House of Commons
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 4 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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
An impact assessment has been published as part of the Government’s public consultation, and it suggests that moving towards an opt-out system for organ donation, as part of a wider communication and logistical package, can be associated with higher donation rates. The Government have invited submissions of further evidence, which we will consider carefully before responding. We have already received in excess of 2,000 responses since the consultation started last week.
Glyn Davies
As someone with a long-standing passion to increase the number of organs available for donation, I am encouraged by the Minister’s response. Does she think that the shift from the current voluntary system to one where the state makes decisions based on presumed consent had an impact on the reduction in the number of live donors over the past three years?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I part with my hon. Friend on his point about the state taking control through presumed consent. We are talking about a register from which people could physically opt out, rather than opt in. The issues about end-of-life consent will continue to be the same, and the next of kin will be a full consultee. As for live donation, the issues are complex, but one reason why we are seeing a decline is that the waiting lists for receiving an organ are coming down, which is reducing the need for live donors. We should keep a watching brief on that.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Part of the evidence base relates to the fact that hundreds of people die each year because we do not have enough organ donors, so I thank the Minister for her work in bringing forward this consultation. What more can be done to widen public participation?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and for his hard work in this space. Through him, I can perhaps thank the Daily Mirror for its public displays of education through the Max’s law campaign, but we all need to make an effort. There is no doubt that the public are hugely in favour of donation and want to be able to support it as best they can, but the matter has rather fallen from public consciousness. Everyone in the House has an opportunity to raise public awareness, get involved in the consultation and have a real debate, because we need to ensure that people are willing to donate their organs so that we can save more lives.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
There are already 24 million people on the voluntary organ donation register, which is a significant proportion of Great Britain’s population. None the less, three people a day die because appropriate organs are not available for transplant, and it is vital to do something about that. Is my hon. Friend aware of a particular difficulty with members of black and minority ethnic populations being more reluctant to join the register than others? Is there a way to encourage them to take part in the voluntary scheme?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend highlights one of the biggest challenges we face. There is no doubt that the rate of organ donation is much lower among black and minority ethnic populations, and yet they are more likely to suffer from diseases that require a donated organ, so we are keen to work on that. Only this week, I met organisations connected with the black and Asian community to discuss how we can communicate, getting the right messages through the right messengers, to encourage people to join the register.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I fully support the organ donation opt-out, because it will increase the pool of organ donors. Will the Minister comment on whether the recent statistics from the Welsh Health Department show an increase in the provision of organs due to presumed consent? In other words, has it been a success so far?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. The figures from Wales come at an early stage, but the system that we are looking to introduce has much in common with that in Spain. The issue is not so much about the register moving towards an opt-out system, but the wraparound care that goes with it, such as the specialist nurses who speak with relatives when they are going through the trauma of losing a loved one, and the public debate that raises awareness. Taken together, they are what will lead to more organs becoming available.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
As the Secretary of State has set out, our ambition is for the NHS to be the safest place in the world to give birth. Information on prevention and the implications of a group B streptococcus infection is available on the NHS Choices website. Just today, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published a new patient information leaflet that, from the new year, will be given to all pregnant women for the first time. Because it is Christmas, I have a copy here for the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I see she has one, too.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister—he has anticipated my question. I reassert that, on average, two babies die each month from complications relating to group B strep. Awareness of the effects of that infection is incredibly low. Will the Minister meet me and Group B Strep Support to discuss how we can get this leaflet to mums-to-be at the earliest possible stage?
Steve Brine
I know this is a subject about which the hon. Lady cares greatly. I would be very happy to meet her and to bring together the people I work with from Public Health England to see how we can make the best of this new leaflet and ensure it is the best and most important Christmas present.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing stillbirths, and I welcome the maternity safety strategy. I particularly welcome this focus on group B strep. Will the Minister outline how he is working locally with hospitals such as Southampton to make sure they are aware of this new focus?
Steve Brine
I thank my parliamentary neighbour for that question. Public Health England is one of the most effective arm’s length bodies with which we work in government, and it will be working with commissioners and trusts across our country to make sure that this new information is out there with pregnant mums and the most at-risk groups. Members of Parliament have an important role to play with local commissioners and trusts, and I know my hon. Friend will play her part in that.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
General practice remains under sustained pressure, which is why we remain committed to increasing the number of doctors working in general practice by 5,000, however challenging that might be.
