to Lee was not the result of a single cause. There were a number of failings, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North articulately set out. I think there are real challenges: how the criminal justice system understands people with a learning disability, how all the agencies can work more effectively together and how we can provide support for people with a learning disability, so that we not only support, but protect them. We are taking action at a national level to address those. The permanent secretary at the Department of Health is about to convene a cross-departmental roundtable to look at how we can deal with this across Government.
I can give the hon. Lady my assurance that people with learning disabilities are a key priority of mine, and I look forward to making sure that we do not have to have a debate like this in future.
Catherine McKinnell
I am pleased to have been able to put the details of Lee Irving’s case on the parliamentary record, for his family and in the hope that some good can come out of this horrendous tragedy. Unfortunately, after seven years of representing the people in Newcastle North, I have not yet succeeded in growing a cold heart or cynicism. I wanted to remain composed in order to make the strongest case possible on behalf of Lee Irving and his family, but the sheer inhumanity of what happened to him shocked the local community and everybody here. Only a cold-hearted person would not be moved by what happened. There is not only upset, but anger and frustration on my part, that the system—our system—let them down so badly.
I thank hon. Members for their powerful and constructive contributions to the debate today—the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and both the SNP and Labour Front Benchers, but in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for her timely intervention. I thank the Minister for a very sincere and encouraging response. That the Minister for disabled people has been present for this debate, and that the Government are listening so intently, will mean a lot to Lee’s family and anybody following these proceedings.
As well as listening, we need to make sure that the lessons that can be learnt from this case are learnt, as Lee’s family have reasonably requested. I understand what the Minister said about the funding situation, but I could not miss this opportunity, ahead of the Budget next week, to make that case for funding for local authorities, to make sure that we protect and safeguard the most vulnerable in our society. That is to make sure that our local authorities have the funding to put in place some of the measures that the Minister has outlined, because it cannot be done on the cheap. I appreciate that there is also a lot we can do on the funding issues, so I will continue, as invited, to work with the Government, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government, to make sure that something good can come out of this horrific tragedy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered supporting and safeguarding adults with learning disabilities.
Dangerous Driving involving Death: Sentencing
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sentencing in cases of dangerous driving involving death.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your wise chairmanship as ever, Mr Hollobone. As hon. Members and the Minister will know, this debate is timely, given the publication on 16 October of the response to the Government’s consultation on maximum sentences for particular driving offences. Our debate today is inevitably and rightly informed by the changes that the Government announced yesterday, but like many other Members, I sought this debate in response to a case in my constituency in which the perpetrator was convicted after pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving. As a former Minister, I understand and sympathise with the fact that the Minister will not be able to comment on individual cases, but my aim is to use this tragic case as an example to question whether the current sentencing regime is fit for purpose, to discuss some of the Government’s proposals and changes, and to discuss how this case and ones like it need to lead to a change in policy.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am sure that many will know of the sad case of four-year-old Violet-Grace Youens, who was killed this year and whose grandmother was left seriously injured when they were returning from their nursery. A stolen car crashed into them at 80 miles per hour in a 30 mph zone in St Helens. Two young men were in the car, one driving and one not. One of them ran past dying Violet-Grace laughing, making his getaway. The other posted a video from his prison cell celebrating his birthday; it depicts drug-taking and misbehaviour in prison. One will understand why Violet-Grace’s parents are deeply distressed and have no faith in our justice system. The boy who was celebrating his birthday received a 10-day extension to his sentence for posting the video. I have read these proposals with interest and welcome them, but please consider those who may not have been on drugs and drink at the time.
Kevin Brennan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Obviously, that is a horrendous case and a great deal needs to be done on our prisons policy. It is not for us to debate that here today, but there is much to be done to improve the current state of affairs in our prisons, and I sympathise with her constituents and their families.
I want to talk about Sophie Taylor, a 22-year-old constituent of mine; she was a young woman in the prime of her life, with much to look forward to. She was described by her distraught mother, Jackie, as a loving and caring individual. I pay tribute to Jackie for somehow finding the strength to come and talk to me about the case, and to talk to the media about her horrific loss and her subsequent experience of the criminal justice and court system.
During the early hours of the morning of 22 August 2016, Sophie and her friend, Joshua Deguara, were chased through the streets of Cardiff by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Wheeler, and another driver. I will not comment on the case of the second driver, because elements of that case might still be sub judice, but I will focus on the actions and sentencing of Michael Wheeler, who entered a guilty plea and whose case is not subject to appeal.
During the chase, Sophie called 999 because she was scared and felt unsafe. She was on the phone, talking to an operator for 24 minutes. As that duration shows, the chase was a sustained and deliberate action by Mr Wheeler. During that time, his car reached speeds of up to 56 mph as he chased Sophie and Joshua into narrow residential streets. Then, he turned his car to the left into Sophie’s, causing her car to crash into a block of flats. The collision caused Sophie a catastrophic brain injury, which led to her death. Joshua suffered life-changing injuries, including a brain bleed, a shattered pelvis and an injury to his leg that has since led to its amputation. News reports stated that Mr Wheeler drove away after the crash before parking nearby, where he was arrested.
The judge who heard the case at Cardiff Crown court described what happened that night as
“nothing more than a pack chasing its prey”.
He added:
“You were trying to ram her off the road and you did”.
It is also worth noting that Sophie had made several reports to the police and visited the police station in the weeks leading up to her death about the problems she was experiencing with Mr Wheeler. The chase was an act of decisive, prolonged and co-ordinated aggression, and in my view, one which should have led to an even more serious charge than causing death by dangerous driving, but the judge was clear, saying
“you were consumed by a self-righteous and jealous rage, chasing her down to frighten her and teach her a lesson”.
We can only imagine Sophie’s family’s loss and the stress and torment that they have endured throughout the legal process. As I said, I met her mother, Jackie. Understandably, she is absolutely devastated by what happened, but she is equally determined to do what she can to prevent other families having to go through what her family has suffered.
As I said, I completely understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases. However, the details of the case that I have outlined are extremely pertinent in discussing the sentencing of cases of death by dangerous driving.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Members might know of an incident that happened in Penge last year, when two of my constituents, Makayah McDermott—a 10-year old boy and aspiring young actor—and his aunt, Rozanne Cooper, were killed when a stolen vehicle was travelling at 55 miles per hour in a residential area just opposite a playpark. That case is particularly close to my heart because I was at school with the mother of the boy and his aunt, both of whom died. Does my hon. Friend agree that the disparity between sentences for manslaughter and sentences for death by dangerous driving has long been unjust?
Kevin Brennan
Yes I do, as a matter of fact, and I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend and her constituents in relation to that tragic case. The case I will try to develop in my argument is that it is not enough just to get parity of sentence. We need to look at what sentences are being handed out and why, and whether justice is being served by the system, whatever ultimate maximum tariff the Government decide is appropriate for this offence.
The details of this case are pertinent. As hon. Members know, the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving has been raised in recent years to 14 years in custody. I note that in its guidelines, the Sentencing Council characterises a level 1 conviction for causing death by dangerous driving as
“a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others.”
Given that Sophie was deliberately and persistently chased through the streets of Cardiff and forced off the road in a way that ultimately led to her death, it seems to me that a level 1 sentence would have to apply in this case. However, although the starting point for a level 1 conviction is eight years in custody, Wheeler was sentenced to seven and a half years, which is just over half the maximum sentence available. My constituent Jackie Taylor’s understanding is that the guidelines available to the judge did not allow for the maximum sentence to be given, despite the obvious aggressive and aggravating factors in this particular case.
The Justice Secretary said in reply to a letter that I sent to him about this case that the courts must follow sentencing guidelines
“unless it is not in the interest of justice to do so”.
That leads to an obvious question: how could it be in the interests of justice to opt for a shorter sentence in a case such as the one that I have outlined? The sentence following Sophie Taylor’s death poses questions about the current frequency and circumstances of use of the maximum sentence that are particularly timely, given the Government’s announcement that they intend to increase the maximum sentence from 14 years to life in cases of death by dangerous driving.
The first issue is how often the maximum sentence is used. In my previous correspondence on the matter with the Justice Secretary, I asked how many maximum sentences for causing death by dangerous driving had been handed out in recent years. I noted that the Government press release yesterday containing the announcement on the maximum sentence said that 157 people were sentenced in 2016 for causing death by dangerous driving. In his response to the question I asked in my letter, the Justice Secretary—it is not like him not to respond to my direct question—simply said that the maximum sentence was rarely used. When the Minister responds, can he give us that figure? I looked carefully at the Government’s press release to see whether it was there, but it was not.
I say gently to him that such sensitive matters should be carefully proofread. The final point of the notes to editors in the press release says:
“The government will give further consideration to increasing minimum driving bans for those convicted of causing serious death.”
I know that that is an error, but an error so crass is not really acceptable in something so sensitive.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is getting to the fundamental point. This week, Merseyside Road Safety Partnership announced a strategy to reduce road deaths dramatically by 2020, but I am sure he will agree that preventive measures are useful and good only if those who cause death by dangerous driving know that they will be dealt with harshly by the law.
Kevin Brennan
Justice should be served by the right sentence being given for the offence. There should also be an anticipation that offenders are likely to be caught and justice served upon them. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if that is not clear, such offences will continue.
I hope that the Minister can at least give us that figure. The public are entitled to know. When my constituent, Jackie Taylor, read the Justice Secretary’s response, she said:
“I note that the right hon. David Lidington, CBE, MP mentions about the government in consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death and serious injury, possibly increasing to life imprisonment. This will only deem as a deterrent, not deal with the offence committed. If 14 years has never been passed down to any individual for this charge, why would life imprisonment ever be used? If the Sentencing Council control what the judges can serve, and are recommending low guidelines in the criteria that the judges work with, then what difference would it make if it’s life?”
That is a reasonable question for my constituent, as a victim of this crime, to pose to the Government. I hope that the Minister can deal with it in his response to this debate.
Obviously, I am interested in how often the maximum sentence is given, as the Government’s consultation showed that 70% of respondents did not feel that the current maximum of 14 years was long enough. The Minister will understand that if the sentence of 14 years is hardly ever used, it raises the question how a new increased maximum would be used and why it was found to be necessary. Have the Government estimated how often they estimate the new maximum sentence is likely to be given, based on current experience and their consultation? Likewise, what effect does he think the new maximum will have on the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving? If there is no answer to those questions, the obvious next question is what is the point of the proposed change.
In 2015, with a maximum sentence of 14 years, the average custodial sentence length was 57.1 months. Is it projected, as the Government anticipated, that that will increase in line with the new maximum? The second issue is the circumstances in which the maximum penalty is used. Maximum sentences and sentences of a similarly lengthy duration are rightly reserved for the most heinous crimes. I have outlined the horrible circumstances of my constituent’s death. Given that Wheeler was sentenced to just over half the maximum time in custody, the victim’s mother’s question is what someone would have to do for the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to be available, if it was not available in this case. How will that change as the Government change the maximum sentence?
As I mentioned, my constituent understands that the sentencing guidelines prevented the judge from giving Wheeler the maximum sentence; indeed, it was reduced by six months from the eight-year starting point. Sophie’s mother is concerned about how the sentencing guidelines operate. What assessment has the Minister made of how accountable the Sentencing Council is? I know that it is independent, but it should still be accountable for how it draws up its guidelines.
Kevin Brennan
I will give way briefly, but I want to give the Minister a chance to respond.
Alex Chalk
The Sentencing Council does important and valuable work, but does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in some of its guidelines—for the sake of argument, let us say assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which the maximum is five years—the range that the Sentencing Council imposes for the most heinous offence stops well short of the maximum, effectively sending a steer to the judges that says, “Don’t ever sentence for the maximum”? Does he agree that that is a concern?
Kevin Brennan
I do, and I think that there are similar concerns in relation to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. I do not advocate not having proper guidelines—we want consistency in sentencing—but it sometimes seems to victims that the sentence they are told the perpetrator is likely to get is a bit of a fiction, and that the tariff actually served is nothing like the maximum, even in a case such as the one I have discussed, in which there are horrific aggravating factors. Can the Minister address the questions posed by Sophie Taylor’s case about the frequency and circumstances in which a maximum sentence is given?
I want to make it clear that this is not about revenge; it is about justice. In the case that I am discussing, sentencing guidelines led to an outcome that outraged not only the victims’ families but the wider community. The Government need to be clearer about what they are doing to deter such crime. Knowing that a life sentence is a real possibility would be a start, as would increasing the likelihood of getting caught by funding the police properly; that is a vital part of it. The prospect that sentences could be increased on appeal when judges are too lenient is also important. I understand that out of 713 such requests in recent years, 136 have resulted in longer sentences, but not one has been for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.
Sophie Taylor’s death was a horrible tragedy. Nothing will relieve her family’s loss. However, the perception that justice was not done because the maximum sentence is unreachable adds another burden for them to bear.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
It is a great pleasure, as ever, to speak under your doughty chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I begin in the customary manner by congratulating the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this debate on sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving offences. I know that many colleagues here will have dealt with tragic cases in their constituencies; we have heard, movingly, of a couple of them. Those who have had that misfortune will know that reckless driving ruins lives and devastates families, whether the culprit is racing, talking on a mobile phone or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The hon. Gentleman has championed this cause tenaciously since the tragic case in the summer of 2016 in which Michael Wheeler and Melissa Pesticcio started a car chase that, as he described, left Sophie Taylor dead and her passenger Joshua Deguara seriously injured. I extend my deepest sympathies to Sophie’s mother Jackie, whom the hon. Member for Cardiff West described, and to Sophie’s wider family and friends. I cannot begin to imagine their loss. The technical and legal changes that we are making will not bring her back, but these reforms must try to deliver some reassurance and solace, through a greater sense that justice is being done. I also pay tribute to Joshua Deguara and his family, whose suffering has been immense. The case highlights the need for reform.
Thomas Crowther, QC, the Cardiff Crown court judge in the case of Sophie Taylor, said that
“that shattering of two families was completely avoidable. It was caused by…the self-righteous and jealous rage”
of the defendants, who were
“chasing her down to frighten her and teach her a lesson”.
The court sentenced Michael Wheeler to seven and a half years in prison and Melissa Pesticcio to six and a half years.
Such cases are far too common. The reforms that we have announced this week will come too late for the families of Kris Jarvis, John Morland and James Gilbey, to name the victims of just a few of the tragedies that have struck me as I have worked on proposals for reform. The hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) gave moving accounts of tragedies in their constituencies; I pay tribute to them and extend my sympathies and condolences to the families. I appreciate the frustration and anguish that they must feel. I met Major Gilbey, James’s father, last week. It is right to pay tribute to his courage and strength, and to all the families who have campaigned for a change in the law. Numerous colleagues across the House have also raised cases with me and my predecessors at the Ministry of Justice.
We recognise that the law has too often prevented judges from handing down sufficiently long sentences for the very worst cases of dangerous driving, bearing in mind the severity of the harm and the anguish of the victims’ families. We have looked at the evidence, and now is the time to change the law. Although we cannot bring back lost loved ones, we can make sure that justice is done. Yesterday, we published our response to the consultation on driving offences and penalties relating to causing death and serious injury. The consultation, which closed earlier this year, received more than 9,000 submissions with different views on the offences and penalties. That shows the widespread public interest in reform and the concern about how the law has operated.
Based on the evidence, we propose three specific changes to the law. I hope the hon. Member for Cardiff West will welcome them, but I will also try to address his specific points. Even more importantly, I hope the changes will give the victims and the wider public a stronger sense that justice is being done. All three proposals received overwhelming support in the consultation.
First, we propose to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life imprisonment. We want the courts to have additional powers to deal with the most serious cases in which life is lost. In 2016, the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was five years. In the last two years, three sentences of longer than 10 years have been imposed. That makes the case that those sentences are not attracting the level of seriousness that the hon. Member for Cardiff West and the Government think is due.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the point of the change is to send an unequivocal, crystal-clear message to the courts that they can and should impose a higher sentence—a life sentence—for the very worst cases. It is for the Sentencing Council to decide whether new guidelines are needed on this sentence or on any of the others that I will mention. He is right to mention that the ULS—unduly lenient sentences—scheme applies to those cases and that they will therefore be referred to the Court of Appeal if the Attorney General so decides. He rightly acknowledges that as politicians, we cannot and should not interfere with individual decision making, as opposed to the sentencing framework that applies in such cases.
In very serious cases in which there are multiple victims, in which the offender has previous convictions or in which their behaviour is particularly reckless and culpable—as in some of the cases described by the hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Lewisham West and Penge—offenders will face a maximum life sentence. The effect of that change is twofold. Offenders who receive a life sentence will serve a minimum period in prison and will be released only when the Parole Board considers it safe. For offenders who do not merit a life sentence, the court will have the power to impose a determinate sentence of any length. That will empower the courts to reflect the full severity of the worst offending and its devastating impact on victims and their families.
Alex Chalk
The Minister speaks about sending a powerful message. A powerful message is sent to the Sentencing Council too. Does he agree that for offences such as stalking, for which the maximum sentence has been doubled, that message has been reflected to a large extent in the Sentencing Council’s most recently published guidelines?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. I remember his tenacious campaign on that subject from my early days as a Justice Minister. As well as empowering the courts, the change sends a message that will have an effect, right through the system, on the raw power available to a sentencing court. It will have a knock-on effect on the Sentencing Council and its ability to assess and consider whether further guidelines need to be provided. At the appeal level, there is also the ULS scheme.
In the time available, I will address the other key proposals. The second proposal is to raise the maximum penalty for the separate offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. We recognise that although the driving in such cases may not amount to dangerous driving, the overall seriousness of the offence is the same, because of the combination of careless driving and the irresponsible decision to get behind the wheel under the influence of drink or drugs. Again, for the worst cases, we propose that the maximum sentence be life imprisonment.
Our third proposal will close a gap in the law. At the moment, if a driver who is driving carelessly injures another road user, passenger or pedestrian, the maximum penalty is a fine, even if the incident results in the victim being left with serious, debilitating or permanent injuries. The case that particularly struck me was that of Sophie Wilkinson, who was left in a coma with a life-changing set of injuries after a horror crash in 2007. We need the criminal law to cover careless driving that results in such severe harm and injury, so we will introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. That offence will carry a custodial penalty and will sit alongside the existing offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
Those are the three key areas of reform that we plan to implement as soon as parliamentary time allows. We will incorporate any further changes that emerge from the review of cycling safety announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last month, so that we have a consistent overarching framework for sentencing people who kill or cause serious injury on our roads. I am grateful for the time and effort that so many people, including the hon. Member for Cardiff West and the campaigning families, put into their responses to the consultation. No punishment in these cases can make up for the loss of a loved one, but we can make sure that justice is properly done.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister says that three sentences longer than 10 years have been imposed in the last couple of years, but he did not say that the maximum 14-year sentence had been used. I hope he wants to signal that that maximum sentence should be used more frequently.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As we develop these proposals, I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members across the House. It is the very least that the victims and their families deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Devolved Powers in Scotland
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of devolved powers in Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to lead my first debate as a Member of Parliament.
Twenty years ago, I was in the minority. At the referendum in 1997, I campaigned against the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, not from party loyalty but from the starting point that any dilution of the Union could lead to its ending. I urged the people of Scotland to think twice and vote no. They did not; instead, they voted yes to a future with a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh.
However, I now realise that I was wrong. With the zeal of the convert, I have trodden my own road to Damascus and now I stand here today to extol the virtues of the Scottish Parliament and devolution. The Scottish Parliament has helped and is helping to create a better Scotland, and a more comfortable and confident Union, too; but more than that, I firmly believe that devolution is a principle worth arguing for. I am not talking about devolution in the sense of the establishment of a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly, but about the concept of devolution. It is core to my credo that politics should be and is local. It is personal to communities that decisions that impact on people’s lives should be made as near to them as possible. Edinburgh is not the end of the road; Holyrood should just be the beginning. Politics should be local and we should seek to localise decision making.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. This is an hour-long debate. Lots of Back Benchers have put in to speak. The time limit is already looking like it will be three minutes; that time limit will go down if there are interventions. I say now that if a Member intervenes, they will not catch my eye to be called to make a speech.
Stephen Kerr
I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he might know, we have a problem on the west coast of Scotland, because we need fishermen from non-European economic area countries. Westminster is stopping that, in contrast to Switzerland, for example, where half the visas are controlled by Bern and the other half by the 26 cantons. Does he not think that it is time for Westminster to loosen its iron grip and allow fishing boats on the west of Scotland, and indeed in Northern Ireland, to fish?
Stephen Kerr
I do not necessarily recognise the nature of the problem that the hon. Gentleman is describing and I will come on to talk about the relationship that should exist between the Parliaments of this island.
As I was saying, Edinburgh is not the end of the road; Holyrood should just be the beginning. Politics, indeed, should be local. However, that is not Scotland’s story, nor has it been for the last 20 years of our Scottish Parliament. Instead of treating devolution as a process of bringing power to the people, first the Scottish Executive and then the Scottish Government have consolidated power in their offices in Edinburgh.
There has been a power grab in Scotland, sucking power from communities and taking power from the many into the hands of the few. Decisions taken around the Cabinet table in Bute House are remote and removed from the daily lives of the people of Scotland. They often run roughshod over the views of the public, and are apparently unheeding to and uncaring about the difficulties that communities face.
I am, however, full of hope that that situation can be addressed by the simple adoption of the principles of devolution by the Scottish Nationalist Government in Edinburgh. Since the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, we now have a powerhouse Parliament. It should not be forgotten that it was a Conservative Government who delivered those powers, in fulfilment of the vow made by David Cameron and, as Scottish Conservatives, we are proud to have done that. It is David Cameron’s proud legacy. Powers over equalities, gaming machines, income tax, railway policing, welfare, quarrying, air passenger duty, consumer advocacy and advice, the Crown Estate, elections and employment programmes—all these are in addition to the powers of general competence that the Scottish Government already enjoy, and there are more powers on their way.
The powers at the disposal of the Scottish Parliament have the potential to make a real difference to the lives of the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament can develop the economy, create specific help for people who need welfare and choose to vary taxation. I am by no means a fan of the idea of raising taxes, but I believe that services must be paid for and it should be for local councils and the Scottish Government to set an appropriate level of tax to pay for those services. With all those powers and the ability to tax and borrow more than ever before, the Scottish Parliament is well placed to get to work to solve our country’s problems and to work for Scotland’s betterment. What a shame that we still have so much confusion and grievance being shown.
Let me give an example of that. One of the Members of the Scottish Parliament made a statement just last month calling on Westminster to do something about the number of fixed odds betting machines, with the grievance about the lack of power hanging in the air, but of course that power was devolved in May 2016. It is possible that that statement was a simple mistake brought about by the confusing nature of the legislation, but it also misled members of the public about who is responsible. Instead of using such an important issue as a political ping-pong ball batted over Hadrian’s Wall, would it not be better if we approached such issues as a way of creating partnerships between different levels of Government, in order to achieve something?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for giving us the opportunity to talk a bit about why the Scottish National party Government are still polling very highly and why the Tories have moved back into third place in Scotland. However, on the subject of fixed odds betting terminals, I represent a constituency that is littered with betting shops, as a result of the liberalisation of the Gambling Act 2005. Does he recognise that most of those shops are covered by previous legislation and that only new terminals are dealt with differently?
Stephen Kerr
The reality is that the power to legislate in this area belongs with the Scottish Parliament.
As I have said, instead of treating such issues as political ping-pong balls, where there are elements reserved for Westminster, elements that are at Holyrood level and elements that require the intervention of a local authority, would it not be better if we worked together? Problems can be passed between Holyrood and Westminster without resolution, or we can take responsibility as lawmakers to work together for a solution. I believe in creating partnerships to achieve things, rather than issuing press releases as a display of political virility. Activity and achievement are not the same thing in politics. There is much to do in Scotland.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing his first debate in this Chamber and on his election. He talks about working together, so was he as astonished as I was when the Scottish Nationalist Government in Edinburgh voted against lifting the public sector pay cap in Scotland while SNP Members here voted to lift it in Westminster? If so, could the UK and Scottish Governments work together to lift the public sector pay cap?
Stephen Kerr
Contradictions between what the SNP does in the Scottish Parliament and what it says here are quite common.
The Scottish Parliament has powers to do so much good, but some of those powers remain unused. The tax-raising powers that the Scottish Parliament has had since its inception, which were agreed to at the referendum in 1997, remain in their box, unused. I do not believe in higher taxes, but there have been a few parties that might have some small representation in the Scottish Parliament that do. The SNP has the full right to use those powers, so when we hear talk decrying the funding settlement, we should remember that the Scottish Government have the power to vary the tax rate and to raise their own money.
Newer powers, on speed limits and air passenger duty, also remain unused, but we will see what the future holds in respect of those powers. All these powers are weapons in the arsenal, and let us not forget that they were brought forward by a Conservative Government looking out for the interests of the people of Scotland.
Just because we have our own powerhouse Parliament in Edinburgh does not mean that our Parliament in London should be less of a force for good in Scotland. The UK Parliament is still as much of a Scottish Parliament as it has been since the Act of Union in 1707. Scotland is one land with two Parliaments. We deserve our voice to be heard here and we deserve our Government—the UK Government—to work in our interests. Action taken by the Exchequer to work with the oil industry, to ensure that the full force of the UK economy can come to the assistance of the regional economy of Aberdeen, is an example of our working together as a United Kingdom.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
On 3 October the Scottish Government announced an absolute ban on fracking in Scotland. In 1969—the year I was born—the main discovery of oil was made in the North sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Scottish National party were in power now, it would ban the exploration of oil in the North sea, based on quasi-science?
Stephen Kerr
Indeed, the SNP is more defined by what it is against than what it is for, in most instances.
I say to the Minister that it is vital that the UK Government do not devolve and forget. Betterment will come—in so many ways—only when different levels of government work together in co-operation. That is why a positive relationship between all levels of government—Edinburgh, Westminster and local government—is imperative. Such a relationship should be built on respect, and it should not matter whether someone is a local councillor, a Member of the Scottish Parliament or a Member of this Parliament. We are all unified in our goal of making Scotland a better place. We might have different approaches, but I believe that people who enter politics do so out of a genuine belief, either in a cause or in the value of public service or, as is often the case, in both. That respect must run both ways, and political parties have a fundamental responsibility to embody the principle of respect, as we all know what happens when it breaks down.
In Stirling we have a city deal, which, to work, requires the agreement of the local authority, the Scottish Government and the UK Government. The UK Government have made a significant commitment to the city region deal and the local authority is already spending money on projects. The Scottish Government are coming to the table, but there is a nagging feeling that Edinburgh is reticent about getting involved. I hope that changes soon and that we see movement, but it is part of a worrying trend. I will work with all levels—politicians, officials and businesses—to make the deal happen and to make it work.
On the other side, the UK Government are responsible for broadband policy in Scotland. [Interruption.] Listen, listen. That policy is being delivered through the Scottish Government. There is a contract set by the Scottish Government, targets set by the Scottish Government and a delivery body, within the Scottish Government. When new areas are released as being covered by broadband, SNP Ministers will be there getting their photos taken. Who can blame them? All politicians love to have their pictures taken. But then when questions are raised or there are negative stories, it all somehow, as if by magic, becomes a problem caused by Westminster neglect.
The Scottish Government—the SNP Government—tends towards grievance instead of fixing the issues. With fixed odds betting terminals, welfare rights or broadband, they prefer to focus on process. The reason the SNP exists is to build support for independence. Despite its being an overwhelmingly negative way of doing things, grievance is clearly how it likes to do them and, frankly, Scotland suffers because of that.
While the Scottish Government are distracted, education is slipping. The fact that international scoring puts us behind England should be a source of national embarrassment, yet the Scottish Government prefer to focus on independence. Business growth in Scotland in 2016 was the lowest for any part of the United Kingdom. The business community are crying out for a more joined-up approach to business support and reform of the business rates system. Despite that, the Scottish Government want to focus their time on fighting for more economic power, when they will not use the powers they already have at their disposal. Instead of focusing on the crime rate and the leadership crisis in the police force, the SNP Scottish Government choose to put their time and attention into scrapping the British Transport police.
There is a clear pattern: the SNP puts process and stoking up grievance ahead of the good of the people of Scotland, and that is not what the powers of the Scottish Parliament are for, nor what people pay their taxes to support the Scottish Government for—nor is it to pay for ministerial limos, by the way, but that is a different story. And there are more process issues being stoked up by Brexit. Scotland’s most important markets are in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—one could call that the United Kingdom single market. We have been in a social union with those countries for 310 years. There is freedom of movement and a customs union, but the SNP would prefer powers to be handled by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels than by a Government elected by the people of the United Kingdom. I have always found that position to be confusing at best and disingenuous at worst.
We need a regulated, open market within the UK, so it remains vital that some of the regulations and frameworks are set at Westminster level. Equally, some of the powers that Europe now holds should sit logically in the devolved Governments of Cardiff and Edinburgh. Beyond that, the devolved Assemblies have a responsibility to consider which of those powers can be reasonably held at local authority level. Again, if we approach this in partnership for Scotland, the UK and Scottish Governments can really deliver on the benefits of Brexit, but if we focus on the process and on fomenting grievance, Scotland will be let down again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Kerr
I am closing. With an approach that respects the motives of politicians from all along the political spectrum and from different levels of government, the people of Scotland would be better served. Our Scottish Government—
Stephen Kerr
I am going to close. Our Scottish Government have a wide range of powers that they can use for the good of Scotland—more powers delivered by a Conservative Government. Devolution, however, should be a process and the Scottish people are best served when decisions are made closest to where they live. We must push for more power to be delivered to town halls across Scotland. Clarity over where power sits and honesty about that is essential. Politicians should be problem solvers, working across government levels to achieve for their constituents, rather than throwing their hands up in the air and decrying their lack of power.
Throughout all this is my fundamental belief that by working together we can achieve so much more for Scotland. We need to stop arguing—[Interruption.] Sorry, I correct myself: we need to keep arguing—[Laughter]—about policy and ideas. That is part of our nature as Scots. If we get away from the grievances and use the powers of devolution, we can all be winners. That is the promise of the use of power by government, whether local, devolved or national. Scotland is a land with two Parliaments, but it is one land and it deserves to be governed not in conflict but in partnership.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate ends at 5.30 pm. Mr Kerr has three minutes to sum up at the end. The guideline limits for the Front-Bench speeches are five minutes for Mr Sheppard and the SNP, five minutes for Mr Sweeney and Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. That means that I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at seven minutes past five. There are 19 minutes between now and then, and there are nine Members seeking to speak, so to get you all in there will have to be a two-minute limit, starting from now. If there is a two-minute limit, all those Members will get to speak; if there are interventions, someone or some people will lose out.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I must confess that when I saw the debate on the Order Paper I had very low expectations, and the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) matched every single one of them.
The hon. Member for Stirling talks about politics being local. What about the Trade Union Act 2016? In that Act, local authorities and the Scottish Parliament were denied an opportunity to deal with their workforces in the way they wanted to because a Westminster Government imposed restrictions on them. That is not grievance, it is a simple fact. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that politics should be local, the Government should devolve the Trade Union Act to the Scottish Parliament.
As for the public sector pay cap, it was very strange that not one Scottish Conservative contributed to, or was in, the debate on that a couple of weeks ago. They were absent. They boycotted the debate, and they were local. The treatment of workers is one of the key powers that we need to debate—whether it should be a power for the Scottish Parliament or for Westminster. The Scottish Parliament would not be treating workers in the way that the Westminster Parliament is by not taking action against companies exploiting employees.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Stephens
I am afraid I have only 30 seconds left, so I will not. I apologise.
Bill Grant
I will be quick as a flash: I was there and I spoke in the debate, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman did not speak in the public sector pay cap debate, and Hansard will show that. He asked a question during the ministerial statement. He was not there for the debate.
I think there should be an honest debate about powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and I hope we will see that in the rest of the debate.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for bringing this incredibly important debate to Westminster Hall, and to you, Mr Hollobone, for kindly allowing me to speak.
In my constituency of Angus, one of the biggest challenges is delivering effective and efficient healthcare in such a rural community. While the Scottish Parliament should in theory have the ability to better understand local needs, with this SNP Government, that unfortunately applies only to the central belt. For example, in my home town of Brechin—part of it falls into the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland—the health centre was staffed by six full-time GPs back in 2007. After 10 years of an SNP Government, that service has halved. In addition to the difficulty now faced by residents in simply securing a GP appointment—never mind continuity with the same GP—other services that should be delivered locally to reduce demand on Dundee’s A&E department are being withdrawn or reviewed with no guarantees about their replacement.
Kirstene Hair
No, I am going to make some progress. Speaking on behalf of my constituents, I say quite simply that we are fed up of being hoodwinked by this SNP Government. They should stop pulling the wool over our eyes. We deserve honesty, clarity and an open dialogue on such vital services—not back-room discussions that the service users have no ability to influence effectively. As a result of the fall in the number of doctors, out-of-hours care services that should be delivered in the community have all but disappeared. Rural residents are being forced to travel up to 40 miles to Dundee or wait until the daytime services re-open.
It is not just general practice that has been badly hit by the SNP’s mismanagement of Scotland’s NHS; every aspect of healthcare is being threatened by a Government set on centralisation. Whether it is the sham consultation on the Mulberry mental health unit—the SNP MSP who claims to be fighting the case refused to turn up to the regional NHS meeting where that exact issue was at the top of the agenda—or whether it is the closure of Brechin Infirmary—
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for securing this debate. To have power and not use it is a crime. For a Government to have power and to let it lie in abeyance for so long is to mistrust and ill-serve the people who voted for them.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Power unused is the approach of the Labour party in Scotland, which sent billions of pounds back to Westminster. They had money, and they did not use it for the good of Scotland. They handed it back.
Martin Whitfield
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I thank him for the extra time. Devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 created the Parliament that sat on 12 May 1999. The first Act passed was the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999, and it is interesting that we still talk about the need and desires for mental health services to this day.
From the formation of the Scottish Parliament we are now in a position where in a recent poll, 19% of people in Scotland seemed to indicate that they want devolved powers returned to Westminster. That is an appalling state of affairs. After this length of time, instead of an increasing number finding confidence and security in our Parliament in Scotland, one fifth of the population wants to go back to what they had.
I want to look at the powers in relation to one industry that concerns my constituency greatly, which is timber. Businesses north of the border can draw down from the apprenticeship levy if and only if they have an approved training provider. Businesses south of the border can draw down for the individual apprentices they have. In my constituency, we have a forestry business that can produce 10 million trees a year, but the number of apprentices within the industry is so small that there is no provider, so the businesses cannot draw down on the levy and they get no financial support.
Other industries in my constituency have apprenticeships that cross the border. The nuclear power station wants to send its apprentices around the whole fleet, and that causes problems, because it can draw down on the apprenticeship levy south of the border, but not north of the border. This debate is very timely, and the discussion needs to be across the border so as to facilitate the best interests of those in Scotland and of the United Kingdom and its economy across the board. Maybe it is time we stop screaming and shouting at each other and sit down and talk and act in the best interests of both Scotland and the United Kingdom.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am delighted to take part in today’s debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on initiating it. Devolution should have been a good thing for Scotland, bringing power and decision-making closer to the people. Holyrood has evolved to be one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, and I for one welcome that process, but it does mean that the Scottish Government must face the reality of spending within their means. Every time the SNP objects to a reduction in public spending, they have a simple solution: increase taxes to pay for what it is promising.
Devolution does not and should not stop at Holyrood. What we have seen, particularly over the past 10 years, is an increasingly powerful Scottish Parliament refusing to hand over any powers to local authorities. In fact, the reverse has often been the case. The current SNP Administration in Holyrood have been one of the most centralising Governments in recent years. Most people in Scotland do not feel that decision making has been brought any closer to them.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
John Lamont
No, I have got only a short amount of time left. In many cases, decision making has moved from Westminster to Holyrood. Scotland has become one of the most centralised countries in the western world. The vast majority of economic decision-making powers are kept by the Scottish Government, and councils have been relegated to little more than service providers. Council oversight of policing has been all but destroyed by the creation of Police Scotland. Local sheriff courts have been shut in Duns and Peebles, as have local police station counters. The Scottish Government meddle in hundreds of planning decisions each year, overturning council decisions half the time.
My final point is this: the Scottish Government constantly say that they want more devolution, but it is interesting to see what they do with that devolution when they get it. The answer is nothing. The Scottish Government have had the power to raise or lower income tax, but have chosen not to use that power. They have the power to compensate women who have been affected by the changes to pension age, but they choose to do nothing apart from complain about it. Most recently, after years of demanding control over welfare, what did the SNP do when it actually got those powers? It asked the Department for Work and Pensions to remain in charge of payments for three more years because they were not ready for the responsibility. Time and time again, the SNP is failing Scotland because it fails to use the powers it has available.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank my comrade the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for calling this debate. I will be as brief as possible. I want to talk about where Scotland is today and about our future. Most importantly, I want to talk about how we can use our significant powers to make the lives of the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and all those across Scotland better, healthier and happier.
My commitment to the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not a secret. I proudly campaigned for a no vote across Scotland during the referendum because I believed that the powers in the Scottish Parliament were sufficient to ensure that Scotland and her people were adequately and effectively represented and served while still being part of the United Kingdom. Our issue is about the use of the powers. Some people in Scotland, many of them on the Conservative side, say that Holyrood has too many powers. Those in the SNP, who have been in government for more than 10 years, say there are not enough. To both sides, I say, “Rubbish.” We have enough powers to do it, so please let us start focusing on the issues that affect our young people in their schools, on our hospital wards that are at breaking point, and on our transport system that needs investment and focus.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hugh Gaffney
I apologise for not giving way; I have only got two minutes.
We have the powers to change and improve the lives of people in Scotland. The current Government in Scotland are a one-trick pony and do not seem to want to focus on the issues facing my constituents. If there is no appetite to use the powers, then we look forward to Scotland electing a Labour Government that will use the powers—a Labour Government that will empower, enrich and serve our people. Scotland will use the powers—
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will make it nice and brief. Devolution, as my colleagues rightly said, was meant to bring power closer to people and to ensure that our two levels of government worked better together.
I want to focus on spending choices in health and education. In health, we know that there is a gap. In England, spending has been increased by 50% in the last 10 years. In Scotland, spending has increased by 34% and, after 20 years of devolution and 10 years of SNP Government, Scottish people still have the lowest life expectancy in the whole United Kingdom. That is a problem.
My real focus today, however, is on education. To put it bluntly, the nation of the enlightenment is foundering under the yoke of nationalism. Despite substantially higher overall spending in Scotland—£37.9 billion, up from £34.2 billion—Scottish schools and colleges have suffered. Spending in further education has been squeezed by the decision to abolish the graduate endowment fee, increasing the burden on the public purse to pay for free tuition fees for Scottish and EU students, although not for our nearest neighbours from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That decision has actually led to a smaller percentage of deprived children going to university than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Just 12.5% of the poorest 20% in Scotland go to university, versus 20.2% in England. Since 2006, our reading score has dropped from 499 to 493; our mathematics score from 506 to 491; and our science score from 515 to 497.
That is unacceptable, but it is not just the SNP’s spending decisions in education and health that are harming Scotland; it is the deliberately divisive nature of the SNP Administration—from frustrating the relationship with the UK Government to the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, who is from my constituency, refusing to meet me about a city deal for four weeks and counting. That is neither good nor bad devolution; it is dysfunctional devolution, and we need to bring it to an end.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I have to say, in congratulating the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on introducing the debate, that I think he just had a 15-minute argument with himself—not, perhaps, the best use of his time, but that is for his judgment.
I am slightly concerned that we are learning nothing new here. This debate is on more powers for Scotland, and not a single Conservative Member has argued for a single new power to come to Scotland. I understand why the Minister is looking so nervous as he sees this historic event happen in front of us—the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party transforming from caterpillars into butterflies of devo-max-olutionism.
Nobody is buying it, and I ask Members in all seriousness what they are adding to the debate. We can have a slagging match on my Government or the Conservative Government’s record. That is fine, but hon. Members should ask themselves what members of the public watching the debate will think. This is meant to be a serious debate about where power lies and—yes, I accept—how it is used, but what Members have come here for this afternoon is essentially a stairheid rammy.
If hon. Members want to have a serious debate about how powers are used to combat poverty or better the lives of the people of Scotland, let us have that discussion. As to all the accusations about not getting on with the day job—I really do not think so. When their own leader in Scotland is about to embark on a celebrity version of “The Great British Bake Off”, I will take no lectures in how to govern.
I also say this: there is a Minister here. Why not tear him apart on the half a trillion pounds that the Government have just lost—wiped off the UK’s wealth? There is not a single piece of holding to account. They were elected to send a message; well what a message it is.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The SNP has been in power for a decade now and throughout its time in office, the approach to dealing with any issue has been that control from Edinburgh is inherently better. The SNP Administration under Nicola Sturgeon have been characterised by illiberal reforms such as the named person scheme, where the Government did not trust parents to the extent that they wanted to assign a state guardian, because state officials know better than parents. The Supreme Court was unanimous in declaring that the Scottish Government had exceeded their powers in making a law that gave unprecedented powers to officials to share sensitive, private information about children without the consent of their parents.
Across Scotland, we have seen the Big Brother centralisation of power to an unprecedented degree and it is deeply disturbing. We have seen the Scottish Government’s illiberal control-freakery in the area of education, where the SNP’s top-down, authoritarian, one-size-fits-all approach is failing Scotland’s children. Schools are falling down international rankings and a smaller percentage of the most deprived children are going to university in Scotland than in any other part of the UK. Furthermore, the SNP has cut 152,000 college places.