Sir Greg Knight
Does my right hon. Friend not think it is unfortunate that, at a time when GP services are being sustained, local hospital services in some areas are being reduced? Does he share my concern that some NHS trust managers and clinical commissioning groups seem hellbent on removing valued local services from our smaller hospitals, such as at Driffield and at Bridlington in my constituency?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend has talked to me extensively about this in private, and I fully understand his concerns. The Government are increasing funding to the NHS, which involves extra money going both to out-of-hospital services, such as general practice, and to hospital services. We expect all areas of the country to find sensible ways for those two sectors to work together.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Has the Secretary of State seen the recent report of the Royal College of General Practitioners, “Destination GP,” on how to inspire medical students to pursue a career in general practice? Will he consider the report’s recommendations to help to better support medical student placements in general practice?
Mr Hunt
I will absolutely consider the sensible recommendations of that report. People on both sides of the House, such as the hon. Gentleman, who were GPs before being elected do a fantastic job of flying the flag for general practice. We are making some progress. Some 3,157 medical school students have gone into general practice as a specialty—the most ever—but there is lots more work to do.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I very much welcome the additional funding this Government have put into the NHS, but constituents tell me that they can better manage chronic conditions and illnesses if they have consistent care from general practitioners, which is something they find difficult to access in some surgeries in my constituency because of problems with recruitment and retention. What is the Secretary of State doing with his team to make sure we can lessen that problem in future?
Mr Hunt
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. One of the best things about the NHS is that people have a GP who knows them and their family. There is a lot of evidence that that is the best way to manage people with long-term conditions, as she rightly says. The truth is that, for a very long time, successive Governments have not invested as much as they should in general practice. We are trying to put that right, and part of that is flying the flag for what an exciting career general practice is. It is the one part of medicine where doctors have an ongoing relationship with patients and their families over their whole lives, which is very motivating.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The capacity and availability of at least one GP surgery in my constituency are both profoundly affected by the relationship with NHS Property Services—incomplete maintenance jobs and vastly increased rent are problems. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the practice manager of that GP surgery to discuss this?
Mr Hunt
I understand the concerns that the hon. Lady raises; they have been raised by a number of Members. There are historical issues on the levels of rent charged by NHS Property Services, which frankly are not fair given the variation in charges to different GP practices across the country. I will be happy to look carefully into the issues she raises.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
The NHS has lost 1,300 full-time GP equivalents in the past two years and 200 GP partners during the same period. Given that 20% of the GP workforce is aged over 60, there is clearly a retirement time-bomb looming. What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to address the growing workforce crisis in general practice? His efforts so far have failed and patients are waiting longer than ever for a surgery appointment.
Mr Hunt
I would respectfully say that the figures the hon. Lady has pointed out do not take account of locum doctors. None the less, there is a big problem and she is right to draw it to the attention of the House. What are we doing? I think there are two things. First, we need to encourage more medical school graduates to go into general practice as a specialty, and our objective is that half of all medical school graduates should choose general practice as their specialty. We are making good progress on that. [Interruption.] As she is saying to me, rightly, retention is also extremely important. That is why we are putting in place a number of programmes that will make it easier for GPs who want to work for a limited period of time to work flexibly, and potentially for people who have family responsibilities to work from home. We hope that those programmes will also make a difference.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We had productive discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ahead of the Budget, which led to a £2.8 billion increase in NHS revenue funding and a £3.5 billion increase in NHS capital funding.
Peter Grant
Given that NHS trusts in England are facing a cumulative budget shortfall of more than £1 billion and yet one in six patients who attend accident and emergency in England will still wait for more than four hours to be treated, what will the Secretary of State be telling health service managers to prioritise this winter? Have they to concentrate on cutting the deficit or cutting the waiting times?
Mr Hunt
I am slightly bemused to hear that question from the hon. Gentleman, given that over the past four years NHS funding in England has increased by 10%, whereas in Scotland it has increased by only 5%. Indeed, Scotland now has the longest waiting times on record for elective surgery. What are we saying to NHS managers? We are saying, “We understand how tough it is. You and your teams are doing a brilliant job, and we want to do everything we can to support you through what will be a challenging winter.”