In health, ministerial control has been tightened over health boards. Subsequently, NHS waiting times are being missed. We have seen widespread staffing crises right across Scotland, in every region. Turning to Police Scotland, eight regional police forces were merged into one, with accountability to a board appointed by Scottish Ministers, while right here, under the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary, we saw local accountability with elected police and crime commissioners. The SNP has called for more devolution for Scotland, but is silent when it comes to devolution within Scotland.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Eighteen years since the opening of the Scottish Parliament, it is right that we in this place—the place that passed the original Scotland Act 1998—consider the use of devolved powers, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for introducing this debate.
It is a fact that thanks to the actions of this Government, the Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved legislative Assemblies in the world, with powers over justice, education, health, transport, the environment, and now taxation and elements of social security. That is a good thing. However, for the people of my constituency, and indeed for the people of the wider north-east of Scotland, far from the renewing or revitalising experience promised in 1999, the reality of devolution has been cuts, tax rises and the perception of a central-belt bias in all decision making.
Let us just look at what has happened: sheriff courts closed; the Grampian police gone; motorway improvements in the central belt, but still no new junction at Laurencekirk; 120 teaching posts in Aberdeen still vacant; council tax up; income tax up; business rates up; the land and buildings transaction tax unfairly hitting the north-east; psychiatric wards closing; GP surgeries overstretched; planning decisions that were taken by Aberdeenshire Council overridden by the Scottish Government; and our farmers completely and utterly failed. It is quite clear that devolution and the use of devolved powers, as they are at the minute, have not delivered for the people of the north-east of Scotland, but I am an optimist and I think that they really could.
Now is the perfect time to begin a genuine, rational cross-party debate about the future of devolved powers, where they are held, and how they are used. For me, the biggest question has to be: must devolution stop at Edinburgh? Real, accountable local authorities; directly elected and accountable provosts for our cities; a return to local, accountable policing; and more democracy and devolution within Scotland—that is what we need.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the first of the speeches from the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Mr Tommy Sheppard.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is customary, when I rise to make the third party submission, to thank the Member who has brought the debate. On this occasion, I will decline to do that. The Scottish Government are accountable to the elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, who are elected by and accountable to the Scottish people. It is not a matter for this Westminster Parliament—indeed there is an explicit constitutional convention that forbids it—to try to hold to account the Scottish Government, so I wonder why the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) has chosen, among all the things he could discuss that affect his constituents, to bring this motion here today.
I conclude that the only possible reason for this debate is not to try to advance or develop public policy but purely and simply political point scoring and to have a go at the SNP. It is a matter of some regret that the hon. Gentleman has been aided and abetted in that endeavour by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
It seems that contributors to the debate cannot make up their mind about whether the problem is that the Scottish Government are not using the powers they have, or whether they are using their powers, as some speakers have complained. The truth is that the Scottish Parliament and Government use their powers every day and in every way to try to make things better for the people of Scotland, but they do so within considerable legislative and financial constraints, which have seen Scottish public funding cut by almost 10% in real terms in a decade.
Tommy Sheppard
Sit down, please. I have not got time.
Despite that adversity, there have been many achievements. Time is short, so let me list just 10. First, in Scotland, people get free medicine. Since that policy was introduced, 34,000 free prescriptions have been issued in Stirling.
In Scotland, we do what we can to make taxation progressive. Higher-rate taxpayers in Scotland today pay more than they do in England. People with larger houses pay more when they sell them than they do in England, and people who live in larger houses pay more council tax than they do in England.
Tommy Sheppard
No, I will not.
We use the powers we have got. Crime is at an all-time low. More than 1,000 extra police officers have been on the beat over the 10 years of the SNP Government.
Scottish school students’ highers results were a full third higher than they were 10 years ago—a better performance than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Tommy Sheppard
I shall not be giving way at all, because I have not got the time.
Help for small businesses in Scotland is at an unprecedented level, and much higher than it is in the rest of the UK. In Stirling, 4,882 businesses benefit from the small business scheme.
In Scotland, we will ensure that fracking will not take place beneath the houses of people living in Stirling, in line with their publicly expressed wishes. We have done what we can to mitigate the effects of the Westminster Government. We have used the hardship fund to try to mitigate the bedroom tax—a pernicious attack on the poor. In Stirling, there are 1,021 recipients of that fund.
We have a better-performing national health service than any other part of the United Kingdom. There are still many challenges, but there is a higher spend per head, more staff, shorter waiting times and a better public perception.
We have built 60,000 affordable homes in Scotland in the last 10 years, including 3,085 in Stirling, of which 777 are social housing. Most of all, in Scotland, if someone wants to go to university, it is free and they do not have to cripple themselves with unnecessary debt to pursue their education.
Compare and contrast the Scottish Government’s record with that of the Tory Government here in Westminster—a Government who, after just four months in office, appear to be punch-drunk and adrift on a sea of uncertainty and chaos of their own making. I know which Government I would rather have in control of my life: the Scottish Government led by the SNP. No wonder the SNP is 17 points ahead in the opinion polls and the Conservative party is trailing in third place in Scotland. The wafer-thin majority of the hon. Member for Stirling is disappearing day by day.
Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for securing this debate, and I congratulate him on his first speech in this Chamber. I also thank him for reminding us that this is the 20th anniversary of the historic referendum on devolution. It was generally accepted at the time that it was the settled will of the Scottish people to establish a Parliament in Edinburgh—they were clearly not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He reminds us that the Scottish Parliament was founded in the face of Tory intransigence—that must never be forgotten. I am heartened that he has changed his view since then. Perhaps the evidence of the Parliament’s credibility over its two decades of operation has made him see the light. I fear that we may be doomed to disappointment, because it is clear that there is continued intractable opposition from Conservative Members about how we progress the constitutional future of the United Kingdom sustainably.
Several Conservative Members referred to the need to move power closer to the people, yet the Strathclyde Regional Council was abolished because it dared to hold a referendum on maintaining a public-sector water supply company. How does that square with their position?
I have asked questions on two occasions—including to the Prime Minister—about the need to establish a constitutional convention to deal with the distribution of power and governance across the United Kingdom in the wake of Brexit, and I had a totally unsatisfactory response on both. It is clear that, when it comes to defending the integrity of the United Kingdom, the Tory party is utterly inept and totally incapable. That is unacceptable. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the only presence in this House that will fight for a sustainable future built on solidarity in the United Kingdom is the Labour party.
I recall John Smith’s comment that there are two forces sawing away at the legs that support the Union—the Scottish National party, whose primary mission is to destroy the United Kingdom, and the stupid Conservative party, which always fails to rise to the occasion when it comes to delivering deep, meaningful and fundamental reforms to the constitution of this country. That is unacceptable, and it must be called out in this Chamber today.
Although the hon. Member for Stirling lauds the Scotland Act 2016, which enhanced the Scottish Parliament’s powers, he failed to say that the devolution of welfare powers was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who tabled more than 120 amendments to the Bill, including on all of the welfare powers. Therefore, to suggest that it was all the initiative of the Conservative party is absolutely bogus and unacceptable.
Mr Sweeney
They delivered it in the face of intransigence. They failed to rise to the occasion.
The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) talked about NHS cuts, but did not propose to use the Scottish Parliament’s powers to deal with them meaningfully. Conservative Members talk about NHS cuts, but I have heard repeated claims that they have no interest in using the Scottish Parliament to deal with them meaningfully. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) said that 19% of Scots feel that the Scottish Parliament has not risen to the occasion; in fact, they wish to abolish it.
We have to raise our game. We have to look at what we can do to build a credible devolution settlement. We need to use the Scottish Parliament’s powers to maximise the benefit for the Scottish people.
Mr Sweeney
No, I do not have time—sorry.
Why has the SNP ignored the will of the Scottish Parliament five times since 2016 on key issues pertaining to things such as the public sector pay cap and raising tax in Scotland to deliver a progressive outcome? The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about workers’ rights, but why is it that only the Labour party has consistently voted to lift the public sector pay cap in both Houses? That is clearly the case, and yet the Scottish Parliament only responded as a result of Labour pressure. The SNP’s record in both Houses is clear. [Interruption.] Its record reflects that, I am afraid.
The only real, practical and progressive measure for tax reform in the Scottish Parliament has come at the behest of the Labour party. Proposals for progressive taxation—potentially raising up to £600 million extra a year in Scotland—would deliver real, meaningful reform, because it would end austerity in Scotland. We would also add £5 a week more to child benefit, which would raise 30,000 children a year out of poverty. That is the opportunity in front of us today.
I am a child of the devolution settlement—I was only seven years old when the vote took place. We have to remember Donald Dewar’s words: it was not an event, but a process—
Chris Stephens
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. In a sedentary intervention, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) claimed that he was at the last debate about the public sector pay cap. I have checked Hansard for 13 September, and he is not listed as having made a contribution in that debate. As an experienced Member of this House, Mr Hollobone, can you advise me what steps an hon. Member who makes an inaccurate claim in a sedentary intervention can take to correct the record?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I understand it, Hansard is an almost verbatim record of verbal contributions in the House. It does not record attendance. Members may be in the Chamber without making a verbal contribution.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on securing this debate, his first in this Chamber. Hearty congratulations are very much in order. The debate has provided an important opportunity for us to reflect on devolution within the United Kingdom and within Scotland, and to look ahead to a stronger Holyrood in the next few years as we exit the European Union.
As my hon. Friend highlighted in his speech, it has been just over 20 years since people in Scotland voted to support the creation of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers on 11 September 1997. In just over a year from now we will celebrate a further anniversary, that of Royal Assent of the Scotland Bill in November 1998. The Scotland Act 1998 established the new Scottish Parliament and set out its powers as a legislature within the United Kingdom. Since the Scottish Parliament first sat in May 1999, it has truly come into its own. Devolution is clearly the right approach for Scotland. It is what the people in Scotland voted for and it ensures that decisions are taken at the right level.
The Scottish Government may choose their own path on key policy decisions. Of course, I cannot say that I agree with everything that the Scottish Governments do or have done since 1999. I do not agree, for example, with the SNP Government’s decision to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, and I do not agree with how they chose to handle common agricultural policy payments in the past couple of years, but I do agree that it is their right to decide those things for themselves. It is up to the people of Scotland to make their own judgment of their Government in devolved matters.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Ellis
I am sorry, I do not have the time.
The SNP are failures—Ruth Davidson has the right ideas. Because of devolution, key decisions about Scotland can be taken in Scotland, while Scotland benefits from the pooling of risk and resources that comes from being part of a successful and historic Union. A powerful Scottish Parliament within a strong United Kingdom offers people in Scotland maximum security and opportunity, representing their interests in the world and allowing resources and risks to be shared effectively.
Devolution has also been shown to be flexible and responsive to changing needs and circumstances. Most recently, the Scotland Act 2016 ensured that the Scottish Parliament has a significantly greater say on matters including further taxation powers and welfare support in Scotland. The Scotland Act is now in the process of being implemented, with a number of its new powers already in force and the Scottish Parliament able to legislate and make choices on a range of new policy areas. The Scottish Parliament also has new powers, for example, to top up reserved welfare benefits or to create new benefits in devolved areas, should it decide to do so. Taken together with the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Act creates an even more powerful and accountable Scottish Parliament within a strong United Kingdom.
That is what the people of Scotland voted for. The Scotland Act balances more decisions being taken in Scotland, closer to those they affect, with retaining the strength and security that comes from membership of the larger United Kingdom. The 2016 Act provides the Scottish Parliament with much greater tax-raising powers, which means that, from responsibility for raising around 10% of what it spends today, Holyrood will in future be responsible for raising more than 50% of what it spends. With new powers on welfare, the Scottish Government need to publish details of how they plan to support disabled people in Scotland, for example.
Enough of the grievance culture and the obsession with process; the SNP and the Scottish Government must use their powers to serve the people. The Scottish Parliament has unprecedented flexibilities on income tax—to set income tax rates and thresholds for earned income, including the ability to introduce new tax bands—so it is most unfortunate, and I suspect that many in the Chamber who represent seats in Scotland will be dismayed, that that power is being used to hike income tax on Scots in their constituencies and throughout Scotland. It is vital that the new powers are used to the greatest benefit in Scotland. I have heard much concern this afternoon about that not being the case from those on the Conservative Benches, who are rightly concerned that it is not the case.
Ross Thomson
The Minister mentioned income taxes. He is right that the First Minister, in conversation on her programme for government, not only mentioned increased taxes but spoke about her “cast-iron mandate” for independence. Yet she never once mentioned tax increases in her manifestos in 2016 or for the 2017 snap general election. If she is to talk about mandates, there is no mandate for increased taxes.
Michael Ellis
It is vital that the new powers are used to the greatest benefit in Scotland. I have heard much concern this afternoon about that not being the case, and I expect that we will see more of this debate in the coming months, as the Scottish Government outline their plans in their budget and beyond.
Of course, the question is not simply one of existing powers and how they are used. We are now engaged in a new discussion about devolution in the United Kingdom, because leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to determine where powers that will return from Brussels will best sit.
The UK Government have clear objectives in mind. We want the UK after Brexit to work for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is right that we consider the big picture and ensure that our future constitutional arrangements support our new position in the world as we leave the EU. However, let me be clear that where there is no reason to keep a common framework, we will not, and where there is no reason to hold on to powers, we will not. No powers currently exercised by the Scottish Parliament will be taken away from the Scottish Parliament, and the Government expect that leaving the EU will mean more powers for the devolved Administrations. Only the SNP could turn no powers removed and more powers to come into an alleged power grab.
The time for divisive rhetoric is over, on Brexit and elsewhere across public policy. We have opportunities as we leave the EU to shape the UK and Scotland within the UK. We need to take those opportunities and to consider them properly. In doing so, both Governments have to continue to work together, as people in Scotland rightly expect us to do. It was my pleasure to respond to this debate, and I am sure that the debate on devolution will extend beyond the limited time we have had today.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. Will you advise the Chamber on why a departmental Minister did not respond to the debate and instead that was left to the Deputy Leader of the House?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The rules of engagement in these debates are that Her Majesty’s Government decide which Minister will respond.
Stephen Kerr
I thank all my colleagues serving in the House of Commons who have come here today to participate in the debate in one form or another. I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. If nothing else, what we have displayed together in Westminster Hall this afternoon is the shared passion and love that we have for Scotland and its people. With that passion and all the arguments that go with it, I hope that there might be enough good will that we can occasionally stretch across the divide between nationalists and Unionists to work together to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom.
For my part and that of those in my party who serve in the House of Commons, there is nothing but the utmost respect for the institution of the Scottish Parliament. We look forward to the increased powers to which the Minister referred coming to the Scottish Parliament. I note, however, that I found the speech of the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), to be totally graceless. I do not feel that he did himself any credit in how he conducted himself in this debate. On a personal level, I have always held the hon. Gentleman in a degree of respect, which has sadly been challenged this afternoon by the things he has said and the way in which he has spoken.
Once again, I thank everyone for supporting this debate and for the privilege of leading it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of devolved powers in Scotland.
Written Statements
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Investment
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The Government are today publishing a Green Paper: “National Security and Infrastructure Investment Review”. This sets out proposals for amending the current regime in relation to national security and investment.
First, the Government are introducing amendments to the Enterprise Act 2002. For most sectors, the Government are only able to intervene in mergers involving companies with a UK turnover of over £70 million, or where the parties’ combined share of supply increases to 25% or more. This means mergers or acquisitions of some smaller businesses whose ownership is critical to our national security cannot be scrutinised.
The Government propose to amend the thresholds in two areas: the dual use and military sector, and certain parts of advanced technology, namely the design of computer chips and quantum technology. For these two areas only, we will lower the threshold for Government intervention to businesses with a UK turnover of over £1 million, and remove the requirement for a merger to increase a business’s share of supply to or over 25%.
The Government are also consulting on longer-term proposals, including:
introducing a ‘call-in’ power modelled on the existing power within the Enterprise Act 2002, to allow the Government to scrutinise a broader range of transactions for national security concerns within a voluntary notification regime; and/or
introducing a mandatory notification regime for foreign investment in parts of the economy which are critical for our national security. Mandatory notification could also be required for foreign investment in key new projects or specific businesses or assets.
These proposals will ensure that our arrangements for protecting national security are more closely aligned with those of major, developed economies, and more robust to the changing nature of threats to our national security.
The Green Paper delivers on the commitment made in the Queen’s Speech to bring forward proposals to consolidate and strengthen the Government’s powers to protect national security.
I will be making an oral statement in the House later today and placing a copy of the Green Paper in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS177]
Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Jones)
The Smith Commission agreement recommended that the management of The Crown Estate’s assets in Scotland should be devolved. It also stated that, following this transfer, responsibility for the management of those assets should be further devolved to local authority areas. It was agreed that the UK Government would not determine how the Scottish Government managed further devolution. The Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017 brought this change into law on 1 April 2017.
During the passage of the Scotland Bill which implemented the Smith Commission recommendations, the UK Government promised that they would update Parliament on progress made by the Scottish Government with the onward devolution of management of The Crown Estate assets via a written ministerial statement six months after the transfer.
The Scottish Government held a consultation on the long term management of The Crown Estate in Scotland, including opportunities for further devolution. The consultation opened on 4 January and closed on 29 March 2017. It covered four key areas:
Vision
Managing Crown Estate Assets for Scotland and Communities
Securing the Benefits for Scotland and Communities
Assessing Impact
The Scottish Government are currently in the process of analysing the consultation responses. These will inform policy and proposals for a Bill to be introduced in the current session of the Scottish Parliament.
The consultation document is available at: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk.
[HCWS178]
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Lloyd-Webber
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service.
British American Tobacco
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance they have given British American Tobacco in its challenge to the claim for unpaid VAT brought by the government of Bangladesh.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have engaged with the Government of Bangladesh over discriminatory action against British American Tobacco Bangladesh. This engagement includes discussions at senior official levels since February 2015. The engagement was in line with the guidelines of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. We take very seriously our obligations as a party to the FCTC and guidance in this regard was issued to all posts in December 2013 and again in May 2017 to assist compliance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but I beg to disagree that this is in line with the United Nations guidelines. I was prompted to ask this Question because the high commissioner in Bangladesh found time to champion British American Tobacco. Given that the activities of tobacco companies in Bangladesh are estimated to cause around 100,000 premature deaths a year, does the Minister really consider that the high commissioner’s actions were consistent with the UK’s obligations under Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to which we are a proud signatory and participant and which commits parties, including the UK, to protecting public health policies from the commercial interests of tobacco companies?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have had the good fortune to meet our high commissioner on the ground; she engages in the widest possible way to ensure that both the diplomatic and the business priorities of our interests are protected. I pay tribute to her work in Dhaka in this regard. The noble Baroness referred to guidance. Perhaps I may refresh memories on this issue. The guidance in question is the guidance I have referred to; namely, what we issue to all posts. Any post should not:
“Engage with foreign governments on behalf of the tobacco industry”—
there is an exception—
“except in cases where local policies could be considered protectionist or discriminatory”.
In this regard, the actual issue was of whether British American Tobacco Bangladesh was issued with a retrospective VAT demand of approximately £160 million. Indeed, both the law ministry and the Finance Minister of Bangladesh agree that there is no case to be answered.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that British American Tobacco faces allegations about the exploitation of child labour in the production of its poisonous products in Bangladesh? All its workers there face the severe risk of health problems—they result from the absorption of nicotine through the skin and from the use of pesticides—and further respiratory problems. If the high commissioner is engaged in representing BAT in Bangladesh, will the Minister undertake to ask her also to investigate these allegations and report back to the House on them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I ask the noble Lord to write to me on the specifics of this issue and I will take it up myself. However, perhaps I may correct one element within his question. The high commissioner is not there representing British American Tobacco—she is there representing Britain.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to protecting British commercial interests, and if that really is the motivation we have to raise questions. We know that tobacco taxes are recognised by the World Health Organization, the World Bank and indeed the British Government as probably the most effective way of cutting smoking. Does the Minister accept that it is hypocritical to have our diplomats engaged in trying to reduce taxes in countries like Bangladesh, bearing in mind that it sounds as though this is for British commercial interests?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness is right to raise the important issue of the harmful effects of tobacco, but let me assure her that the representation that the high commissioner made in this regard was based on the exception. The VAT demand was levied only retrospectively; in the opinion of the law ministry of Bangladesh, that does not adhere to the country’s legal principles. That point should not be lost. Therefore, we are not batting for the tobacco industry; this is about the high commissioner acting within the guidance issued.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think it extraordinary that opposition parties should attack our high commissioner, who is simply ensuring that the rule of law is upheld? Can he say how many people are employed by British American Tobacco and how much they pay in tax to the Exchequer?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the second part of the question, in terms of specific numbers, I will write to my noble friend. He is right, as I have already said from the Dispatch Box, that our high commissioners do an incredible job in many sensitive and challenging areas. I refer not only to Her Excellency Alison Blake, but to all our high commissioners and ambassadors around the world. We should commend, not condemn, their efforts.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to condemn the activities of any representative of the British Government, but the policy enunciated by Andrew Lansley—now the noble Lord, Lord Lansley —in March 2012 was that he wanted tobacco companies to have “no business” in Britain and that,
“both at home and internationally, we will continue to act against the vested and commercial interests of the tobacco industry … My objective is to achieve smoke-free communities; theirs is to make a profit from selling intrinsically harmful products”.
Is that still the Government’s policy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
There is always a concern in the House of Lords; as one noble Lord who introduced me said to me, “Always remember there’s someone who has written either a book or a paper about the subject you’re about to answer on”.
We are entirely consistent; as I have already said, the Government stand very firm on the harmful effects of tobacco on those who indulge in smoking. Irrespective of that point, although it is a pertinent one, it remains true that our high commissioner was acting in the interests of a British company and within the rule of law, and that was qualified by the law ministry of Bangladesh.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The key issue here is the international agreement we have signed up to. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control says that in low and middle-income countries, the policies of Governments should be to increase tax revenue. That is what we signed up to—increased tax revenue on cigarettes. In the light of this decision in Bangladesh, will the Minister consider whether there is a need to ensure proper enforcement of that international convention?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I hear what the noble Lord says. I assure him that we are one of the leading nations in the developing parts of the world, of which Bangladesh is a good example, and want to ensure Bangladesh’s transfer to being a middle-income country. We are in favour of ensuring that all legal taxes which need to be paid are paid, particularly by British companies. This was a retrospective VAT demand. As I have alluded to on a number of occasions already, the law ministry disagreed with the action of the NBR, saying that there was no scope to demand VAT retrospectively.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is time for the next Question.
Home Ownership
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of the United Kingdom population own their home either outright or with a mortgage; and what assessment they have made of whether this figure may increase or decrease in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, in 2015-16, the latest year for which data are available, 34% of households in England owned their home outright, while 29% bought their home with a mortgage. DCLG does not hold data for the United Kingdom. After falling from 71% in 2003, the percentage has stabilised at 63% from 2013 to 2016.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
With home ownership at a 30-year low and more young people than ever before priced out of the mortgage market, is the Minister aware of the work undertaken by the Building Societies Association, which has highlighted that one in four people whose borrowing extends beyond the age of 65 is a first-time buyer? What more will the Government do to help the teacher, the classroom assistant, the small- business person, the firefighter or the police officer who in their 30s are all too often priced out of the market, particularly in London, with the various government schemes not helping to date?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I have indicated to the noble Lord, the position has stabilised over the past few years and barely changed—in fact, it has become slightly better during the past year with the percentage having fallen from 71% in 2003. The noble Lord will be aware, as the House is aware, that the Government are taking many measures to extend home ownership but also to diversify the tenure of houses—£2 billion was announced earlier this month, much of which will go on social rent. We are extending home ownership but at the same time seeking to diversify supply, because the noble Lord is right that this is a serious challenge. As he has indicated, there is a serious intergenerational problem that we wish to address.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, in the last financial year, private builders built 121,000 new homes in England, housing associations built 25,000 and local authorities built 1,840. The Government admit we need to build at least 275,000 homes every year just to prevent prices rising. Private builders will not build any more than they do; housing associations can maybe build 50,000 a year—that means local authorities will have to build 85,000 each year. How will the Government enable them to raise the money to do that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I have indicated, the Government have just announced £2 billion, and we will be shortly explaining precisely how that money will be spent. Much of it will be going on social rent. We have committed to 1 million new homes by 2020, and 1.5 million new homes—a further half a million—by 2022, which are needed to meet the challenge. It is a far better performance than we have had in recent years. There is a massive challenge here and the Government are aware of this. Part of it is also answered by something that we announced fairly recently: building homes in the right places and ensuring that more of them are built where there is the greatest need and the greatest pressure.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, for those of us who began our political careers campaigning for a property-owning democracy, the figures my noble friend has given are somewhat disappointing. It is encouraging that the Government are seized of the issue of intergenerational unfairness which exists at the moment and I look forward to the measures that may perhaps be brought forward in the Budget, but does he not agree that it is not only in respect of difficulties in buying their own home that the young are disadvantaged but in a whole host of other financial aspects, including saving for pensions?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My noble friend is right. The intergenerational fairness to which I referred does not apply just to housing; there is a similar issue in relation to pensions. A lot of work has been done on this, and the Government are looking at it very seriously. He is right that we need to do far more. I should point out that this is against an expanding population so, although the percentage is static at the moment, that still means we need an increased number of homes because the population is still expanding. Yes, there is a massive challenge and the intergenerational fairness issue is not limited to questions of housing.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are seeking to diversify supply, but surely they are not doing nearly enough to increase supply. If Harold Macmillan, as Housing Minister, was able to build 300,000 houses a year in the early 1950s in a country far poorer than ours is today, why can the Housing Minister in today’s Government not do as well or better?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord is right about the size of the challenge but I think, in fairness, he should acknowledge that the £2 billion recently announced begins to address the sort of issue that we are looking at. It is not about just extending home ownership, although the Government are committed to that; it is about diversifying supply, and that £2 billion, in addition to the money that is already there, will make a considerable difference.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have heard an awful lot about the supply of housing, but there are also some important questions to be asked about demand? He mentioned population; 50% of the projected population growth is down to immigration and we should not be blind to that. Furthermore, of the new households created in the past 10 years, about 90% had a head of household who was born overseas. It is a big factor. We should face up to it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am certainly not going to deny the population growth. The facts are there for people to see. That is undoubtedly the case. But it is not a question of simply saying that there is too much demand and we need to stop immigration. The noble Lord did not suggest that, I know, but that would not be the way of proceeding. We have all sorts of skills shortages in many parts of the economy and we have to take account of those when we plan for population growth in the country.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Help to Buy has assisted quite a number of young people to buy their first home, but is he aware of the research which now shows that Help to Buy is actually helping to increase house prices, putting home ownership beyond the reach of many more people?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord alludes to the need to ensure that younger people can buy their own homes. That is indeed very important. It is part of the intergenerational question that I referred to. The Government have many schemes that will assist people. Notably, lifetime ISAs are making a considerable difference now. Yes, it is a challenge and something we are looking at. The evidence he spoke of is actually ambiguous—it is not clear that that is the case—but we are looking at ways of encouraging younger people into the market because it is important that we do so.
Islamophobia
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warsi
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have a definition of Islamophobia; and, if so, what it is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth)
My Lords, we are clear that hatred and intolerance against Muslims have absolutely no place in our society. Any criminal offence that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion is a religious hate crime. The Government do not currently endorse a particular definition of Islamophobia. Previous attempts by others to define this term have not succeeded in attracting consensus or widespread acceptance.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. He will be aware that it is 20 years since the Runnymede Trust published Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, which first tackled the issue of Islamophobia. Does he agree that it is high time for us to have a definition of Islamophobia? Does he agree that we cannot fundamentally challenge the hate that underpins hate crime unless we define what that hate is? Is he agreeable to meeting a cross-section of community organisations and individuals, including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, to come to a definition?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I acknowledge the massive and continuing work that my noble friend does in this area. As to her last point, I am very happy to meet the all-party group and community organisations to discuss these issues. There is a definition, as my noble friend rightly says, used by the Runnymede Trust. There are many definitions, but we do not use a single definition of Islamophobia, and I do not accept that there is a need for a definitive one. It is clearly recognised, and we have very effective monitoring of race-hate crimes. As my noble friend knows, considerable work is done by Tell MAMA and the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group in these areas. We do that while understanding and being able to recognise Islamophobia, but perhaps not being able to define it precisely.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has rightly drawn our attention to the vagueness of the term Islamophobia. I add a point that concerns me: the culture of victimhood that it can easily lead to, which is not very healthy. There is also the way in which figures for crimes against other people are included in the statistics for Islamophobia—up to one-third, according to a freedom of information request. But the greatest concern is that this sort of thing does not really tackle the underlying issue of hate crime, which arises out of ignorance and prejudice. It is there at all levels of society, and we are doing very little to combat it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the general nature of the fact that we have a considerable body of hate crime based on race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, age and so on. Any hate crime is a crime against us all; that is a starting point. It is worth noting that we have some very effective legislation in this country, which is—thank goodness—very much enforced on a routine and regular basis. I do not accept that we are unable to act on this because we have no particular definition of Islamophobia. As I said, considerable and very effective work is done by Tell MAMA and the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group in that area. We see the results of that every day through very effective reporting and enforcing, and considerable interfaith work done by groups coming together in that regard.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever our definition of Islamophobia, one of the most effective ways of preventing it is by good relationships between the different faith communities, exemplified by the new church/mosque twinning programme promoted by the Christian Muslim Forum? That is already established in Oldham, Rochdale, Walsall and Wolverhampton. What can the Government do to encourage those local community initiatives, which can transform the way in which a local community views Muslims in their midst?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right about the many good examples on the ground, brought about by the Christian church, in conjunction with the Muslim religion and, often, with the Jewish religion. I have seen very effective partnerships, such as Nisa-Nashim, as well as the effective partnerships through virtually all our 42 cathedrals in England, where massive good work is done. Considerable good work, probably more effective than anything, is also done by prominent British Muslims through example. I am thinking of people such as Nadiya Hussain, Mo Farah and so on, who probably do far more by example than many of these programmes.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, given some statements by police authorities that they are unable to cover the following-up of hate crimes because of cuts in their staffing levels and budgets, the Government will act immediately to ensure that police budgets are made up to the point where hate crimes can be followed through?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, we and the Home Office meet regularly with police forces to discuss these issues, and that issue has not been brought to my attention. If the noble Baroness has evidence of this, I would be very happy to look at it. Indeed, if any noble Lord has such evidence, please bring it forward, and I will certainly take a close look at it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, monitoring hate crimes is very important, but encouraging education programmes to counter hate crime is more so. Given that local government cuts have resulted in savage reductions in community cohesion programmes and young people’s services, will the Minister agree to explore ways in which more resources could be provided to enable local councils to provide those services to encourage greater cohesion and understanding between communities?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, local authorities do an excellent job in ensuring that organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust get the message across about some of the dreadful events that have happened in the past and in ensuring that community cohesion, good interfaith relations and the importance of different religions is understood in schools. That is happening very effectively, as I see on a regular basis when I visit schools and other community organisations.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in relation to the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian dual national citizen detained in Iran.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we raise all our British-Iranian dual nationality detainee cases with the Iranian authorities at every opportunity, including the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East, the right honourable Alistair Burt MP, raised these cases with their Iranian counterparts at the UN General Assembly in September. Our ambassador in Tehran raises these cases at every opportunity, most recently with the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister on 16 October.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but softly, softly seems not to be working. The Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr Shirin Ebadi has advised that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s first trial and imprisonment, let alone the new charges, are illegal under Iranian law. What is the Government’s assessment of this advice? Do the Government agree that they have the power to take legal action against the Iranian Government to protect Mrs Ratcliffe’s rights as a British citizen? Will they now do so?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the reports, which were widely reported in the UK, that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been charged with additional crimes. We are aware of those reports, but we have not yet seen the details of the charges from any official sources and we are urgently seeking further information from the Iranian authorities. The noble Baroness refers to a softly, softly approach. We continue to raise these issues consistently; indeed, last week my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met the Foreign Minister of Iran and the Vice President of Iran and raised this case and all cases of dual nationals. There is complexity here because, as the noble Baroness will be aware, not all countries recognise dual nationality. Iran is one of those countries. However, we continue to be consistent and to raise all these cases on a regular basis. We will continue to do so to ensure that we can secure the release of all the detainees currently being held.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, as an Iranian-born Member of this House, I say that it would be extremely helpful not only to Nazanin Zaghari but to all defenders of human rights and all women in Iran if the Government insisted that the Iranian Government respect their own rules and regulations and allow that all prisoners are entitled to proper representation. The difficulty here is that it is the Revolutionary Guards who are preventing the process. I am sure the Government would help the Iranian Government and Iranian citizens in prison by insisting that consideration of the proper legal representation of prisoners be maintained at all points.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness obviously speaks with great knowledge of Iran. I assure her and indeed the whole House that we continue to raise these issues in a robust manner. I am acutely aware of the details of all these cases due to my responsibilities as Minister for Human Rights at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Equally, the noble Baroness will be aware that she calls upon certain elements within the Iranian Administration; I hope they heed that call but, unlike the UK, Iran does not legally recognise dual nationalities, so it views these detainees as Iranian nationals.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the softly, softly approach. Are the Iranians, in response to our representations, criticising any public campaign on behalf of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe? If they are, it is about time that we stopped the softly, softly approach and started shouting from the rooftops that the rule of law must apply.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
When it comes to human rights anywhere—whether it is in Iran, or the issue of detainees in Iran who are dual nationals—the UK continues not only to fulfil its obligations but to demand consular access. As I said before, the Iranians view this case and others like it in a different light because they do not view the people involved as dual nationals. The noble Lord is right to raise this important issue but it is for the Iranian Government to respond to the international pressure coming not just from the UK but from other countries. We will continue to press the Iranian Government for early release.
At the same time, I can report some progress in this case. Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, has been granted access to her family in Iran, together with her daughter, and I understand that they visit her at least weekly. She has also been having telephone calls with her husband. These are small steps forward and we will continue to make all representations at the highest level to ensure that we see a resolution of this case, and indeed the cases of all dual nationals who are currently in Iranian prisons.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I strongly agree with the comments that have been made. I know my noble friend recognises that we remain strongly in support of the Iran nuclear deal, which of course has been questioned on the other side of the Atlantic. Will he reassure us that, even while we do that, we will in no way relax our focused criticism of the appalling intolerance and violence of aspects of the Iranian regime, particularly its constant destabilising activity throughout the Middle East, which has caused enormous suffering to many peoples in the area?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I could not have articulated the Government’s position better myself. My noble friend is quite correct that we are supporters of ensuring that the nuclear deal that was reached with Iran is sustained and strengthened, but that in no way takes away from our strong representations about the abuses that we see. Indeed, their growing influence in certain parts of the Middle East, as my noble friend said, is destabilising to the region and, I would suggest, to the global picture as a whole.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, now might be a convenient point for me to inform the House of the proposed Recess dates for the first part of next year. In the customary fashion, a copy of these dates will be made available in the Printed Paper Office and they will be included in tomorrow’s edition of Forthcoming Business.
Subject of course to the progress of business, I expect the House to rise at the conclusion of proceedings on Thursday 8 February and return on Tuesday 20 February. We also currently plan for the House to rise for Easter at the conclusion of its proceedings on Thursday 29 March and return on Monday 16 April. Again, I must emphasise the caveat about the progress of business. That caveat has to make the later dates, in particular, provisional. The dates I have advertised today coincide with those currently anticipated in the other place.
International Investment
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
“Mr Speaker, the United Kingdom has a deserved reputation as one of the most open economies in the world; one which welcomes international investment and the benefits it brings. Our position as the fifth-largest economy in the world has been built on international trade and investment. Today’s Green Paper affirms our commitment to that approach and sets out proposed reforms to our scrutiny of foreign investment to ensure that our national security is protected.
An open approach to international investment must include appropriate safeguards. It is vital that the UK Government can deliver on our primary duty to safeguard national security and ensure that the interests of the British people are protected. It is important that the Government have both knowledge of potential national security risks to the UK and the ability to act where necessary.
Our review has highlighted that it needs to be updated to take into account the changing structure and size of companies in sectors critical to our national security. Our reforms will bring the UK into line with many major developed economies. We want to develop clear, consistent and proportionate rules which enable us to scrutinise the ownership of our infrastructure but which are also well understood and give international investors the clarity and transparency they require.
We propose a two-stage approach. First, I am now updating our current arrangements by consulting on amendments to the Enterprise Act 2002 to enable the Government, if necessary, to intervene in mergers which fall outside the current provisions. In most sectors, the thresholds in the Act allow the Government to intervene on public interest grounds only in mergers where the acquired company has a UK turnover of more than £70 million or the merger results in an increase in the UK share of supply to 25% or more. These thresholds are no longer appropriate for certain sectors, particularly those where smaller companies may hold technologies which are critical for national security. For these sectors, we propose to introduce amendments by secondary legislation which would lower the turnover threshold to £1 million and remove the requirement for the merger to increase the share of supply to 25% or more.
Specifically, I am consulting on amendments to the thresholds for the dual-use and military sector and certain parts of the advanced technology sectors. The first of these relates to items that are currently subject to export controls. Hostile actors should not be able to acquire these items, or the knowledge about how to make them, by buying UK-based businesses. The second relates to companies involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. Advanced technologies can create threats which are difficult to detect and may mean that devices could be directed remotely, should a hostile actor gain access.
The Green Paper also seeks public views about options for broader reforms to the way we scrutinise investment for national security purposes. In particular, we are seeking views on two proposals: broadening the range of transactions that the Government are able to review for national security purposes; and the introduction of mandatory notification of foreign investment into certain parts of the economy which are critical for national security, such as the civil nuclear and defence sectors.
The Government intend that any reforms should be firmly targeted at national security. While the national security assessment by its nature must remain confidential, we will also seek to provide greater certainty and clarity to businesses on the process itself. These proposals will ensure that our arrangements for protecting national security are aligned with the practices in other major countries and are more robust to the evolving nature of national security threats and technological change.
Let me say something about takeovers more generally, outside the area of national security. We have held discussions with stakeholders, including the Takeover Panel, about the current process for takeovers. These discussions have covered the need for more information and time to allow for assessment of takeover bids by interested parties, and how assurances given during the takeover process can be properly assessed and compliance scrutinised. We believe the recently proposed changes by the Takeover Panel would improve the UK’s takeover rules. We look forward to the conclusion of the consultation.
Alongside this, the Government will act, where appropriate, to ensure that public funds are protected in merger situations. In particular, we will take steps to ensure that government-funded research and development grants can be clawed back following a takeover if the new company would have been ineligible to receive the grant or the purpose for which the grant was made has changed.
I now turn to a particular international investment announcement made late last night. Last Tuesday, I briefed the House on the trade dispute brought by Boeing against Bombardier. Since the outset, I and my colleagues have been constantly engaged and this has included looking at alternatives.
I am pleased to tell the House that yesterday the boards of Bombardier and Airbus announced plans for a joint venture involving the C Series aircraft. The deal is expected to be completed by the second half of next year. I have spoken directly to Pierre Beaudoin, the chairman of Bombardier, and Tom Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, specifically about this joint venture. I have also discussed this with Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. My top priority has been to emphasise the importance of giving certainty to Bombardier’s high-quality UK workforce now and in the future.
The Shorts factory in Belfast employs more than 4,200 skilled workers and supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs in the UK. Airbus also has a large presence in the UK, employing more than 15,000 people, and is firmly rooted in the UK’s advanced technology industrial base.
It is in all our interest that the C Series is successful. Both Bombardier and Airbus have made a number of important commitments to me, including that C Series wing manufacturing will continue in Belfast and that the strategy will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments. This announcement offers the potential to protect the interests of Bombardier’s Belfast workers and UK supply chain. The UK is already Airbus’s wing factory for the world and this announcement reinforces that position.
The trade dispute brought by Boeing against Bombardier’s C Series remains in place. We consider this action by Boeing to be totally unjustified, unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct we would expect of a company with a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom. We refute entirely any suggestion that our support for Shorts contravenes international rules. We will continue to work to see it resolved while Bombardier and Airbus negotiations continue.
I remain in close contact with Airbus, Bombardier and the Canadian and US Governments. I will be speaking to the chairman of Bombardier and the chief executive of Airbus again later this week for an update on progress. I will, of course, continue to meet the representatives and Members of this House who have been assiduous in standing up for their constituents’ interests. I will do everything I can to secure the best possible future for Bombardier’s Belfast workforce and its UK-based suppliers. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I also thank him for his personal interest in these matters, not just in relation to Bombardier but for his deep involvement in shaping the Green Paper, which is shown through its pages.
I turn to the last part of the Statement, which is the very welcome news that Bombardier and Airbus have determined to create a joint venture to look at developing the C Series aircraft. The pairing of these two cutting-edge product lines is a very exciting prospect for the future of aerospace manufacturing and the excellent industry that we have here. We are hugely encouraged by such a step and what it means for the UK. I would be grateful to the Minister for some further information on what assurances or indications the Government have gained from both companies as to the likely investment or potential for jobs growth in this country as a result of such an excellent step. I reaffirm the broad consensus of the House, as demonstrated during the course of the last Statement, that we strongly support the Government’s actions in defending Bombardier’s position against a completely unjustified and unwarranted attack by Boeing, and a process which we are not convinced is as straightforward and clear as it could be. We urge the Government to do whatever they can and we support their continued efforts to try to ensure a swift and speedy resolution of these matters.
We warmly welcome the excellent and timely Green Paper National Security and Investment and Infrastructure Review. We are pleased that the Government have chosen to look at how we can update our structures to deal more effectively with changing times. As a general observation, this creates further changes to our merger regime, some of which the Minister has already mentioned, such as matters involving the Takeover Panel and the FCA and further reviews of corporate governance. Even some of the insolvency reforms have a bearing on how we look at this regime. I make a plea for a more holistic process in how we review these issues of industrial strategy. Especially as we face Brexit, it would be useful if the Government could come up with a more joined-up approach to how these different parts can achieve the outcomes that we want, rather than having conflicting and competing claims or unwelcome consequences.
In relation to the principles from which we approach this review, it is important to state—as the review itself does—that we have to ensure that the UK remains open for investment and participation. We still want to be a major global player in all these areas. Sometimes the indication that we are involved in a review creates a chill. We should be clear that, while it is entirely legitimate to protect the country’s interests, we will not create a large investment review. This also applies to how we address issues such as the clawback of funds and how those funds might be used for early development or other things for companies which might not be eligible. That provision would itself raise a series of questions. One has to assess things delicately and put them in sensible terms. The intention is clearly right, but we would not want it to have unwelcome consequences.
We are pleased with the short-term and long-term approach to ensuring that we have an adaptable and operational system. The review stresses our foreign direct investment position, which this House has discussed many times. We are mildly sceptical about the nature of some of this investment. The charts in the paper identify the level. If we subtract the gold transactions which take place in the UK as goods received—which effectively net each other out—I am not sure the position would be so flattering. Our FDI position is not as good as is suggested and we should be conscious that we have a long way to go in encouraging the right sort of job-creating investment. The review should be seen in that context, rather than giving the feeling that we are in a much stronger position than we are.
Will the Minister provide some thoughts on the following issues? First, what are our national security requirements? Are these strategic or are they direct security concerns? What balance will be in place on issues such as security of supply versus strategic control, as well as our own capacity to ensure that we have certain technologies? We welcome the important short-term measure of lower thresholds, which does plug gaps. On long-term measures, the review is right to look at mechanisms such as call-ins and notifications. However, these raise questions themselves, the first of which is the nature of acquisitions and security concerns as companies develop in the modern world. This is not always about the takeover of a company. As we have seen from the way in which companies acquire access to technology and other things, this can frequently be done through partnerships, joint ventures and other things which do not involve a complete and direct transfer of equity. Sometimes control changes due to debt, so we need to consider all these measures. I would be very grateful for the Minister’s observations on those points.
In relation to the nature of these companies, we have looked at lower tests on dual use in the military sector and those involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. Certainly, our security concerns can be identified in other high-tech sectors, including life sciences and even food technology, as well as other areas of science and research. I would be very grateful to be told how the Government decided which sectors to select.
In the context of the voluntary and mandatory reforms, what was the thinking behind the notion that you can divide those sectors into voluntary and mandatory? Certainly, the guidance the Minister talked about would be enhanced by giving a much clearer view on that.
Finally—I do not wish to sound too mischievous, but I will ask this question anyway—does our reviewing the matter at this stage suggest that we may well take a different view over the long term, as these companies already fell within the threshold, or that we might be open to taking a different view on what took place in relation to ARM or even Hinkley Point?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the interests registered in my name. I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. He is of course right to declare that the UK economy should be open. All of us on these Benches earnestly hope that that is the way the Government continue to play it and that we do not start to close down and become a little England.
The Minister also rightly highlighted the need for changes in appropriate safeguards. The world is changing very quickly, national security needs are changing and the Government are right to keep those under review, so this is a timely process.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked for a holistic approach to the whole issue of mergers and acquisitions. En passant, I add pensions to that list, which he did not include, because increasingly pensions and the rights of pensioners are becoming a driver within the mergers and acquisitions section.
On the Statement, there is a powerful case for strengthening the public interest in takeovers, as, indeed our leader Vince Cable has argued regularly, most recently, I think, on the AstraZeneca case. However, while lowering the threshold is a welcome step, the Government’s proposals are narrow and do not add a great deal to the overall public interest element, which should be covered in a more holistic approach. In recent months we have seen several of the UK’s high-tech companies snapped up by foreign competitors. This has been exacerbated by the fall in the value of the pound. That is a regrettable outcome. Therefore, today’s inclusion of computer chips in the list of new technologies singled out is somewhat interesting given that it follows the much publicised acquisition of ARM, arguably the world’s best chip designer. That, again, was driven by the weakness of the pound. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there is an element of closing the stable door here. We wish that some of the measures we are discussing were in place at that time.
The addition of quantum technology raises the question: why only that? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, opened up a list of other technologies. I had biosciences and some aspects of IT and encryption on my list. It seems to me a rather narrow list when you consider the potential threats to a range of technologies. In some technologies, the threats have not been thought of yet but they exist. In our view the scope should be widened to defend not just the science base from a security point of view but also the overall knowledge base of this country. Knowledge can leak out from this country through a variety of means, of which mergers and acquisitions is but one. Joint research projects are another. In many cases you often have competing aims where inward development exercises try to draw foreign investors into research projects where the IP driver in this country would be to exclude some of those investors. In many cases, therefore, we are creating a situation that is leaking out valuable information —whether it is for security interests or economically valuable—through actions that the Government or local government are driving. Perhaps this is something that the Minister could look at. At the heart of this is the narrow look at security needs. These Benches would widen that to cover more economic interests of this country, and we hope the Government will take that on board.
Turning to Bombardier, I am sure the whole House welcomes the announcement of this deal, which should protect the future of the plane-maker. Clearly, only a few days ago, we were discussing a very bleak future for the 4,000-plus workers and all of those indirectly involved in the economic area that it has created in Belfast, so this is good news. I said at the time that even though this is not a case that would, in the end, be won by Boeing, time was the issue that would kill off and affect Bombardier. This is a very effective way of trying to bridge that time and of negating that problem. We should all congratulate everybody who has been involved in expediting this so swiftly and effectively. I am sure there are “i”s to be dotted and “t”s to be crossed, and I hope the Minister will give assistance to all those who require it to make sure that happens. In that regard, will the Minister tell us what anti-trust hoops he expects this deal to have to jump through?
We would also welcome some clarity from the Minister on what assurances have been forthcoming, both on investment and on the public statement made by the CEO, Tom Enders, on the notion that operations will be more efficient. What will be the job implications in both Belfast and perhaps in Broughton? What assurances have been given, and how will he be able to uphold them? In many ways, the US Administration and Boeing might feel that they have got off the hook somewhat by this, but there are still huge tariffs outstanding on this aircraft. The actions of the US remain a salutary warning to this country that its relationship with the Trump Administration is, at best, strained and poses something of a black cloud.
In conclusion, today’s announcement on takeovers and mergers sets out steps in the right direction. We welcome greater breadth in scrutiny and the requirement for notification. I am sure that, as the consultation process goes through, the Government will look at the technologies, and at which elements of which technologies we should be concerned about. I hope they will also take on board the public interest aspect in mergers and acquisitions.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank both noble Lords for their broad welcome for the news on Bombardier and the Green Paper. Turning first to Bombardier, both noble Lords would like further information about jobs, growth and possible anti-trust implications, but it is too early to say at the moment. This joint venture has only just been announced. It is still subject to negotiations between the two parties. Rather than hazard a guess at where they will come out, perhaps we should report back to the House when further details become clear.
Turning to the Green Paper, both noble Lords would like a more holistic approach. The noble Lord was referring particularly to the takeover context, and he is absolutely right. Pensions are absolutely essential in that context, as are environmental obligations and the like. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred more to a holistic approach in the context of industrial strategy more generally, rather than specifically on takeovers. He will have to wait until later in November, when we will announce our industrial strategy. I hope he will agree, when that strategy is before him, that it is a holistic, joined-up approach to industrial strategy.
I will deal with some of the other issues that both noble Lords raised. Of course foreign direct investment is essential. There is a balance; we want to be open to foreign direct investment—the last thing we want to create is a chill, as the noble Lord put it, on investment coming into this country. Although it is absolutely true that a number of high-tech British companies have been sold over the last two or three years, particularly to American buyers, in the vast majority of cases those American companies have brought capital and support. I refer, for example, to Google’s acquisition of DeepMind; it has put huge resources behind that company which might not have been there had it remained a private British business. SoftBank’s acquisition of ARM falls into that category as well; it gave a number of important undertakings about research and keeping that research in the UK. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck in these areas and the last thing we want to do in this country is shut ourselves off from investment from the US and elsewhere. If one looks at how we support small tech companies, it raises a much broader issue about patient capital, spin-outs from universities and the like. I hope we will deal with those issues when we come to our industrial strategy in a few weeks’ time.
Both noble Lords raised whether the definitions of quantum computing chips and dual-use defence were too narrow. They will, no doubt, want to comment on that issue in the consultation. We have gone for quantum computing and chips in particular because they are often embedded into infrastructure and safety-critical areas. Quantum computing is precisely the area where cybersecurity is so important; we can use it to break complex encryption codes and the like. We felt, having done a lot of consultation, that those areas of chips and quantum computing were the critical ones. I understand the noble Lord’s point about life sciences; there may be other areas that he would like us to consider as part of the consultation. In general, however, this is a question of balance and where we draw the line. We can always argue about the balance, but I am reassured that we have not got it too far wrong when both noble Lords broadly support what we are doing.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
In general, I welcome my noble friend’s announcement that the Government intend to act in this area. However, I have one concern. In consulting on possible amendments to the international investment arrangements, we notice what happened when the pound suddenly weakened and overseas investors took the opportunity to take over UK companies. I worry about what will happen in the interim, before any new changes are made. I have felt for some time that these changes need to happen, and if companies see that the rules may change for them quite soon, we may find that it pre-empts people into taking action now.
I also note from his Statement that the Secretary of State has been busy, helpfully, talking on the telephone to Airbus and Bombardier. I suggest that he makes one more telephone call to the chairman of Boeing, to say that that great company, which we much admire and with which we in this country have had very good relationships hitherto, has not been helped at all by this unfortunate action it has taken. The best thing it could possibly do now, in recognition of the complications it has introduced, is to withdraw the action it has taken and enable the companies to go forward in this new arrangement, which I greatly welcome.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend makes two important points. On Boeing, I cannot swear to it, but I think the Prime Minister has spoken to Boeing directly about this issue. Certainly, my right honourable friend Greg Clark, in the other place, is also in touch with Boeing. Boeing has two big investments in this country, which relate to helicopters and to a new facility it has opened in Sheffield, so it is an important part of our economy. I assure my noble friend that we are having conversations of the kind that he describes with Boeing. I understand my noble friend’s point that this consultation might lead to some companies pre-empting this and coming forward to buy a British company now rather than later. We have considerable soft power in these areas, so we can use quite a lot of influence behind the scenes to prevent that happening. But we certainly need to bear that consideration in mind.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, if this is genuinely about defence, that is one thing, but if it is going to be part of some sort of more protectionist policy, that will not sit well with Brexit. I am not sure what the word “holistic” means in this context but I am suspicious of it. Actually, we should particularly encourage large-scale projects that people get worried about because, once you are into a large-scale project, you cannot get out of it.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that foreign direct investment into this country is essential. For example, Hinkley Point power station is funded largely by the French and the Chinese. We are absolutely open to investment from all over the world, so there is no intention at all of discouraging foreign direct investment coming into this country—on the contrary. I think that we are the third biggest end point for foreign direct investment after the Chinese and the Americans, and there is no intention of harming that. As far as the word “holistic” is concerned, I think that the noble Lord meant “joined-up government”; it was not in any way directed at some conspiracy to prevent investment coming into this country.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the better news about Bombardier. Having, ages ago, been the Minister responsible for inward investment into Northern Ireland, I can confirm that the engineering skills legacy of Belfast and indeed of Northern Ireland is colossal. From the days of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff, when I was involved right down through the years, there has been a highly innovative and skilled operation, and I am very glad that it will be preserved and encouraged with further investment, as it should be.
On inward investment generally, I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. We have to be a bit careful. We rely on heavy capital and inward investment to balance the books in this country and compensate for our colossal trade deficit, and we need to avoid any implication that we are somehow turning against being an open house for most inward investment, although there obviously have to be some safeguards. Can my noble friend reassure us about one area that he mentioned—civil nuclear power? The nuclear scene is dominated by both foreign ownership and foreign inward investment and support, not least for Hinkley Point C, which will survive and prosper only with heavy Chinese help and involvement. Can he assure us that nothing that has come out today will get in the way or cause further disruption of our already rather difficultly placed nuclear programme? It is not going well now and will go even worse if we cut out foreign investment.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend makes a number of very good points. First, as he rightly says, the 4,200 people who work at Short Brothers have some outstanding, world-class engineering skills, and the fact that Bombardier and Airbus have come to this agreement is extremely good news for all of them. Secondly, as far as civil nuclear power is concerned, he is absolutely right. Hinkley depends on Chinese investment, as indeed do many economies throughout the world. I think that it would be very foolish of us to be at all concerned about the Chinese investing in our civil nuclear power industry. The Chinese will probably build 150 nuclear power stations in their own country over the next 10 years, and they will unquestionably be among the world’s best when it comes to building and operating nuclear power plants. We should take the fact that they are investing in the UK as a very good thing.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Boeing has for many years been a classic example of indirect support of the military-industrial complex—to use General Eisenhower’s phrase—in the United States through defence expenditure, R&D and so on, and that the same applies to high-tech industries generally? Therefore, is it not a fact that we have to scrutinise matters very carefully and take a robust view of our long-term strategic interest when it comes to the arguments that keep flying around across the Atlantic?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Boeing has been hugely supported by the American defence industry since the Second World War at least. He is right that we should vigorously defend any claims that Boeing has against the British Government’s support of Bombardier in Northern Ireland.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the extent to which the proposals in the Green Paper, which I confess I have not yet had the chance to read, are aligning the public interest test for national security purposes with the export control regime. My recollection from serving on the quadrilateral committee in another place is that national security was not the only consideration for export controls; other considerations also applied, including our international and human rights obligations. However, my noble friend’s Statement said that this is targeted firmly at national security. Do we intend to reinforce the export control regime in toto or simply the aspect of it that relates to national security?
Forgive me, but if I may, I will also ask: while the Government are pursuing amendments to the Enterprise Act on the public interest intervention, will they also make progress on updating the public interest test on media plurality, which was foreshadowed in the debate here on the Digital Economy Bill in the last Session? It needs to be substantially updated to reflect the changing media framework to which that media plurality is applied.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend has asked me two questions and I am not sure whether I can do them full justice. On his first question about the export control regime, it is true that the £70 million test will come down to £1 million for companies that are subject to the export control regime. I assume that those companies would, by definition, be concerned with national security issues. In so far as they are not, I will have to write to my noble friend on that point.
I will also have to take further advice on his second question. At the moment, there is no intention to extend the Green Paper consultation to media plurality, but I will double check that and write to my noble friend.
Update on EU Exit Negotiations
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The Statement is as follows:
“I will now update the House on the fifth round of negotiations with the EU. In view of the fact that the October European Council is this week, I will also review the progress of the five negotiation rounds since June.
While at times the negotiations have been tough, both Michel Barnier and I have acknowledged the new dynamic that has been created by the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence. This momentum was maintained during the October round. Both negotiating teams continued to work constructively together. Since June, we have steadily developed our shared political objectives. There is still some way to go to secure our new partnership, but I am confident that we are on the right path.
I will now take the House through each of the negotiating issues in turn. On citizens’ rights, we have made further progress towards giving British citizens in the EU and EU 27 citizens in the UK the greatest possible legal certainty about the future. In future, our legal orders will be distinct and different. Last week, we explored the ways in which we will make sure that the rights we agree now will be enforced in a fair and equivalent way. We also explored ways in which we can fully implement the withdrawal treaty into UK law. This will give confidence to European citizens living in the United Kingdom that they will be able to directly enforce their rights, as set out in the agreement, in UK courts.
The two sides also discussed ways of ensuring consistent interpretation of our agreement. Although we have not yet arrived at a single model that will achieve this, we have explored a number of solutions. We should also not lose sight of the fact that we have made significant progress in this area since June. We have reached agreement on: the criteria for residence rights; the right to work and own businesses; social security rights; rights for current family members; reciprocal health care rights; the rights of frontier workers; and the fact that the process for securing settled status in the UK will be streamlined and low cost. But, of course, there are still some issues outstanding for both sides, including the right to continue to enjoy the recognition of professional qualifications; to vote in local elections; to onward movement as a UK citizen already resident in the EU 27; the right to return; the right to bring in future family members; and the right to export a range of benefits.
In many of these areas, it is a straightforward statement of fact that our proposals go further and provide more certainty than those of the Commission. We are trying to find pragmatic solutions. In the fourth round, we offered the guaranteed right of return for settled citizens in the UK in exchange for onward movement rights for British citizens currently living in the EU. We look forward to hearing the Commission’s response on this offer.
I recognise that there has been some concern regarding the new system which European citizens will have to use to gain settled status in the UK. So last week, I confirmed that while there will be a registration process, the administration process will be completely new, streamlined, and—importantly—low-cost. Furthermore, any EU citizen in the UK already in possession of a permanent residence card will be able to exchange it for settled status in a simple way. They will not need to go through the full application process again. The tests associated with this process will be agreed and set out within the withdrawal agreement. As a result of our productive discussions, the Commission is also able to offer similar guarantees in return for those British citizens in the European Union. These clarifications, on both sides, have helped to build further confidence.
This round also saw further detailed discussions on Northern Ireland and Ireland. In a significant step forward, we have developed joint principles on the continuation of the common travel area and associated rights. These joint principles will fully preserve the rights of UK and Irish nationals to live, work and study across these islands. They will also protect the associated rights to public services and social security. To provide legal certainty, these principles recognise that the withdrawal agreement should formally acknowledge that the UK and Ireland will continue to be able to uphold and develop these bilateral arrangements. Our teams have also mapped out areas of co-operation that function on a north-south basis, and we have begun the detailed work to ensure that that continues once the UK has left the EU. We also agreed a set of critical guiding principles to protect the Belfast Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and we are working on the necessary steps to make this a reality. Throughout this process we have reaffirmed our commitment to the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to choose to be British or Irish or both, as they choose.
I have set out before our shared determination to tackle the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland by focusing on creative solutions. We have begun to do so. But we cannot fully resolve these issues without also addressing our future relationship. As the Prime Minister said in her Statement to this House last week:
“We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland—to get this right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/17; col. 43.]
On the financial settlement, discussions continued in the spirit fostered by the Prime Minister’s significant statements in her Florence speech. The Prime Minister reassured our European partners that they will not need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. She reiterated that the UK will honour commitments that we have made during the period of our membership. Off the back of this, in the September round we agreed to make a rigorous examination of the technical detail where we needed to reach a shared view, and this work has continued. This has not been a process of agreeing specific commitments; we have been clear that it can come only later, but it is an important step so that, when the time comes, we will be able to reach a political agreement.
Finally, on separation issues, we have continued to work through the detail on a range of issues, in particular in those areas relating purely to our withdrawal such as nuclear safeguards, civil judicial co-operation, and privileges and immunities. While we have made good progress, we believe that the remaining issues are dependent on discussions on our future partnership. We are ready and well prepared to start those discussions.
In conclusion, our aim remains to provide as much certainty as possible to businesses and citizens on both sides. I have made no secret of the fact that to fully provide that certainty we must be able to talk about the future. We all have to recognise that we are reaching the limits of what we can achieve without consideration of our future relationship. The Prime Minister’s speech in Florence set out the scale of our ambition for a new partnership with the European Union. She also laid out our case for a simple, clear and time-limited period of implementation on current terms. At the European Council later this week, I hope that the leaders of the 27 will recognise the progress made and provide Michel Barnier with the mandate to build on the momentum and spirit of co-operation we now have. Doing so will allow us to best achieve our joint objectives and move towards a deal that works both for the UK and the EU.
There has been much discussion of what would constitute sufficient progress. Let me be clear that sufficient progress and the sequencing of negotiations has always been an EU construct. Negotiations require both parties not just to engage constructively but to develop their positions to advance. On the UK’s part, I have always been clear that we will conduct these negotiations in a constructive and responsible way. We have been entirely reasonable. The work of our teams and the substantial progress we have made over recent months proves that we are doing just that, and we are ready to move these negotiations on. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, although sadly it adds nothing to what we have already seen in the press. Indeed, it is rather less since we have been able to read what the EU negotiators and their political masters think of how things are going, and it was their side that used the words “impasse” or “deadlock”. It is noticeable that the Governments of the 27 EU member states have shown markedly more unity than the 29 people who sit around our Cabinet table. Moreover, while the British side argues, the clock ticks relentlessly on, so it is time to talk turkey for the sake of citizens, business, trade, farmers and consumers. If that means talking money now, so be it. We know that the Government’s reluctance to do so is a fear of their more uncompromising Eurosceptics.
A financial deal will need to be made, a deal that some will not like no matter how good it is, so why put it off for fear of their wrath at such cost to everyone else? Every industry, as well as agriculture, consumers, patients, doctors, lawyers and investors, says that we must end this uncertainty. Just this morning I met representatives from Rolls-Royce who told me how key it is that we can trade freely with the EU. We might make the best aircraft engines, but they include parts from the EU, use the skills of people from the EU, and sell within the EU when complete, as do 90% of Toyota cars made here. Their reps were telling me this morning that non-tariff barriers, rules of origin certificates and so on are as challenging as tariffs if we leave the customs union.
Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce and other companies are highly dependent on our participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency, but they are hearing nothing from the Government as to what they want in that regard—as with other vital agencies, such as Euratom and the European Medical Agency. I even read talk of us coming under the US Food and Drug Administration in Maryland—or la-la land.
There is a host of other non-trade issues where reciprocity is key: the mutual recognition of civil and family judgments, handling insolvency cases, data protection, and long-term insurance contracts. All those issues need early negotiation and preparation by the Government, which those industries concerned simply find that they are not invited to engage with. They can get no answers on those questions and nor can we. For example, the Minister for Consumers in the Commons said last week that while consumers will retain rights on goods bought,
“from a trader based in the UK”,
beyond that,
“is a matter for negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/17; col. 51WH.]
Nothing was set out about what we wanted from those negotiations. She said only that we are exploring options in maintaining early warnings of dangerous non-food products—shared at the moment via Rapex—as with the pharmacovigilance network on unexpected responses to drugs and our key role in the European Consumer Centre Network. It is not simply that Europe is not ready to talk on these issues, though I understand it is on some of them, but that the Government are not engaging with industries or the consumers concerned.
There are three key areas on which Parliament, not just the Government, must have the right to decide. One is future trade with the EU, where the Institute of Directors is demanding to know what the Government want from our EU trade deal. Can the Minister indicate whether achieving tariff-free trade is the Government’s objective? The second area is about transitional agreements. The word “implementation” was used, but I think we are really talking about transitional arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will press to achieve those arrangements on the same terms as now and to ensure that the withdrawal Bill contains approval of those agreements? Finally, does the Minister agree that any walking away from the negotiations—effectively a “no deal”—should be a matter for Parliament and not Ministers alone? Will the Government therefore agree to amend the withdrawal Bill to ensure that any such decision will be taken by Parliament?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, it is 16 months after the referendum. The brazen and airy assertions by the leave campaign that negotiations would be easy and our economy would prosper have been revealed as the empty rhetoric they always were. The Government believe that,
“we are on the right path”.
That path seems not only to be a long one, but to have an unknown end point.
On citizens’ rights, it seems true that some progress has been made, but 4 million to 5 million citizens are still in limbo. The Government’s approach is still flawed because of their concept that EU citizens resident in the UK will have to secure settled status, even if the Government claim the process will be streamlined and low-cost. Those citizens should not have to secure what they already have by right, and it remains a matter of great regret that the Government refuse to give the unilateral guarantee of existing rights that a majority in this House wanted. Can the Minister assure us that we will have the novel experience of witnessing a process by the Home Office that is administered efficiently, quickly and accurately?
To complain that,
“the sequencing of negotiations, has always been an EU construct”,
is rather feeble. It has always been clear that this sequence would be followed—so what is it now that takes the Government by surprise? The Secretary of State even accepted the sequencing a few months ago after a little bit of huffing and puffing. The Government maintain that they are ready and well prepared to start the negotiations on transition and final status, but as the right honourable Kenneth Clarke MP has said, that sounds like la-la land—there is no substance. The truth is that members of the Cabinet are fighting like ferrets in a sack, with no agreement in prospect. This is a key reason for lack of progress.
The sensible approach would be to stay in the single market and customs union not only in the transition but in the permanent relationship. Instead of that stability, we hear the deeply destabilising nonsense about no deal. The Secretary of State told the other place that he had not talked up no deal, but he has failed to disown it. Many of his ultra-hard Brexiteer colleagues have talked it up. Those ideological obsessives positively want no deal as the destructive revolution they crave. Will the Government now rule out the hugely harmful no-deal prospect?
The former top official at the department of trade, Sir Martin Donnelly, rightly calls this reckless bravado. The OECD says that it would immediately cut UK growth by 1.5 percentage points. The Resolution Foundation predicts that in a no-deal scenario the “just about managing”, the people whom the Prime Minister professes to care about so much, would suffer the most from an inflation hit to the tune of £5 a week on top of the current 3% rate of inflation. No wonder polls show that 47% of people are now against Brexit—it is 49% of women; I shall not make any remarks about how sensible women are—compared to 42%. Has not the time now come to offer the British people an honourable way out of this morass through an opportunity to think again, to really reflect in a further referendum, once they can see the concrete reality of what Brexit entails?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her points. The scenario that she described sounded a bit alien to me—she quoted “impasse” and “deadlock”. However, I was intrigued to see her colleague in the other place, the right honourable Keir Starmer, say in a recent letter to my right honourable friend David Davis:
“The announcement of further progress on the rights of EU citizens and the issue of Northern Ireland is welcome. It is also encouraging to see a more constructive tone in the talks”.
So Mr Starmer seems to be content that something healthy is happening; I hope that might act as a contagion to his noble colleague on the Benches opposite.
The noble Baroness also raised the important issue of trade. The Government have been consistent in articulating their objectives: we want a bold and ambitious free trade agreement—that is at the heart of what we are negotiating for, and we are determined to seek that outcome. That to some extent leads on to points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, about there being no deal. The Government have been very clear that we are in this to negotiate the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. However, if any Government were simply to disregard the possibility that we might end up in a no-deal situation, they would be culpable. The Government have to plan for all eventualities. The presumption is that we will negotiate a deal—that is what we all want—but it would be grossly irresponsible for any Government to dismiss the possibility of no deal. That prospect is there; we hope that it is unlikely to occur, but it is one against which the Government have to plan, and they will do so.
The noble Baroness raised a number of important issues relating to safety agencies and food products. It is important to make it clear to your Lordships that we value the structures currently in place. We would like to negotiate to see those replicated. If we have to devise our own structures within the UK so that we are in a safe framework post Brexit, that is what we will do—in some cases, we are engaged on that work now.
The noble Baroness referred to the implementation period. That is a helpful addition to the discussions. It emerged from the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence. It recognises that in March 2019 there will be a point where both sides know what they want to do but the implementation will take some time. It is realistic to anticipate that and to recognise that an implementation period may be necessary.
The final, rather pessimistic note from the noble Baroness was about walking away. I assure her that my right honourable friend David Davis and all his colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union are a busy hive of bees. There is an awful lot of buzzing going on down there. There is an awful lot of flying between the European agencies, parties and personnel. That is right. That is healthy. That is exactly what we need to do—to not only conduct dialogue but keep ourselves informed of intelligence about what people are thinking. That is a very healthy activity. There is no doubt about the commitment of the Secretary of State and his department to continue with these negotiations in an energetic fashion, to try to secure the objective we all want of a really good deal for this country, placing our relationship with the EU on a strong, prosperous and optimistic footing for the future.
I cannot help thinking that I could offer the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the welcome news that she had won the lottery and she would accuse me of being parochial and mean. I think that what has been achieved in relation to citizens, much of which was repeated in the Statement, is welcome. It is clear. It gives a certainty which has not been there before. I totally disagree with her interpretation of it.
The noble Baroness also said that we should rule out no deal now. No, that would be utterly the wrong thing to do. This is a negotiation. The Government have responsibilities to the people of the United Kingdom, made clear in a referendum vote, which they are obliged to implement and deliver. I have already made clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, why I consider it would be culpable for a Government not to anticipate the—I hope, remote and certainly unwelcome but none the less possible—prospect that there might be no deal.
Politicians can be accused of living in a bubble but my impression from outside this place is that across the country people are saying, “Just get on with this. Get on with your negotiations and produce something that can allow the United Kingdom to move on to the next phase of life”. On the matter of a second referendum, I have to say to the noble Baroness that her party fought a general election on that premise and it did not seem to resonate particularly positively with the voters. I also have to tell her that in Scotland the prospect of a second independence referendum is going down like a lead balloon. The bottom line is that when voters vote on something and a decision is made, they expect politicians to honour and respect that.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, whichever way we voted in the Brexit referendum, I think we all agree that these negotiations are very important for our country. Would the national interest not be better served if the loyal Opposition stopped carping at the Government’s position and got behind our negotiators instead of undermining them?
Baroness Goldie
I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this extremely positive contribution. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler. There is a serious point to be made here. At their core, these negotiations have the national interest of the United Kingdom at heart. At their core, they have the need to respect a referendum result. That is what the Government are charged with prosecuting, progressing and, I hope, ultimately delivering on. It is not terribly helpful if the principal Opposition are offering a variety of views, ranging from inconsistency to self-contradiction, because it gives the EU negotiators the impression that even within the United Kingdom everyone is fighting like ferrets in a sack.
Baroness Goldie
There are always points of minor dissonance to be found; one accepts that. But the voting record of the Opposition in the Commons is that, on the one hand, they were happy to vote to trigger Article 50—the thing that would let the train leave the station—but then the Opposition seem to want to turn round and say, “We don’t like the look of this. Stop the train”. Half the party then seems to want to say, “Paint the train a different colour, and then it might look all right”. These inconsistencies just do not help, and it is important that the Opposition square up to their responsibilities. Yes, they should legitimately question aspects of the negotiations, but they have to have a coherent position of their own. At the moment, that is not yet clear.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, first, in the discussions that are going on there has been talk of alimony and a divorce settlement. Does my noble friend know what is to happen to the matrimonial home? That is: the offices which are owned and occupied in Brussels, and have been partly financed by British taxpayers. Are we to get our share of their capital value or not? I think we should get it. Secondly, there has been a great deal of talk at times about protecting the rights of EU citizens who will be resident in this country after Brexit. They should be properly protected, but what can my noble friend say about the rights of British subjects who will be resident after Brexit in the European Union? Some of them have been arrested under European arrest warrants and held in detention, without being told the charges against them or brought into court to have those charges tried. That is a right which we have had for 700 years, but it seems it is not yet acknowledged in Europe. What are we going to do to protect our people?
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for his two questions. The specific issue of the capital value of buildings comprising part of the EU estate is a matter for the negotiation. It will form part of the information which is made available to inform discussions on the final financial settlement. I am not able to pre-empt that and do not know what those details are, but I am satisfied that they will be part of the overall equation when that issue is addressed. On the matter of UK citizens in the EU, the Government take their position very seriously. We are satisfied that, given the arrangements we are proposing to the EU for EU citizens in this country, we can expect to see those arrangements reciprocated for our UK citizens elsewhere in the EU. My noble friend raised a specific issue about apprehension and an alleged contravention of human rights. It is disturbing to hear such an account but, at the same time, these citizens are protected by the rule of law and that will continue, both in the EU and within the United Kingdom post Brexit.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, on the financial settlement, can the Minister confirm as a matter of fact and experience that, during the 40-odd years of our membership of the European Union, we have been very large net contributors to the European budget and have always honoured our financial obligations quite properly, as we always have done in relation to other international organisations? The Prime Minister herself has assured our European friends that they will not,
“need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave”,
and that the UK,
“will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership”.
In view of that fact, I genuinely cannot understand what on earth the requirements are, in addition to those undertakings and that factual reference to our experience and past behaviour, which the European Commission expects us to deliver.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, sets out a simply stated position. I think that is at the heart of the negotiations. It is right that all these matters should be on the table and that due regard should be given to them. As I said to my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I cannot anticipate what the detail will be, but it is all in the bubbling cauldron of negotiations for the final financial settlement.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State’s comments suggest that agreement has been reached on the criteria for residents’ rights. In the light of questions that were raised with me outside the Chamber last week, is there any provision for, or has there been any discussion about, the rights of UK citizens who move from the United Kingdom to one of the EU 27 states between now and the time we exit the European Union? How Her Majesty’s Government envisage the situation for EU nationals is quite clear in the UK’s paper on settled status. Is there going to be reciprocity for UK citizens leaving between now and March 2019?
Baroness Goldie
The aspiration is to achieve for UK citizens elsewhere in the EU the same rights, privileges and entitlements as will be enjoyed by EU citizens in this country. I will ascertain whether there is any more specific information I can provide to the noble Baroness and, if there is, I will write to her.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, my friends in Europe all tell the same story: that no leading Government nor anybody in the Commission has any real understanding of what the UK wants its future relationship with Europe to be, yet in the Statement the Minister said we are ready to begin discussions on that future relationship. Are the Government really ready? Will we be able to go in December and put on the table detailed, precise plans setting out what future relationship with Europe we really want?
Baroness Goldie
I can merely reiterate what I said when reading out the Statement and in comments I have subsequently made to other contributors: we are very clear that we want a strong relationship with the EU that is mutually beneficial and allows both entities to benefit from many of the advantages which have emerged and which have been evident. That is what we are negotiating to try to achieve. We regard the EU 27—language is important—as friends and allies. We want them to continue to be friends and allies, and that is the objective of the negotiations at every meeting we have.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, surely no one can doubt that it is very much in the interests of both sides for there to be a sensible, pragmatic agreement at the end of all this, if only because the absence of an agreement means an immediate €10 billion gap in the EU’s budget. Will my noble friend confirm that Article 50 is absolutely clear that these must be negotiations,
“setting out the arrangements for”—
the state’s—
“withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
It would arguably be unlawful for there to be an agreement on the withdrawal arrangements without any visibility of the framework for the future relationship. If the result of this is that we end up with no deal because there has been insufficient time left by the European Union negotiators for those future relationship discussions, arguably that would be because they had behaved unlawfully.
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for bringing to the attention of the House something which has been overlooked and yet is of fundamental importance. My understanding is that the text which he quoted from Article 50 is correct: the arrangements for withdrawal are inexorably interwoven with the future relationship. It is very important that everyone bears that in mind. I very much hope that the gloomy scenario he outlines, which I hope is an entirely remote possibility, does not materialise. I do not think it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom or the European Union. All involved in the negotiations will be cognisant of the bipartite nature of the Article 50 obligation.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, the Statement brings out very clearly the complexity of the whole Brexit operation. Could my noble friend perhaps put her remarks in the context of the report published today by the OECD, which brings out very clearly that after Brexit we are likely to be worse off economically and have a lower rate of economic growth than if we were to remain in the European Union? At some stage we have to consider the benefits and disadvantages anew because no one voting in the referendum—perhaps no one at all—fully comprehended the difficulties that Brexit would involve. As far as the no-deal argument is concerned, the OECD again brings out that it, too, would be disastrous. Does my noble friend not agree that if we arrive in that situation it is essential, as the noble Baroness opposite suggested, that Parliament should take a view on whether we should go ahead against that background? Clearly we do not need another referendum—we have had one and it was a bad enough example of how such things operate—but it is crucial that at that stage Parliament should reach a decision on whether we finally go ahead or not.
Baroness Goldie
I say to my noble friend that Parliament will be fully engaged throughout the process and, as we have repeatedly set out, will get a vote on the final deal. I have to remind the House, though, that the British people voted to leave and we will deliver on that instruction. Although we do not want or expect a no-deal outcome, Parliament gets a vote on the final deal but it does not get a vote on whether or not we leave.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the public wanting us to get on with it. May I therefore follow up my noble friend Lady Hayter’s question: why are the Government refusing to talk about money now? Although the Prime Minister has made these general commitments, what the EU wants is clarity about what past commitments we are liable for. These are past commitments and nothing to do with the future trading relationship. Why are we delaying talking about that now, when the need for a transition deal is urgent and the absence of it will lead to the loss of jobs in the City of London and elsewhere very quickly in the coming months? Is the real reason not that the Cabinet is so divided on the question of the EU that the Prime Minister is terrified of making any concession to her Eurosceptics? Is it not therefore a disgrace, in a way, that a former head of the Civil Service should try to say that the Opposition are to blame for the pretty pass in which the nation now finds itself?
Baroness Goldie
It is not for me to defend the noble Lord, Lord Butler; he can do that very adequately himself. I think it was I who carped about and criticised the Labour Opposition. There is a phrase, “If the cap fits”. I think the Labour Opposition have a question to ask themselves. The noble Lord asks me why we do not come out with what we think about sums paid to date and what sums we should get back. These are all within the negotiating environment, and the fundamental rule in any negotiation is that you have to some extent to preserve your own thoughts and confidence and not have that be the subject of general discussion and public comment because you will weaken your negotiating position. I am aware that the shadow Chancellor, the right honourable John McDonnell, seems to take the view that you should just shove money at it and pay whatever you want. What I want to know is exactly how much money the Labour Party thinks we should be throwing about. I do not think that is a strategy to pursue. It is naive and ill conceived, and I cannot agree with the noble Lord that it is a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, how often have the joint bodies set up between Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved Assemblies met since the activation of Article 50, and how often do they intend to meet in the next six months? Does she accept that there is a very strong feeling in Cardiff—mirrored, I suspect, in Edinburgh—that they are completely cosmetic entities with no practical significance whatever?
Baroness Goldie
I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view; I suggest that it is not underpinned by the facts. The Government have been clear from the start that the devolved Administrations should be fully engaged in our preparations to leave the EU. Since the election, the Secretary of State has spoken to Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments on a number of occasions to update them on the progress of negotiations. In addition, the joint ministerial committees have been meeting. In fact, there was a meeting just Monday past, which built on discussions that the First Secretary of State has led with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. So there has been a lot of consultation and there is continuing consultation. It is very important that the devolved Administrations not only feel but are part of this; that is precisely the situation that the Government have endeavoured to create.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
The noble Baroness bravely described the carping and criticism within the Cabinet as dissonance. Let me put to her a specific question raising just that carping and criticism. Is it still the Prime Minister’s position that during the period of transition—or implementation, if you prefer—the ECJ will continue to enjoy jurisdiction, just as it does now; or has the Prime Minister bowed to the will of the Foreign Secretary and Mr William Rees-Mogg?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for his question. In relation to the implementation period—it is important that we make clear what we are talking about—I understand that it may mean that we start off with the ECJ still governing the rules that we are part of for that period. The Government are also clear, however, that if we can bring forward a new dispute mechanism at an earlier stage, that is what we will do.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, is it not a statement of the obvious that, given the results of the referendum, the Government must do what they are doing: have talks with our partners in the European Union to achieve the best possible outcome for this country? That said, while it is much too early to speculate about what that outcome will be, is it not also true, as the Supreme Court has made clear, that the Government have a duty to bring the results of those discussions to Parliament? Picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Higgins, this is a parliamentary democracy. Parliament authorised the referendum. It has not authorised any outcome or no outcome: that must come to Parliament.
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for his question. I can only repeat what I have already said: Parliament will be fully engaged and it will get a vote on the final deal.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The noble Baroness does not have to worry about the position of the loyal Opposition; she should worry about the opposition in the disloyal Government. That is where her problem is. I welcomed the Florence speech and the recent Statement, but it is not about the issues she raised at first; it is about the desire of the Europeans and the British Government to make progress. It is that lack of progress that is causing so much of a problem. It is about money, because commitments will have to be made in future, unless we are to leave a lot of the other organisations involving science and technology, aerospace and 101 other things. We need to address that money problem. If the Prime Minister has had the psychological advantage of going to those two meetings and making it clear that we are willing to move on that, this Statement is good and desirable. The other things are, frankly, purely decorative.
Baroness Goldie
I do not accept the noble Lord’s view that progress has been inadequate or disappointing. I think there is recognition that progress is now visible and tangible. That has been borne out by different parties. It was borne out by Michel Barnier himself, who said at the end of the October round:
“Since Florence, there is a new dynamic. I remain convinced that with political will, decisive progress is within our reach in the coming weeks”.
It seemed last night at dinner that Mr Juncker and the Prime Minister share that view. That is encouraging and what we want to see. On the specific issue of money, I do not think I can add anything further to what I have already said.
Channel 4: Privatisation (Communications Committee Report)
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to introduce this debate as the chairman of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Communications at the time when it produced the report entitled A Privatised Future for Channel 4?. Note the question mark. We completed our work over a year ago and there have been some dramatic developments since then. I will be sharing some thoughts on the current position, as will no doubt a number of your Lordships during this debate. I hope the Minister will bring us right up to date.
First, let me summarise our unambiguous and unanimous recommendation to government: “Don’t privatise Channel 4”. Our view was that Channel 4 played several significant roles within the so-called ecosystem of broadcasting: in providing a different perspective; in promoting greater diversity, with the Rio Paralympics as a brilliant example; in delivering a high-quality news service with Jon Snow at peak times; in supporting film-making through Film4; and in commissioning regional production of important television programmes. We feared that these special roles would be threatened by privatisation, and harsh commercial imperatives would make it hard for Channel 4 to fulfil its special remit as a distinctive and innovative broadcaster.