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
As it is Christmas time, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the extra funding and making sure that it is spent effectively in his Department? Does he agree that one important thing to think about at this time of year is winter pressures? In an area such as mine, it is important that there should be some extra funding at the hospital at this time of year. Is he able to say anything about that today in respect of the Lister Hospital in Hertfordshire?
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
With patients in Exeter now waiting more than a year, in pain, for vital surgery—well beyond the 18-week maximum guaranteed in the NHS constitution—can the Secretary of State explain the contradictory statements of the Chancellor, who said at the time of the Budget that he expected significant “inroads” to be made into growing waiting time lists, and the NHS England board, which met the following week and said that NHS waiting time standards
“will not be fully funded and met next year”?
Mr Hunt
I have been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to issue the press release welcoming the £1.4 million of extra funding that the Royal Devon and Exeter got in the Chancellor’s Budget, but for some extraordinary reason it has not been forthcoming. Let me tell him that, as many people have commented, the NHS got a lot more money than it was expecting in the winter announcement—
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I very much welcome the £2 million winter allocation for the hospitals in my area. Funding is clearly important, but given the improvements in the hospitals in my area that are down to the leadership of the chief executives, the leadership team and the staff, does the Secretary of State agree that leadership is as important as funding?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, both things matter, and hospitals do need the right level of funding, but one of the highlights of the year for me was visiting my hon. Friend’s local trust in Carlisle and seeing the total transformation in leadership there. It was one of the most troubled trusts in the NHS but, thanks to the incredible dedication of the doctors, nurses and everyone working in the trust, it has really turned things around.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Scottish Government already pay nurses and care assistants the highest rate in the UK, have maintained the nursing bursary, and have now committed to a 3% pay rise for those earning £30,000 or less. Does the Secretary of State recognise that his failure similarly to value NHS staff in England is one reason why England’s nursing vacancy rate is more than double that of Scotland?
Mr Hunt
What I recognise is that life expectancy continues to rise in England but has ground to a halt in Scotland. One reason why is that the Scottish National party has consistently not taken the extra resources it could take and put them into the NHS, but has instead chosen other priorities.
Martyn Day
At the previous Health questions, the Secretary of State said that funding from the Chancellor to remove the pay cap would be based on productivity improvements. Will he elaborate on what productivity improvements are expected and when NHS England staff will get the pay rise that they deserve?
Mr Hunt
We are having fruitful and productive discussions about productivity with the “Agenda for Change” unions, including the Royal College of Nursing. We are looking at all sorts of things, including how the increments system works. I am hopeful that we will have a win-win: a modern contract that is fit for the future for “Agenda for Change” staff and that also allows us to go beyond the 1% cap, as the Chancellor has authorised me to do.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Of course, this is not just about funding. The Secretary of State recently wrote to East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust to recognise the fact that its A&E department was the most improved in the past six months. When I spoke to the chief executive, he said that the management focus on targets and delivery against them was the reason why that turnaround has occurred.
Mr Hunt
I met the chief executive in person last week and was able to congratulate him on several important changes that are happening. He will be pleased that we were able to find £1.9 million more for East Sussex in the Budget. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not just about money. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that they say it is all about money whereas we know that quality of leadership makes a critical difference in turning around our hospitals to make them the best in the world.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In the past few weeks, Simon Stevens, Sir Bob Kerslake, Sir Bruce Keogh, Jim Mackey, Chris Hopson and a number of other senior public servants have all told the Government that the NHS does not have the funding that it needs. It is patently obvious that, with most performance targets being missed, treatments being rationed and hard-working staff completely demoralised after seven years of pay restraint, funding levels are not sufficient. Arguing with celebrities on Twitter is not going to change that. Even though the Secretary of State has a new-found enthusiasm for 280-character statements, all I ask from him today is one word. Is the NHS getting the funding it says it needs—yes or no?
Mr Speaker
Order. We must observe the terms of debate. It is not for the Secretary of State to ask questions. He has been in the House long enough to know that. Please do not play games with the traditional and established procedures of the House, Secretary of State. You can do better than that.