The Channel 4 corporation—which includes More4, E4, All 4, 4Music and Film4—is currently 100% publicly owned, although it is 100% commercially funded. Its annual revenue is around £l billion. If offered for sale, we saw a strong likelihood of acquisition by a foreign—probably American—buyer. We saw it as inevitable that this would mean a dilution of the ethos of public service broadcasting and we were doubtful that any fine assurances given at the time of purchase would survive. We noted that the broadcasters’ regulator, Ofcom, does not have the power to revoke Channel 4’s licence and we were alarmed at the prospect of new owners simply walking away from their public service broadcasting obligations.
It is true that the committee was not entirely uncritical of Channel 4’s performance. In particular, we were unhappy with Channel 4’s delivery of its special requirement to make programmes specifically for older children, 10 to14 year-olds, and young adults, 14 to 19 year-olds. We recognised that such programmes do not attract lucrative advertising. But, as also noted by Ofcom’s chief executive, Sharon White, when she appeared before the committee, we felt Channel 4’s commitment to this part of its public service compact was inadequate.
Overall, the committee noted that Channel 4 was doing very well. The audience share for its portfolio of channels is the third highest, after the BBC and ITV, although in terms of revenues it is placed fourth after Sky. Its percentage of younger adult audiences—the 16 to 35 age group—is much higher than for its competitors: 15% for its news programmes, for example, compared with 7% for the BBC. Its financial results were very healthy and its spending on content—particularly new, original productions—was growing impressively.
So, why would anyone want to take drastic action to change the basis on which Channel 4 has been operating with such success? First, I think I detected a political or philosophical antipathy from some commentators toward a publicly owned body—even one that deploys no public money and is profitable—based on a belief that public ownership inevitably brings governmental interference, bureaucracy and inefficiency.
Secondly, we noted the very obvious motivation from HM Treasury: privatisation would raise funds from a market sale that could reduce the nation’s debts. We heard different views on how much might be achieved, with a range from about £800 million to something over £2 billion. However, off-setting such one-off gains are, of course, the potential losses, not least of jobs in production companies and exports. A short-term windfall would only be sensible if the sale meant greater long-term gains.
The third argument was that privatisation would bring opportunities for greater financial sustainability, with new investment and increased efficiency. A key question for us, therefore, was: is Channel 4 in a financially vulnerable position from which privatisation could save it? The then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, told us that C4’s future was very uncertain. Given its dependence on advertising revenue, he was worried that—unlike Sky with its subscription revenues and ITV with its own production business—C4C depended on advertising for 90% of its income, putting it in a precarious position in the event of an economic downturn. He felt that a privatised Channel 4 could make savings which could go to programme-making. Another witness, David Elstein, thought privatisation could lead to the cutting of well over half the 800 jobs at C4C, and the savings could go to enhancing the channel’s public service remit.
Your Lordships’ Communications Committee, on reviewing the evidence, did not accept that Channel 4 was in a precarious position. Its revenues were buoyant and it had healthy reserves to see it through any dips in advertising revenue. We also noted it was ahead of the game in shifting its emphasis to advertising online, a strategy which is of particular relevance given its high concentration of younger viewers.
That was then. I now turn to the position facing Channel 4 today, some 18 months after publication of our report. In the intervening period, DCMS continued to look at the options for Channel 4 and Karen Bradley, the new Secretary of State, wrote to me in the spring with the big announcement that the Government will not be pursuing the privatisation route. This decision was very welcome to the committee and I like to think that our report had some modest influence on it. Karen Bradley’s letter added that the Government were keen to see Channel 4 making a greater economic contribution to the nations and regions beyond London and the south-east, where two-thirds of programme producers are currently based. She announced a consultative exercise to look at whether Channel 4 itself should be based outside London and whether more of its programmes—which are all commissioned from independent producers, not made in-house—should be made away from London.
Coming to today, therefore, there seem to be two key questions for the future of Channel 4. First, with the current uncertainties in the UK economy, is the outlook for the channel still as rosy as it was when the “no privatisation” announcement was made? Secondly, could and should Channel 4 move itself and/or more of its spending away from London and the south-east? In considering these two questions, the committee was helped by a special, informal session last month with Channel 4’s chair, Charles Gurassa, and its chief marketing and communications officer, Dan Brooke. On Channel 4’s financial strength, Ofcom noted that a combination of the rise of online video services such as Netflix and Amazon, and post-Brexit weakness in the wider economy, could threaten C4C’s viewing figures and advertising revenues. However, Ofcom added that the TV advertising market is likely to recover. Channel 4, with its quality programmes and investment in the popular All 4 online platform, to which—incredibly—half the population of 16 to 34 year-olds have signed up, and with the cushion of healthy reserves, would appear to be well able to weather all but the most devastating storm. Ofcom’s analysis concluded that,
“within the bounds of the most likely trajectories for TV advertising spend and TV viewing, C4C can remain financially sustainable in its current form throughout its current licence period”—
that is, until 2024.
The second issue is Channel 4’s impact in the nations and regions. Clearly, government is keen to see this publicly owned enterprise playing its part in stimulating the local economies away from the south-east, and the results of Karen Bradley’s consultation suggest that this view is widely held. Certainly, a similar success story to that of the BBC’s move to Salford’s MediaCity would be more than helpful. However, the BBC is close to 25 times the size of Channel 4; and since C4 commissions all its programmes externally and has relatively few staff in London, relocating its HQ would be unlikely to bring together a new hub for creative industries elsewhere. Indeed, a number of the London posts would still need to remain there to handle the advertising sales which require close proximity to that industry in Soho.
Enders Analysis, which consistently furnishes the committee with well-researched reports, also points to the risks of a considerable loss of talent and extra staff costs from redundancy and relocation packages. Enders suggests that the additional spending to achieve a modest regional economic impact could be poor value for money.
To prevent an enforced relocation to Birmingham or elsewhere, Channel 4 needs to succeed in making the case that its commissioning investment in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions furthest from the south-east can and will grow, probably by C4 accepting a formal increase in its current requirement for 35% of its production budget to be spent away from London. If government is not convinced and Channel 4’s HQ must move away from Westminster, to recoup the costs involved, compensation for Channel 4 may need to be found in an extension of its licence beyond 2024.
In conclusion, I stand squarely by your Lordships’ Communications Committee’s core recommendation that Channel 4 should not be privatised. This broadcaster continues to do innovative work, creating much-needed plurality in the broadcasting world, championing diversity in many forms—nearly half the UK population watched the Rio Paralympics—and it seems well able to sustain its strong financial position into the future. I am sure that the Minister will confirm this. I hope that he will update us on the Government’s current thinking on the possible move for the C4 HQ. I know the committee will want to join me in wishing Channel 4’s new chief executive, Alex Mahon, every success.
I thank my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for arranging the very helpful updating session with Channel 4 last month. I thank the committee’s then clerk and policy analyst respectively, the incredibly diligent Anna Murphy and Helena Peacock; the committee assistant, Rita Logan; our special adviser, Professor Richard Tait; and, of course, my fellow committee members, who all engaged so fully in our inquiry and produced what I hold to be both an insightful and influential report. I beg to move.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I was a member of the Communications Committee which produced this report in July last year. I begin by paying tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was on the committee for the three years when he was chairman, and one could not have wished for a more effective chairman. He always managed to achieve in our reports that often elusive combination of consensus and clarity. He has also achieved something else rather remarkable—namely, the Government have agreed, and acted on, the recommendations of our report. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the committee for that.
At the heart of this debate is the following question: what is the point of Channel 4? What is its distinctive role in UK broadcasting? The statutes and licensing agreements that govern Channel 4 are set out in our report. There is the Communications Act 2003 in Appendix 4; the Digital Economy Act 2010 in Appendix 5; Channel 4’s licence agreement in Appendix 6; and there are the public service broadcasting obligations set out in the Communications Act 2003 in Appendix 7. If one reads these, one can become very glazed-eyed. But help is at hand, because the chair of Channel 4, in his annual report, has summarised admirably and crisply Channel 4’s obligations as being,
“to innovate, challenge and inspire, to stimulate debate and open the door to opportunities for the stars of tomorrow”.
The issues in my mind, therefore, are as follows. Does Channel 4 have the right business model to achieve its remit? Is it being effectively assessed? To what extent is it meeting its remit, and where could it do better? Finally, should it be privatised?
First, on the business model, last year revenues rose to almost £1 billion, the highest ever. Of course, there must be a question mark over future advertising revenue, but that would be true of any commercial organisation, not just Channel 4, and there has been a strong performance in sales and digital revenues. Channel 4 has a strong balance sheet and reserves. Would privatisation help it to do any better? The evidence given to the committee on this point was mixed, but the view that we came to was that a change of ownership of Channel 4 would put at risk the remit of the channel.
This brings me to the next question: how accountable is Channel 4 and is it being assessed effectively? Some of the obligations—the quantitative ones—are obviously easier to measure. The qualitative ones were seen as inevitably fuzzier. However, Ofcom told the committee that it could,
“live with a degree of fuzziness,”
because, as it said, the quality of broadcasting cannot be easily measured.
The next question is whether Channel 4 is achieving its remit. Our broad view was that, yes, it was. It is worth highlighting as an example of this—as was mentioned by the noble Lord—the wonderful Channel 4 broadcast of Rio’s 2016 Paralympics. This was its largest ever international broadcast, which increased still further the public’s interest in, and support for, these games—and all in Channel 4’s Year of Disability.
Could Channel 4 do better? We received evidence from the then Secretary of State and others that the programming for older children and young adults was unsatisfactory. I hope that that has been taken note of.
Finally, I turn to the central question that we addressed: should Channel 4 be privatised? If it were to be privatised, would it be possible to preserve its remit? Both David Abraham, the chief executive, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, thought that the pursuit of profit would erode the remit. Another witness—this was interesting and important—did not appear at all confident that Ofcom would always require adherence to the remit. The most interesting point that emerged, however, which, from memory, emerged only after a certain amount of delving, was that Ofcom confirmed that it did not have the power to revoke the Channel 4 licence. That would require a change in legislation. So the view that we took was that, in the case of any change of ownership through privatisation or any change in the remit, Ofcom would not have the power to revoke the licence. For all those reasons, our committee concluded that there were more risks than benefits to privatisation. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision that Channel 4 should remain publicly owned.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the report produced by the Communications Committee. I am a member of the committee, but I cannot claim any credit at all for this report, because it was agreed shortly before I joined. However, it is an excellent report, and I also very much welcome the Government’s response to it. As an opposition Member of this House, I do not often utter that phrase, but I warmly commend the Government for their positive response to the report and for the decision not to privatise Channel 4.
I also welcome in the Government’s response the focus that they gave to the needs of the regions and nations, and I will focus the majority of my marks on this issue. Over the years, I have been concerned by the reduction in regional activity and in regional budgets of the main television services in this country. It has been very marked—and I now have quite a lot of nostalgia for the old days of Tyne Tees Television and its busy studio in Newcastle, and for the BBC’s equivalent in the west end of Newcastle, in Fenham, which was called the “Pink Palace”, which was also a place of great activity at that time. It is important that we shift the focus back to the regions in this process. However, I am conscious of the fact that we cannot expect Channel 4 to solve the issue on its own. Obviously, the industry as a whole needs to look at it, in conjunction with government.
I also accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the issue cannot be solved simply by Channel 4 moving headquarters, with some of the difficulties that that involves. Noble Lords will please take it as read that, if Channel 4 decided to move to Newcastle and Gateshead, I would be absolutely delighted. However, I recognise that, given the relatively small number of people who are employed and the fact that most of Channel 4’s activity is commissioned, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, simply trying to move headquarters would not be an answer to this issue. In fact, when Channel 4 commissions programmes, obviously, it does so from independent companies that already exist. An issue which is important for me is to try to increase the number of those independent companies in areas of the country where they are underrepresented. That is a more important way forward to address some of the regional deficits than simply concentrating on headquarters.
I am aware that Channel 4 does a lot already; it has offices in Glasgow and Manchester, and certainly the briefing I saw from Channel 4 indicates that spending has been increased in a number of areas of the United Kingdom. For example, spending has increased a lot in the West Midlands, and it has doubled year on year in Northern Ireland and in Wales. I applaud that; I am not making a case for the north-east wanting to take money away from elsewhere—which I hope will reassure my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, whom I welcome wholeheartedly to his new role in the House. I very much look forward to hearing his contribution later on in this debate.
I am also pleased that Channel 4 is committing itself in various ways to look at the regional deficit we have. However, given its current activities, I am slightly worried that an east-west divide might replace a north-south divide. I encourage Channel 4 to look closely at increasing some of its activities east of the Pennines as well as in the western half of the UK. There are many ways in which that can be done. I think that Channel 4 already has an apprenticeship scheme, and it needs to ensure—I think it is endeavouring to do so—that apprentices are found in different parts of the UK.
The Communications Committee recently carried out a study of the theatre industry. One difficulty facing apprentices from areas outside London was simply the cost of accommodation in London and the difficulty of coming to London to undertake those apprenticeships. Again, Channel 4 cannot solve that problem, but I think that the Government and Channel 4, and the Government and the media industry more generally, could, working together, make a difference in ensuring that apprenticeships provided an opportunity for people all around the UK and not just in one area.
I also encourage Channel 4, and indeed other media companies, to co-operate with universities in the regions and with all those who provide training and education in this important sector of the economy. In its report on the theatre industry, the Communications Committee found that there was a very uneven picture across the country regarding careers advice and schoolchildren being alerted to opportunities in the media industries. This is something that the Government, as well as the industries, have to look at in their contacts with the education system.
Finally, Channel 4, as well as other companies, should look at the events that will be happening in our country over the next few years and seek to maximise the opportunities that they will provide. Just to mention one, next year the north-east will host the Great Exhibition of the North, a celebration of the history and heritage of the north, which will also look to the north’s future. It will provide opportunities for many of our media companies, including Channel 4, to highlight some of the activities in that part of the country.
I am out of time. There are many other points that could be made, but I conclude by once again welcoming the report and the response to it by the Government and Channel 4. I look forward to seeing the results of this approach in the very near future.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, although my time on the Communications Committee had come to an end by the time this report on Channel 4 was produced, I have remained involved in the subsequent deliberations about the channel’s future.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, not only for this report but, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, for his work as chair of the committee, which overlapped with my membership of it. This is also a moment when I would like to commemorate the work of my friend Lord Hart, who sadly passed away in the summer. I think it was Lord Hart who came up with the brilliant title for one of the committee’s reports on the BBC, Reith not Revolution.
For more than 90 years, the concept of public service broadcasting has been at the heart of the British broadcasting model. Public service broadcasters have been tasked with offering their audiences the best of everything—programmes whose goal has been collective public benefit in the broadest sense, rather than simply courting popularity or revenue. Channel 4 has epitomised this approach with its policy of targeting younger viewers and its specific concentration on, for example, disabilities—hence coverage of the Paralympics, with its concentration on the employment of people with disabilities—and its landmark coverage of Gay Pride on the 60th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act 1957.
As an aside, although Channel 4 has, as I said, been ground-breaking with its focus on disability issues, and in the appointment of the first female chief executive of a major channel, it is a shame that its copybook was somewhat blotted over ethnic diversity. This is arguably the fault of the Government, who apparently vetoed a well-qualified minority ethnic woman as a non-executive director, causing, as people will remember, uproar in the BAME community. The executive team at Channel 4 is all white.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, when this report was published, the threat of privatisation was in the air. The report is unequivocal: do not privatise. The committee clearly felt that privatisation would have put at risk the very remit of Channel 4, which is a vital part of the creative economy, providing invaluable support for smaller independent production companies and acting as a platform for exciting new programming. The major financial issue with privatisation is that to generate a significant private investment in Channel 4 would be incompatible in value with retaining the remit which makes Channel 4 so special. As shown in evidence given to the committee, with the inevitable focus on profit rather than the channel’s remit, privatisation would have had a detrimental effect on Channel 4’s coverage of news and current affairs, diversity and the plurality of public service broadcasting in general. For example, to privatise Channel 4 would be likely to imperil the great success story that has been referred to, including the pioneering coverage of the Paralympics. On these Benches, we are delighted that the Government have agreed with this report and shelved the idea of privatisation. This is clearly an opportunity for the Government to confirm that the question of privatisation is permanently off the agenda and will not be revisited.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has indicated, there are new challenges now faced by Channel 4, in particular the idea announced by Karen Bradley at the end of March—and I think included in the Conservative Party election manifesto—that Channel 4 should be moved out of London. In looking at this suggestion, it must be remembered that Channel 4 makes no programmes of its own, so is a publisher not a programme maker, and employs only 860 people in its London office.
There are two major arguments against a full removal of Channel 4 from London. First, as one noble Lord said, the UK’s advertising industry is primarily based in London, so the 250 or so staff involved in this area would have to remain in London to successfully sell their advertising. Secondly, and this is a point not often recognised, a relocation outside London would be damaging to a number of small regional independent production companies who sell their programmes to Channel 4. A number of these companies are pitching programmes with relatively small budgets and currently can make only one journey to London to sell their product, allowing them to tour all broadcasters in a day. A relocation could be expensive and disruptive to these companies, costing significant extra time and money.
However, that is not the end of the story. At the moment, Channel 4 is reviewing its options, which will obviously mean waiting until the new chief executive is in post at the end of the year. But there are a number of actions that Channel 4 could take to improve its involvement with the nations and regions. First, there is absolutely no reason why the present regional quota of 35% of programme spend should not be increased to 50% or more. Secondly, there is no reason why regional commissioning editors cannot be established outside London, mirroring production hubs such as Manchester. Finally, Channel 4 should seriously consider the suggestion made by PACT that All 4 and the technology team should relocate to, say, Birmingham. This would involve around 200 jobs, and dovetail with the move of half of BBC3’s team to the city and with Birmingham’s role as a trading academy and centre for BBC journalism.
In conclusion, I welcome the decision to kill privatisation. Winning the title of Channel of the Year at the Broadcast Awards in both 2016 and 2017 and the top prize at the 2017 Digital Cinema Media awards is a true testament to the success of this exceptional broadcaster.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is most disrespectful to my noble friend Lord Best’s Select Committee to have allowed more than a year to pass before discussion of this insightful and comprehensive report. Indeed, discussion has been delayed so long that, as others have observed, the report has been overtaken by events; albeit in this case a most happy event. Thankfully, the Secretary of State proves to have a mind of her own and has rejected the option of privatising Channel 4, which an unlucky civil servant inadvertently advertised to the world—not the first person to fall foul of the powerful magnifying lens on the very doorstep of No. 10.
The argument against privatising Channel 4 is quite simple. It will apply as long as television channels remain a significant pathway for reaching audiences with television programmes, which will be for quite some time to come. The argument is this: alone in the world, in a century of benevolent and insightful regulation, UK Governments of both main parties have put public service broadcasting at the centre of our national life.
The BBC was born nearly a century ago with fine purposes but it was the regulators of Independent Television that required ITV, where I apprenticed as a lad, to spend its advertising monopoly profits across the gamut of public service genres, and thus spur the BBC to shake off the fusty cobwebs of the 1950s and to reach true heights of creativity and ambition. Channel 4, born without a profit motive, has for decades brought a new and different creative slant to British broadcasting —a more piquant taste: innovative, experimental, risk-taking. As almost all noble Lords have mentioned, its embrace of the Paralympics was simply magnificent—an extraordinary, unimaginable game changer which gave us a new cast of take-your-breath-away heroes for the nation.
Another of the channel’s greatest achievements is as a chronicler. If future generations want to understand the flavour of our times, how social attitudes and mores shift, they will be able to watch “Benefit Street”, “Gogglebox”, “Educating Yorkshire” and even “Naked Attraction”.
Like all institutions, however, Channel 4 has certainly slipped the odd catch. It completely failed over recent decades to appreciate the significance of digital, and it dropped the ball badly in acquiring “The Great British Bake Off”. Channel 4 is there to innovate, to create anew, not to outbid another public broadcaster with precious public funds and, in the process, fatally to wound a deeply loved national institution and, moreover, like “Strictly”, a quintessential BBC programme. The snatch was not even competently done. It was if Channel 4 long ago had bought the Beatles but forgot to contract John and Paul. The “Bake Off” episode was a grievous failure of both the management and governance of Channel 4. It will have new management, if not yet new governance. Let us hope that a new chief executive will put the channel firmly back on track.
We need Channel 4 to stick to its last because public service broadcasting in the UK is not waxing but waning. The competitive environment has changed fundamentally in two decades as advertising shifts to the internet. As a result, ITV, where I spent much of my career, now offers a tiny fraction of the public service programming that it once made. The BBC’s resources, too, have been massively depleted by the two raids on its finances since 2010, with substantial programme cuts still to come. So overall investment in the UK in public service broadcasting is declining substantially. If Channel 4 were to be privatised, the notion that somehow its public service broadcasting remit could be retained is simply sophistry. I have worked extensively in both public and commercial broadcasting and I am absolutely certain from my own direct experience that the imperatives are wholly different and that a privatised Channel 4 would be very different.
Our best and only hope for the foreseeable future is to have two independent public service broadcasters, the BBC and Channel 4, the one complementing the other, providing mutual stimulus, each keeping the other on its toes. We should not want to return to where we were 60 years ago, when I was a teenager, with a single public service broadcaster, with all the risk of stasis and complacency that all monopoly eventually brings.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I, too, am a member of the House of Lords Communications Committee. We normally meet on a Tuesday afternoon, so it is nice to have our meeting through the medium of this debate, in which members past and present can speak to each other. I thank other noble Lords for joining in as well. I also want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the wise and winsome way he chaired the committee for three years and, in particular, for helping us to produce this report, which we dare to think has made a bit of a difference.
To put it simply, there is nothing quite like Channel 4. I realise that some people may think that bishops arrive fully formed, like ships in full sail, from a production line over the river at Lambeth, but all of us have other lives both past and present. In my early 20s I worked for several years in the film industry and saw at first hand the huge boost that was made to British film by Channel 4. I remember going to a meeting in 1979 which was held to discuss the very possibility of Channel 4 as a publicly owned public service broadcaster but funded by advertising, and being inspired and excited by the different perspectives that Channel 4 might offer—and so it has. In many areas, Channel 4 has pioneered a broad diversity of views and voices, most recently, as has been said many times in the debate, the Paralympics.
Unlike some other broadcasters, Channel 4 gets the fact that diversity in the UK today cannot just mean regional accents. Here I think I need to say of the latest things coming from the Government that, while of course we need to support the regions, to understand Britain today we need to move beyond regional accents to the other things that shape us culturally and ethically. I would like to see all public service broadcasters do much more in this area. That is because to understand our own national diversity and at the same time create greater coherence and commitment to each other within that diversity, we need to see what it is that creates community and belonging through the variety of narratives that shape a world view and an ethical framework for inhabiting the world. In the past this may have happened through belonging to a town, a county or a nation. It was underpinned by shared values that often had their roots in a common religious tradition. Today, however, it is just as likely to happen through a multiplicity of faiths or through other cultural and subcultural ways of belonging.
If anyone gets this in British broadcasting, it is Channel 4. Its challenging remit to provide diverse and alternative views is therefore significant enough in itself, but the fact that it is a public service broadcaster funded by advertising means that, unlike every other superficially similar broadcaster one could name, its motive is profit not for the good of its shareholders but for the further development of its ambitious and adventurous programming. Therefore, as has been well put by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Sherbourne, to privatise the broadcaster would not only be to compromise it but to be in danger of destroying it. Whatever any potential buyer may promise when it signs the cheque, the need to deliver a profit as the end in itself is bound to erode the diversity of its programmes, especially those which attract less in advertising. Many of the people we interviewed during our inquiry pointed out that it will be the adventurous, diverse and alternative programmes that are likely to suffer most. Similarly, as other noble Lords have emphasised, moving out of London seems unnecessary since all the advertisers are in London. Any financial savings would soon be swallowed up by train fares, travelling back to the very place the organisation had just vacated.
The report speaks for itself and, along with others, I am glad that the Government have responded so positively to it. However, let me emphasise that there are two areas where Channel 4 needs to improve its game. The first is programmes for children, where, in recent years, Channel 4 has not really done anything much at all. The second, where it has particular responsibilities, is programmes for children and young people. Both Sharon White, the chief executive of Ofcom, and the Children’s Media Foundation have challenged Channel 4 on this issue. Sadly, the reason there are fewer programmes for those age groups is probably commercial: children’s programmes just do not attract sufficient advertising. However, if Channel 4 wishes to continue to operate in the way it does—rightly, in my view—it really cannot use that argument, since that is the very argument it employs in defence of its status and funding arrangement. It cannot have it both ways. If Channel 4 is to be a public service broadcaster financed by advertising, it needs to use the more profitable programmes to support those that are less so, such as those for children.
Channel 4 is a hugely innovative and successful broadcaster with a unique place in the hugely creative British broadcasting economy. The Government and our nation need to be proud of what we have achieved in broadcasting in this country and ensure that this intricate, fairly fragile—as the whole world of advertising changes in a digital era—but nevertheless effective media ecosystem is not damaged by unnecessary interference. However, Channel 4 must be held to account, particular on programmes for children and young people, so that it continues to produce a range of broadcasting with an ever-greater diversity of views and voices, and so that we are not just better informed and entertained but better able to understand who we are—and see it reflected on the box.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to speak in the debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I also want to salute the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all his work as chair of the Communications Committee, not least on all the reports pertaining to broadcasting.
When I was growing up in the post-industrial, grey West Midlands, the most amazing of bright lights arrived, in the form of a multicoloured figure of four. Even the “4”, on-screen, before 2 November, was exciting for us in believing a new channel was arriving in our town. I was 11. I did not know about ownership models; I did not know that the channel was going to be publicly owned and privately funded; I did not know about the statutory remit; I did not know it was going to be a publisher broadcaster. I did not know any of that, but I knew that the channel, once it started—with the cutting-edge “Dispatches”, “Channel 4 News”, American football, “The Tube” and the monstrous Max Headroom—was mind-blowing television for me. I did not know the word “diversity”, but I knew this was different. It changed my viewing habits and, through that, it changed my view.
Later in life, I learned about the operating model, ownership, the statutory remit and much more but, fundamentally, that point of the purpose of the channel stuck with me from those very first viewing days. What I believe is the golden thread can be simply and essentially expressed: a model that enables profit into programmes. That profit is 20% of the UK television ad market—some £1 billion. It may interest your Lordships to know that the first advert ever to be screened on Channel 4 was for the Vauxhall Cavalier 1600 GLS—a nice car. I am tempted to ask whether the Minister is still driving his. To come right up to date, that ad money is going into content, whether we are talking about TV or new media. Everything about the future is about content and Channel 4 currently puts 64% of its revenues into content.
As noble Lords have mentioned, perhaps the greatest reason for having a Channel 4 was demonstrated by its coverage of the Paralympic Games. I was fortunate to do the deal with Channel 4 for the summer 2012 Paralympic Games in London. What the channel did no other broadcaster could have done. It was innovative, ground-breaking, challenging, attitude-altering and opportunity-creating broadcasting. Right from the moment of signing the contract and through the ad campaign, that jokey, jaunty style of Channel 4 was evident; for example, the trailer featuring Paralympians coming out of the tunnel post-Olympics with the strapline, “Thanks for the warm-up”. “Meet the Superhumans” was one of the greatest pieces of sports marketing ever made to promote the Games, with “The Last Leg” getting into all the issues not just around Paralympic sport but around disability. It used the Games as a driver to get into people’s minds and homes, shaping attitudes, beliefs and understanding in relation not just to disability but the whole world of diversity.
Channel 4 did that not just for 2012; it took it forward to Rio 2016. It increased both the level of coverage and the number of those involved in it, with 75% of talent on-screen and behind the cameras being disabled. It also used 2016, the year of the Rio Paralympics, as the channel’s year of disability. I was delighted to chair the year of disability advisers, not just because we had a great mission on our hands but because, as an acronym, it spelt YODA.
Beyond programming, 50% of Channel 4 apprenticeships and 35% of work experience placements went to disabled people last year—pushing and stretching what is possible more and more. That was 2012 and 2016. How different does the UK feel in the summer of 2017 compared to that golden summer not just of sport but of possibility in 2012? Now we have Brexit, a hung Parliament, the fighting in Raqqa, questions about Russia, terrorism and Trump. If there was a need and purpose for Channel 4, a gap in the market, in 1982, the need is tenfold, a hundredfold, in the summer of 2017.
And that begins in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. The channel already exceeds its nations and regions target of 35%. Routinely, more than 55% of new starts on the main channel, expressed in terms of cash and hours of coverage, derive from the nations and regions. In 2016, the proportion from Wales and Northern Ireland doubled, with a fivefold increase from the Midlands, supporting SMEs, employing more than 17,000 people and unleashing ideas and talent right across the United Kingdom.
Commissioning spend is the most effective means of driving regional economic growth in the United Kingdom—those are not my words or those of Channel 4, but those of the indies through their umbrella association, PACT. Yes, the channel does a lot, but there is more to do in continually striving to see how we can be bolder as a channel and achieve more in terms of production, enablement and empowerment across the nations and regions.
We are at a turning point for Channel 4. The don that is David Abraham is soon to depart, to be replaced by the marvellous Alex Mahon. Yes, the leadership is changing; yes, the crown is passing, but the mission remains the same. As the right reverend Prelate said, diversity in all its forms is about the nations and regions, but it is about so much more than that if we are to connect with this country and to enable it to feel like a United Kingdom once again. The leadership is changing. The mission remains the same: to stretch, challenge, push and provoke—producers, indies, commissioners and editors, as much as the viewing public. It is in the statute; it is in the staff; it is in the very DNA of the channel. That is the remit; that is the purpose; that is the point of Channel 4.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, what a delight it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I regret that my enthusiasm for Channel 4 dates from slightly later in my career. I was no longer a teenager, I am afraid, but well into my thirties. Indeed, I recall speaking at a radio and television conference in Monte Carlo, trying to make the argument that Channel 4 was not a threat to radio advertising. But I agree with the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his committee. They have done a great and very thorough job. I am also very glad that the Secretary of State, in her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Best, said the Government were convinced that,
“Channel 4’s public service model and remit, which are so vital to the continued strength of the UK’s broadcasting ecology, would not be best served by privatisation”.
For me, it is really quite simple. It has nothing to do with wicked capitalists or anything else. It is a simple statement of fact. If Channel 4 was privatised, you would have to service the capital involved, either by paying dividends or paying interest on bank loans. By definition, that money would come out of the pot that would otherwise be spent on programmes. Therefore, in my view, it is a bad idea. Logically, I cannot exclude the possibility of Channel 4 being acquired by a benevolent philanthropist who wants to lose money on it for the sake of having influence. That, I suggest, is not a particularly desirable solution. We do not want people wanting their influence spread throughout one of our public service broadcasters. It would also leave you with a great problem as regards the succession.
I was impressed by the committee’s observation that it felt that Channel 4’s current model was robust enough to survive to the end of the current licence period. Here I take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Birt. Actually, Channel 4 was quite smartly out of the blocks on digital, faster than a lot of other broadcasters. It has an 11% audience share and a 20% share of ad revenue. Quite early on—in fact, I think it was the first to do it—it started to sign up viewers as registered supporters of Channel 4. That number has now grown to 15 million. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the remarkable figure is that one in every two adults aged 15 to 34 has signed up to Channel 4. I fully foresee political parties raiding Channel 4’s staff because this is something that most people would give their eye teeth to achieve.
The idea of moving Channel 4 is pretty ludicrous in terms of moving the entire staff. Most people already concede that you would have to leave the sales force behind, which is roughly a third. You could make quite a credible argument that the people dealing with Parliament should be left in London—either that or Parliament maybe moves to wherever Channel 4 is going—but logically the two should be together if you want an efficient operation. The same is also true of corporate governance. So you end up with very few people actually free to be moved. For that reason, the comparison with the BBC and Salford is pretty misleading. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, BBC staffing is 25 times the size of Channel 4’s. The number of BBC staff in Salford alone is four times that of the entire non-sales force staffing of Channel 4. What was a small disruption for the BBC could be cataclysmic for Channel 4.
In this regard I will quote from the Enders Analysis report. I understand that Enders Analysis also advised the committee in quite a lot of its findings. It makes the point that, at best, the cost of the relocation packages for staff would be close to £35 million, and you would have to give Channel 4 the opportunity to recoup that amount by extending the licence to 2030 or 2034. But even if it recouped the amount, there would still be money being spent on relocation costs for staff that could be spent on programming.
The tragedy is that once people are in London, it is very difficult, for very obvious human reasons, to get them to move, because nowadays if people are a couple, both of them are in jobs. The chances of both of them getting a job simultaneously in the same region outside London are, frankly, next to zero. The number of people who refuse to move is really quite surprising. Some 62% of the people the BBC tried to get to move to Salford refused to go; 90% of Office for National Statistics staff refused to move to Newport. These are huge costs. The conclusion of Enders Analysis is, quite simply:
“If the commissioning layer were to be impaired by the exodus of talent, Channel 4 would effectively cease to be”.
It is as serious as that.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that you are dealing with commissioners here—not people who are making programmes but people who are commissioning programmes—and where they are located does not matter a whit. They could be in Land’s End commissioning programmes in John o’Groats, or vice versa. The money, energy and creative talent are generated where the programmes are made, not where they are commissioned.
In conclusion, I would leave Channel 4 pretty well where and as it is. I understand the observations made about children’s television. I point out simply that it is not that children’s television is not attractive to advertising, it is that politicians, including ourselves, have said that they cannot have any. Confectionery manufacturers would gladly advertise to children if we allowed them to. We have not yet squared that circle. We have to find a way of advertising to children that somehow is acceptable, if we want children’s programmes to be financed by advertising; otherwise, we have to find an alternative method of financing it. All in all, Channel 4 has kick-started the revolution in this country that has created such a vast and thriving independent production sector. While it is attractive to media commentators—and, I am afraid, occasionally to politicians—to uproot the plant regularly to see if it is still healthy, there is a lot to be said for leaving things as they are and letting Channel 4 continue to prosper.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his committee for an excellent report. Like other noble Lords, I am delighted that the Government seem to have pushed to one side their plans for the privatisation of Channel 4. I hope they have been shelved indefinitely. It is comforting to see Channel 4 recognised for what it is: a public broadcaster and national asset that deserves to remain as such and not in the hands of some overseas media tycoon.
The obligations of Channel 4, given to it by Parliament and then defined by itself, are:
“Be innovative and distinctive … Stimulate public debate on contemporary issues … Reflect cultural diversity of the UK … Champion alternative points of view … Inspire change in people’s lives … Nurture new and existing talent”.
It has certainly achieved that, with a plethora of ground-breaking programmes, from the early days when Jeremy Isaacs was the first chief executive, setting the channel’s original cultural approach, with opera and foreign language films and programmes as diverse as “The Tube” and “Brookside”—the latter, of course, made in Liverpool—and the establishment of the “Film on Four” strand, which, it is not an exaggeration to say, led to the revival of the British film industry in the 1980s. Of course, Jeremy Isaacs was the chair of the European Capital of Culture panel which awarded it to Liverpool—a good man. Many noble Lords have mentioned its fantastic coverage in recent times of the Paralympics. One should note that we have in our own midst probably Britain’s greatest Paralympian, one who won more gold medals in swimming than any other. It is of course the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
While I do not promise that my speech today will meet any of the criteria that I listed, I aim to illustrate how a move away from London would not force Channel 4 to compromise on any of its obligations and would even allow it to flourish. The opening at midnight last Friday of the largest infrastructure project in the whole of the UK, the second crossing of the River Mersey, was covered on regional news but not mentioned on any national news broadcast. Imagine if similar treatment had been given to an infrastructure project of such size if it happened in London or the south-east. One reason to suggest that Channel 4 might be better relocating—although it is considerably disingenuous—is that the Government could lead by example. Rather than suggesting that Channel 4 should move, perhaps the Government could move, let us say, the Department for Transport to the north-east. Then we would not see 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident in London as compared to the north-east.
Channel 4 has loudly protested that it commissions over 40% of its programmes from outside London, but the actual process of commissioning still takes place in London. Only 30 of its 800-strong workforce are based outside central London—less than 4%. An up and coming regional director or writer, or a media company, must still regularly trek to London if they wish to see any chance of their programme being made. It seems that Channel 4 is not perhaps as nurturing of new talent as it could be, for many are unable and unwilling to relocate to London or even to visit regularly in pursuit of a media career.
Despite this, only 3% of our gross TV industry spending goes to Yorkshire—3%. Only 1% goes to the Midlands and even less to the north-east. Do Channel 4 and the TV industry in general believe that these areas have no new talent to nurture, or simply that those born in the regions with a talent for media must move to London? We currently have the opportunity to ensure that Channel 4 is more open to this new, young, regional talent that it seeks to nurture, and it would be foolish of us not to grasp it. That does not mean that we would leave 400 or so members of staff, or however many, to deal with advertising. I was very much taken—we had not cleared this beforehand—with my noble friend Lord Razzall’s suggestion of how we might move certain parts of Channel 4 to different parts of the country. I hope the Government might take that up.
We are constantly reminded exactly how little government, big business and the media understand the attitudes and issues of those living beyond the bounds of the M25, especially in the north and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that a greater understanding born of proximity could be created by the relocation of Channel 4, which surely is sorely needed. Perhaps the idea of the referendum result being to leave the European Union would not have been so unthinkable if the news media had been aware of the mood in Bangor, Berwick or Bury St Edmunds, rather than simply the dominant opinions of people in, for example, Battersea. If Channel 4 truly intends to champion alternate points of view, let us allow it to put its money where its mouth is and support it in moving to somewhere it can easily find the alternative viewpoints it seeks to champion.
Huge figures of money are quoted as necessary to the relocation but I urge us to consider the wider financial effects of the move. The West Midlands Combined Authority predicts that Channel 4 relocating within its bounds would improve the local economy by £5 billion over 10 years—a figure which is not to be sniffed at, even when taken with a pinch of salt. This, coupled with the fact that Channel 4’s relocation budget works out at less than half the money agreed to purchase “The Great British Bake Off” in the deal finalised last year, puts the so-called astronomical costs of relocation into perspective.
We have heard Channel 4’s fears that if it relocates it will lose 62% of its managerial staff, as happened with the BBC’s move to Salford. So what? We must examine whether we can accept Channel 4, a publicly owned British institution, being held hostage by its middle managers. We cannot allow Channel 4 to be held back from new opportunities due to the concerns of staff who have the option to move with it or not, as the case may be. Channel 4 has said that it aims to inspire change in people’s lives. It must then accept and embrace such changes itself.
Finally, as I am out of time, I hope that noble Lords will consider that there are other viewpoints about relocating outside London and the south-east. I wish Channel 4 to continue its ground-breaking media presence over the next several decades.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests and take this opportunity to thank the late David Rose, who gave me my first opportunity to direct a film when I was not yet 24 years old and there were no women directors around. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who is a diplomat of the highest order and an excellent chairman of the committee, and to the Secretary of State for heeding our call in her wonderful decision not to privatise Channel 4.
I thought that I would be providing an alternative view, but it turns out that I rise only to support the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which I am happy to do. I want to draw attention to an influential report, A New Destination for the Arts, which many noble Lords may remember was published in 2015 by GPS Culture. It made a very strong case for the transfer of public arts funding to the regions and nations. The report became the zeitgeist for a couple of years, and was responsible for a huge shift in attitude, with vast sums of public money and some private funds going from London to the regions. The report argued that London had drawn further and further ahead of the rest of England in its dominance of cultural life and that unless decisions on programme design and funding allocations were taken at local level, the privileges and concerns of a metropolitan elite would always prevail, thereby leaving the nations and regions behind in relation to the cultural, economic and social benefits of the creative industries. Crucially, that also leaves them out of the financial support and training of creative talent.
I hear those noble Lords who talk about reallocation and the dearth of talent. There has been a presumption in this debate that all the talent lives in London. I would say that while there is a presumption that most of the talent works in London, it does not necessarily live there, and this is a huge opportunity.
Furthermore, the report gave evidence that the rebalancing would have to be at sufficient scale to reduce the risk of parochialism and ensure the creation of creative communities, which rely on a mix of skills and competencies to make creative collaboration and production sustainable. The same argument pertains here. We have seen what the BBC’s move has meant in Salford; we have seen the “Game of Thrones” effect in Northern Ireland and that of “Doctor Who” in Cardiff. Controversial and expensive as that BBC move to Salford was, it has had a significant economic and cultural impact, with a growth in opportunities for local employment and training. We can see that a more diverse group of decision-makers eventually ends up making our screens more diverse. That includes the vast numbers of UK citizens who live outside London and are currently under-represented, not only on the screen but particularly behind it.
I accept Channel 4’s arguments that moving its production spend and not its headquarters would make the greatest difference, that it is a publisher and not a producer, and that it wishes to stay close to its advertiser clients. But as the report articulates, it is only by creating an entire environment, sufficiently large and powerful that commissioners and production staff live and work, side by side, outside the capital, that we will see cultural change. What we have to decide is what we want to see in cultural change. Equally, I accept that if the Government were to insist on the superficial act of moving the headquarters but leaving the production spend with companies largely based in London, the cultural dominance of decision-makers in London would remain. The more exponential benefit of production spend is a greater contribution, so it is an all-or-nothing picture.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, will laugh if I disagree with Enders, because I often disagree with Enders. However, I think its assumption that the talent is in London and it has to move that way is false. As someone who plays host to at least 30% of the members of the Newcastle acting community who have to leave their families, their houses and their homes to come to London but who cannot afford to live and work away from home unless they B&B with me, I think we have to take this seriously.