Mr Hunt
Yes, I am delighted that the local hospital of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) got £2.8 million in the Budget, but I am disappointed that he did not feel able to issue a press release to his local press. I have much enjoyed debating with the hon. Gentleman over the years, but the difference between me and him is that although we both want to find extra money for the NHS, he would do so by hiking corporation tax, which would destroy jobs, whereas Government Members want to get money into the NHS by creating jobs, which is what we are doing.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
Councils in England will receive an additional £2 billion for social care over the next three years, as announced in March 2017. The Government have given councils access to up to £9.25 billion more dedicated funding for social care over the next three years as a result of measures introduced since 2015. This means that, overall, councils are able to increase spending on adult social care in real terms in each of the next three years.
Dan Carden
Last week’s Health Survey for England revealed that older people in more deprived areas, such as my own constituency of Liverpool, Walton, are twice as likely to have unmet social care needs and our NHS is left picking up the pieces. When will this Government stop passing the buck and bring forward concrete plans on proper investment and reform to end the national scandal that is our care system?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The entitlement to care is completely enshrined in the Care Act 2014, so if needs are not being met, there is a statutory obligation that can be enforced. On the long-term solutions, obviously, we have put in additional money to sort out the short-term funding pressures, but we need to have a long-term and more sustainable deal with which to meet our obligations for social care, which is why we are bringing forward a Green Paper next year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will participate in that debate.
Nick Smith
Following Four Seasons’ temporary reprieve from administration, what plans are in place to help councils to deliver their statutory care duties in the event of the failure of this major provider?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this with me today, because I hope to reassure the House, and anxious people with loved ones in care with Four Seasons, that there is no immediate threat to continuity of care. I and my officials are keeping a very close eye on the situation, so that, with the Care Quality Commission, we ensure that there is a stable transition and that the commercial issues are dealt with in an appropriate way. That is leading to some very challenging conversations, but I can assure him that I and my officials are on it.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Given that health and social care are intrinsically linked, even more so now as sustainability and transformation plans are rolled out, does the Minister agree that now is the time to put health and social care under one roof in a combined department?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I have always thought that a silo culture was the enemy of good public policy, which means that integrating policy making across Government will tend to lead to better outcomes. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have regular conversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government and, as we approach the long-term funding pressures, we will be very much working in tandem.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The recent Health Survey showed not only that unmet needs were most concentrated among people who are the most deprived, as we have just heard, but that 2.3 million older people, aged 65 and over, now have unmet care needs—2.3 million. Neither the care Minister in her recent statement nor the Chancellor in his Budget said anything about closing the funding gap for social care. Given that the Green Paper is only scheduled for next summer, what is the Health Secretary doing about the crisis in funding social care and meeting staggering levels of unmet needs?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady will be aware that, immediately following these questions, we will be having a statement on funding from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I remind her again that we have made an additional £9.25 billion available for social care over three years, but she is right that the long-term sustainability will be addressed by reform, which is why we are bringing forward the Green Paper. As to the figures on unmet needs, I simply do not recognise them. The entitlement to care is enshrined in the Care Act, and those rights are protected.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
The autumn Budget committed to backing the NHS, so that by 2019-20, it will have received an additional £2.8 billion of revenue funding for frontline services, including £337 million for winter allocated last Friday and £3.5 billion of new capital investment by 2022-23 to transform the estate.
David Morris
I welcome the recent Budget announcement of billions more funding for the NHS, particularly the extra support to prepare for the winter. Will the Minister tell me what share of funding my local hospital will attain this winter?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend needs to be congratulated in this House on being a champion of the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. The trust has been through some difficulty, and he has stuck with it and supported it. I can confirm that the trust was allocated up to £2 million of funding last Friday; I congratulate it on that. I am sure that he would also join me in congratulating the trust on recently being awarded the title of the eighth most inclusive employer in the UK.