I would like to make it clear that Channel 4 exceeds its current remit and that my words, and possibly those of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, are applicable to any major institution in the cultural industries. Whether it is for Channel 4 to fulfil the vision of moving something up north is an open question but, unless it is done by someone in the cultural industries, we are going to have an industry that is perpetually out of balance.
Our public broadcasting is the envy of the world. Its independence is an essential aspect. Channel 4 is an independent statutory organisation that enjoys sole responsibility for delivering undertakings on a 10-year licence, which it is in the middle of, so I do not understand on what basis we are insisting that it does anything—because, until it fails to meet its existing obligations, I do not see a role for government in moving it anywhere. While I personally would be delighted to see Channel 4 do its brilliant work of making distinctive and innovative programmes and challenging and inspiring further from this House than Horseferry Road, that is a decision for the Channel 4 board, not for the Secretary of State.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here. I am delighted to be speaking to a report introduced so wonderfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to whom tribute has been paid from many quarters for the clarity with which he put his view and for the intelligence with which he anticipated so many of the points that I want to make. I was delighted to hear the impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which swept us off our feet. He told us of his watching habits at the age of 11. It was a long list. My only disappointment was that it did not highlight a programme on which I appeared more than once: “The Big Breakfast”. I shall never forget the experience of sitting on the studio couch being interviewed by two puppets called Zig and Zag. Some of the committee work in this House has made me aware of that experience and of some of its colour.
The future of Channel 4 must be a matter of concern for all of us. Since it was set up in 1982, it has become part of a brilliantly conceived ecosystem of free-to-air provision for the British public, and we ruin or harm or diminish it at our peril. I, too, regret that this report has taken so long to come to our attention on the Floor of the House. When I was reading it, I found it difficult to understand why the Government had set their heart on privatising Channel 4 at all. There were many financial, regulatory, commercial and professional voices mentioned in the report, even competitors in the field, and the Government’s position seemed so lonely among all the very different advice that was being given. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned that an American might have bought Channel 4 if it had been for sale. We can imagine what such an American might have done with the remit which currently governs Channel 4 programming. It would not have been the same at all. It is not going to produce much money to do all those things, such as stimulate public debate, inspire change and nurture new and existing talent, which is truly radical.
I would add to the programming that has been mentioned the extraordinary film series, “The Promise” and “The State”, which Peter Kosminsky brought to our screens and which, very bravely, took us into the heart of complicated situations in a graphic way, as only the arts can succeed in doing. It was strange for me, a newcomer to this business, to read of the Government’s commitment to privatisation. Possible motives have been alluded to by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. However, wiser heads prevailed and the project was abandoned. Privatisation went off the table, and we came to the question of nations and regions—and nobody, of course, can be against that.
We have had different advocates. My noble friend Lady Quin made an impassioned plea for the north-east. If I were less bound by my brief, I would go to town on the case for Wales. The barely disguised suggestion is that a significant part of the core business, if not all of it, should up sticks and move to another part of the country, although the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have suggested more varied ways in which that might be achieved.
The Secretary of State announced the Government’s U-turn on privatisation from the heart of Media City in Manchester. We have heard about the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Best, received, and we have seen a copy of it. She made a big speech in Media City, in which she turned her attention towards regionalisation. She declared herself,
“unsympathetic towards those who recoil in horror at the very idea of media jobs being based outside the capital”.
Indeed, she offered Manchester as an example of what was being done for the industry by people who had shown themselves prepared to move out into other parts of the land.
We should be careful about facile comparisons. I happened to be working with the BBC in a peripheral way when, during the 1990s, some departments were being decanted from London to Manchester. I became aware of numbers of experienced staff who had roots, mortgages and children at school in London which they simply could not abandon. Others have mentioned the plight of such people. They are real human-need stories. There will always be a human cost to such a plan. It was the existence of already vibrant BBC activity in Manchester, together with the eventual presence of ITV, that allowed those relocated departments the possibility of achieving critical mass as the bold new venture was developed.
There is no similar place beckoning the Channel 4 operation. Indeed, Channel 4 has conducted its own consultation process, which has made it aware of the need to provide greater investment in programme commissioning that favours the nations and regions far more than at present. We can only hope that, when Alex Mahon comes into office as the chief executive officer, she will take those plans forward. It is worth pausing to rejoice at the fact that a woman is to be the chief executive officer, a first for a major broadcasting company in this country, and to talk about the fact that, while mention has been made of the fact that diversity on the board is less than it could be, there has been a terrific commitment to the question of diversity as far as it includes disabled people. You cannot win everything, but I should say that while Channel 4 has struggled with the question of diversity and there are things that it might have done better, there are things that we must rejoice at its having achieved.
There is no familiar place for Channel 4 to relocate to. In my view, everything would have to begin several steps back from what happened in Manchester. Nor should we forget that, at least in those days, the BBC did most of its work in-house. A lot more is put out now to independent companies—then it produced its own programmes. Channel 4, as many have said, does not work that way; it commissions its work from outside bodies. Are we aware that it sets up and employs 3,000 people across the nation and has spent £1.5 million on such programmes, a not inconsiderable amount? Just think of “Location, Location, Location”, whose production team is based in Glasgow and which films throughout the country, or “Hollyoaks”—why has no one mentioned that? It is Channel 4’s largest production and is rooted in the north-west, with 70% of its workforce drawn from the area. Then there is “Ackley Bridge”, a new school drama that is filmed and based in Halifax.
I suspect it would be interesting to look more closely not just at Channel 4 in this regard but at where terrestrial broadcasters as a whole currently commission their programmes, to ensure that independent producers in all areas of our regions and nations get the chance to tell their stories and broadcast their ideas about the world, each from their own perspective. This is not just a Channel 4 issue; ITV and the BBC, which are public service broadcasters too, should be asked, as well as Channel 4, to defend their commissioning policies. A key feature of our terrestrial television system is that it is a complex interrelated ecology where the channels compete on quality and diversity so that audiences receive the best service possible.
We damage Channel 4’s ability to maintain and develop its levels of performance at our peril. Since earlier I heard debates about implementation and transitional arrangements, I note that Channel 4 is awaiting the arrival of a new CEO, so perhaps this is the time to just wait a moment, consult and see how things turn out. Perhaps “Festina lente”—“Make haste slowly”—is the best advice that we could give ourselves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his committee for all their work on this subject, and to all noble Lords for their interesting contributions today. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who has just spoken in his first outing on DCMS. I congratulate him on his speech and look forward to many further contributions from him on DCMS subjects in future.
I also thank noble Lords who approve of the Government’s actions on this matter, a somewhat rare and pleasant experience for a member of the Government. Clearly things have moved on somewhat since the committee’s report was published last summer, but the issues raised remain vital in ensuring a successful future for one of the UK’s most important cultural assets. I am therefore very pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to listen to noble Lords’ views and set out the Government’s position.
Channel 4 is an important part of the UK’s broadcasting landscape, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, laid out clearly at the beginning of the debate. Commercially funded yet publicly owned, and operating as a “publisher-broadcaster”, it has a unique role in providing for audiences and stimulating the wider creative industries. Channel 4’s remit includes requirements to be distinctive, to innovate, to promote alternative views and new perspectives and to appeal to a culturally diverse society. In the 35 years since it was launched, it has made an indelible mark on UK culture and society. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friends Lord Sherbourne and Lord Holmes mentioned the Paralympics as an example of landmark programming.
Yet the channel faces challenges from what is a very fast-changing broadcasting landscape, particularly given its reliance on advertising revenues, a challenge highlighted by developments in the advertising market over the last year or so. Channel 4 is a public asset. It is therefore entirely sensible for the Government to consider from time to time how best to secure its future, including whether it would be better placed to succeed under private ownership. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government set out earlier this year that Channel 4 will remain publicly owned. I know this was welcomed by members of your Lordships’ Communications Committee, as confirmed today by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I reaffirm today the Government’s commitment to a publicly owned future for Channel 4. I hope that will partially reassure—temporarily, at least—the noble Lord, Lord Birt.
As a publicly owned broadcaster, though, Channel 4 must deliver value for the public who own it. That value can come in different forms, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, both on screen and off. Off-screen, Channel 4 has delivered value through its pivotal role in the development of the UK’s independent production sector. The sector is now world-renowned, generating £3 billion of revenue each year. Channel 4 provides on-screen value by delivering the remit prescribed in legislation and in meeting the programming quotas set by Ofcom. My department’s written evidence to the committee’s inquiry set out that:
“The government regards C4C’s ability to deliver against its remit and maximise public value in a sustainable manner as a priority”.
Channel 4 has a strong record in many areas of its remit—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, in some areas it exceeds it—but there is room for improvement. The committee concluded, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has reminded us today, that the current programming for older children and young adults is “unsatisfactory”, echoing concerns raised by Ofcom over recent years. We have made it clear that we expect a stronger commitment from Channel 4 in this area. We have also given Ofcom new powers through the Digital Economy Act to impose children’s content quotas if it deems that necessary. The provision of other areas of core public service content, such as arts programming, has also been low. More broadly, the Government have also made it clear that we want Channel 4 to deliver even more of the innovative and challenging public service programming that it was set up to offer. We look forward to seeing how the new chief executive and director of programmes take on this challenge.
Both on and off-screen, we believe Channel 4 must deliver value for the whole country that owns it. This means contributing to balanced economic growth, stimulating creative industries and serving audiences across the UK. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her support—albeit, I have to say, slightly geographically qualified—for this concept. PACT, the TV production trade body, has found that of the £2 billion budget for UK productions in 2016 just 32% was spent outside London. Similarly, only one-third of UK production-sector jobs are based outside London. As has been mentioned, only 3% of Channel 4’s staff are based outside London, and it spends around twice as much on programming made in London as in the rest of the UK combined. Furthermore, earlier this year Ofcom said it had concerns about Channel 4’s representation of people in the nations and regions.
We feel that decisions about Channel 4’s programming should not all be made in the bubble of Westminster. Very importantly, people seeking to work in the media should not feel that they have to move to London. This is a barrier not only to people from different regions but to people of less affluent financial backgrounds. This point was ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
The transformation of Salford’s MediaCity over the past decade, led by the BBC, is truly impressive. With more than 250 companies employing more than 7,000 people, it has become a world-class cluster. It demonstrates that the television sector in the UK does not have to be all about London, but I accept that the BBC and Channel 4 are not an exact parallel, and I would not claim them to be.
As a result, we launched a consultation earlier this year on how Channel 4 could increase its regional impact, primarily through moving staff and increasing commissioning. We published the results of this consultation last month. The overwhelming majority of respondents stated that Channel 4’s regional impact would be enhanced if more of its people and activities were located outside London. A significant majority further agreed that increasing Channel 4’s commissioning quotas, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and my noble friend Lord Holmes, would be an appropriate and effective way to enhance Channel 4’s impact in the nations and regions. Alongside the consultation, we have commissioned external consultants to analyse the potential regional economic benefit and cost of relocation and increasing commissioning in the nations and regions. This will be published imminently, and we will see whether it addresses the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon.
As the Secretary of State set out in her speech at the Royal Television Society last month:
“TV must reflect the real world and the country that we live in”.
Relocation may not mean relocation of the whole business, but the Government are clear that Channel 4 must have a major presence outside London. We are also very interested in the potential for Channel 4 to increase its commissioning in the nations and regions.
We look forward to working with Channel 4’s incoming chief executive, Alex Mahon, who is due to start at the beginning of next month. We await her plans for Channel 4, and will continue to work closely with the channel over the coming months. This will not be an overnight process, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, but we hope to reach agreement with Channel 4 on the direction forward by the end of the year.
A couple of points were raised during the debate. I cannot let the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about diversity on the board go unanswered. Last year, the Secretary of State approved the appointment of four individuals who met the job descriptions of the post, which was advertised by Ofcom, out of the five put forward by Ofcom, so it was very much in answer to the specific job descriptions that they were selected. Ofcom is currently undertaking a process to recruit three new non-executives to the Channel 4 board, and I am confident that it will make every effort to ensure a diverse field of candidates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made the very reasonable point that we cannot expect Channel 4 to solve the regional deficit on its own. We agree, and we do not think that there is a direct comparison with the BBC, but it is true that more than half the BBC’s public service staff are outside London, whereas 97% of Channel 4’s staff are in London. We feel that, as a publicly owned broadcaster, it must do more for the whole country.
In conclusion, Channel 4 is a vital public asset, it is one that we support, and it will remain so. In continuing under public ownership, the Government are clear that Channel 4 must play its part in a country that works for everyone. It should strengthen the creative industries that are such a successful part of our economy and provide a platform for new voices and untold stories from across the UK, celebrating the diversity mentioned by the right reverend Prelate.
I again thank the committee for its work on this important matter, and I look forward to returning to discuss progress on these issues in due course.
Lord Best
My Lords, my deepest thanks to all Members of the House who contributed to the debate, particularly to all those—most of whom serve on my committee—who made very kind remarks, for which I am very grateful.
The unanimous view, I think, from everyone who spoke was that Channel 4 has been doing great things, has fulfilled its remit and should definitely not be privatised. I am grateful to the Minister for reaffirming that decision tonight: privatisation is not going to happen. The Minister also made it clear that the Government are very keen on the idea not just of Channel 4 commissioning more programmes from outside London—although that will be very important to the new settlement that they come to with Channel 4—but that a good part of its headquarters should move away from London; I think I could read between the lines there. Alex Mahon, the new chief executive, may need to make proposals that take that into account. I would only say that the decision needs to be based on the evidence, which needs to be looked at carefully. That will take a little time—nothing too rash, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, urged.
My final comment is that if I were Alex Mahon, going into the job as chief executive officer of Channel 4, I would probably get the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, placed on the walls of my new office, whether they are in London or anywhere else.
Brexit: Agriculture and Farm Animal Welfare (European Union Committee Report)
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the Reports from the European Union Committee, Brexit: agriculture (20th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 169) and Brexit: farm animal welfare (5th Report, HL Paper 15).
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the common agricultural policy has probably not been one of the most popular policies of the European Union over the past 40 years in the United Kingdom. Successful as it was in its original years in ensuring food security for the European continent after many years of warfare and trial, when we joined in the 1970s it was perhaps seen as the main reason for the large budget contribution that the United Kingdom made to the European Union. I remember all too well in the 1980s the structural problems, with the milk powder mountains and wine lakes. More recently, we have had schemes such as set-aside that were not particularly successful, the issue of the green pound and all the other bits of Eurocrat jargon that surround the CAP.
At the moment, under the most recent form of funding, the new system for landowners means that the more land you own, the more subsidy you get, so the barley barons get most of the cash, our food prices are higher than the world average, small farms are still going out of business and rural biodiversity is still declining. We can look at the common agricultural policy and say that it has not been an overwhelming success for the United Kingdom—and perhaps not for Europe. It still takes 36% of the European budget, although that has hugely declined from more than half the budget over the life cycle of the common agricultural policy.
You could say that if there is one area where Brexit has to work, it must be agriculture. Indeed, we heard much evidence of the various opportunities from our withdrawal under Brexit to move away from the common agricultural policy. The first is cheap food. At the moment, it is true to say that, with external tariffs for food, farmers are relatively protected, and some of our witnesses suggested that if we moved away from the common agricultural policy post Brexit, food prices could reduce by 7% or 10%.
We have an excellent opportunity to save taxpayers’ money. At the moment, under the CAP, our farmers and landowners receive €28 billion per annum in subsidy. It accounts for 40% to 60% of farm income. We could stop that, as the New Zealanders did in the 1980s, take it back into the Treasury and use that money elsewhere.
We could get rid of some of the rules. We found it a little difficult to find too many rules that the agricultural industry wanted to get rid of immediately, but the three-crop rule was one of them and there are others, perhaps more contentious ones such as on pesticides, that could be removed. In terms of animal welfare, we could move the gauge up or down. We could take more opportunities to drive our own welfare standards within agriculture.
Of course, we do not have to give all those funds back to our own taxpayers; we could use them perhaps more intelligently in terms of environmental management, rural development, integrated policies and making sure that agriculture is not an isolated area of policy but that it ties in well with climate change and broader environmental policy.
The United Kingdom is a big food importer. Our trade balance with the European Union is some €18 billion per annum. That surely gives us some leverage to attract free trade agreements from other countries across the world that want access to that market. Clearly, we have access to most of those elsewhere already so that would not change greatly. That is a list of important positives from disengaging from the CAP as part of the Brexit process. We heard a lot of that from many our witnesses.
Of course, there are challenges as well, which are significant. First, regarding trade, some 80% of our exports of agricultural produce go to the European Union. If we add in the food sector and those countries where the EU has free trade agreements from which we benefit, the number goes up to 97%. Part of that is around perishability. It is much easier to export products to geographically close areas and, obviously, it is part of the single market. Indeed, at the moment the EU external tariff is 54% on dairy products and some 22% on cereals. That gives an idea of the sort of level of tariff barriers there could be.
Of course, there will be non-tariff barriers as well. We as a committee are not saying in any way that we would not be able to reach a trade agreement, but if we did not, clearly some of those non-tariff barriers would be even greater. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will tell us about phytosanitary conditions and all of those other non-tariff issues.
We would hope to trade at least on World Trade Organization terms, but I hope there will be much better opportunities with the EU in a future agreement. However, already we have issues with the WTO over tariff rate quotas. This is already a key area. The Government have been successful in finding agreement with the European Union over the splitting of these quotas, but immediately that has caused a reaction in the United States, New Zealand and Brazil objecting to that solution and opening up that whole area of future tariff rate quotas with both the EU and the UK. It gives a taste of future meddling and perhaps vexatious intervention that some of these issues will create.
People are one big area the industry is concerned about and that is why being able to retain current EU staff and workers in this country, and in this sector in particular, is important. It is well known, and has been said many times, that 90% of our vets in abattoirs, an important part of our animal welfare programme, are non-UK EU nationals. In both food processing and agriculture, we require a large number of workers from the EU. Yes, we could replace them from other parts of the world, but that obviously will depend on our migration policy. Already we have difficulty in attracting and retaining people. An issue that came over very strongly is that agricultural workers in particular are skilled workers. The way in which they are able to harvest is very skilled but not in terms of a Home Office definition. It is an area where automation cannot substitute in the medium or short term. People are a key factor.
The committee welcomes the Government’s response on funding, which is guaranteed at current cash levels up to the next election. In reality, after that—this is not something that we should blame the Government for—the public and taxpayers will find it difficult under continued austerity to justify the amount of money that goes to this sector. So there will be a real issue around selling that deal. Of course, that may be around being able to guarantee better environmental management of all the public services that farming provides.
There is an issue around devolution. One of the things that the CAP provides is a common framework for agricultural policy not just for all member states but within the United Kingdom. Yet, importantly, agriculture is devolved. How do you make sure that there is a continued single market within the United Kingdom? Will we have four different regimes? Indeed, policy stability is one area that I had not thought of but it came through from some of our witnesses. The CAP might be difficult to change, but at least it meant the future could be planned to a large degree. Will that remain? In Ireland, there is an issue not so much of devolution but of cross-border trade and supply chains, so there are particular challenges.
Our report on welfare received a great deal of media attention on, for example, beef hormones and chlorinated chicken, which is not really a welfare issue, but under international pressure for other trade deals will those welfare standards be challenged? Our witnesses, particularly from this sector, were very keen that welfare standards should not decline post Brexit.
Lastly, in terms of the challenges of which there are many more for those who have read the full report, there is Defra itself. We have said many times in our environmental and fisheries reports that the workload on Defra is huge. Apart from being sympathetic to the Minister on the Front Bench, we again ask whether there are sufficient resources for Defra to deliver legal certainty and all those policies in that huge area over the period.
If I may start to conclude my remarks, there is a real dilemma in this area. Two approaches can be taken in terms of benefits and potential positives about Brexit and the negatives. Will we become a low-tariff, competitive New Zealand-style economy, open to free trade, open to those opportunities to bring down food prices and move on those deals where high-quality food and welfare standards will be difficult to enforce, given the sort of negotiations we will have with countries such as Australia, Argentina, Brazil and particularly the United States? Or will we continue to be a country, outside Europe, that demands high welfare standards and high-quality food and that looks to protect our hill farmers? It is absolutely clear that all our livestock farming cannot compete with the economies of scale, and particularly the lower welfare standards, in the large economies of the United States, Australia and New Zealand, perhaps, but also Argentina and Brazil. They can be characterised as the Liam Fox version and the Michael Gove view of Brexit—interesting but the Government will have to resolve that dilemma.
Will the Minister be able to include agriculture more successfully in his 25-year environmental plan? What is going to happen about tariff rate quotas? How does he see the whole WTO negotiations? How can we have a farming Bill when at present we do not know what the end destination is? Will the Minister reconfirm our commitment to high animal welfare standards? How does he see the transition?
Some 71% of land in the UK is devoted to agriculture, which employs 800,000 throughout the food supply chain and is 7% of the economy, worth £100 billion of value added. It is a vital part of our economy and our future. This raises as many challenges as it does opportunities. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords of the advisory speaking time of six minutes. There is another debate after this, and I am sure those noble Lords would be most grateful.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I congratulate him and his committee on producing a most interesting report, which takes us on to new ground. I particularly want to follow up the latter part of his remarks. I draw the attention of the House to my farming interests, as shown in the register.
Close attention is at last being paid to agriculture and the implications of Brexit. Twice in the last year I have spoken in this House about the fundamental problems and solutions: I am still waiting for a response from the Government. When I read the Minister’s evidence to the committee I did not get much further. We now have a position where the NFU and the Select Committee are beginning to address these crucial matters. Until now, apart from promises to continue the current support for five years, most of the comments from Ministers have related to environmental matters and animal welfare. These are important but they are not central to the challenges which we face in agriculture.
People are at last talking about trade and tariffs. I am very alarmed indeed when I hear former and current Ministers speaking about free trade and illustrating their point with New Zealand’s experience some decades ago. It had a ready, untapped market nearby which we do not. In the years after the Second World War, British agriculture was supported by a near-free-trade policy, but this was underwritten by a system of agricultural support through guaranteed prices and efficiency payments, which cost the United Kingdom Treasury huge amounts of money. A review of agricultural policy was set up after the 1964 Conservative defeat, led by my old friend Jim Prior—I am sorry that our noble friend Lord Prior is no longer in the Chamber. I was a member of that study, and we concluded that a better system of supporting agriculture was not through guaranteed prices and efficiency payments but through import levies. This became the policy of my party in both the 1966 and 1970 elections, before we joined the European Community. Some people criticised it because of its effect on the cost of living and the price of food, but this had no political impact because we were able to demonstrate that the effect was absolutely marginal. This is partly because food was a much decreasing part of the cost of living and partly because farm-gate prices are a small fraction of shop-shelf prices.
As the Select Committee report demonstrates, we still have support for agriculture in the United Kingdom through the common external tariff of the common agricultural policy. If we were foolish enough to move to a free trade philosophy, the agriculture industry would be challenged by a flood of cheap imports, produced under standards which are far below our own, which would depress prices. Not only that but our exports to the European Union—which as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said are very substantial—would have to jump over the common external tariff unless we were inside it. We face a great dilemma. First, we must realise that the neatest way to support agriculture is through tariff protection. The effect on the cost of living was marginal in the 1960s; it is even less now. The report suggests that in 2015 the tariff was 10.7% over all agricultural goods. We should seek to negotiate that so that we remain, as far as possible, within the current tariff regime of the European Union. Secondly, arguments in favour of free trade in agricultural products are, in a way, a repeat of the great debates on repealing the Corn Laws in the 19th century. It was wrong then and it remains wrong now.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I will kick off with a few words on the animal welfare report. The Government’s response to the report says that they want to maintain high animal welfare standards after Brexit, that it is important to base animal welfare policy on evidence, and that we should seek to avoid high standards being undermined by cheaper imports produced to lower ones. They agree that consumer awareness and appreciation of high-welfare products are key to the willingness to pay and that labelling is a key aspect of consumer transparency and awareness. However, it is speaking with a forked tongue to applaud high welfare standards while the food production animal is alive, but then ignore the issue at the point of slaughter. I am not in favour of banning any process that Parliament has agreed for exemption of the requirement for animals to be stunned before slaughter but, if we are to put consumers first and their interests to the fore, the label must clearly say whether an animal was or not. That is a key element in animal welfare. It is not a clear issue but it should be so for the consumer. There can be no argument—Brexit or not—which opposes informing consumers.
Will the Minister explain the Government’s response to paragraph 15 on financial support? What on earth did they mean about new ideas, piloting new ways of working, and telling people not to be guided by the CAP but to be creative for the future in respect of animal welfare?
Farming is for the long term; farmers cannot wait and wait before crucial decisions are made. I will illustrate with a couple of good, real-life examples where urgent decisions have to be made by the end of this year—not hanging around in the lazy way the Government are—which I found in the Agri Brigade column in the current edition of Private Eye. Unless an agreement regarding organic farming standards is signed between the United Kingdom and the United States in the next three months, the Organic Milk Suppliers Cooperative will stop production of Kingdom organic cheese, which has an 18-month production cycle. The deal for this is between the EU and the USA. It took the United Kingdom co-op eight years to develop the brand and in 2015 it became the first EU dairy business to qualify for USDA certified organic status. This opened up a premium market for UK farmers. Today, Kingdom Cheddar is the only volume European cheese sold in the United States. The UK co-op dairy farmer members altered their farming practices to meet US standards: in other words, they raised them from those of the EU. They had to use fewer antibiotics, improve breeding and calf management and improve animal welfare. The cheese needs a processing, maturing, packing and shipping time, plus a shelf life in the United States of 18 months, so an early decision by the end of this year is crucial to continue.
The co-op has pointed out that an exchange of letters between the United Kingdom and United States Governments does not need to wait until the Article 50 process allows for third-party talks; it is simply an equivalency exchange of letters to recognise regulatory standards of production. On 14 September, the co-op pointed out that this valuable business had been hard won. It says that it cannot afford to take the risk of producing for a niche market a product that it may not be able to be sell post Brexit in April 2019. What are the Government doing about this? Time is short; they must know about this. Will they agree, for example, to purchase production which in any event cannot be sold later to the United States? I have not raised this purely on the basis of what was in Private Eye; I contacted the co-op and have raised it with the agreement of its chair.
A second example is that of sheep production. This autumn, UK sheep farmers have to decide whether to retain millions of ewe lambs for breeding or send them for slaughter as fat lambs. If these young females are kept for breeding, most will not be put to the ram until late next year and will give birth in spring of 2019, just as the UK leaves the EU. Some 40% of lamb production goes to the EU, so unless we keep access to the single market, these exports will face an EU sheep-meat tariff of over £2,600 a tonne. The price that UK farmers receive for their animals will collapse and that will completely smash hill farming in this country. The idea that we can wait around for this lazy Government to wake up to the reality of life is a non-starter. We are being damaged as we speak. This is not something that can wait. Action on these two issues is required by the end of the year.
My final point concerns access to labour. The patronising attitude of the Government to the committee’s points on labour supply for the food and agricultural industries simply hides the fact that the leavers did not have a clue about the structure of the industry in the UK. In fact, the very same issue about EU labour supply is emerging in the committee’s current inquiry on energy security after Brexit. The status quo is not being maintained in the current period of uncertainty while the Tory party fights it out among itself, to the detriment of the nation because people are leaving the UK. This has nothing to do with seasonal workers; that is a separate issue. As we have already heard, 90% of vets, 40% of meat inspectors and an even higher number of workers in abattoirs and meat cutting plants are from the EU. The Government say that sourcing workers from the domestic market is the key. It is implied that reducing regulation, which I say effectively means risking food standards, is an option. This is what the Government mean when they refer to,
“more flexible inspection models and risk based controls”,
in their response to Recommendations 43 and 44.
I do not know why we carry on with this charade, to be honest. This cannot be done—it is as simple as that—without enormous damage to our economy, living standards, public services and standing in the world. The cost is too high. We know that now; we do not have to wait. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said earlier this afternoon, it is not carping to point out the obvious and take steps to avoid a very bad decision.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson and his committee for producing two very thought-provoking reports. I am very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on conclusion 153 of the committee’s report on agriculture, which states:
“It may be hard to reconcile the Government’s wish for the UK to become a global leader in free trade with its desire to maintain high … standards for agri-food products”.
I think it will be not just hard but impossible. Besides the quality of our food, we can reach the same conclusion about our countryside, biodiversity, farm animal welfare, workers’ standards and almost every aspect of farming. The choice is between keeping what makes our landscape and food special or opening the door to free trade agreements that will force low food prices to determine everything. I remind your Lordships that cheap food is cheap because the environmental cost, the health cost and every other cost of producing it are hidden.
I was very pleased to hear Michael Gove say that we are,
“determined to be global leaders in protecting unique landscapes and habitats”.
To achieve that he will need to speed up the environmental plan so that there is a policy base for negotiations. I thank the Minister very much for chairing such an interesting round-table discussion on the plan last week in your Lordships’ House. I hope that it will be the first of several. Michael Gove also said:
“Our new agricultural policy will recognise the importance of improving production as well as protecting our strong food and animal welfare standards”.
However, he gives no clue as to the policies that will make this happen. I suggest a few policies that could help our farmers maintain their place in a global marketplace. I think that New Zealand has been mentioned at least twice this evening. The fact is that our farmers will not be able to compete with mass-scale, low-standard production scenarios. Britain has 700 people to the square mile and New Zealand just 46. We are a small, intensely populated island so we must plan for an agriculture that is closely and sensitively related to our communities and recognises that the health of our ecosystems is fundamentally related to the health of our cities, towns and villages. We are a relatively small-scale producer in global terms but other countries buy from us because of the outstanding quality of British beef, lamb and other products. That is a good niche to be in and is one we can expand.
I hope that post Brexit the EU will still be an important market for us. Therefore, will we try to conform to the same standards? Two current examples are neonicotinoids—I know that the Minister is responsible for the national pollinator strategy—and glyphosate, both of which are being increasingly restricted and possibly phased out in the EU. Will our Government move in parallel?
To keep and develop our quality agriculture, it is clear that we must encourage bright young people to go into farming. At the moment, scenarios of halving incomes, such as that in the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board report, are frankly very off-putting to them—realistic but off-putting—and so are the nigh impossible economics of getting a foot on the ladder because of the diminishing number of small farms, which was so eloquently laid out in the recent CPRE report. That report shows why small farms of under 20 hectares are very important. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are already thinking that public money should reward farmers for public goods rather than the size of their landholding?
Animal welfare has been mentioned this evening. I maintain that animal welfare is definitely a public good because well-kept animals, besides that being ethically important, are healthier. That is a very important public good when it comes to antibiotic usage. Other important policy areas to develop a vibrant food production sector include continuing to follow the precautionary principle with regard to pesticides and hormone-treated meat and improving food labelling schemes, which was also mentioned this evening. It is necessary to maintain country of origin labelling but expand that to include production methods, as advocated by the Labelling Matters coalition, and for all the reasons so eloquently laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We need to be more open to farming methods such as agroforestry which deliver multiple benefits and multiple incomes for farmers. What are we going to do to recognise diversity of breeds and seeds? For example, diversity in seed varieties is very important. What will happen with the registration and intellectual property rights of EU-registered varieties?
Finally, there are two issues in the Brexit debate that are Defra’s responsibility but have not been mentioned recently. If Brexit happens, pets and pet owners face a sad choice: take holidays apart or do not travel. Pets will have to be left in kennels rather than enjoying France or Spain with their owners when the EU pet passport scheme stops applying to the UK, as the UK leaves the EU. Will owners returning from the EU with pets face months of quarantine? Can the Minister give any reassurance that reciprocal arrangements for pets will be reached such as those that will apply to people?
Finally, animal passports will also affect the multibillion-pound horseracing industry. Currently, Irish, British and French counterparts can, under EU law, move tens of thousands of horses a year freely in and out of each other’s countries without hindrance. What will happen if that tripartite passport scheme were to end? What discussions have been held about this issue, and is there a solution within sight?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I, too, am a member of the committee and I want to express my appreciation for the excellent support that we received, and continue to receive, from our clerks and the staff team. I declare my interests: I am a partner in a farming business in Northumberland and a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates, both of which are in receipt of the EU basic payment scheme and engaged in environmental stewardship. My other interests are listed in the register and include chairmanship of the National Land Based College and the Prince’s Countryside Fund.
For the agricultural sector, Brexit presents the most important event since the Agriculture Act 1947. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape British agriculture and make sure that we design appropriate support arrangements and negotiate sensible trading agreements, so that we really can ensure that agriculture continues to contribute to the economy, is valued by the food industry, can shape and influence the management of the countryside, and can influence the health of the nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already highlighted the economic importance of agriculture, which, together with the food industry, is the largest contributor to the UK economy by far. However, with well-designed policies, and appropriate access to markets, British agriculture could contribute much more. Brexit presents an exciting opportunity to reshape the future for farming in the United Kingdom. The trade negotiations are of critical importance, as we highlighted in the report, and I am pleased to see that the Trade Minister is negotiating a split of the tariff rate quotas with the EU, as we recommended, even if this proves an interim measure for a transitional period while we negotiate longer-term trade deals. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already mentioned this issue.
Access to the EU market is critical for all agricultural products, particularly our lamb and pork. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has passionately referred to this. I fully understand the need to take a tough stance in negotiations and threaten to walk away, but I hope common sense will prevail on both sides and that we secure access to markets without major disruption. I also hope agriculture is not sacrificed as part of the panic to reach trade deals, to open up markets for the rest of British industry. Moreover, we need a period of transition or implementation—I really do not mind what it is called.
We also need to take this opportunity to review our performance as an industry sector and to seriously examine whether we are fit for purpose and able to withstand greater competition, as we anticipate more exposure to global markets post Brexit. We should seize the opportunity to address our own productivity record. Productivity needs to be a major driver of policy. Time is short so we should develop, as a matter of urgency, tailor-made solutions focusing on skills and the application of science. We need a professional industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, that attracts bright talent. Our record in the application of scientific knowledge—knowledge exchange—has not been good enough. As I said at the beginning, I declare an interest in these areas. It is essential that the Government recognise the potential to improve our productivity and ensure that targeted support and incentives are available to address this. It should be an important component of a redesigned policy.
The Prince’s Countryside Fund has already been doing some important work with a programme aiming to assist family farm businesses to improve their confidence, efficiency and resilience. I know the Minister is well briefed on this work. Many farm businesses are under severe pressure and need sound advice to make both short and long-term decisions on the future of their businesses. A recent analysis by the PCF shows just how dependent many family businesses are on the basic payment scheme. Only 16% made a profit from farming activities without the benefit of the BPS and other diversified income. Many of these farms are impacting on our productivity and need help. For some, a well thought-through exit scheme would be a sensible solution.
We also referred to regulation in the report and, as a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive, I am very concerned, not only about the transfer of EU regulation into domestic law but also that we take the opportunity to simplify support systems. We said:
“Brexit presents a new and important opportunity to replace elements of EU agricultural regulation that are bureaucratic, ineffective or ill-tailored to farming conditions in the UK”.
I hope the Government will bear this in mind.
There is lots of speculation and debate about how to design a new support system that properly recognises the public goods that agriculture delivers, and has the potential to deliver, in its management of the countryside. We address this in some detail in the report. It is vital that we try to quantify what those public goods are, their value, and how they can be applied and targeted to deliver specific outcomes in different geographic areas. Obviously, caring for the environment, in both environmental protection and improving habitats—building on the progress that we have made—is critical, but these are not the only public goods that agriculture delivers. I have been trying to encourage Ministers and officials to view this as an opportunity to be clear about the outcomes that we want from the management of the countryside. These include environmental outcomes, of course, but also outcomes in water management, carbon sequestration, public access, healthy and wholesome food, vibrant rural communities and so on. Once we are clear about these outcomes, we can then target policies to deliver them if the market will not do so.
Finally, let me move on to the need to replace the CAP with a UK framework. We address this in the agriculture report. I fully understand that the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom will see Brexit as an opportunity for further devolution of both resource and policy. However, the potential for having very diverse polices throughout the United Kingdom create confusion and conflict is very high. We said in the report:
“This will require either a UK-wide framework or the negotiation of co-ordinated agricultural policies by the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations”.
We need to take this seriously: it is a real concern and it is urgent.
In conclusion, it is a real privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to post-Brexit policy design. Most of us were too young in 1947. It is also a huge responsibility, and we need to think very carefully about how we do it. This is such an important point in our history: we will leave a legacy that will be judged by future generations.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Curry, and the other members of the committee. It is a very effective report. We speak in a week when we have had two quite bad pieces of news. The first is that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has produced a fairly well-based report on its expectations for various scenarios as the outcome of Brexit. They list three: evolution, which is, broadly speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s preferred outcome; unilateral liberalism, which I presume is Liam Fox’s preferred outcome; and fortress Britain, which, I presume from his remarks this week, is Chris Grayling’s preferred outcome. Whatever the origins of those broad-brush outcomes, the conclusion is that in the last two, there will be dramatic falls in farm income in almost all sectors and for almost all farms. In the first scenario, which is broadly the status quo—through a free trade agreement—farm incomes will be kept up only if the level of subsidy from the UK Government keeps pace with what would otherwise have been the European payouts. In all three scenarios there is a presumption that consumer prices will increase, which may be interesting for some theorists. As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, says, we have an opportunity to redevelop and bring in a different British agricultural policy, replacing the 40-odd years of the CAP. Michael Gove has a serious challenge.
We have to see any new agricultural policy in the broadest possible terms. As a bit of history, the CAP was first conceived not simply as a protectionist food policy—although it was always that—but as a regional, rural and social policy. In effect, it was avoiding for the rural areas of France and Italy the kind of depopulation and rural poverty which in the previous century had hit other economies such as those of Ireland and Scotland, and which in the current century is hitting many Asian economies with rural depopulation and poverty. The CAP has always had multiple outputs.
Therefore, we need a wide range of objectives—public goods, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, calls them—for any new system: support for the wider rural economy and society, and the rural environment; support for land and water management; and the preservation and enhancement of our natural capital. The answer will be different in different parts of the country, and it will be different in different English regions. However, there are political problems with the fact that they will be very different in different parts of the devolved Administrations. If what has hitherto been the Brussels input to agricultural policy is simply centralised in Whitehall, there will be quite serious problems with the devolved Administrations. We need an all-UK approach to this, but it will be difficult to achieve without causing grave difficulties for the devolution settlement.
Just this week, Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales—who was my oppo in Wales when I was Agriculture Minister and he was in Cardiff—has pointed out that certain trade outcomes and regulatory outcomes could completely wipe out hill farming in Wales. That would be a disaster, not just for Wales but for the whole country. There will also be serious problems in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the latter, it is greatly compounded by areas covered by previous reports from the Select Committee with regard to the Irish trade and the dominance of the north-south arrangements. Goods which end up as consumer goods finally cross the border several times, and the Irish economy, both north and south, depends heavily on exports to the UK, and via the UK to the EU.
My second main point is on trade. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, already reported on this week’s row on trade quotas. This is a situation in which, quietly, EU, UK and WTO officials were seeing a way forward. Almost immediately after that became semi-public knowledge, it was objected to by other countries, with which some hope we will reach very detailed free trade agreements in the near future. This proves a number of things. First, we do not have that many friends out there. However, it also proves that if agricultural quotas are not settled, it will be very difficult to deliver a whole-scale free-trade agreement with Europe and, beyond Europe, with other countries. Unless agricultural quotas are settled, because agriculture is such an important aspect of the European Union, reaching an agreement on other trade arrangements with Europe will be more difficult. When we come to negotiate the other agreements that people have in mind, unless we have settled that, they will not know what their quotas will be, whether they have an arrangement for a free-trade agreement with Europe already—in which case there are quotas referred to there—or if they can trade with Europe free of quotas but facing tariffs.
It is in fact worse than that. Historically, any agreement on trade has floundered heavily on failure to agree, under the WTO or whatever, and under GATT before it, on agricultural quotas and the reflection of the level of subsidy—the amber box subsidies—in any trade negotiations. The latest example of that, only 10 years ago, was the almost complete failure of the Doha round, principally because we could not agree multilaterally on trade quotas and trade subsidies for agriculture.
Agriculture therefore has implications way beyond its own importance within our economy, our society and our countryside. Unless we manage to resolve with our European partners and beyond the way in which we treat trade in agriculture, we will not get free trade agreements anywhere.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee on their excellent and wide-ranging report on agriculture. Things have moved on a little since it was published last May and the Government issued their response to it. But for Scottish farmers, which is my area of interest, their future outside the EU is still a very uncertain world.
I am not a farmer or a landowner. My only qualification for contributing to this debate is that I own a small cottage which sits in the middle of a hill farm in East Perthshire and which is close to some of the best soft fruit-growing areas in the region of Tayside. The hill farm is typical of such places in our area. The only income, apart from the subsidy under the CAP, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, just referred, comes from selling the stock produced on the farm. As the farm is organic, there are exacting EU rules that must be and are complied with. The weather is a frequent cause for concern. Heavy snow at lambing time can result in many losses. Late frosts and lack of rainfall may delay the growth of grass in the grazing areas, resulting in the need to buy in extra feed. The fact is that the subsidy is essential to the farm’s survival.
As for the fruit-growing areas in Tayside, raspberries and strawberries are now being farmed on an industrial scale. Access to a large and reliable workforce is crucial during the picking season, which can extend to as much as three or four months, due to the use of plastic tunnels and similar equipment. The bulk of this workforce is supplied by seasonal workers from the EU. Not nearly enough people live locally who are available or willing to do this work. Without certainty that this workforce will still be available after Brexit, these enterprises may have to close down and the industry disappear. So the effect of the vote to leave has been to create an increasing sense of uncertainty as we move closer to exit day.