Sir David Amess
Does my hon. Friend share my delight at the £41 million capital allocation that was announced in the recent Budget? Does he agree that that huge sum will enable us not only to maintain the present excellent services at Southend hospital, but to enhance and develop them further for the benefit of all local residents?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly with his neighbouring colleagues in Essex to secure not only the £41 million to which he refers. In fact, that figure is a component of the £118 million capital allocation made to the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership area in the Budget. This will provide significant investment not only in his local hospital in Southend, as he as mentioned, but in Basildon and in Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford. I am sure that he and his colleagues in Essex welcome that.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
My local clinical commissioning group in north Derbyshire has been placed in special measures by NHS England. It has been forced to cut £16 million over just six months and to bring forward the closure of the Spencer ward in Buxton before any proper alternative is in place due to a lack of funding. Does the Minister not agree that the Budget funding is too little, too late?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Lady will be aware that the special measures regime was introduced to help trusts that are having difficulty in meeting quality performance standards to improve their quality. They receive support from NHS Improvement in order to do that. If she would like to write to me with the specific details of her trust’s situation, I would be happy to take up the case. But as far as I am concerned, her trust is on an improvement journey.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Given that about a quarter of the additional funding goes to patients with neurological conditions—from strokes to Parkinson’s —what steps is the Minister taking to reduce the often appalling delays between the onset of disease and access to occupational and physical therapy? Will he agree to meet a charity from my constituency of Twickenham called Integrated Neurological Services, which is saving lives and money by drastically reducing that timeline?
Mr Dunne
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that centralising cardiac services in particular into acute cardiac hospitals is having a significant impact on improving access to treatment by reducing the time it takes to get diagnostic tests and initial treatment, and is therefore saving lives. Specialisation is working in London and in other parts of the country where it is being applied. I am sure that he would welcome the recent allocation to Kingston Hospital of up to £1.3 million to help with winter pressures.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister visited Kettering General Hospital earlier this year and saw for himself that a record number of patients are being treated with increasingly world-class treatments. Will he confirm that the hospital will get £2.6 million to cope with winter pressures this year?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend never fails to highlight the success of Kettering General Hospital. I am delighted to confirm that £2.6 million will be available for that hospital this winter. We are working hard with the hospital management, through the special measures regime, to improve performance in that trust.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Bed occupancy rates across London last winter were running very near to 100%, including at Whipps Cross University Hospital in my constituency. With the much-vaunted extra funding, what will the bed occupancy rate have been by the end of this winter?
Mr Dunne
Bed occupancy rates are high at this time, not least following the recent cold snap, which has put additional pressure on hospital trusts. We have used some of the funding provided in the March Budget to increase the rates of delayed transfers of care to improve patient flow throughout all hospitals, and that has led to a slight reduction in bed occupancy in the run-up to winter.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
In order to increase the number of mental health patients we treat by 1 million every year by 2020-21, we are increasing the number of mental health posts in the NHS by 21,000.
Iain Stewart
I certainly welcome that increase, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need to address mental health issues in schools? Could he set out what plans he has to give extra support there?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, for the simple reason that prevention is better than cure, and about half of all mental health conditions become established before the age of 14. That is why it was so significant that, following the Budget, we announced the allocation of an extra £300 million through the mental health Green Paper, precisely to improve the service we offer students in schools.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has, on numerous occasions, to both the media and this House, referred to an increase of 4,300 staff working in mental health trusts since 2010. In response to my written parliamentary question, he was unable to clarify whether this 4,300 figure includes the 1,478 people who were rebadged as mental health trust staff following a trust merger in Manchester last year. Nor would he confirm whether this figure includes the 858 people NHS Digital says were already working in the sector, who transferred from primary care trusts to mental health trusts when primary care trusts closed back in 2013. Would the Secretary of State offer the House some festive cheer and take this opportunity to set the record straight?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to offer the hon. Lady festive cheer and to explain to her that, even if her suspicion is right—and I do not believe it is—there has still been a significant increase in the number of staff employed in mental health trusts. The other suspicion she has constantly raised in the media and in this House is that mental health funding is being cut. She will know that the best news of this year is that, last year, funding actually went up by £575 million.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Given that the NHS owns a great deal of land and buildings, and that mental health workers and other health workers face high accommodation costs, will the Secretary of State meet me so that I can explain how the benefits of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 could be used as a powerful retention and recruitment tool for mental health workers?
Mr Hunt
I commend my hon. Friend for his work and thinking on this through the Public Accounts Committee, and he is absolutely right. I am more than happy to talk to him about this, but we actually have it as a priority to make sure that when NHS land is disposed of, NHS workers get the first opportunity to buy or rent the houses that are built.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
There are still not enough staff trained in autism diagnosis across the NHS. Would the Secretary of State consider training a specialist in each community child and adolescent mental health service right across the country to ensure that there is no longer a postcode lottery?
Mr Hunt
I would always listen to the hon. Lady on those matters, because she has huge professional experience. I do not think we do well enough for families with autism, and we are looking at what we can do better, but I have a lot of sympathy for the case the hon. Lady is making.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
Ensuring all our constituents—particularly the vulnerable and the elderly—are getting an adequate diet is critically important. That is why, for instance, we have given half a million pounds in funding to a special Age UK taskforce to reduce malnutrition among older people, and we will continue to train NHS staff so that early action can be taken.
Ms Rimmer
A merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Ministers on the Front Bench—maybe they will answer my letter soon.
In the world’s sixth largest economy, it is damning that, under this Government, we have seen a 122% increase in the overall numbers admitted to hospital with malnutrition. It is clear that more action is needed to ensure that we eradicate malnutrition in our society. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Health Department must work together so that, rather than introducing measures such as universal credit eligibility criteria, which will see at least 1 million children lose free school meals, we commit as a country to tackling this issue head on. Will the Minister use his power and influence to ensure that this issue is addressed immediately and that we see an end to this failure to axe malnutrition in the 21st century?
Steve Brine
Happy Christmas to St Helens as well. I agree that we need to work together. The Healthy Start programme, for which I am responsible, provides a nutritional safety net to hundreds of thousands of pregnant women and families with children under four. There is a slight increase in cases being reported in recent years. In part, that is due to much better diagnosis and detection. Some 1.1 million children get free school meals in England, and the Government are investing £26 million in breakfast clubs. Only last week, Kellogg’s was here with its breakfast club awards—an excellent innovation.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
That being said, it is disgraceful that under this Government’s watch we have seen a 54% increase in children admitted to hospital with malnutrition. Instead of seeing malnutrition rising, we really should be eradicating it. As the festive period is upon us and it is the season for good will and giving, will the Minister give this House an assurance that he will seriously address this matter to ensure that no child in this country ever experiences malnutrition?
Steve Brine
Of course we want no child in our country to experience malnutrition. I mentioned the Healthy Start scheme and the breakfast clubs. Healthy Start is an excellent programme run by Public Health England that encourages a healthy diet among hundreds of thousands of families with children under four. It is exactly that which is helping us to tackle this issue.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
The recently announced life sciences sector deal draws significant investment into the sector from across the world, ensuring that the next wave of breakthrough treatments, innovative medical research and technologies—and highly skilled jobs, of course—are created right here in Great Britain.
Andrew Bowie
In Scotland today there are over 600 life sciences organisations employing more than 30,000 people, making Scotland one of the largest life sciences clusters in Europe, so they too will welcome the announcement the Minister mentions. Will he give the House some more detail on the sector deal and industry investments that could give even more strength to this world-leading industry across the United Kingdom?
Steve Brine
The sector’s commercial activity is very broadly spread across the whole of the UK—my hon. Friend’s concern. There are a number of strong emerging life sciences clusters. The deal highlights successes around the UK in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow, south Wales, and the south-east, so it is a very broad spread.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Medical research charities play a key role in developing new medical treatments, yet the Charity Research Support Fund, which enables universities to unlock investment from the sector, has been frozen since 2010. Will the Minister heed the call from the Association of Medical Research Charities to enhance CRSF in real terms, in line with inflation and with charity investment?
Steve Brine
I can come back to the hon. Gentleman in more detail on that. As part of the life sciences sector deal, there is just over £210 million of industrial strategy challenge funding for early diagnosis. This includes funding to build on the UK’s leadership in genomics, where we are very strong, and to establish programmes in digital diagnostics and artificial intelligence in healthcare.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
Although we cannot meaningfully compare between 2010 and today, I can advise that the number of NHS staff working in mental health and learning disability trusts was 162,611 in July 2013 and 166,905 in July 2017—an increase of 4,334.
Jeff Smith
That did not actually answer my question. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) read out a long list of concerned professionals, so let me add one more—Professor Wendy Burn, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatry, who said after the Budget:
“There is a real and imminent danger that the promises made to improve mental health services for the millions of people who need them are about to be betrayed.”