There are three matters of particular concern: ensuring that the subsidy continues after Brexit; preserving and protecting the market for beef and lamb; and access to seasonal labour for the fruit growers. First, as the report makes clear, farmers in the devolved areas are proportionately heavily dependent on financial support from the EU. In Scotland, it comes in the form of the basic payment scheme, which is administered by the Scottish Government. In their reply to the report, the Government say that they will continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament. So far, so good. But what will happen then? As each month passes, the end of this Parliament will draw closer, and there will be an increasing need for clarity as to what will happen after that. I appreciate that no Government can bind their successor, but it will not do for us to have to wait until the new Parliament has been elected to find out what will happen. Surely, some mechanism can be put in place so that farmers can be assured that the same amount of money, adjusted for inflation, will be available and ring-fenced for future years. The question of whether the current level of subsidy will continue beyond the life of this Parliament should not be allowed to remain unanswered for much longer.
Whether there will be continued access to the European market for Scotch beef and lamb, and if not, what will replace it, is a matter of increasing concern as well. Some 89% of Scotland’s exports in beef and lamb goes to EU countries. Demand for these products remains strong but its future has now been put at risk by the vote to leave. The Government’s response is right to draw attention to the conflicting factors that are at play as plans are laid for the future. On the one hand, there is the risk of barriers being put in their way by excessive tariffs or excessive delays at our frontiers. On the other, as has been mentioned, cheap imports of beef and lamb from countries with whom we enter into new relationships, with less rigorous standards than our own, would make our home-produced stock uncompetitive.
Hill farms operate on narrow enough margins as it is. In their response, the Government say that they will work with the industry to build a new future when we leave the EU and that the maintenance of our existing high standards will be protected through domestic legislation. Can the noble Lord say what progress has been made in discussing these issues, especially with the devolved Administrations, and what form that legislation might take? Trade, of course, is a reserved matter, but agriculture is not. Scottish hill farmers need an assurance that their particular needs are being taken into account so that the work that they are doing to such high standards will continue to be profitable.
Lastly, in their response to the section of the report on filling the labour gap, the Government say that this will depend in the first instance on the ability to source workers from the domestic labour market. They say that there is not enough evidence to introduce a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme, although they will keep this position under review. The Minister should come to Tayside in the harvesting season to see what is going on there. Access to the willing and competent workforce which its EU workers provide is vital to its success. The fact is that that region’s domestic labour market cannot provide that kind of service. That may not be the case elsewhere—I do not know—but it is certainly no answer to the fruit-growers in Tayside.
In response to the section on devolution, the Government say that they are aware of the importance of agriculture to the devolved Administrations, and that they will work closely with them to address the issues specific to their industry. Are they willing to acknowledge that the opportunities for filling the labour gap might differ between one part of the country and another? Will consideration be given to allowing Scotland to have its own seasonal agricultural workers scheme? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to use his influence to see that it will.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner and a farmer. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for the work that they have done. The Brexit committees must be working overtime and all night for the amount of reports and papers they produce. Unfortunately, in the time available there is too much ground to cover in the detail that one would like, but there are one or two points that I would like to make to your Lordships.
In several places, both the animal welfare and food standards reports comment on the conflict between the present high standards in animal welfare and food products and on whether the ability to buy cheaper food in world markets might lead to a decline in those standards. In the case of animal welfare, I cannot see why coming out of the European Union should cause standards to decline. If there are lower tariffs, there may be attempts to import animals from countries where their welfare may not be to our high standards, but it should be quite possible to insist on standards, and the savings on leaving the European Union will mean that resources will be available to ensure that these standards are maintained.
The same would apply to food. If food purchased on the world market is cheaper, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out earlier, it does not mean to say that the food is worse. Indeed, it may be better. We know that the man from Del Monte only ever picks the best.
I realise that it is the job of the committee to foresee and bring attention to difficulties, but all too often the underlying assumption is that things will be worse outside the European Union. Too many of the comments of those consulted reflect their wish to protect their vested interests and cling on to subsidies, rather than consider what would be best for the greater good. That is understandable, but it is the duty of politicians to take an objective view. Although the report has much to commend it, there is still scope on occasions for a more rigorous review of the self-interest arguments—perhaps a little more Boris and a little less moaning.
Concern was expressed in the report about the availability of labour. However, I point out to your Lordships that, certainly in my part of the country, East Anglia, and on my farm in particular foreign labour was being imported to cope with seasonal requirements long before Britain joined the European Union, and this will surely continue after we leave.
Comment was also made in the report on the rigidity of the common agricultural policy, and this is certainly true. If we are to have farming subsidies, I agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at Defra that they should be directed at preservation and conservation in a more flexible and environmentally friendly manner than the present system under the European Union. That system demonstrates how EU centralisation, one size fits all and bureaucracy can be plain foolish by the time it percolates through to where edicts are put into practice.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, with very great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that he has read the report on animal welfare which is before us. It makes it quite clear that WTO rules do not, contrary to what he said, provide a basis for excluding meat produced at standards which are too low.
I remind the House of my interests as declared in the register. I own some land in Lincolnshire, which I regularly rent out for grazing. I will endeavour to be very succinct and to advance simply six propositions in the course of six minutes.
The first proposition is that British agriculture will never again operate in such favourable circumstances as it does now, while we are a full member of the EU. That is simply because agricultural policy and agricultural subsidies are decided by 28 countries, in the great majority of which the political weighting of agriculture is much greater than it is in this country. Therefore, the best friend of the British farmer has always been the French, German, Polish or Dutch Minister of Agriculture, not the British Minister of Agriculture, who has a brief from the Treasury saying, “For God’s sake cut the cost and reduce the subsidy if you possibly can”.
My second proposition is that that would be a problem if we remained outside the EU but in the single market in some form or another, because it would mean that over the years, with increasing discrepancy, British farmers would be subsidised and supported at a lower level than their competitors. In any market that obviously produces distortions, and things become very bad for the less favoured party, which in this case would be the British farmer.
Proposition number three is that far more serious is the scenario that the Government want to lead us into. It is one where we are not a member of the EU single market but endeavour to sign free trade agreements with lots of people around the world. The Government deceive themselves entirely about the prospects of doing that, by the way. I have explained on many occasions in our debates that there is very little prospect indeed of signing such a deal with China unless we are prepared to drop steel quotas, or with India unless we are prepared to accept Mr Modi’s demands for massive immigration into this country, or with the United States unless we are prepared to accept hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken. So there are great difficulties in that and, even if there were not, it would be absurd to say that we should throw away the benefit of the particularly favourable terms under which we can sell 70% of our exports to the EU and to those countries with which the EU has free trade agreements, and to suggest that we can compensate for that with the remaining 30% of our exports. As I have just explained, more than 90% of that 30%—that is, the three countries I mentioned—are very unlikely to do a deal with us at all. Therefore, the Government’s policy urgently needs rethinking from the bottom up. They are leading this country into a minefield, which is uncharted from their point of view, and I am afraid that they do not see the great dangers that we are facing.
However, in the event that we sign free trade agreements with some other countries—let us say members of the old British Commonwealth, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada—they will be largely concerned to sell us their agricultural products. We will have very large refrigerated ships arriving in London every week with massive amounts of cheap Australian frozen beef, which will knock the bottom out of that market.
Therefore, my fourth proposition is that in those circumstances we will have the worst of all possible worlds. We will have a situation in which British farmers meet competition from countries with cheaper labour and considerable efficiencies and economies of scale, undercutting our producers in the domestic market —and, at the same time, because the continentals will not allow us tariff-free access to their markets while we allow other countries to export to the UK in competition with their exports, we will have to face tariffs on our exports to the EU. That point has already been well made. The tariffs are very high—20%, 40% or 60% at present, depending on the product. That would be the worst of all possible worlds for British agriculture.
I make two propositions on the animal welfare issues that have been raised in the second of the reports before us. Proposition number one: it is a total waste of time and will not contribute one iota to the sum of animal happiness, and will almost certainly contribute to the detriment of animal happiness, to concoct a system of animal welfare and not protect it at the frontier by excluding imported products that are themselves produced to lower standards. If you do that, you are simply exporting the industry to somewhere else in the world where animal standards are lower, losing employment in this country and generating employment somewhere else, and the animals will certainly be treated far worse wherever they are then raised. Quite disgusting things happen to these poor animals, including in what we might think of as sophisticated markets such as the United States, which runs almost a complete zero grazing system. This will not contribute at all to animal welfare but will destroy employment in our own country. It does not make sense.
My final proposition is this: it is not possible to stop products coming in at the frontiers, as logically should be done, because it is not consistent with WTO rules. The committee could have been slightly more unambiguous on this point, as it is quite clear that there are no WTO rules to provide for that. It is therefore quite certain that a large number of countries will say that it is excluded by the WTO rules. We have already heard examples this evening of how the WTO can take a very perverse line, if it wishes to, in pursuit of the interests of a particular nation. The idea of renegotiating the rules of the WTO is complete nonsense —it would take decades. And why would any of these countries agree in principle to change rules that are, in many cases, in their favour and against our interests? I am not sure that that problem can be resolved.
The position is this: the prospects of the British farmer are pretty grim and the prospects for animal welfare are pretty grim. We owe it to the nation to say those two things extremely clearly.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak for the first time in your Lordships’ House. It is often said that joining this House is like being a new boy at school. I would go a little further: it feels more like being the nervous child who joins half way through the second term, when everyone else has already made friends and knows their way around the building. It is for that reason that I am so grateful for the kind and generous welcome from so many of your Lordships. I am not sure whether to be reassured or worried by the noble Lord who said, “Don’t worry, I have been here for 10 years and I still feel like the new boy”. I also thank those many members of staff who have been so helpful in my first couple of weeks. I know I will need their assistance for much, much longer and I thank them in advance.
I have received much advice on the subject of this maiden speech—gratitude and brevity are common themes. On the matter of controversy, it has been less clear-cut. I will try not to follow the advice that said, “Don’t worry about that; just go for it”.
My career has been mainly in finance and technology, as well as the emerging markets of south-east Asia. More relevant to today—and here I must declare an interest—for the last couple of years I have been farming beef and sheep in south-west Scotland and am in receipt of various subsidy payments under the CAP.
I thank the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for these excellent reports. The Brexit: Agriculture report provides the best independent analysis that I have yet seen of the many opportunities and challenges, sometimes contradictory, that the industry is facing. Less favoured area beef and sheep farmers face particular challenges. Up to 40% of sheep farming production is exported, of which around 95% goes to Europe. Profitability is already low. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have already referred to the AHDB report that shows that profits could halve. In fact, it shows specifically that, in the worst case, LFA beef and sheep farmers risk having their profits entirely wiped out.
I welcome the Government’s statement that they do not wish the industry to face a precipitous cliff edge and the commitment to provide the same cash support until the end of the current Parliament. However, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, at the end of March 2019 sheep farmers will be faced with an immediate loss of market for over a third of their production. Could the Minister please explain what analysis the Government have carried out on the impact of a no-deal scenario on the beef and sheep sectors specifically, and what plans they have to mitigate the effects of this potential cliff edge?
The Government’s response to these reports sets out many general aims and intentions, all individually laudable. For example, the introduction to the response describes a,
“once in a generation opportunity to transform our food and farming policies, improve our environment and protect our rural landscapes … to create the best trading framework for both consumers and producers”.
On sections 31 to 35 of the report, the response talks of designing,
“a new agriculture policy from first principles in order to most effectively support the agricultural sector”.
It is hard to argue with any of that. However, I know I am not alone in feeling that these responses are, if your Lordships will forgive me, rather woolly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, farming is a long-term business. Investments in land improvement, machinery, buildings and bloodline improvements and so on are all substantial multiyear commitments for small family businesses. The lack of specific policies and the resulting uncertainty is making it very difficult for farmers to plan for the future. Talking to a neighbouring farmer on Saturday, he said simply, “It is just all up in the air”.
There is already anecdotal evidence of delayed investment decisions, and it seems likely that the availability of finance may start to be affected. This would have serious knock-on impacts throughout the supply chain and for the wider rural economy. The average age of farmers is 59, and the uncertainty is putting succession plans at risk and must be deterring new entrants to the industry. Will the Minister please assure us that we will soon see the,
“coherent domestic policy to support farmers to become more profitable, to support environmental outcomes and to promote things such as animal welfare”,
which the Minister of State referred to in his evidence, as set out in paragraph 17 of the report, so that farmers can start to invest for the future again?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow for the first time my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden after his excellent and fluent maiden speech. He brings to the House not only expertise in agriculture but strong credentials both as an accountant and as someone who has held senior positions in the software industry for almost two decades, in both the UK and Asia. At the weekend, I spoke to a near neighbour of his in Galloway. In praising my noble friend’s diplomatic skills, this neighbour suggested that one of his toughest assignments, indeed achievements, has been to bring harmony and order to an important local entity that he chairs. I speak of course of the Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board—the source, no doubt, of a lot of local argy-bargy. I look forward very much to hearing his many contributions to the House in the years to come.
I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, especially those in relation to agriculture, and remind the House that I am also a member of the European Union Select Committee. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the barn-storming speech he made earlier. It was the most wonderful survey of what has gone into these two very powerful reports in this important debate.
I will make three points tonight and confine myself to the Brexit: Agriculture report. All these points relate to resources. The first concerns seasonal workers, and here the ground has been prepare by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Rooker, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. I live in Perthshire, surrounded by soft fruit farms, and am active in organic vegetables. I can confirm that the local farms active in these sectors, including us, use significant numbers of seasonal workers, almost all of whom come from EU 27 states. I repeat the invitation of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, and associate myself with all his words, and ask the Minister to come to Perthshire, where I will give him a personal tour of the situation so he can see how strong these businesses are and how much we depend on these seasonal workers.
The report went into the science of this. Paragraph 253 records that Queen’s University Belfast estimates that, UK-wide, this seasonal workforce is 80,000 strong in horticulture alone, 98% of whom are from the EU 27. Paragraph 264 of the report goes on to say that:
“Many workers in the agricultural sector are often regarded as ‘unskilled’, but are in fact extremely skilled at sector-specific tasks such as crop handling and harvesting”.
I know only too well how true this is. I was, therefore, initially delighted to read in the Government’s response that:
“Access to a sufficient and appropriately skilled workforce is essential for the whole food chain, and we welcome the Committee’s recognition of the importance of this issue”.
However, I was baffled later on in the Government’s response to read:
“For seasonal workers, the Government has stated that it does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to introduce a new Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme in at this moment. We keep this position under careful, ongoing review”.
I regret—and here I concur totally with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—that these words have sent a shiver down the spine of those businesses which use seasonal agricultural workers and their investment sentiment is accordingly very poor—and it is very poor in the very agricultural sectors that have been responsible for so much of the growth in agricultural GDP in recent times. “Why would one invest in a climate of such future workforce uncertainties?” is essentially the question being asked at the farm tables, in Perthshire for sure and, I have no doubt, elsewhere. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on all of this and tell us whether this position is changing and, if not, what extra evidence the Government need in order to change their mind.
Moving to my second point, as I believe the Government will conclude that a new SAWS is not only necessary but very much in UK PLC’s interests, I hope that such a new scheme will learn the lessons of the old one. An example here would be the need for flexibility on visa end dates. The old SAWS was clear that, when the time was up for a seasonal worker, he had to go home. This was unhelpful in the agricultural sector where harvests can be late unexpectedly, leading to wholly unnecessary problems.
A more important example for today is the fact that forestry was not included in the old SAWS. Earlier today in the River Room, the Minister was launching Action Oak. This vital initiative unites all the relevant UK bodies in working together in the face of the multiple disease, pest and squirrel threats to trees—particularly oak trees—and, ultimately, of course, to energise landowners and land managers to plant. It is a milestone in helping to protect our countryside and environment. A small part of this milestone will involve the use of seasonal forestry workers. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to confirm that the needs of the forestry industry will form part of the careful, ongoing thinking that the Government are doing about seasonal agricultural workers, as I referred to a moment ago,
In closing, I move to my third point. The report sets out between paragraphs 277 and 283 why Defra needs considerably more resources, especially additional staff. The Government response on 29 June stated:
“The resourcing of EU exit work is a key priority of the Department and is subject to on-going assessment. Work continues to identify the number of dedicated posts required in the long-term to meet the demands of EU Exit”.
In other words, “Don’t know about that”. I wonder whether, three and a half months further on, the Minister could update us on how the thinking is on whether Defra really has enough resources. I know that this House would press strongly for resources to be given to Defra at this vital time.
Throughout this debate there has been a common theme of the importance of the agricultural sector to our nation and of it, and indeed Defra, being properly resourced. I hope we will hear strong and positive news from the Minister who, as the whole House knows, understands all of these issues so well.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, on his polished maiden speech and wish him well in the House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this report. I should declare an interest by way of ownership of six acres of farmland—not one of the biggest estates in the land—and as a member of the Farmers Union of Wales.
I want to put on record the very grave misgivings among the agricultural fraternity in Wales concerning Brexit, particularly if it transpires to be—as seems probable—the hardest of hard Brexits. There are many aspects of life in Wales which differ from those of England, but none more stark than in the agricultural sector. Sheep farming is the predominant sector in Wales, with 80% of Welsh farms involved in the sheep industry, and the Welsh sheep flock amounts to 29% of that of the UK.
The proportion of Welsh GVA produced by agriculture is about 0.7%, compared to 0.4% for the UK. It was because circumstances are so very different for agriculture in Wales to that in England that agriculture was fully devolved to the National Assembly. That is one of the compelling reasons why any powers returned from Brussels to the UK which are relevant to farming should be fully transferred to the devolved Governments. It is then a matter of getting an agreed framework in place for discussions between the four Administrations of these islands to ensure that issues relating to the harmonious working of a UK single market can be best resolved.
As we leave the EU, we shall of course leave the CAP. Welsh farmers could face a cash crisis unless there are specific safeguards. These are necessary because Welsh farm income levels are very modest. Between 2012 and 2016, the average annual farm business income of all Welsh farm categories was only £26,520. Welsh agriculture depends heavily on financial subsidies from the EU. Wales currently receives about £274 million a year by way of direct subsidies under the CAP, with a further £555 million coming to Wales between 2014 and 2020 through the Rural Development Programme. In total, 80% of farm income in Wales comes from the EU’s common agricultural policy.
The current level of funding should be guaranteed by the Treasury to the Welsh Government, as was promised time after time by Brexit campaigners during the referendum. These funds should be outside the Barnett block and ring-fenced by the Welsh Government for supporting agricultural. Such guaranteed funding should run for 10 years. It is no use promising that the funding will last only to 2022 when agricultural investment runs on a five to 10 year planning cycle.
Welsh farming, particularly the meat sector, is heavily dependent on EU markets, which take some 35% of all the meat produced in Wales. So the outcome of Brexit is critically important for Welsh farmers. Any changes to the CAP levels of funding or in market access could have catastrophic consequences. The degree of damage will depend on the type of Brexit which the UK Government negotiates.
In this context, an important study was published in August. Undertaken by FAPRI, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, it was commissioned to undertake the economic modelling work by DEFRA and the devolved Administrations. The conclusions of that work were dramatic.
The study focused on three alternative scenarios. The first considered the impact if the UK succeeded in negotiating tariff-free and quota-free access for UK products into the EU and likewise for EU products into the UK, with the UK maintaining the EU tariff structure to the rest of the world and for there to be a 5% facilitation cost on UK-EU trade. In these circumstances, the study projects a small benefit for the UK beef and dairy sectors and a marginal 1% decrease in sheep prices and output value. We could live with that option.
The second scenario was on the basis of there being negotiated a World Trade Organization default package, including most favoured nation status being granted to imports from the EU to Britain and on UK exports to the EU; for tariff rate quotas to be retained on imports from third countries; for no change in the tariff structure for exports to the rest of the world; and for there to be an 8% facilitation cost on UK-EU trade. This would have a favourable impact of up to 30% on beef and dairy prices, but an adverse impact of 30% on sheep prices. That clearly could be advantageous for some parts of Britain but devastating for large parts of Wales. It would also have a 4% to 5% adverse effect on wheat and barley, which should make England hesitate before supporting that option.
It is, however, the third scenario which should frighten the living daylights out of anyone concerned with agriculture—the hard Brexit option of unilateral trade liberalisation. This would mean zero tariffs on imports into the UK, both from Europe and the rest of the world; it would mean having most favoured nation status for UK exports to the EU; no change in tariff structures for UK exports to the rest of the world; and an 8% facilitation cost on UK-EU trade. This scenario—the black Brexit bombshell, if I can call it that—would cause a 45% drop in beef prices, a 29% drop in sheep prices, a 10% drop in milk and dairy prices, and a 5% to 7% drop in wheat and barley prices.
This month, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board published the results of similar modelling which again predict that, for all the extreme Brexit scenario, there would be a drop in all farm incomes of over 50%, with less favoured area livestock farms particularly hard hit.
The Farmers Union of Wales has called on the Government to secure a long-term agreement with the EU to maintain tariff-free access to the EU’s single market for Welsh agricultural products. The FUW has also called for a 10-year transition period. This is something that Brexit campaigners must take on board: the harder the Brexit settlement, the longer the transition period that will be necessary in order to minimise economic chaos.
What all this means is that a hard Brexit will signal the end of Welsh farming as we know it. Any Government which would allow this to happen would be guilty of mind-blowing irresponsibility. If there is to be a hard Brexit, surely there must be a confirmatory referendum in early 2019 so that people have the opportunity to think again. Among those leading the queue for such reconsideration will be the farmers of Wales when they fully appreciate what is about to hit them.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I join those who wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate. I must declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as the recently retired president of the National Sheep Association of the United Kingdom, 50 years as a hill livestock farmer and member of the Scottish NFU.
I consider it a privilege to have been able to participate in this committee inquiry, and the rate at which our committee staff summed up the evidence put before us I found quite breath-taking. We received evidence from 20 witnesses representing every aspect of the industry, from academics to production and marketing. We also received 56 written submissions, all of which must have a direct interest in this subject, including from the Minister.
For the livestock side of the industry, it hardly needs me to emphasise what many other Peers have been saying. In fact, most of the points I would like to make have already been introduced into the debate, but I want to nail down one or two aspects. Anything less than tariff-free access to Europe will cause immense disruption to the livestock industry. The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Wigley, have drawn the attention of your Lordships to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board report which came out just last week. It reiterates that the Government have said that they will guarantee the same level of funding at £3.1 billion for food production from the date of Brexit to the end of this Parliament. Some farmers feel that they can operate without any of that, but what there is has provided a lifeline for much of our beef and sheep production, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Can the Minister tell the House how much, if any, of that sum was required for the administration of the current scheme or what additional costs were incurred under this heading? It would be a great triumph if the Government could come up with a support system that cost less, and I hope that they will strive to achieve that.
Most noble Lords will also understand how agriculture presents a stumbling block to the dedicated free trade enthusiast, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as it continues to develop tariffs and subsidies in spite of various international agreements. That is so much so that it has been the undoing of much that was hoped for in the most recent Doha development agenda. However, it has always proved hard to see how there cannot be some assistance in certain critical situations. The Government are obviously looking at the minimum that can be worked with as well as where we will stand if no deals are available. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, told us that there has been some discussion about the allocation of European tariff-rate quotas for agricultural goods. Inevitably, this has produced a negative response from the third-party nations which at present are the beneficiaries of this policy, and that highlights how there is nothing straightforward about the whole negotiation. Because of the third parties involved, it looks as though no meaningful agreements can be reached until the UK lays out its attitude to basic WTO rules and publishes a proposal for its tariff rate schedule. Can the Minister tell the House if there is a target date for finalising this proposal and what that date might be?
The report I referred to earlier emphasises that the number of farms in England has fallen by 20% in the past decade, but we are familiar with the fact that that is only part of the story. Some consideration should be given to the manning required to keep the skills and experience needed to make the countryside run well. Until now, farmers have prided themselves on being open to innovation. The innovation they have welcomed has largely been in relation to efficient and economic food production. What illustrates that well is that according to World Bank figures, the total numbers working in UK farming just after the Second World War came to around 10% of the working population. Today the figure is less than 0.9%, which is a fall of around 99%. For other countries in Europe the equivalent figures are 20% at the end of the Second World War reducing to a current figure of around 2.8%. How much lower can we afford to go? Proposals now come with a heavy element of what we like to think will be beneficial environmental measures. There is no doubt that as we understand more about the science of what surrounds us, they are something that we have to try, but their history is fairly short and it will take some time to tell how many of them will turn out to be merely passing fads. We are still faced with an escalating world population and the need to double food production efficiently.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I speak with no more expertise in agriculture than being resident in rural south Norfolk, so I am rather like my noble and learned friend Lord Hope in that respect; I am surrounded by fields. The county of Norfolk has the largest agricultural sector of any English county and contributes 7% of English food production. I am a psychiatrist first and a historian second. I do not think that my first skill will be useful in this debate but perhaps the second will be.
I congratulate the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on identifying in no uncertain terms the serious risks to which the Government are exposing our rural community. Leaving the European Union is of course a political decision, not an economic one, but in my view possibly the most foolish political decision a UK Government have taken in my lifetime. I do not blame the British public. If you ask them a foolish question, you will get a foolish answer. There is no escaping it, however, because apart from the Lib Dems, the main political parties are intent on hurtling over the cliff like lemmings. By the way, lemmings are not committing suicide; they are simply misjudging the distance they have to jump across the water to find a new habitat—a rather better analogy for the Brexiteers, I think.
Our rural economy is kept afloat by the £3 billion that flows into rural areas from the EU, and while there is a commitment to the continuity of mainstream CAP funding over a brief transition period, history tells us that the Government will almost certainly pull the plug on farming subsidies quite quickly. There seems to have been very little in the way of learning from history of how previous subsidies developed over a longer historical period. I will not go back to the support for wheat producers through the Corn Laws that went on for 30 years after the Napoleonic wars, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, did, but I will refer to 1917 as the Atlantic blockades began to bite during the First World War. The Corn Production Act 1917 and Agriculture Act 1920 ensured that the last years of the Great War were profitable ones for farmers, but those Acts which protected farm wages and corn prices were repealed in 1921—just three years of peacetime for the Government to lose interest in farming. In 1921 the Government were facing a potential £20 million subsidy bill for the agricultural sector when other parts of the economy had no such protection and high food prices were resented by a predominantly urban electorate. We are, and remain, a nation of townies. The result was a rapid reduction in agricultural wages, by about 40% in the first year, and the increased indebtedness of farmers, which did not improve until subsidies were re-introduced in the Second World War. Then it started all over again. Indeed, subsidies were withdrawn again after the Second World War, apart from support for some important food products we were short of.
What will be different this time round? Perhaps the Minister will tell me. Will the urban public be happy to see £3 billion go into a sector that produces only £9 billion of GDP? That seems unlikely. As the economic disaster of Brexit impacts on the rest of industry and our public services, the Treasury will surely look to that £3 billion pot to start funding its other priorities—and I might vote for it too. That is a threat to the very fabric of rural Britain, not only to our home-grown food production capacity but to the environment, landscape and wildlife. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would say what she has said before: that it would be ironic if the old Britain that the Brexiteers are so nostalgic for is wiped out by Brexit itself.
Of course, if we get a common market free trade deal with Europe and a continuing customs union, all will not be so doom and gloom, and there could be a new settlement for agriculture and the environment. No one doubts that the common agricultural policy system is inefficient and has rewarded the wrong things. Indeed, I carry no candle for the great wheat barons of Cambridgeshire; I hope one is not sitting in the Chamber. It would be nice to see more-focused support for the type of sustainable but efficient food farming that produces goods that are attractive to consumers all over the world without ruining our landscape. However, if we leave with no deal, as some deluded folk seem to think we can with equanimity, then, as we have heard so often here, our farming communities will become theme parks, perhaps for foreign investors chasing nice houses. Will the Minister assure us—I am asking a lot—that the Government will not leave the EU without a realistic trade and customs deal sealed, and will create a mechanism to support the public benefit that farming can have for us all?
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I follow an excellent speech. The six sub-committees of the European Union Committee of the House of Lords have produced a collection of authoritative documents that have revealed in detail the nature of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. I have counted 17 such documents that are addressed specifically to the problems of Brexit, and there are more to come.
The reports demonstrate the complexities that an advanced industrial nation faces in the context of a global economy, where there are numerous interdependencies of trade and production; they have also served to highlight some startling deficiencies in the knowledge and intelligence of the incumbent British Government. However, to be fair, such shortfalls are inevitable in the complicated modern world. It seems that the sub-committees have processed and revealed far more information than the Ministers in charge of Brexit negotiations are capable of absorbing. Even the civil servants charged with advising the Ministers may be severely challenged. Therein lies one of the major hazards of Brexit.
The first matter on which to focus our attention is our trade in agricultural products with the EU and the rest of the world. The EU is our largest single trading partner in agricultural products. Of our agricultural exports, 80% go to the EU and 97% to countries in a wider free trade network, which includes the countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement. Likewise, 94% of our imports of foodstuffs and agricultural produce, which considerably exceeds the value of our exports, come from such countries.
The EU trading arrangements are based on a commonality of interest among the member nations, though their basic feature is unrestricted free trade among those nations. The EU has established numerous free trade agreements beyond Europe, while maintaining tariff barriers that have been designed to protect European agriculture and industry. The British Government are keen to maintain the benefits of our free trade with the EU while seeking to promote our trade with other nations through further reciprocal agreements. In the somewhat discredited phrase, the aim has been to have our cake and eat it. It is a fallacy to imagine that we could easily negotiate a more profitable trade in agricultural products with the rest of the world, as the Foreign Secretary has asserted. As examples of products that could be targeted for greater exports, he cited haggis, which the US has banned on health grounds since 1971, and Scotch whisky, on which India imposes a 150% duty. Those are hardly significant opportunities.
The process of negotiating trade deals is lengthy and difficult. At the heart of any such negotiations are the tariff rate quotas, which provide favourable reciprocal trading relationships at reduced tariff rates within limits governed by the values and volumes of the trades. Our Government have blithely assumed that they could acquire a proportion of the EU quotas determined by previous volumes of trade. As we have heard, that proposal has met with strong resistance from those with whom we would seek to increase our trade. The UK has been told that such an arrangement is unacceptable to the US and other WTO members, who wish to force the UK to open its market further to their farm products. Several witnesses who contributed evidence to our sub-committee warned that this would be the likely outcome. Many commentators regard it as unlikely that, after Brexit, the UK will be able to retain access to the free trade agreements of the EU with third countries. The nightmare is that we shall become subject to conditions of free trade in respect of imports, while being restricted in our exports.
The greater access to our markets of agricultural producers in the third world might result in lower prices for our consumers, but it could devastate our agricultural industry. In return for allowing our industrial imports into the US, we would have to allow the import of US agricultural goods that are produced to very different standards and by very different methods from our own. The EU imposes stringent standards on food safety, animal health, the use of pesticides and a wide range of agricultural practices. If Britain were constrained to pursue a trade policy outside the EU network, many of the standards that we impose on imports might have to be disregarded. To be competitive in overseas markets, we might have to lower our standards, which would severely prejudice our chances of maintaining our volume of trade with the EU. Merely to incorporate raw materials in our products from sources that are not regulated by EU standards would prohibit our trade with the EU.
Next, I turn to the restrictions on the freedom of movement of labour that are the objective of many Brexit advocates. British agriculture relies greatly on workers from the rest of the EU. There is considerable reliance on seasonal migratory labour for harvesting and fruit picking, but many permanently resident EU migrants are employed throughout the agricultural and food processing industries. Some of the facts and figures are surprising. We have been told that 40% of staff on egg farms are EU migrants, as are 50% of workers in egg-packing factories. In poultry meat factories, the figure is 60%. In recent years, nearly half of the veterinary surgeons registering in the UK have qualified from veterinary schools elsewhere in the EU. We have been told that 90% of the vets working in slaughterhouses are EU nationals from abroad. Vets can be described as skilled workers, in contrast to fruit pickers and abattoir workers. However, our witnesses have been unanimous in declaring that it is unhelpful to make such a distinction in agriculture. Fruit pickers may not have qualifications relating to their job but they are skilled nevertheless, and they cannot be replaced readily by casual untrained labourers. Our agriculture depends on them. Whereas some Ministers recognise the truth of that, the message coming from the Government is that the immigration policy after Brexit will be based on the skill levels of immigrants.
There is much more that can be said but I am conscious that our time is limited. I am happy to see that others have raised some of the many issues that I have neglected.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee have given the country an honest picture of the sorry prospects for agriculture in relation to Brexit. We have heard some splendid contributions. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Vaux on his very pertinent speech.
My interest in the register refers to income that our small west Dorset estate receives from the EU, chiefly under environmental stewardship schemes. I am also well aware of the plight of small and marginal farmers in the West Country, some of whom are our friends and neighbours.
The NFU reminds us that,
“farming is the bedrock of our largest manufacturing sector, food and drink processing. This is worth £108 billion per annum and employs 3.9 million people”.
Our whole nation owes a debt to farmers and farmworkers for our food supply and the care of our environment. Generation after generation of farmers have looked after these two essential elements in our lives: what we eat and the countryside we enjoy. And yet we are allowing the most vulnerable to go slowly down into the mud.
This must not go on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has already mentioned, we are already losing small farms day after day. One-third of all holdings under 20 were lost in just one decade, 2005-15, according to the CPRE quoting Defra. With Brexit looming, the prospects are not very bright.
The sort of vision laid out recently by Neil Parish MP in his CLA interview concerns me, because he should know. He mentions that struggling farmers and tenants on marginal land are expected to be the casualties of any future system, but he offers little comfort to them. He talks instead of,
“bigger ... and more competitive farms”,
in the future and sees competitive farming moving,
“towards more of a grant-based system”.
Payments, he says, must go to those who are “actually farming”.
The sub-committee wants the Government to clarify their intentions as soon as possible, as any reductions will have a significant impact on agriculture, as everybody has made clear. Equally, it says, farmers themselves will have to make a strong case and perhaps lobby Parliament to maintain support at the same, or similar, levels beyond the end of this Parliament.
One key point in the report was made by the First Minister of Wales, who said in evidence that the loss of subsidies would,
“put our producers at a competitive disadvantage”,
compared to other member states unless similar levels of support are put in by the Government. This is such an obvious fact that it stares us in the face and demands an answer.
The report also warns that leaving the EU will create,
“significant uncertainty for the … agri-food sector”.
If UK and EU standards begin to differ after Brexit, there is a risk for producers of substantial non-tariff barriers being in their way.
The section on movement of goods in the new customs White Paper conjures up the prospect of huge inland customs offices behind every port, with all the attendant queues and delays. How do the Government think that this could ever be an improvement on today’s traffic to and from the EU? How will farmers and food exporters be affected by the transition to WTO requirements? It seems, from all accounts, adversely.
In their response to the report, the Government admit that EU tariffs in the agriculture sector are higher and more complex than in other sectors and say that they are,
“carefully assessing the potential impact”.
Well, they should hurry. There is not much time.
The NFU has long grappled with the issue of better regulation. This is not an easy subject when you think of those complicated IACS forms and their successors. How can farmers or anyone expect to receive grants without completing these massive documents? Whatever the outcome of Brexit, I cannot see this as an EU problem; it is a UK disease just as much, so let us try to cure ourselves of it. We will all agree with Neil Parish that we want something that delivers payments on time and does not get messed up by computers. The NFU states that,
“farmers have had their fair experience of bad regulation and the NFU has … long campaigned for reform. This does not reflect an opposition to regulation per se, but rather a desire to see the details of design and implementation improved”.
Delays in Defra, hearings and appeals are another thing: I have myself waited two years and still have no reply. Then there are all the EU directives on clean water, nitrates, crop protection, animal welfare and so on. Are we going to reinvent all these? How will we trade with Europe if we are not aware of the latest standards of health and hygiene? Do our EU committees continue to monitor legislation, or will they be disbanded? These are serious questions and the exasperating fact is that this Government are still not in a position to answer them.
The latest “no deal” drama, designed perhaps to hurry the negotiations, is going to postpone these decisions even longer. In the end, surely we will have to accommodate the EU in roughly the way we do already, or else find ourselves on the end of fines and litigation. If an amendment to the Bill brings us back to the drawing board, I shall not be sorry.
Finally, on migration, which has been mentioned by many speakers, it seems obvious that many farmers and market gardeners who depend on seasonal migrant labour will find it impossible to carry on after Brexit—my noble and learned friend and others have mentioned this. The Government say in their response that they have announced their intention,
“to commission advice from the Migration Advisory Committee to better understand the reliance on EU migrant workers across the economy”.
As the report says:
“The entire food supply chain will be adversely affected”.
When will the MAC give this advice? Do we not know enough already to realise that these seasonal workers from Europe are either not going to come at all, or they are going in due course to be denied visas and deprived of any services normally due to them? They will go underground or disappear into the black market, and who is going to cope with that: accident and emergency?
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, there were a lot of wise words there from the noble Earl. This is a really good report and I congratulate my noble friend and his committee on producing it, and I associate myself with a lot of what has been said today, particularly the excellent speeches by noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Whitty.
The report is amazingly topical. That it is topical five months after it has been produced is a sign that nothing very much has happened. After the initial speech by my noble friend Lord Teverson, we heard an interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, with whose conclusions I agree. However, in the course of it, he attacked the repeal of the corn laws and I thought, “Only in your Lordships’ House could the repeal of the corn laws still be an issue for debate and discussion”. As the noble Lord said, it was wrong then and wrong now to remove the tariffs; I would say that it was right then and wrong now. It was right then because Britain controlled farming policy not only in this country but in all parts of the British Empire, which were the great wheat-growing lands, and it controlled much of world trade. The world has changed since then.
Many noble Lords have pointed out defects in the common agricultural policy—indeed, there are many—but the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reminded us of the way in which the underlying purposes of the CAP have evolved over a period of time. When it was set up so many years ago, its purpose was essentially food security: to make sure that the then six members of the Common Market had security over their own basic food supplies—this was just after the war, when there was great insecurity around. In that, there is no doubt that it has been outstandingly successful. As the years have gone by, many of the other things that it has evolved and the ways in which it has supported agriculture have changed, from tariffs and intervention payments to maintain prices, through to direct payments, through to the present system of area payments—where basically farms are paid for being a farm and for being a certain size, whatever they do on that farm—together with Pillar 2, which has not used as much money as Pillar 1 by any means, but has evolved in ways which have enhanced local environments and rural development. I do not believe that without the CAP those policies would have been introduced into this country.
What do the Government want? In this week’s Farmers Guardian I came across a statement by a Defra spokesman. I will read it out because it includes all the contradictions and the lack of clarity which underlie the present position. It says:
“Outside the EU and free from the bureaucracy of the Common Agricultural Policy our farmers will be able to focus on growing, selling and exporting more fantastic produce. We are determined to get the best deal, one that allows us to continue to have tariff-free, frictionless access to the EU market and we will strike new trade deals around the world to help farmers take advantage of the growing appetite for great British food”;
in other words, every possible advantage of every possible system and every possible circumstance. The fact is that completely frictionless access to the EU market, which we have now because we are in the customs union as part of the single market, is incompatible with regulation-free operations. The European Union is simply not going to agree—whether or not the talks get that far—to frictionless access to the market unless this country accepts most of the rules and regulations that operate within the existing CAP and single market. We will have to obey the rules and will have no say in what they are. That is a fact that this Government do not seem to understand.
I just want to say something about food security and the very learned comments made by the Transport Secretary on television on Sunday that all we have to do is grow more food in this country. I do not think we need to grow more food. We might need to grow better food and different food but what we need to do is stop wasting so much food. About half the food grown in this country is not eaten. It is ploughed back because the market has failed; it is rejected by the supermarkets because it is not the right shape and colour; it is left unsold in supermarkets and thrown away; and huge amounts of it are bought and thrown away. If only people would really tackle that problem, it would transform the food market and answer a lot of the problems.
Ask farmers what they think about government policy at the moment and they will say, “They do not know what they want, they do not know what they are doing and they do not know where they are going”. A decision has to be made. The Government have to decide: do they want full, frictionless access to European markets and to remain a member of the biggest free trading area on the planet, with all the advantages of that, or are they going to throw all that away and go for the unknown?
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these two reports to the general series of Brexit debates, and declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU basic payments and as a landlord of other farms. The main theme running through both reports is the economic woe that would result from a hard Brexit, where WTO rules would prevail in the absence of trade and customs deals.
By way of background, UK farmers currently export at least 60% of their output to the EU. As the 18th speaker, I make no apologies for repeating some of the points that have already been made because they are very important. Our costs of production are far higher than our future competitors’, be it sheepmeat from New Zealand or beef from Brazil. Thus it would be a terrifying scenario were UK producers to face a likely 50% tariff tax into Europe, plus the customs checks, at the same time as they faced open doors to imports from the rest of the world at low or nil tariffs. A vivid example of this could be sheepmeat, which would look like this: New Zealand lamb imports, with no tariffs applied, arrive at about £2 a kilogram, as against UK lamb costs to the EU of nearly £6 a kilogram when the 50% tariff is applied. This will make no sense.