Is she wrong? Is it not true that without proper funding for more staff, the Prime Minister’s pledge to transform mental health services will not be met?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have published a workforce strategy to deliver exactly on the commitments that the Prime Minister has made. I can report that we have had a significant increase in the workforce. For example, in IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—the number is up by 2,728 since 2012, a 47% increase. The number of psychiatry consultants is up from 4,026 in 2010 to 4,292. The number of community psychiatry nurses is up from 15,500 in 2010 to 16,658 in August 2017. We are delivering the workforce to implement the Prime Minister’s commitments. The most important thing is that rather than trade numbers, we should look at outcomes for patients and improving patient care.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Only a quarter of GPs have training in mental health, and it is usually in psychiatric conditions that they are unlikely to encounter routinely. How can we make better use of GPs in mental health?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As my right hon. Friend identifies, training is key, and another central point is GPs’ ability to signpost people to appropriate treatments and therapies, which is exactly why we are investing in specialist care.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady raises exactly the point that we are trying to address through the Green Paper. We are committed to delivering on the four-week waiting time by 2020, which will make sure that we treat over 70,000 more children with mental health issues that need to be addressed. I will be quite honest: this is not where I want us to be, but that is exactly why the Government have made it a priority and we will deliver by 2020.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The Budget announced an extra £337 million to help NHS trusts to deal with the pressures of winter.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome the additional £2.6 million for Kettering General Hospital. As he knows, the Corby urgent care centre is a vital service that helps to relieve pressure on Kettering General’s A&E all year round. What role does he see such facilities playing in relieving pressures, particularly during the winter period?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning, and I am delighted that the Budget allocated an extra £2.4 million to help Kettering General Hospital. He is absolutely right that urgent care centres play a vital role in keeping people away from busy A&E departments. We need to be better at signposting the public so that they know when to go to a GP surgery, when to go to an urgent care centre and when to go to a hospital.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the causes of pressure in my part of London is the continuing threat of impending closure to King George Hospital’s A&E. Will the Secretary of State today confirm that the consultation that is now being engaged in will result in the A&E at King George Hospital being saved?
Mr Hunt
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the result of that consultation is published. I visited the trust last week, although I went to the Romford end of it, and I think that it is making great strides in improving the quality of care. I congratulate all the staff at the trust on what they are achieving.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We remain committed to reducing the national suicide rate by 10% by 2020, and our record investment in mental health will ensure that we can achieve that ambition. Local suicide prevention plans now cover 98% of the country, and we updated the cross-government suicide prevention strategy in January to strengthen key areas for action, including by focusing on self-harm as an area in its own right.
Maria Caulfield
My constituent Justin Bartholomew, a young man of just 25, recently committed suicide by hanging himself. His family are convinced that the high-energy drinks that he was taking—more than 15 cans a day—increased his anxiety and contributed to his suicide. As there is growing concern about the safety of such energy drinks, may I ask the Minister what assessment of that the Department is undertaking?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that very moving case. We have no evidence at this stage that those drinks cause such outcomes, but we know that all stimulants, whether alcohol or caffeine, have consequences that can affect people’s mental health. That is something that bears examination.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What discussions is the Minister having across the United Kingdom to ensure that best practice in dealing with suicide rates, and in particular the escalating rates in the regions of the UK, can be replicated across the United Kingdom as a whole?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am always keen to learn from areas of the United Kingdom where things are going well. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, our suicide prevention strategy is very much rooted in local prevention plans. Although 98% of the country is covered by those plans, we really want to do a proper audit of how good they are. That will enable us to share best practice across the nations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to take one last grouping. We are out of time, but I want to accommodate the Questions on mental health services—brief questions, brief answers.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We have assessed children and young people’s mental health as part of our ongoing work to improve services, and the results of our assessments have led to £1.4 billion of extra funding to support locally led transformation plans. The recent Green Paper aims to improve the provision of services in schools, bolster links between schools and the NHS, and pilot a four-week waiting time target.
Mr Reed
Many young people with mental ill health report that crisis care is not good enough. Of course, the pressures on them can get even worse over Christmas, so will the Government back the call by the charity YoungMinds to set up a crisis hotline for children and young people that would be available through the existing 111 service?