However, the Government have told us that they intend to maintain the current payments of subsidy to the end of this Parliament. But in terms of medium-term—let alone long-term—planning, which farming and certainly forestry need, this is not very reassuring. The Government talk of negotiating a deal as their preference, together with a changed subsidy basis at home, but daily we see the complexity of this, with the stalling of the talks in Brussels and opposition even to the reform Bill along the Corridor. Just look at the controversy over things such as third-country rules, rules of origin, the division of current quotas, or most favoured nation clauses. These are all challenging hurdles that we have to overcome.
Presumably we would like to see our citizens benefit from Brexit but the cost of food is rising and it is bound to do so. I hope that we will not abandon our animal welfare standards or our quality assurances but these will be extremely difficult to maintain in the face of free imports of beef from the US food lots or dubious chicken practices. One might say that the market will choose but when we buy our sandwiches or visit a food outlet, it will be nearly impossible to know the origin of the meat, especially as current food labelling can easily mislead. We also know that 85% of shoppers make their choice on price.
These standards add to our production costs, and the danger of a race to the bottom is well made in the reports —as is another major problem: our heavy dependence on EU labour. As in many other industries, our vets, our fruit and vegetable pickers and our milkers—as a few examples—are now mostly non-British. How is this to be addressed when we are unable to get the basic agreements as to the rights of our citizens living in Europe and vice versa? The House has frequently highlighted this problem, and it is vital that workers and employers have certainty now as to where they will stand at Brexit.
The question of definition between skilled and unskilled labour and the effect of this on visa approvals is paramount. Just because a worker cannot produce a paper qualification does not mean that he is unskilled. The recent fall in the value of sterling means a 20% reduction in wage values and it is not helping the retention of EU staff, so a recruitment shortage is already apparent. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that an assessment of needs will take priority over simple skill distinctions. I know that I am painting a gloomy picture, but I believe that it is realistic and typical of the disaster that Brexit will be for our country. We have—just—voted to leave, but we did not vote to become poorer.
Defra is planning its next 25-year environmental strategy and would like to shift support further in that direction. That is fine if basic farming can survive and contribute towards desirable projects, such as the maintenance of traditional features, soil and water quality and wildlife—even sheep grazing in marginal uplands. We have been hearing about the value of natural capital. Ecosystems that slow water, biodiversity that encourages raptors and environmental assets such as timber production for housing and carbon capture are excellent, but they all require a healthy rural economy to work.
Will the Government encourage the rollout of GM crops? GM could increase yields by 1 tonne per hectare, which would pay arable farmers for the complete loss of their current subsidy. Without knowing it, we are already eating quite a lot of GM food. However, 60% of UK land use is for grass. Livestock is the sector most reliant on subsidy, at well over 100%, whereas dairy is the least reliant: only 1p to 2p per litre is represented by subsidy. Thus, there will be some big changes to our rural landscape, and there is not much in these two reports to encourage anyone to welcome March 2019.
One possible exception is the chance to simplify and humanise bureaucratic administration and inspection. However, given our tendency to gold-plate EU regulations, I rather doubt it. I am sure the Minister will put a positive spin on the situation. But unless the Prime Minister herself can be shown the pitfalls of hard Brexit, our countryside and industry will be ill served.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, on his maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that it is many centuries since his ancestors first appeared in this Chamber but his speech tonight shows that he has a very good contribution to make to the modern House of Lords, and so we welcome him. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on a quite brilliant extempore exposition of his committee’s report, which showed tremendous clarity of thought about the complex issues involved.
I am no agriculture expert but I approach this as someone who has looked at European Union affairs in the round for the last quarter-century. I should declare my only interest in this debate: I am a member of Cumbria County Council and although I am not a landowner or a farmer, I am well aware of the views of many hill farmers who find themselves on the margins, many beef farmers who are pretty prosperous and many middling dairy farmers who somehow or other manage to survive. That is the knowledge which I bring.
For me, the real problem in the question of agriculture and Brexit is the clash of goals, which the Government have failed to resolve. This is the clash between, on the one hand, what Defra says in its response to the Select Committee’s report about securing,
“a more productive and environmentally sustainable future for UK farming”,
and, on the other, what we saw in the White Paper on trade that the Government published last week. That was an ideological commitment to Britain having an independent trade policy in which I fear British agriculture is literally going to become the sacrificial lamb. Dr Fox’s commitment to an independent trade policy is evangelical. The paper is full of statements about the benefits of free trade and about how Britain is going to take advantage of the boundless scope for new agreements with the Commonwealth, old and new, and the new economic powerhouses of the world. I do not think the picture of a free-trade nirvana for Britain is realistic.
I worked in the European Commission for three years; I went there to work in Peter Mandelson’s cabinet when he was Trade Commissioner. I went as a committed but rather naive free trader, and I quickly learned that there is no such thing as a free lunch in trade relations. Only hard bargains can be struck. Our trade partners are not going to lay wreaths on the statues of Cobden, Bright and Robert Peel. They see trade relations as fundamentally about economic power, and you will get no deal unless you put bargaining chips on the table. What are our British bargaining chips? I am afraid to say that the bargaining chips we have are the same as the bargaining chips the EU has in its trade relations, which are the tariff and quota regimes in agriculture. This is what the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Americans, the Brazilians and the Argentinians will be trying to get at in return for our greater access to their markets. As we have heard from other speakers, there will be very serious consequences as a result of this policy. As many speakers have said, it will make it impossible to have a free trade agreement with Europe that covers agriculture, and our exporters will face huge tariffs which will be a big problem for them. But it will also mean that our domestic producers are undermined by low-cost producers from other parts of the world.
Some people will say that that is what free trade means. We saw it in textiles. In textiles, poor people are benefiting from cheap clothes and cheap shoes as a result of free trade. I do not think the same argument quite applies to agriculture. It is an approach that shows the price of everything and the value of nothing. From my Cumbrian experience, I know that agriculture and farming are embedded in the county’s way of life. Hill farmers do not just live off their sheepmeat sales; they sustain the landscape and a culture that has rightly just been awarded world heritage status. There are things of great value that we have to fight to preserve.
I also believe that getting this wrong could have a profound impact—I would like the Minister to comment on this—on the unity of the United Kingdom. I believe the reckless pursuit of an independent trade policy could easily give the Scottish Government the excuse they want to raise again the question of Scottish independence and the Scots’ control of their agriculture. Similar pressures might well come in Wales. This would be a very high price for Britain to pay for an independent trade policy. I hope the Government realise that they are facing a clash of goals which they have to resolve very quickly.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this topic. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for opening this debate in such excellent fashion and for the fair-minded way he has chaired the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, on which I had the pleasure to serve until recently. I declare my interests as a veterinary surgeon as listed in the register of interests.
The issues that Brexit presents to agriculture and animal welfare fall broadly under four areas, which are common indeed to many other industries and which I remember with a mnemonic, “the right leaving system” —“t” for trade, “r” for regulation, “l” for labour and “s” for support; that is, financial support. It will be important that we get the right leaving system because the implications of Brexit are profound with respect to both agriculture and animal welfare.
A major concern with regard to new trading environments concerns animal welfare, and many noble Lords have spoken on this already. We are rightly proud of the high standards of animal welfare that we in the UK apply to our livestock. There have been repeated assurances from the Government, including the Prime Minister, that a priority will be to maintain the UK’s high standards of animal welfare, as well as assurances from stakeholders such as the NFU, which told the sub-committee that it absolutely supports the Government’s ambition to maintain welfare standards post Brexit. These assurances concur with UK public opinion, which suggests that 80% or more of the UK public want animal welfare standards to be maintained or indeed improved post Brexit.
So why am I worried? Welfare costs money; it inevitably increases the cost of production. There have been views about Brexit alternative to those that I have just cited, professed by various politicians and others, that leaving will offer opportunities to reduce the cost of living through lower-priced imported food. Indeed, a former Defra Minister has suggested that the price of food might reduce by as much as 10%. There is an inevitable contradiction between the pursuit of the lowest-cost food and a desire for high welfare and environmental standards. While a major selling point of the UK’s agricultural produce is its high quality, it would be unacceptable and quite impractical to have a situation where we either lowered those standards; or produced food to export at a higher standard, as a premium product, yet offered our own population imported food produced to lower environmental and welfare standards. There is a real risk of this because, if we are to operate under WTO rules, it is far from clear that welfare considerations, as distinct from animal disease considerations, can be used legitimately to limit imports in any way. The sub-committee heard conflicting evidence on this, and it is extremely important that we have some clarity over this issue.
In free trade agreements the partners can agree mutually acceptable welfare standards, so achieving FTAs that incorporate minimum welfare standards in many different countries—including, critically, the EU 27—will be important for animal welfare as well as wider economic reasons. Of great significance is the pressure that could be exerted by consumers, charities and NGOs, and the presence of existing assurance schemes. Schemes such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured have been extremely successful in advancing and maintaining welfare standards, and are generally understood by the consumer. Although they are voluntary, there could be scope to use financial inducements that might replace the CAP to achieve a higher compliance rate among UK farmers. Have the Government considered how financial inducements might be used to help to maintain welfare standards? Of course, the best way in which the public could ensure good environmental and welfare standards of food production would be to buy British products with assurance labels. This not only safeguards standards but enhances food security, reduces food miles and maintains our rural economy.
On a general point, with regard to the withdrawal Bill and animal welfare, while the Secretary of State has given some assurances about the important legal principles set out in the EU treaties, can the Minister explain, in writing if necessary, which of the principles of animal sentience and environmental laws will be recognised as general principles under the terms of the withdrawal Bill? Importantly, can he confirm whether they will apply to future government decision-making and judgments in court?
The regulations pertaining to animal medicines and vaccines are essential for health and welfare—an aspect of regulation not yet mentioned in the debate. It is essential that we can transpose the EU regulations in such a way as to maintain existing products, facilitate the pipeline of future products and ensure that the future UK regulatory environment provides appropriate standards to satisfy the future overseas markets on which we will depend, not the least of which is the EU 27.
The last issue is labour. Another major impact of Brexit on animal welfare is the serious veterinary workforce shortages that we are facing, because such a large proportion of vets in the UK are non-UK EU nationals. I have spoken about this in a previous debate, so I will not reiterate everything. Suffice it to say that all trade in livestock and livestock products depends crucially on veterinary inspection and certification, much of which is done by non-UK EU nationals—indeed, nearly all the vets responsible for the welfare of animals at slaughter fall into this category. It is critical that, post Brexit, we can continue to recruit EU nationals to work here, so as not adversely to affect both trade and animal welfare.
In conclusion, if we can achieve all of the above, at least with regard to animal welfare, we will have achieved the right leaving system.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the chairman of the Select Committee of which I am a member for the skilful way in which he chaired our meetings and drew these two reports to powerful and important conclusions.
In my short speech, I want to talk about two questions which lie at the heart of what we have been debating this evening. First: what is the Government’s plan for feeding the nation with affordable, safe and nutritious food after Brexit? We have not had a food policy for decades, but in the light of what we have heard this evening, it seems that there is a case for the Government having a plan. Secondly—a point that we have heard a lot about—what kind of future land use policy and farming industry do the Government want?
First, a few comments about feeding the nation, and particularly about the price of food. We heard conflicting views about this, and it would be nice to have some clarification from the Minister of the Government’s view. The major food retailers and the British Retail Consortium estimate that a no deal Brexit could add about 10% to food prices, and today’s report from the Resolution Foundation echoes that conclusion. Even with a deal, if it was a hard Brexit outside the single market, there could be significant tariff and non-tariff barriers, which would add substantially to the price of food.
To the poorest people in our country, this could be the difference between being able or unable to feed their families. The lowest decile income group already spends more than 17% of its weekly income on food and non-alcoholic beverages, according to the Office for National Statistics, and research at Oxford University for the Trussell Trust has revealed that three quarters of the 1.1 million users of food banks go hungry several times a year. Undernourishment is not just a third world problem; shockingly, it is right here in the UK, one of the richest countries in the world. Therefore, have the Government estimated the impact of Brexit on food prices in a no deal or an outside-the-single-market case and, if so, what is the answer? What, in particular, is the Government’s estimate of the impact of any price changes on the poorest people in this country?
I will not say anything about food standards and safety, other than to ask the Minister what plans there are for replacing the role of EFSA after Brexit? What about the future of farming and land use? As your Lordships have already heard, the Secretary of State for Transport offered the view on Sunday that, in response to a no deal outcome or an outcome in which there are significant tariffs, farmers in the UK would step in to fill the gap by growing more food, a comment that the chair of British Summer Fruits described as, “Tripe that beggars belief”. It is an interesting idea, but I would welcome some clarification from the Minister on his department’s analysis of how any increase in production of food would be achieved. Would it involve more intensification of farming or turning over more land to farming, bearing in mind, as we have already heard, that more than 70% of the land surface in this country is already farmed, and much of the remaining land surface is populated by towns, cities and villages? Can an increase in production by UK farmers be reconciled with protection and enhancement of habitats and endangered species that will enable the Government to fulfil their promise of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it, bearing in mind that the more primary production and the more of the sun’s energy that we take for our own consumption the less there is for the rest of nature? We cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the Minister can also add which particular kinds of food would the farmers in this country grow more of if they were to increase their production?
We heard a lot about the role of non-tariff barriers in relation to animal welfare and I do not propose to repeat that, other than to say that our farmers are in favour of maintaining high standards but, given the upward pressure on food prices that could result from Brexit, there may be a downward pressure for us to import cheaper products from overseas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said in his introductory remarks, and as others including the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have said, we are in some ways faced with a fork in the road for the future of agriculture and land use. One future is characterised by free trade, low tariff and non-tariff barriers and cheap food, with a race to the bottom on welfare and other standards. In that future, many farmers would be unable to compete and there would be a real opportunity to reclaim the countryside for wildlife and conservation. So, perhaps that is the Government’s plan.
The other future is one in which tariff and non-tariff barriers are maintained to protect standards for consumers as well as to protect our farmers. This, as we have heard from many noble Lords, is likely to be associated with more expensive food. There may, of course, be a third, middle way which I have not thought of, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to share with us his department’s current thinking on these matters.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the House for allowing me to speak momentarily in the gap. I had thought that my name was on the list to speak. I declare my interests as a dairy farmer receiving EU funds and having been chairman of a dairy farmers co-operative.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent introduction to the two reports and congratulate the committee on the comprehensive nature of both of them. They deserved separate debates for which Back-Bench advisory time could have been increased. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on his maiden speech.
The first issue is obviously support for single farm payments under the CAP. Average farm income is £38,000. I know that averages hide wide discrepancies between farms and the various sector differences. The AHDB Horizon report has indicated that this could fall to £15,000 under a poor outcome on leaving the EU. This underlines the key area of defining the support to be adopted following the ending of government commitments to fund the £3 billion of support that UK agriculture in its widest sense currently receives. To vulnerable sectors where direct support is a key part of revenues in beef, lamb and cereals, the economic survival of farming and the UK’s production of food is at stake.
The second key issue is that primary processing must be maintained in the UK and be competitive as much of agriculture’s perishable output is consumed within the UK. Ideally this should be UK-owned as, in that way, the decision-making is done from a UK perspective to UK-defined priorities.
The next issue is overseas trade where, in the UK, an overriding percentage, some 80% of agricultural product trade, is undertaken with the EU. The Government like to talk of free trade deals. Is it the measure of success whether it is free trade or not? I pose the question as trade seems to be spoken about only in terms of “free” trade, without qualification. Against the background where every trading bloc supports its agriculture, implications need to be examined and an equitable level field maintained. To leave the EU, the portion of tariff trade quotas needs to be split and then allocated. There is also the position of aggregate measures of support to determine.
It is not a wise, more a glib, retort to state that no deal is better than a bad one. It needs underlining most stridently that no deal under WTO rules is the worst possible kind of bad deal in any continuum of definitions. The belligerence being shown—that the UK must somehow have its own trade policy—must be tempered with reality. The US has already objected to the UK and EU’s representations to the WTO on splitting the TRQ between the UK and the EU. The European Union has answered that the EU and UK intend to maintain the existing levels of market access available to WTO members. Will that split happen at an average across all the agricultural sectors? As was discussed earlier, average settlement could distort or displease the various commodity sectors. A letter from the UK mission in Geneva suggests that a sectorial approach, based on historical trade and consumption patterns, will be pursued. Can the Minister confirm this? Can he also confirm whether it is agreed that aggregate measures of support may also be split and allocated to the UK, as the EU currently has an allowance of €72 billion, of which it uses only a small portion?
There is so much of importance in these two reports. I echo the conclusion that the UK must confirm and clarify continued support to agriculture on action-based measures for improved productivity across the industry sectors while delivering environmental benefits and enhanced production standards with high animal welfare assurances.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing the two excellent reports with such clarity and to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I characterise it as a debate of the experts and the heavyweights and include in that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I congratulate him on his maiden speech and look forward to hearing his contributions in the months to come.
It is impossible to consider this debate in isolation from the wider Brexit landscape. The Government are once again in crisis over the direction that the Brexit negotiations might take. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has been roundly criticised, not least by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, which highlighted the excessively wide powers that Ministers were trying to take for themselves. As we know, the Bill is now stalled in the Commons with a weak Government facing over 300 amendments, many of which are from their own side. The negotiations in Brussels are also stalled, with no progress to show after 15 months and the possibility of no deal looming larger.
Agriculture is just one sector among many frustrated and angry at the lack of progress, but this is one where we cannot afford to fail. Without overstating it, a healthy UK farming sector is fundamental to our economy, to individual prosperity, to our environment and to consumer confidence in food safety and standards. We urgently need clarity about the future vision and the practicalities, not least about the issues of devolution which many noble Lords have raised today. This Brexit agriculture report, and the earlier report on trade in goods, identify the scale of our reliance on trade with the EU. A number of noble Lords have repeated this point. We are only 61% self-sufficient in food and the figure is dropping. Despite the ill-informed comments of Chris Grayling, it is impossible to imagine how we would feed the nation in the short and medium term without a continuing reliance on EU imports, particularly of key foods such as fruit and vegetables.
There is an increasing recognition from those in the farming and food production sectors that continuing tariff-free access to the EU single market is crucial. This has to make sense. The reports make it clear that no deal, and a reliance on WTO rules, could be disastrous for our food trade. We have already heard the risks associated with falling back to WTO rules, with a number of non-EU countries objecting to our plans to inherit part of the EU’s quotas for agricultural goods. I therefore hope that the Minister can reassure us that a no-deal outcome for agriculture is not seriously being considered.
The report also highlights the growing concern among food producers and manufacturers that supplies of migrant labour will be restricted. This is an issue among those employing both seasonal workers and full-time staff. The UK summer fruit and salad growers are already flagging up problems with seasonal workers. This affects some 80,000 workers, most of whom are from the EU, and many of whom are already making plans not to return even before the Brexit deadline. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, Feeding the Nation, identified similar concerns from food producers. However, Ministers at that time denied there was a problem. I recall that when I raised this with the Minister in an Oral Question earlier this year, I had a similar denial that a problem existed, so perhaps he can now clarify whether this is still his position, or does he now agree that we should reinstate the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme in some form? However, this is not just a problem for seasonal workers; there are more deep-seated recruitment issues with full-time staff. The British Poultry Council estimates that 60% of its workers are EU nationals and the British Dairy Farmers body estimates that 56% of its farms employ EU workers. These are specialist jobs, which UK citizens cannot or will not do. A recent YouGov survey found that only 4% of respondents would consider this type of work. These jobs are often in remote settings, with low pay and unsocial hours.
In addition, we have heard this evening about the problems of recruiting vets and the fact that so many of them come from the EU. These challenges extend across other farming and food manufacturing sectors, so does the Minister understand the urgent need to give existing EU workers greater certainty about their right to stay, as well as providing for a sector-specific migration policy to provide the crucial workforce for the longer term?
The separate report on farm animal welfare also highlighted a number of crucial challenges which have been echoed in this debate. As the report made clear, animal welfare barely featured in the referendum debate but, by the same token, we know that the British public care deeply about this issue, as indeed do farmers. We are rightly proud of our high animal welfare standards, and no one wants them compromised. As the report makes clear, 80% or more of the UK public want the standards maintained or improved post Brexit. So far the comments of the Secretary of State and other Defra Ministers have been reassuring on this issue, but there are real concerns about whether this is a universally held view among our trade negotiators, particularly some members of the Cabinet, who are under intense pressure to come up with the new markets and opportunities promised in the referendum. Therefore, I hope the Minister can once again reassure us that any new free trade deals will require imports to meet UK animal welfare standards. Will he also guarantee that there will be no moves to lower domestic standards to reduce price? I hope he agrees with most players in the sector and, I think, all noble Lords who have spoken this evening, that the UK should compete internationally on quality, reputation and brand recognition, not price. I hope he will also say something positive about enhancing animal welfare standards. For example, I hope he will add his support to the campaign to ban live exports for slaughter or fattening, and to the need for mandatory labelling of the welfare systems used.
We welcome the reassurance that the Government have given to farmers about protecting farm payments until the next election, but the report also makes a strong case for clarity and certainty beyond that date. As we have heard this evening, longer-term investment decisions are crucial to maintain a robust farming and food sector. We cannot wait around, as many noble Lords have stressed. At the same time, there is understandable concern that the sector will compete with other powerful lobby groups for a shrinking pot of money after 2019, particularly if the latest economic forecasts are to be believed. Therefore, while we look forward to the forthcoming discussions about the future shape of subsidies and payments post-CAP, and while we very much welcome the emphasis of the Secretary of State on environmental protection and the public good, we hope the Minister will take the message back that these issues cannot be left until the last moment. We need guidance and clarity now.
Finally, the Minister will know that there is considerable unease about the future shape of governance and regulation needed to uphold our agriculture, animal welfare and environmental policies, as well as our international obligations post Brexit. Obviously, if we want to continue trading with the EU, we need to demonstrate parity with existing rules. Concerns remain, however, as to whether the EU (Withdrawal) Bill will deliver equivalence on issues such as environmental protection and animal welfare standards. The governance gap left by those lost EU institutions must be filled, including access to justice, and recourse to effective penalties such as fines for government failure.
In addition, the Europe-wide scientific institutions, which underpin an enormous amount of the work that we do in agriculture and with which we collaborate so effectively, will need continuing agreements on participation or separate UK replicas. Consumer rights in food safety and food quality standards will also need to be enshrined in new laws with new institutions. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on this matter.
All these issues pose huge challenges and vast complexities, and I have been able to touch on only a few of them. The lack of progress is not helpful. Thankfully, the Government are now beginning to accept the need for a transitional period; let us hope that can continue until we have an acceptable alternative structure in place. Among those in the Chamber today, there has been a great deal of agreement, but the complexities and contradictions of a future deal are all too apparent. It is hard to see how farmers and consumers will be winners when the final dice fall. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Secretary of State will have a seat at the top table when the dice fall and the final package is being agreed, so that he can put some of his errant Cabinet colleagues straight and we do not end up becoming the sacrificial lamb, as my noble friend Lord Liddle implied. Finally, will the Minister confirm that when the details of the future package are known, given the major concerns that have been raised around the Chamber today, the promise to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the outcome will be adhered to both in the spirit and in the letter? I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the committee for the reports on agriculture and farm animal welfare. They provide—as have all the previous reports to which I have had the privilege of replying—such an important and useful resource as we move towards exit and develop further our future farming and animal welfare policy. I of course agree that the Government have a key role to play in securing a positive future for farming and our countryside. It is appropriate here that I should declare my own farming interests, as set out in the register. As your Lordships have said, 70% of UK land is farmed, so our decisions on future agricultural policy will have a profound effect on our natural landscapes and rural communities for years to come.
The committee’s reports raise a number of important areas relating to trade, access to labour and future funding arrangements that require our attention. As your Lordships will know—I am afraid that I will say it again—this Government are committed to ensuring we leave our environment in a better state than it was in when we found it. We are working to drive forward our vision for a vibrant agricultural sector, underpinned by high animal welfare and production standards. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has chosen this debate to make his maiden speech. His experience of these matters, and some of the others that he has mentioned, will be invaluable in our deliberations.
I hope your Lordships will also accept that, although I shall endeavour to respond to as many questions posed by your Lordships as possible, I shall follow up this debate with a detailed response, because if I answered every one of the questions asked in the debate, we would all be here at midnight.
However, it is important to address the issues raised in the reports, and, obviously, one of the key elements was agriculture seeking clarity on future funding arrangements. It is clear that farmers will need time to adjust to any rearrangements. That is why the Government have a manifesto commitment to maintain the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament. I know that my honourable friend the Farming Minister, George Eustice, has been in communication with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and has confirmed that the figure includes all EU and Exchequer funding provided for farm support under both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2.
My noble friends Lord Jopling and the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, posed the question of how we can become more productive and grow more food. The Government are showing their intent by facilitating investment to enable the industry to become more productive and innovative. Through the UK Government agritech strategy, launched in 2013, £80 million has been invested in four world-class centres for agricultural innovation to support the wide-scale adoption of innovation and technology in the food and farming supply chain. We are already seeing new partnerships form, for instance between one of our centres for agricultural innovation and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany on potato yields.
The Government are also developing a modern industrial strategy with the aim of improving productivity. The food and farming sector plays a key role in our rural communities in this country, so it is well placed to contribute to our aim of improving productivity across the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, who has great experience of agriculture, and I will want to reflect on that in greater detail.
I also endorse the committee’s recognition that we have some of the highest farm animal welfare standards in the world. To me, coming from a farming background, good stockmanship and husbandry are matters of principle for the overwhelming majority of farmers, who have the utmost respect for their animals and their welfare. We have some of the most robust animal welfare legislation in the world, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that we have made it clear that when we leave the EU we will not only maintain but, where possible, seek to improve our high standards. We have already announced a number of measures to strengthen our current standards, and all have been welcomed very widely. I hope that those will also be endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The Secretary of State recently announced that we will publish draft legislation for consultation around the turn of the year to increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences to five years in prison.
We are delivering on our manifesto commitment to require CCTV in every slaughterhouse in England and have recently concluded a public consultation on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to these matters in part of his speech. We also have a manifesto commitment that, as we leave the EU, we can take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter. We are also raising standards on farms by modernising the English statutory welfare codes, another move which has been welcomed by industry. The updated codes of practice—
Lord Davies of Stamford
My noble friend Lord Rooker particularly suggested in the course of his excellent speech that we ought in this country to make it mandatory to state what method of slaughter has been used when meat is sold. Do the Government endorse that objective?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
If the noble Lord had been a little more patient, I would have come to that matter. I assure your Lordships that I will come to it.
We have already consulted on a new code for meat chickens and plan also to prepare new codes on laying hens and pigs. These measures will demonstrate to consumers at home and abroad—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, rightly referred to this—that our food is produced to the very highest standards. I believe it will serve to entrench the UK’s position as a global leader in animal welfare.
We will of course continue to ensure that our high animal welfare standards are underpinned by robust science and evidence. Our research programme in Defra is complemented by the independent advice that we receive on specific welfare issues from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. In addition, the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England has strategic oversight of Defra’s animal health and welfare policy and supports the department in its partnership working with industry. We will continue to work closely with Defra’s delivery bodies, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency, on the enforcement of animal welfare standards to make sure that we improve our current delivery of farming policy and pave the way for a smooth transition to a future system.
I was most grateful for the invitation from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. In fact, I attended a conference in Dundee earlier this year and, on my way, saw for myself in Tayside and Perthshire the enormous importance and traditions of fruit-growing in that part of Scotland. The noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord, together with a considerable number of other noble Lords, raised the question of access to labour and seasonal labour. It is important that I say that the Government are working very closely with the Home Office, business and communities on this significant issue.
In both reports, the committee stresses the importance of developing future policy that addresses the agricultural sector’s labour needs. My honourable friend the Farming Minister attended the Seasonal Workforce Working Group, which brought industry and government together to discuss seasonal labour needs and to share potential solutions and best practice. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that I encourage all relevant sectors to contribute to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence. It is very important that, in considering these matters, all relevant sectors make their contribution.
One of your Lordships said that this has been a debate of the giants and, although I have a brother who is a vet, I am very conscious of that when the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is present because he speaks with such experience and authority. I assure your Lordships that I have regular meetings with the British Veterinary Association and the Royal Veterinary College —it is my privilege to lead on animal health and welfare. In government we absolutely recognise the key role played by vets in ensuring high animal welfare and health standards. Indeed, the Prime Minister specifically made it clear that securing the status of the veterinary workforce is a top priority. It has been my privilege to meet many EU nationals who serve in our veterinary profession and I can say how important they are to us.
A number of your Lordships also stressed the important work that is being done and must be done with the devolved Administrations, and I am very conscious of that. Many noble Lords mentioned that but I was very conscious of what the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Rooker, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—as I would expect, quite rightly—the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, had to say on the matter. I would be the first to say that all these matters are extremely complex. It would be absolutely daft to suggest that any of the matters we are discussing are straightforward; they are extremely intricate. However, it seems to me that we need to ensure the effective functioning and maintenance of the UK’s single market, both to preserve the internal market and to ensure that the UK can meet its external trade commitments.
It is also essential that we ensure that the devolved Administrations are confident about co-operative working. Importantly, the Secretary of State has had, and will be having, many meetings with them to discuss such collaborative working. It is essential that the UK Government continue to work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations on an approach to returning powers from the EU that both works for the United Kingdom as a whole and reflects the devolution settlements of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A number of your Lordships mentioned the historical importance of our connections with both Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Turning to future trading arrangements, I agree with your Lordships that all potential impacts of new trading relations on the agri-food trade must be considered carefully and that the Government should work and consult widely with producers and consumers. We are determined to create the best trading network and framework for the UK. So many of your Lordships raised this issue and I am very conscious of their experience. My noble friend Lord Jopling has experience as a Minister, and he is worried about going back to the dilemmas of the 19th century. However, it is important that we work strongly on finding the right way forward. The Government plan to replicate broadly the EU’s current schedule of WTO commitments. This would mean that our bound tariffs—the maximum that can be applied—would not be reduced from current levels. Some WTO members choose to apply tariffs at a level below their bound rate. As the committee noted, such a decision has impacts on different groups, including farmers, consumers and the food industry.
We are making a proposal that is consistent with the WTO rules and are committed to engaging extensively in the coming weeks and months. We have hosted meetings with food and farming and fishery organisations across the breadth of the country to ensure that their views are fully represented. The Secretary of State has been clear that we cannot compromise our high environmental and animal welfare standards. That point was raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but I think it is shared by all noble Lords.
It is essential that consumers have confidence in the food they eat. That is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in part of his career, was very conscious of. Many consumers prefer British farm produce, given the trusted high standards we apply and the confidence they have in our sector. The retail and catering sectors, too, play a key role in promoting higher animal welfare standards throughout the food chain. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, that this is where I will refer to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Leaving the EU does indeed present us with an opportunity to decide whether current labelling rules on animal welfare and other matters are as they should be. Obviously, we will be considering this matter—another point that the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, raised.
I sense that, other than the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, there has been more pessimism than optimism in some of tonight’s contributions. It is very important that in our deliberations we are rightly proud of our food and drink industry. The global demand for British produce is growing, with exports of UK food and drink surpassing £20 billion for the first time last year. Whisky is the UK’s top export at £4.1 billion, with cereal and associated products at £2.3 billion, dairy at £1.4 billion and meat at £1.6 billion. Indeed, given that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke tonight, I must mention also the excellent Welsh lamb, with exports worth £111 million last year out of a lamb total of £326 million. As your Lordships have said, these are enormously important parts of our rural fabric and it is essential that we work to ensure their continuing success.
Lord Rooker
What is the answer for farmers and primary food producers who have to make a commercial decision by the end of this year because the production process will take them beyond April 2019, when they will lose their markets if the issues are not settled? What is the Government’s answer to those people? Thousands of people need to make decisions at the end of the year about entering a production process when, at the end of the day, they may not be able to sell the product.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I understand that. It is why we are working night and day. I say to the noble Lord that we are not a lazy department. The department has the responsibility and its Ministers and officials are working night and day in the British interest and for British farmers. I would be grateful if that was recognised by some of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly referred to the fact that the Secretary of State set out in his speech to the WWF in July that we need to take the opportunity, outside the common agricultural policy, to ensure that public money goes to reward environmentally responsible land use. That is why we have pledged to work with farmers, food producers and environmentalists across the UK to devise a new agri-environment system. In doing so, we will be able to recognise better the valuable work done in our rural communities, in which food production and good environmental land management run hand in hand. Many custodians and farmers of the land recognise that. It is my privilege to meet many farmers and land managers and they are much more positive than many of your Lordships have suggested about agri-environmental schemes and working to increase food production.
The EU (Withdrawal) Bill will convert the existing body of EU environmental and animal welfare law into UK law. That is very important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that food waste is an issue that we all in this nation should grapple with. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I said— forgive my passion—that I see officials working night and day and how excellent they are, and Defra has recruited more than 450 additional staff, comprising policy generalists and specialists to support our comprehensive exit programme. More than 350 have already taken up posts, with the remainder currently progressing through our pre-appointment processes. They are welcome and very important to us.
I am also seized—this comes within my responsibilities —by what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said about pet passports and equine sector issues. I was in Newmarket talking to equine interests and pet passports came up only this morning in discussions. It is very much work in hand.
We can all agree and unite on many issues where we have to work in partnership. This is where a wide range of stakeholders come in as we develop our future agriculture policy.
I am struck by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about future generations. Not only do we want a domestic farming policy that encourages the current generation but it is absolutely essential that we encourage future generations. That is why innovation, agritech, agricultural colleges and all that we are doing is about the future generations who will farm the countryside and the land for us, to produce top-quality food and to address soil health management, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is particularly interested in. He used to advise me on the issue when he chaired the Climate Change Adaptation Sub-Committee. We need these advances in agritech. We need to produce high-quality food and enhance our environment.
From the outset, both reports have been of immense value in highlighting many of the matters we are wrestling with. A thriving farming industry with improved environmental conditions and high animal welfare standards: we ask our farmers to do an enormous amount. I am conscious of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said about farming in the communities of Cumbria—indeed, in all the rural counties of Britain—playing a key part. It is the backbone of the countryside and provides so much for us.
We need to commit to developing a future farming policy that produces a vibrant agricultural, horticultural and, indeed, forestry sector that plays its part in developing a better environment for future generations and champions the highest possible welfare standards. I repeat, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, gave a considered and rounded speech about the opportunities, challenges and the enormous complexities of this. It is our responsibility to get it right, and that is what the department responsible for this issue is working night and day to secure.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, the hour is late and another debate is due to take place. I thank all noble Lords for their passionate contributions, including that of the Minister. One thing I want to do, in particular on behalf of the members of my sub-committee, is thank our clerk at the time, Celia Stenderup-Petersen. She was an excellent clerk for our committee, but ironically and largely because of Brexit, she has since left her post and now has a job with the Danish foreign office. We wish her well. I also thank Jennifer Mills, our policy analyst, and our special advisers, Professor Fiona Smith on the agriculture report and Caroline Spence on the welfare report. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Cunningham of Felling and Lord Trees, who have left the committee.
I finish by pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said something that is absolutely right: we are at a fork where the Government must make a decision. I was also very impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. In the end, he was the only speaker to describe the Government’s official response—I do not include the Minister’s response to the debate in this—as “woolly”, which is an appropriate adjective for the subject. Until the issue of the fork is resolved, that is inevitably the Government’s position. However, I thank the Minister for providing clarity on a number of issues from Defra’s side, and I hope we are given the same clarity, perhaps in a different way, from the Department for International Trade, so that in future we have a congruence of both departments.
Nuclear Research and Technology (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Selborne
That this House takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Nuclear research and technology: Breaking the cycle of indecision (3rd Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 160).
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, the Science and Technology Select Committee report, Nuclear Research and Technology: Breaking the Cycle of Indecision, is the topic of our debate tonight. It is the latest instalment in the committee’s work on civil nuclear policy which goes back at least 20 years, the most relevant previous report being that of November 2011. The committee then recommended that the Government should set out a long-term strategy for nuclear energy and establish an independent nuclear research and development board which would advise the Government and monitor the Government’s progress against a nuclear research road map. Following that committee report, an ad hoc advisory board was formed under the guidance of Sir John Beddington, then the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser. The work of this ad hoc board led to the development of the 2013 nuclear industrial strategy and a nuclear R&D road map; so far, so good.
The committee’s recommendation that a statutory nuclear R&D board be formed was not accepted. Instead, the Government established the Nuclear Innovation and Research Board as a temporary advisory board for three years, with its term expiring in December 2016. Our committee therefore decided last year that it was an appropriate time to revisit this topic in the light of the Government’s forthcoming industrial strategy White Paper. We benefited greatly from the expertise of our committee clerk, Anna Murphy, our specialist adviser, Professor Tom Scott, and our policy analyst, Dr Daniel Rathbone. We are most grateful to them.
As noted in paragraph 19 of our report, the evidence showed that within its terms of reference, NIRAB has been widely regarded as a success. It was, however, handicapped by not being charged with responsibility for the full co-ordination of UK civil nuclear research, nor was it constituted to develop international co-ordination, and of course it had only a three-year timespan. Our report restates the recommendation from 2011 that a non-departmental public body should be set up on a permanent basis with a co-ordinating and supervisory role for nuclear R&D in the United Kingdom.
The nuclear sector desperately needs continuity and consistency for its research and development. The Clean Growth Strategy, published last Thursday, states:
“The Government has asked the Nuclear Innovation and Research Office (NIRO) to convene a new advisory Board, building on the success of the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (NIRAB)”.
It is a relief to learn that NIRAB is effectively to be re-established, but it does not appear that the new advisory board will be given the wider remit we have called for, both in the 2011 and in the 2017 reports. Our witnesses seemed unaware that the Government still consider they are working to their 2013 road map. Time and again, our witnesses told us that the UK was missing a clear vision and strategy as far as the nuclear industry is concerned. We state in paragraph 52:
“In light of the strongly critical evidence we have received the Government needs to review and refresh the 2013 strategy for nuclear energy, in conjunction with the NIC”—
the Nuclear Industry Council—
“and take swift and concrete steps towards its further implementation”.
The current work on preparing a nuclear sector deal, referred to on page 37 of the clean growth strategy, would provide an excellent opportunity to review and refresh the 2013 strategy.
The strategic policy decision which needs to be addressed first and foremost was posed to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Council:
“Do we want to be a top-table nuclear nation, which is the role we have always occupied and done so brilliantly in the last 60 years, or are we going to settle for some other role which might not be the full-spectrum range of capabilities that we have got used to?”
I profoundly agree with him that the Government must decide whether they wish the UK to be a serious player in developing nuclear generation technology as a designer, manufacturer and operator, or alternatively to restrict its interests to being an operator of equipment supplied by others.
Once the Government have made this overarching decision, other strategic decisions will flow from this to define a clear set of objectives and timescales with which the nuclear industry can align itself. We recommend, in paragraph 58, that,
“If the Government were to decide that the UK should be a serious player in nuclear fission, the following would be the minimum steps needed to achieve this: development of a domestic research programme that is of sufficient scope and scale to make the UK an attractive partner for developing new technology to support new nuclear build (including Small Modular Reactors) in the UK and abroad; participation in and contribution to international programmes (for example the Generation IV International Forum)”.
The Government’s clean growth strategy reports that £460 million will be allocated,
“to support work in areas including … advanced reactor design”.
Can the Minister explain whether that £460 million is all new money or includes what remains unspent from the £250 million allocated over five years in 2015 for nuclear research and development?
It would be madness to attempt to develop the next generation of fission technologies on our own. If ever there was a need for international collaboration, it is in this respect, and the Generation IV International Forum is fulfilling precisely that role. We stopped being an active member of that forum in 2006 for financial reasons. NIRAB and our committee have both recommended that we rejoin the forum rather than continue with observer status. Now that the Government have declared their intention to support work in advanced reactor design, the case for rejoining the forum has become overwhelming.
There is wide international recognition that the future of nuclear energy from fission is likely to depend on SMRs, whether using light water technology—as used in existing reactors—or Generation IV technologies, for which the timescale is much longer. Those noble Lords who were in the Chamber last Thursday to hear the Answer to the Oral Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on when the Government would report progress on the competition to design SMRs, will remember that the answer was “shortly”. The techno-economic assessment of SMRs was commissioned in May 2015 and completed in August 2016. This assessment is an essential piece of evidence for the public debate on whether SMRs have a role to play in the United Kingdom and in global markets for electricity generation, district heating, water desalination, and the production of certain chemicals. Should we seek to design and manufacture SMRs both for domestic and overseas markets? The delay in publishing the assessment is yet another example of the need to break the cycle of indecision. I have some sympathy with Jesse Norman MP, who in his evidence to the committee as the then departmental Minister for these matters stated that he did not think that the SMR competition should have been named a competition and that it was more a call for ideas across a much wider spectrum.
Chapter 5 of our report refers to the National Nuclear Laboratory, owned and operated by the Government but required to operate as a commercial business. We believe that the Government should make use of this resource for independent advice and provide a modest amount of core funding.
We then refer to the sorry situation of our membership of Euratom being deemed incompatible with Brexit. The die is now cast on this and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is making its way through Parliament. When the Bill comes to this House, we must give it careful scrutiny. Unless it secures all the benefits—and they have been considerable—that we have derived from our membership of Euratom, we will face many problems, not least that of losing our lead in nuclear fusion research. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Britain needs to continue to generate a substantial proportion of its electricity from nuclear power. The supply of electricity will need to increase considerably to accommodate the electrification of transport and the continuing decarbonisation of our energy resources.
The growing volume of wind-generated and solar-generated electricity, which is affected by a wide variability, will need to be underpinned by baseload generation, which has to come from nuclear power. At present, nuclear power provides some 18% of our electricity. At the peak in 1997, 26% of the nation’s electricity was generated from nuclear power. Since then, numerous reactors have closed, including all the original Magnox fleet. The older AGRs, or advanced gas-cooled reactors, built more recently, have been life-extended, and further life extensions across the AGR fleet are likely.
In 2010, when the coalition Government came to power, we seemed set to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. The then Government were prepared to construct up to eight new nuclear power plants and keen to consider the proposals of any willing provider. Those who expressed an interest included the French company, EDF, and the German companies, E.ON and RWE. However, in consequence of the Fukushima disaster of March 2011, the German Government decided to abandon their own nuclear power projects. This led to the withdrawal of the two German contenders, leaving EDF alone to build the power station at Hinkley Point.
In March 2012, E.ON and RWE put their Horizon joint venture up for sale, and it was eventually purchased by Hitachi in November 2012. From 2010 until 2015, the policy of the Government was that the construction of any new nuclear power stations in the UK would be led and financed by the private sector. By 2015, faced with the collapse of the programme to build new nuclear power stations, the Government proposed to provide large subsidies to the Hinkley Point C plant, paying twice the market rate for electricity. It appears nevertheless that the Government still adhere to the belief that the nuclear programme should be largely self-financing. They seem to have lost the will to face up to the realities of what is needed to secure the future of our electrical power industry.
There is a strengthening opinion that we can do without additions to nuclear power beyond the eventual contributions of the Hinkley C power station. This delusion has been encouraged by the growth of renewable power generation and by its declining cost. There is also a belief in some quarters that we can overcome the intermittency of the renewable power resources by relying on an interconnected energy market which will enable us to draw our power from the wider European community. It hardly needs to be said that Brexit threatens that ambition. It also needs to be understood that electrical connections to the continent of Europe cannot be expected to compensate greatly for the variability in our own power supply. The uniformity of the meteorological conditions over a wide European area implies that, at times, there will be a universal dearth of the supply of renewable electricity. At such times, it would be very expensive to acquire our power via a wider European market.
The report of the Science and Technology Select Committee does not hesitate to express dismay at the Government’s delay and indecision in confronting the needs of our future electricity industry and of its nuclear component. There are two immediate priorities. The first of these, which has not commanded much attention in the report, is for the Government to provide sufficient support and encouragement to the Horizon consortium to enable it to proceed with its plans to build new reactors at Wylfa and Oldbury, which were the sites of the last two Magnox reactors to be built. The final investment decision is yet to be made by the consortium, and it will depend on the financial support of other parties, which will join the enterprise only if they can be convinced that favourable terms will be forthcoming from the Government.
The second priority, to which the report pays considerable attention, is the lack of progress in the competition to determine the design for a small modular reactor—SMR—which could be deployed extensively in the UK and which could also be aimed at overseas markets. As we have heard, the Government announced the competition for a small modular reactor in March 2016, and it was expected that phase 1 of the competition would be completed by autumn 2016, with the publication of a road map. We are still waiting for that. Meanwhile, some UK companies have invested heavily in developing their solutions. I am told that, without a clear government road map, those companies will have to decide by the end of year whether to continue to invest in SMRs or to walk away. Should they walk away, Britain will lose much of our nuclear competence—in which case, we would have to rely entirely on foreign suppliers for our nuclear equipment. That would be an extraordinary outcome for the nation that was the first to create a civil nuclear power station.
These are the demands of the immediate future. However, there are demands and opportunities that lie further in the future to which we should also be paying attention. Perhaps the foremost of these requirements is for a means of disposing of our nuclear waste. The indecision of which the report talks has severely afflicted the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority—the NDA—which has responsibility for decommissioning the sites of the original Magnox power stations and for the disposal of their waste.
There have been three options for waste disposal with which the Government have been confronted since they acceded to office in 2010 and on which they have failed to make a decision. The first option, which was rejected in the past by a previous Conservative Government, is to bury the waste in a secure depository. The second option is to partially burn the waste in a version of the Canadian CANDU reactor, which can be described loosely as a slow breeder reactor. This reactor has a far more powerful digestive system than the conventional civil nuclear reactors. The third option, which proposes a more fundamental solution to the problem of waste, is to burn it in a fast reactor, of which the Hitachi PRISM is one of the most capable of being realised within an acceptable timescale. The PRISM reactor would be able to profit from an abundant supply of nuclear fuel—the stock of plutonium residing in the UK. In this way, what has long been regarded as a nuclear hazard would become a major asset.
The problem of radioactive waste is not an inevitable accompaniment of nuclear power generation. It affects the fast reactors to a much lesser extent than the conventional second- and third-generation reactors, which are preponderantly pressurised water reactors which consume only a limited proportion of the available uranium fuel. The predominance of such reactors is because, at its inception, nuclear power was dominated by military rather than civil demands. The pressurized water reactor was required for military marine propulsion. It displaced another early design, which would have been much more appropriate to civil purposes. This alternative design, which had been tried and tested by the 1960s, was a molten salt reactor for which the fuel is an abundant thorium isotope. It has the virtue of passive safety; it would never have been implicated in accidents such as the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incidents, or the Fukushima meltdown. Its waste products are far less hazardous and long lasting than those of conventional reactors.
I believe that, if the UK were to become involved in the development of a molten salt thorium reactor, its future as a leading nuclear nation would be assured. For that purpose, we would need to regain some of the technological courage that characterised our nuclear industry in the early post-war years. We should also need to depend upon public investment in the project and to seek a partner in the enterprise, which might be another European nation.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the committee on the report and its apt subtitle, Breaking the Cycle of Indecision. There are excuses for that indecision—public opinion features large—but it resulted in having to make decisions about electricity generation while staring in the face of concerns about a “lights out”, as well as global warming.
The Economic Affairs Committee report on the electricity market is referenced in Chapter 3 of the report we are discussing and, as a member of that committee, it is fair to say that that the effect of indecision played a part in our putting greater emphasis on reliability and security of supply. Nuclear power normally fits into the reliability slot; I say “normally” because of concerns that still flow around Hinkley Point C. The Hinkley build demonstrates all the frustrations that arise from buying in technology. We have analysed and reanalysed Hinkley C, looking at cost penalties and financial risk, while always having to take promises about delivery. Being on the outside of development and intellectual property makes that evaluation very difficult, as well as cutting us out of spinoffs and significant construction jobs.
I have some small personal experience of spinoffs in the nuclear industry. At the start of my career as a patent attorney, I drafted some of the very first European patent applications ever filed. I thought it was neat that they were in the name of Euratom. They were for things from the JET project, but one reason for seeking patents was their technical relevance well beyond nuclear fusion. For other clients, I drafted patents for robotics and communications in the nuclear environment—again, all with spinoff relevance for use in other industries. The combination of ability to evaluate, security of supply for electricity, supply chain and spin-off potential leads me to conclude that there is a strong case for the UK to be a nuclear technology maker, not a nuclear technology taker. That includes the case for SMRs.
The UK already has extensive nuclear commitments, and there have been several debates on the effect of leaving Euratom. At this late hour, I will not revisit the things that I have spoken about before, but we have been told that various options might be negotiated with the EU—perhaps associate membership or something more—although those options might require freedom of movement commitments, as was the case for Switzerland.
I welcome that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill has been published to establish a new nuclear regulator. Can the Minister update us on how preparations are going for the actual setting-up of inspection regimes, given that inspection has to involve international bodies? Having those inspections in place is required before we can make nuclear co-operation agreements.
Finally, as with all things Brexit, businesses want to know what is going to happen. Some cannot wait until 2019 to find out and are making plans to establish themselves in other countries. There was a report just last week on “Sky News”, the gist of which included that, although the Government said there would not be restrictions, industry said there would be. Reasons include, of course, that even where nuclear regulations do not interfere, customs delays and other considerations come into the mix, such as delay for short-lived isotopes trying to get over the border. Unfortunately it is not in the Government’s gift to provide any guarantees other than that they will negotiate hard, and that makes it all the more important to remove uncertainties that the Government can control and show that there are things worth hanging on for. Earlier rather than later commitments to a substantial nuclear sector deal would be valuable. Regrettably, I am not reassured by the 22 February minutes of the Nuclear Industry Council, which record the Government’s high-level expectations for the potential nuclear sector deal as:
“Many important issues such as skills, exports and technology should be considered, with the overarching objective of cost reduction across the industry firmly in mind”.
After mentioning short, medium and long-term objectives and opportunities to enhance the supply chain outside the nuclear sector—it is good that that is there—the minutes end with another call for ideas for cost reduction. Competitiveness is yet again emphasised in the Government’s response to the relevant part of today’s report. While understanding competitiveness, I sincerely hope that the Minister is able to give something a bit more visionary about a nuclear sector deal than the expectation management that these comments suggest.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the whole committee would like to express its thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his skilful navigation through these tricky waters. He guided us with great skill. I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Last week, the Government published their clean growth plan, so I concentrate today on the role of nuclear power generation in clean growth. Once in operation, nuclear power stations are virtually emission-free. Currently, most electricity in the UK is generated by a combination of gas, coal, nuclear and intermittent renewable sources, mostly wind. However, as the National Audit Office recently noted, BEIS,
“expects almost all existing nuclear and coal-fired power stations, which together generate almost half of the UK’s power, to close by the end of the 2020s”.
Moreover this corresponds to a time when demand is expected to increase. There is a challenge.
Currently, the UK has a maximum electricity demand of around 50 gigawatts. With the expected increase in the number of electric vehicles, this figure will rise, but that rise will be dwarfed by the increase that would occur if our national heating shifted from gas, which it is at present, to electricity. That would increase electricity demand by something like four or five times. It would be enormous.
The most striking change in UK electricity generation over the past decade has been the astonishing rise in the contribution of renewables, largely wind. However, the wind does not blow all the time and there is no sun at night, so for dark early evenings in mid-winter when there is no wind we do not have enough dispatchable power to meet maximum demand. By “dispatchable”, I mean power that is available on tap when we need it. This is true whatever the volume of intermittent renewables we add to the system; that minimum demand remains.
Until gas generation is equipped with CCS to mitigate its emissions, nuclear remains the principal means of generating clean dispatchable electricity. The Government recognise that more nuclear will be needed and have identified a number of sites. As our report points out, over recent years there has been increasing interest in so-called small nuclear reactors, SMRs, which other speakers have discussed. The attraction of SMRs is that they are small enough to be built in a factory with tight quality control; individual units can be transported complete by road; and a number of units may be assembled together to provide any desired output, or they may be deployed in smaller groups. In principle, they can be commissioned one by one as they are delivered to a properly prepared site.
Large reactors, by comparison, are somewhat inflexible and respond slowly to changes in demand. The more nimble SMRs could be shut down in summer and, operating in tandem with some battery storage for immediate response, could prove very effective in following changes in demand at any time of year. Factory-built small reactors have been used by the navies of the world for some years. The civil requirements are rather different but the UK has indigenous relevant technical experience. The financial aspects of SMRs remain uncertain but, broadly, it is believed that after the first of a kind, subsequent power costs would be less than those of conventional large reactors.
At present there is no SMR operating anywhere in the world, and the first company to be able to demonstrate an operational system will clearly have a significant commercial advantage in what is likely to be a burgeoning market. The opportunity that we have is to re-enter the field of nuclear manufacture. In their industrial strategy Green Paper, the Government mentioned the possibility of a sector deal for the nuclear area. This is the opportunity.
There are two main questions for the Government. First, what role is there for SMRs in our nuclear future, recognising that they would fit well into a clean-growth plan that heavily emphasised intermittent renewables? Secondly, if we are to have SMRs, who will build them? A response to the Government’s SMR design competition, due nearly a year ago, then becomes urgent. The Government’s reply on SMRs is lengthy but virtually content-free. The window of commercial opportunity is open for a limited time, and further Micawber-esque procrastination is likely to consign the UK to the role of follower rather than the leader it could be.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate as Parliament once again considers nuclear research and technology and how it should be organised in future. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for chairing our committee very well. I declare an interest, having worked in the past on research and advice in civil nuclear fission associated with industry in the CEGB, the UKAEA and EDF Energy, and more recently on fusion, first with the Culham fusion laboratory and then with the commercial Tokamak Energy.
As the report by the House of Lords committee concludes, the UK’s planning and co-ordination of civil nuclear fission power stations has not led to investment in fission construction—really, from the 1970s onwards. In his evidence to the committee, a director of EDF Energy, Mr Xavier Mamo, was asked how they did things in France. If you look at paragraph 29, you will see his very complete description. He described the strategic governance of the nuclear fission industry by the French Government and said that there was high-level political participation in the committee. Over 50 years, nuclear-powered electricity expanded to 80% of the total. A strong feature was the involvement of top engineers and scientists—for example, École des Mines—with access to the highest levels of government.
By contrast, the UK has had a number of different technical bodies, listed on page 9 of our report, for its research, technology and regulatory tasks, with different sources of funding. Our committee was not impressed by the current co-ordinating body of NIRAB, set up in 2014. At points 9 and 10 of the Government’s response, they announced the creation of a successor to NIRAB, but they could not find time to give it a new name. I gather that the name is likely to stay the same. Surprisingly, the new body is apparently only for nuclear fission; there is no reference to fusion research and technology, which will play a significant role in future energy systems. Is the new NIRAB membership restricted to non-commercial bodies, even in key areas of expertise, which would then be omitted? Can the Minister clarify that in his response? This high-level independent body should review and promote the appropriate public and private nuclear systems to be considered. It should take a strong role in participating in international programmes such as the fourth generation system, and international bodies such as the IAEA and the future form of and connectivity with Euratom.
This body should also involve the UK’s two significant fusion programmes. One is run by the UKAEA at the Culham laboratory, which also works in collaboration with Euratom. The second, totally unmentioned in all government statements, is the very large and significant commercial Tokamak Energy system. I know from other parts of my life that you can do some extraordinary work and the Minister can announce it in the House of Commons, but then there is no reference in any public document to this commercial activity. Sometimes you feel that the parties are swapping on the other side of the House. This company, Tokamak Energy, whose publications are now the most cited of any fusion project in the world, is in Britain, in Didcot. Is it referenced? No, it is not.
An important part of the Government’s response is their outline proposal that the UK should start soon on a programme of constructing small modular reactors, such as the Rolls-Royce proposal for constructing about 10 400-megawatt nuclear fission devices, pressurised water reactors, which could be operational in about five years. Sites have been specified and identified, some of which are in critical parts of the UK, where the northern powerhouse could participate. The UK’s construction of submarines, which is where this technology was developed, involved stressful conditions, ensuring that these reactors will be very reliable. I understand that already some overseas countries are expressing interest in buying UK-proposed SMRs.
The new NIRAB should also address the long-term challenge of developing nuclear energy fusion, so that there will be no need for mining uranium or processing past and present nuclear waste. It will take hundreds of years even to deal with that waste, but not the tens of thousands of years into the future when we have nuclear waste either in concrete underground or in other processes. Such very long-term issues need to be discussed by the new body, and it needs to bring in all the people and organisations who can contribute.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, both on his excellent opening speech, which so well reflected the findings of the Select Committee, and on his characteristically expert chairing of this inquiry, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
I shall restrict myself to one request this evening in the hope that, should it be granted, we would be in a better position to realise what is proposed for power generation in the Clean Growth Strategy, published last week. This strategy contains some good news on renewables and points out that one way to see power emissions fall by 80% by 2032 is to grow renewables and nuclear to over 80% of electricity generation. I agree with that approach. My request is that a detailed and quantitative road map also be developed that shows the possible ways for delivering this combination of renewables and nuclear and, indeed, other alternatives. This road map can use as a starting point the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, developed by Sir John Beddington’s ad hoc committee in 2013, and should become an essential part of the cost of energy review to be carried out by Professor Dieter Helm.
The Clean Growth Strategy contains what are called decision pathways, which are valuable but far from complete in giving specific targets for delivery either in energy supply or usage. They do not describe how and when the many different technologies will be introduced and at what price the energy will be delivered. Nor do they set quantitative targets, or schedules for the various methods for reducing consumption. The type of road map that I am seeking would allow progress to be monitored across the full spectrum of energy supply and demand and include alternative pathways that could be followed should technologies fail to meet their predicted performance levels or schedules. I have not been able to find such information anywhere in the supplementary documents referred to in the Clean Growth Strategy. So, at the moment we seem to be proceeding with a hope and a prayer that what is required will be delivered when it is needed and we can only despair when schedules slip and costs overrun, as they inevitably will with the complex factors that comprise our overall energy system.
These factors include everything from the price of gas and the potential of fracking to the long-range consideration of when fusion energy will become practicable. One cannot predict with any precision the progress gained through investment in R&D, but it is none the less necessary to make predictions so that one has a scale against which to measure actual progress. Reference to the road map will indicate whether it is necessary to change direction as new ideas and unforeseen problems appear and show the options that are open for change.
As I have said, the Clean Growth Strategy states that renewables and nuclear together may have to increase by 80% by 2032. There are many options open to back up intermittent renewables but the best option appears to be nuclear fission, and this is what is put forward in the Clean Growth Strategy. The pair of EPR reactors at Hinkley Point are to play a major role in maintaining our nuclear capability. However, there are likely to be continuing delays and cost overruns before they are operating. The two similar EPRs that the Chinese are building at Taishan are experiencing further delays, as are the reactors at Flamanville in France. The first Taishan reactor is now scheduled to go online in 2018, four years behind schedule, and the first at Flamanville in the middle of 2018, about six years behind schedule.
The road map I am asking for should include all of the many alternative energy sources, but it is especially important that it includes small modular reactors, which have several advantages that make them ideal, as mentioned by many speakers, for backing up intermittent renewables, as advocated, for example, by NuScale for wind energy. The US company, NuScale, was the first to have its design accepted for evaluation by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March of this year. The NRC will take 40 months to review and issue a design certificate. When that is done, it is expected that the first SMR will be operating in conjunction with a wind farm in Idaho in the early 2020s. SMRs will be the smallest commercial reactors, giving them great flexibility and low cost. It is claimed that they can be too small to melt down, so they are safe. Worldwide there are about 50 SMR designs under development and it is hoped to reduce the capital cost to about $2,000 per kilowatt, which is about the same as for the EPRs.
If we are to enter the SMR market, we had better get on with it. Please Minister, may we have a comprehensive road map so that we may better understand how and when to employ the different types of nuclear reactors?
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his ever deft chairmanship of your Lordship’s Science and Technology Committee and to its ever helpful staff. I confess that, having left the committee, most Tuesday mornings I now rather pine for our sessions. They were often fun and always fascinating. I declare my fellowship of the British Academy. I have no idea why, but it occasionally looks at the history of civil nuclear power, so I think I ought to.
The question lurking behind tonight’s debate is whether we as a nation have lost our nerve as a serious civil nuclear power. There was a time—when I was a teenager in the early 1960s—when we seemed to be brimming with nuclear nerve, even verve. In 1956, we had become the first nation to provide civil nuclear-generated power into a national grid, when the Queen threw the switch at Calder Hall in Cumberland. As other noble Lords have mentioned, by the early to mid-1960s a fleet of first-generation Magnox stations was coming on stream and they did sterling service to baseload provision over several decades. We also had a plan for the future all mapped out. There was a road map: my noble friend Lord Broers is calling for another one. The second-generation advanced gas-cooled reactors were to fill the gap between the Magnoxes and the fast breeder reactor, whose dome on the prototype site at Dounreay in Caithness stood gaunt but full of promise, looking over the swirling waters of the Pentland Firth, where the North Sea meets the Atlantic. Beyond the fast breeder beckoned the lustrous prospect of nuclear fusion—abundant and clean—which we thought in the 1960s would be transforming world energy about now. Dounreay is being dismantled and cleaned up as we meet and fusion is almost certainly still decades away as a feeder of grids, though I am sure we will get there one day.
Where does the Government’s response to the Science and Technology Committee’s report fit into the wide sweep of UK civil nuclear history? Does it offer the country a fighting chance of leading the small modular reactor generation deploying to maximum and sustained effect our scientific prowess, engineering skills and technological flair? Can we hear a call to arms to restore ourselves as a serious civil nuclear pioneer and pacemaker, no longer reduced, as at Hinkley Point, to buying another country’s technology off a very expensive shelf? Up to a point. Things are moving, but is there enough of what David Lloyd George liked to call “push and go” in Whitehall? I hope there is, that the Minister—for whom I have great respect—can convince your Lordships this evening that there is, and that the cycle of indecision has been well and truly broken.
However, the language of the Government’s reply to the Select Committee report does not exactly glow with a critical mass in the making. There is no ruling out in its prose, but there are tepid signs of ruling in. Let us eavesdrop for a moment on the BEIS draftsmen and women as they crafted paragraph 27:
“As we move to de-carbonise our economy, there will continue to be a demand for the secure, low carbon energy that nuclear provides. This could include energy from SMRs. For example, third generation modular reactors have the potential to play an important role within the near-term electricity generation market, but only if they can reduce costs to a competitive level. While more novel modular reactor technologies offer the potential to deliver major breakthroughs in cost, safety or functionality but are less technologically mature and require further basic research and development support”.
More than a touch of the tentative there, as there is in paragraph 29 with its recognition that:
“Government could have a role in reducing barriers, including on siting and regulatory approvals, which could help de-risk projects and ensuring they are acceptable to the public”.
I counted five coulds in the response to our report.
However, to be fair to Her Majesty’s Government, there is a dash of push and go in paragraph 32. Dealing with the SMR, it declares that:
“We must invest time now to make a strategic decision for the UK—a decision that could have implications stretching many decades into the future”.
Exactly, but can the Minister be more precise than the Government’s response of 13 September, which said that the decision would be taken in the coming months? Paragraph 35 is certainly very welcome, outlining as it does government funding for advanced manufacturing and for the nuclear R&D programme.
I gladly acknowledge that the Government’s reply to the Select Committee report has its touches of pep, but much of it strikes me as a long, weary sigh induced by the feeling that it is all too difficult. I hope that the Minister will sweep this impression away with a burst of brio and enthusiasm and a flurry of reasons to be cheerful. I live in hope.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, speak but it is also a challenge to follow him. I predict that there will be no swirling waters of the Pentland Firth in my speech.
Along with everyone else who has spoken, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his leadership on the report and during my early years on the committee, and join him in thanking the team that supported us in producing this report. I also thank my fellow members of the committee, many of whom were able to give a seminar on this subject at the drop of a hat, as noble Lords have heard.
This is a subject of great complexity, but I hope that the Minister has received some clear messages from what has been said today. The time for the Government to sit on their hands, if ever there was one, has gone. As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, the time for push and go is with us.
The report sets out three things that have to happen for us to see some action in this area. First, as my noble friend Lady Bowles, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others set out, the Government need a strategic plan for the UK energy market—the road map which the noble Lord, Lord Broers, set out in detail on the kind of energy that we will need, how we will generate it and when we will need it. Without that master plan, it will be very difficult for us to fit this one technology into the wider picture. It is clear from the Clean Growth Strategy that some of the elements of that are in place. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Broers, very clearly set out, there is work to do before this becomes a clear and obvious road map. I hope that the Minister can tell us when and how this will be forthcoming and whether it follows on from the Dieter Helm review. If we are to have a nuclear section within the industrial strategy, surely it has to be based on something of this nature in the first place. In a sense, what is the chicken and what is the egg in the process of developing the industrial strategy?
Secondly, as other speakers, including my noble friend Lady Bowles, set out, the Government need to firmly establish what sort of nuclear industry we want to have. Are we a maker or a taker, as she said? Are we going to be a player in electricity generation technology or are we going to settle back and buy it off the shelf? If the answer is that we are going to be a player, time really is at a premium. For example, our position regarding Generation IV and SMR reactors needs to be clarified very swiftly. This report sets out those questions, but the Government’s response largely avoids giving us an answer to them. In the Government’s opinion, are we going to be fully in the generation technology business—because being half in and half out is an expensive way of not achieving that?
Looking at the committee’s report, the pedestrian nature of the Government’s response should not be a surprise. For a long time, we have had slow progress and, frankly, a lot of retracing of steps as well as shuffling forward. Yet, to be fair, some elements of that response were positive. It is good to see that a successor organisation to NIRAB is on the horizon. I found the language about its nature in the Government’s response somewhat sphinx-like, so if the Minister can set out when he thinks this organisation will emerge and what differences and similarities it will have in relation to NIRAB, that will be very helpful. It is also interesting to see that the NIC will soon meet. What outcomes does the Minister expect from the NIC, and when will these begin to flow?
I said that there are three conditions. Obviously, the third of those is funding. It was good to see set out in the Clean Growth Strategy that the Government are earmarking £460 million. Sadly, in the atmosphere of suspicion, I had exactly the same questions that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, had. Is this new money? Is it coming out of the Challenge Fund, or where is this money coming from? Perhaps the Minister could fill that in.
Before closing, I would like to say a few words about SMRs—there has been a lot said already—and about Euratom. It is good news that, after stalling a year ago, the SMR competition is moving forward. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, set out the situation very thoroughly. My understanding is that there are more than 30 entrants sitting in the in-box for this competition, and it is going to be a challenge to deselect these. The issue of comparing apples with pears is going to arise very quickly. Some of these bids will be finished for very highly developed concepts and designs; some will be merely front-end concepts. Some, I suspect, will be genuine light-water Generation III-style; some will border on Generation IV. How is that deselect process going to be embraced? It is a challenge, and it could happen that we will end up spending another year or two in that comparison process, so it would be very helpful to know how that technical comparison is going to be carried out.
In their response, the Government talk about the SMR market—“the market”—in abstract, but frankly, the Government are the market, and they need to take responsibility for being the market. Indeed, in some cases, or many cases, the UK alone will not be a sufficient market for the economics of these reactors, so the Government have to be in, in order for whoever wins this complicated down-select process to be able to step forward into the international market and gain purchase in that market to create an economic product. Therefore, I would welcome the Minister’s view on how the Government intend not just to encourage other people to be the market but to be the market themselves.
On Euratom, I associate us with all the comments that have been forthcoming, particularly those of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. The Government are making reassuring noises about the post-Euratom environment in which we will find ourselves. We on these Benches still consider this to be an unnecessary burden that the Government have taken upon themselves. There is still an opportunity for the Government to buy themselves some more time. The Prime Minister is acknowledging that the ECJ will have a role in certain aspects of the transition process. Given that the major bugbear for the continuing relationship with Euratom is the role of the ECJ, it seems perfectly reasonable that, if the ECJ has a role in some aspects of the transition process, it could also continue to have a role with Euratom, and we would not have to leave Euratom until after the transition period. Can the Minister say what thoughts the Government have had on that point, so that, rather than leaving Euratom on leaving day, we would leave after the transition period? Perhaps that is what they are already planning, but it would be very helpful to have that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, asked whether we had lost our national nerve; the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out that we need a nuclear vision for the United Kingdom. Now is the time for that clarity because, if the Government wait any longer, the corporate will and the people—the engineers, the people with the knowledge to deliver any vision—will be gone. I would welcome the Minister’s views on those points.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee for its report on nuclear research and technology and thank its chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his excellent introduction to our debate tonight. The report is timely and cogent and provides a slight déjà vu moment as it is in so many respects a reiteration of its earlier 2011 report, with many similar recommendations.
The Government set up the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board in January 2014 for a three-year period. To the charge of indecision and its implications throughout this report, the Government replied that they must take account of the risks and costs associated with being the first-mover solution in adopting nuclear technologies. It seems that, with the report highlighting NIRAB’s final report recommendations and returning to its report of 2011, the Government must set out their position once more.
Continuity and consistency are needed. One of NIRAB’s recommendations is for a successor body to be set up to retain access to independent expert advice on nuclear research and innovation to reform its policy decisions. Only last Thursday, in The Clean Growth Strategy document, the Government came forward and asked the Nuclear Innovation and Research Office—NIRO—to convene this new advisory board. Perhaps now the Government could establish this new advisory body with the wider remit called for by your Lordships’ committee both in this report and in its 2011 report. My noble friend Lord Hunt also asked some probing questions about its constitution.
Throughout the report, there is a thread of criticism that the Government are failing to come forward with a vision and a clear strategic direction of travel. Many speakers tonight have drawn attention to this from the many witness statements. The differences in approach between the committee’s report and the Government’s answers highlight that the Government need to take on board what and how they communicate as they take their role forward.
The report reiterates many of its challenges from the 2011 report. The Government need to reiterate their revision following the disbanding of NIRAB, communicate again what is the road map for the future, and define the nuclear industry’s ambitions against other sectional interests in their industrial strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, thought the Government —and, by implication, the nation—have lost their nerve.
Last Thursday’s launch of the Government’s clean growth strategy is the opportunity to reset the Government’s strategy and determine their approach. The overriding concerns around climate change set the emphasis on the energy market to decarbonise the economy. The Government must be at the leading edge of innovation and technologies to achieve this. They must be at the leading edge in acting on this imperative. The Government are correct to identify the UK as a world leader in cutting emissions while growing the economy. Statistics back up this analysis. UK emissions in 2016 were 42% lower than in 1990 and 6% below those in 2015, while in the same period UK GDP increased 67%. Low-carbon innovation is at the core of the strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, challenged the Government further to set a comprehensive road map for this growth strategy to include the relative merits of renewables and nuclear to provide a balance in power generation.
While the UK has done well so far, it is now falling behind since the Conservative Party took charge of the Government. The UK is now on course to fail to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. On the fourth carbon budget, the UK will be 6% over, and on the fifth budget, it will be 9.7% astray—that is, widening over time. The Government need to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency and build on this report to set the parameters for nuclear research and technology to inform the role of nuclear power. It is proven that low-carbon transition is compatible with high growth. The Government must refresh the 2013 strategy, answering the question posed at paragraph 55 of the report: what sort of nuclear nation does the UK want to be? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, underlined this question and posed three conditions that the Government must meet in their answer.
The Government have already been challenged by the Economic Affairs Committee, which says that their reliance on Hinkley Point is a very risky strategy. This one nuclear plant cannot provide the defence that this is “nuclear power solved”. The Government have the huge problem of dealing with plutonium waste disposal. In the days of DECC, it consumed half the Minister’s departmental budget. How can this plutonium material be linked to reactors at the Magnox sites? It is existing technology. Can the Minister say whether there is a joined-up strategy between plutonium disposal and low-carbon energy generation at least cost? My noble friend Lord Hanworth added indecision on this to his charge sheet. What are the Government’s thoughts on this and the other areas on which they are delaying a decision?
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, expressed disappointment at the government response regarding small modular reactors. Against the challenges of Brexit, the size of the market is open to debate, and the amount of international collaboration needed could well be an added impediment to the Government at this critical time. However, I have one important question for the Minister in this respect. What estimate has his department made of the cost of electricity produced by small modular nuclear reactors, and has that estimate appraised the differential in cost where a number of SMRs are aggregated?
In keeping with the report’s challenge to the Government, the section on the National Nuclear Laboratory argues that the lack of direction in government thinking has resulted in a less than satisfactory coherency to the NNL as it straddles the dichotomy between being a commercial entity competing with other companies and being a government-owned national laboratory with public assets. In their reply, the Government state that they have agreed with the NNL to expand the role of NIRO, which is hosted by the NNL. Does this resolve the situation or merely continue the lack of coherency?
Finally, regarding Euratom, the Government have come forward with the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. We will examine this carefully. Although this underlines the clear importance of the issue regarding how the UK will undertake its responsibilities as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are many concerns. I have two important questions for the Minister in the present Brexit discussions. First, does the Prime Minister’s proposal for a two-year post-Article 50 implementation period extend to Euratom? Secondly, will nuclear co-operation agreements concluded between Euratom and third countries continue to apply to the UK for the duration of any post-Article 50 implementation period?
It is imperative that the UK concludes nuclear co-operation agreements with Euratom and non-EU countries such as the US before the UK leaves the EU. Can the Minister inform the House what is happening in this respect? The Government have much to achieve and they need to set out the clarity of their vision following tonight’s debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Selborne and the members of his committee for an exceptionally good report. I would like to read out a paragraph from the summary at the beginning, because in a sense it underlies the big question behind this debate. It says:
“The decision the Government must make is whether the UK should be a designer, manufacturer and operator of nuclear generation technology or alternatively whether it should restrict its interest to being an operator of equipment supplied by others from overseas”.
That is the big question that we are talking about this evening. If I may put it slightly less eloquently than she did, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked whether we are going to be a maker or a taker.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, asked whether we have lost our nerve. I may be wrong, but I do not think he was directing that question at the Government today but rather was looking at it historically. The truth of the matter is that we did lose our nerve in the 1980s. The incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did not help, and Fukushima since then has not helped. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, described the history of civil nuclear power in this country, and I will talk about that myself. It is true that we were a leader in this technology, but in the 1980s we lost our nerve—it goes without saying. And we lost our nerve for 30 years.
The question this evening is whether we have regained that nerve and to what extent, especially given that this is not a no-risk, zero-sum game. Civil nuclear power is fantastically expensive. As the noble Lord, Lord Broers, mentioned, the technology being used at Hinkley is not yet on stream in China or France; it is running four or six years late and over budget. Let us not pretend that this is an easy decision. When people say, “Make up your mind; make a decision”, let us at least be realistic. The sums of money we are talking about are massive—the budget for Hinkley is more than £20 billion.
Sometimes, especially at this time of night, our glass is half empty. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for reminding us that carbon emissions are 42% lower than in 1990 at a time when we have had economic growth of 67%. That is a remarkable achievement. No one can say that our energy policy has been all bad over that time.
To start, I will talk a little about the history. We have long experience of working in the civil nuclear field going back to the 1940s, coming out of the Manhattan Project in 1945. The UK Atomic Energy Authority was set up in 1954 to oversee the development of nuclear power in the UK. The first reactor was Calder Hall in 1956. This led to the construction of the Magnox fleet of reactors in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by the AGRs in the 1960s and finally the PWR at Sizewell B, which began operating in the 1990s. As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, reminded us, the Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment developed fast-breeder reactor technology. It is true that until the mid-1980s, we were at the forefront of nuclear research and development and were world leaders in many areas. Throughout that time and subsequently, nuclear power provided reliable, low-cost, base-loaded electricity to the UK, producing about one-fifth of all our electricity.
That brings us to the mid-1980s. Since then, publicly funded research and development, and the people working in the nuclear sector, have contracted as the UK facilities landscape was consolidated and global interest focused on the deployment of evolutions of existing light-water reactors. Since the early 2000s and the renaissance of interest in civil nuclear power, it has become apparent that those with the skills to take forward a nuclear programme in the UK are getting older and the R&D facilities and skills required would be lost unless we embark on a major reinvestment in nuclear. That is where we found ourselves in 2010 and 2011.
The UK’s nuclear research landscape and supply chain are increasing again due to the Government’s £180 million nuclear innovation programme to meet the challenges brought about by the national resurgence in interest in nuclear energy. In the wake of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s reports of 2011 and 2017, and the 2013 nuclear industrial strategy, which set out the Government’s aims for a world-leading nuclear research landscape, the Government have also put in place the necessary advisory and co-operative frameworks to support such aims. The 2015 spending review followed this with an announcement of funding for,
“an ambitious nuclear research and development programme that will revive the UK’s nuclear expertise and position the UK as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies”.
As some noble Lords have pointed out, last week we announced the clean growth strategy, which reiterated the Government’s commitment to nuclear and outlined our ongoing investment of £460 million in nuclear innovation, covering both fusion and fission. For the avoidance of doubt about where that money is coming from, £180 million is coming from BEIS for nuclear fission, £131 million for fusion, £61 million is coming from Innovate UK, £68.3 million comes from research councils and £20 million has come from the industrial strategy challenge fund. That is where the £460 million comes from.
BEIS launched the initial phase of its £180 million nuclear innovation programme in November 2016 with over £20 million of funding covering five areas of research on future fuels, fuel recycling, reactor design, materials and manufacturing and a strategic toolkit to underpin decisions on which emerging technologies are brought to market. The first £20 million tranche is progressing well and is providing evidence and information that will set the foundations for further funding to be announced in November.
The £180 million nuclear innovation programme was developed based on the recommendations of NIRAB, which ran from 2014 to 2016 as a three-year temporary advisory board comprising 26 experts, chaired by Dame Sue Ion. The Government are working in partnership with the Nuclear Innovation and Research Office to convene a new advisory structure, under the banner of NIRAB, to provide independent expert advice on research and innovation. A process of seeking people to join this board has commenced and we expect that to conclude in November.
In view of the central question posed by the committee’s report—and to ensure that there is no misunderstanding on this—we are not currently in the business of designing and building our own conventional reactors for new build. That is self-evidently the case. It is not a realistic short-term proposition. That said, the UK supply chain has a number of niche capabilities that makes it attractive to international partnerships. In particular, modular and advanced reactor technologies present an opportunity in future for the UK to build its capacity alongside international partners—and in the longer run, of course, there is fusion as well. Government research and innovation support targets a number of these opportunities, and we are investing in the capacity of our regulators to engage with their peers on the co-operation and harmonisation that will be essential to the deployment of any new technology on a global basis. As noble Lords have pointed out, this could never be a national strategy. Even SMRs, which are a cheaper alternative to conventional nuclear, would work efficiently or effectively only if there were an international market and not only a national market.
The Government have made good progress—I accept that it has been slow to date—in assessing the potential of small modular reactors. We will be closing the competition and publishing the detailed techno-economic assessment in the very near future. The techno-economic assessment used evidence gathered from 14 SMR vendors and the subsequent competition received eligible expressions of interest from more than 30 different companies across the nuclear industry, including 18 SMR vendors.
We recognise that the Government have a role to play in helping to establish the right market conditions to allow credible and investable modular reactor propositions to come forward. Only last week we announced £7 million investment to expand the capacity of the UK’s nuclear regulators to prepare them and the sector for the advanced technologies of tomorrow. The Government are now working with industry, through the industrial strategy nuclear sector deal, on a potential policy initiative to support the sector. That includes setting up a national college for nuclear to train 7,000 people by 2020, and Sellafield committing to achieve a workforce where 5% are apprentices, graduates or sponsored students within five years.
The nuclear industry, therefore, is in a position, from the point of view of technology, skills and regulation, to rebuild for the future the kind of leadership we had in the 1960s and 1970s. In response to the committee’s central question, the investments currently being made create the opportunity for the UK to be a,
“designer, manufacturer and operator of nuclear generation in the future”.
Nuclear power is a mature technology capable of providing secure, low-carbon affordable energy. The Government are committed to it playing a significant role in our future energy mix and being a key element in helping to meet our long-term climate change commitments. In terms of new nuclear, as all noble Lords know, the Government have signed a contract for Hinkley Point C, which is scheduled for completion in 2025. It will be the first new nuclear plant in the UK for more than 20 years. As existing plants come to the end of their lives over the coming decades, the Government believe that new nuclear will have a key role to play in meeting the demand.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, perhaps I can press the Minister on one point. He was right to point in his analysis to the very expensive cost of this new technology coming on stream and the nuclear industry in general. A question that I hope he will be able to answer in his winding-up remarks is about the relative cost to the consumer of the new build. We have the example of Hinkley Point C in terms of one technology. If the noble Lord is looking to the future, it may be something which the UK could put an emphasis on. Is he able to say what the cost of the electricity is in his department’s analysis of power produced by small nuclear reactors?
Lord Prior of Brampton
As the noble Lord knows, the price for Hinkley is £92.50, which I think is indexed. The latest price in the auction for offshore wind was £57 and I think that the general figure I have heard for SMRs is around £60. Do not quote me on that, but it is a figure I have heard from people in the industry. Clearly, it depends on how much is produced and how economic it is in producing SMRs. The sum may come down below that. The fact is that the price of renewables is coming down. I know that the prices are variable and not baseload, but the industry does not stand still.
I am pleased to announce today that the Government intend to work with the secretariat and other members of the Generation IV International Forum in order to retake our place as an active and participating member of the forum in 2018. The GIF is the main grouping of countries interested in developing advanced nuclear technologies. Government can help to create the environment and frameworks to support nuclear development and deployment. We can also underpin the regulatory framework necessary to assess the safety, security and environmental aspects of new technologies. Ultimately, however, we must remember that the assessments and decisions on which technologies succeed rest not only with government but with the industry—and when I say the markets, I mean the price of the product.
We must remember that other industries are not standing still and waiting for nuclear to play catch-up. Renewables such as offshore wind and energy storage technologies are evolving at a pace. To maintain its place in the competitive low-carbon energy markets of the future, nuclear will need to provide additional value in terms of its flexibility, functionality or reduced costs to supplement its baseload availability. In a low-carbon green world, nuclear should have a big role to play, but it will have to be competitive with other low-carbon technologies.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I am very encouraged by my noble friend’s reply and the fact that, as I understand it, the Government are committed to rejoin, after several years, the Generation Four International Forum. What we have seen is a great signal to the nuclear community that we are setting our aspirations once more at something that is ambitious and recognises the expertise that we have in our science base in this country in matters nuclear.
We have had a very interesting historical lesson from all parts of the House, not least the Minister, and I was expecting it from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who is a great expert on these matters. It is not surprising that successive Administrations rather lost their way on nuclear when the public felt greatly disenchanted, for reasons we all understand.
Perhaps I am eternally optimistic, but from the Minister’s response just now, the clean growth strategy and the forthcoming industrial strategy White Paper, I do see some opportunities to have the question we posed—breaking the cycle of indecision—resolved satisfactorily.
It remains only for me to thank all noble Lords who have stayed to this very late hour, by my standards, to participate in what I have found a most interesting debate.
Motion agreed.