Jackie Doyle-Price
We are approaching Christmas, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the fact that it can often be the moment of greatest crisis for people with mental health issues. I was with the Samaritans yesterday to commend it for all its work—it is obviously a good pathway to help—but, absolutely, we will speak with YoungMinds.
Trudy Harrison
“Jesse Evans—Autism Adventures” highlights the daily challenges faced by families living with autism, who are supported by self-sustaining groups such as Autism around the Combe. Will the Minister explain how the recent announcement of a multimillion pound development at West Cumberland Hospital will help those families?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend highlights the great synergy between those health services that the Government can provide, on which people obviously rely, and self-help, which is very important, as well as the help that people can give each other when they share their experiences. I commend the work of Jesse Evans and his “Autism Adventures” blog, which is extremely positive and educational.
Christopher Pincher
My clinical commissioning group delivers better-than-average waiting times for mental health talking therapies and follows up 99% of all vulnerable people within a week of their first appointment. It does all that and more on significantly less than the average budget nationally, so will my hon. Friend look at south-east Staffordshire as a case study for delivering a good service with value for money?
Jackie Doyle-Price
How can I say no to such a proposition? My hon. Friend illustrates the importance of good leadership in all local communities. Where good leaders make something a priority, they will deliver good outcomes at reasonable value for money.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Next week, many NHS and social care staff will give up their family Christmas to keep NHS patients safe. I know that the whole House would like to thank them for their dedication and commitment over the festive period.
Mr Whittingdale
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, due to the difficulties in recruiting general practitioners, neither of the two GP surgeries in Maldon are taking on any new patients, despite the significant development taking place in the town? May I therefore welcome the 1,500 extra medical training places that the Government have funded, and ask for his support for some of those to go to the excellent Anglia Ruskin medical school in Chelmsford?
Mr Hunt
I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says, and he is right that the recruitment and retention of GPs is a big issue. I have a constituency interest, in that I have a university that is also very keen to host more medical school places, so I am recusing myself from the decision. However, I wish all universities good luck, because this is a historic expansion of medical school places for the NHS.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State will be brief, in recognition of the enormous demand from Members wishing to contribute in this session.
Jonathan Ashworth
May I join the Secretary of State in wishing all our NHS and social care staff a very merry Christmas, and in thanking them for their commitment this winter?
Virgin Care recently won a £100 million contract for children’s health services in Lancashire, but in the Secretary of State’s own backyard of Surrey, Virgin Care recently took legal action against the NHS, forcing it to settle out of court. This money should be going to patient care, not the coffers of Virgin Care, so why will he not step in and fix this scandal so that his Surrey constituents and the NHS do not lose out?
Mr Hunt
I, too, am very disappointed about the action taken by Virgin Care, but I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to the narrative that he and his colleagues put out, the reason why it took action was that the NHS stripped it of its contract and gave that back to the traditional NHS sector—hardly the mass privatisation that he is always talking about.
Jonathan Ashworth
The Secretary of State’s Surrey constituents will have heard that he will not be taking action against Virgin Care.
Our research has revealed that there are vacancies for 100,000 staff across the NHS, and there is a “national crisis in workforce”—not my words, but those of the Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in the Secretary of State’s constituency. With bed occupancy at the Royal Surrey hitting a peak of 98.7% this winter already, and 94.5% across the NHS on average, can he tell us how he expects the NHS to cope this winter when it is understaffed, overstretched and underfunded?
Mr Hunt
If we decide that we want more nurses following Mid Staffs, that creates vacancies. If we want to transform mental health provision, that creates vacancies. That is why we announced a workforce plan, which I notice the Welsh Government have not had time to do yet. But I will finish by wishing the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas. If he wants to take a bit longer off and stay away for January, we are happy to hold the fort.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We have just commissioned Warwick University to investigate the links between breast density and breast cancer. If the findings suggest that there should be any changes to the national breast screening programme, the UK national screening committee will of course consider that, as it does with any new evidence that helps it to target screening appropriately and make women aware of any increased risk of breast cancer. I will be watching this like a hawk.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I can confirm that the health and wellbeing overview and scrutiny committee has submitted a request for a review by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. I understand that officials have reverted to the committee to clarify the terms of the referral. Once that has come through to the Department, I am sure that the review will take place.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Steve Brine
The truth is that we do not yet know enough about e-cigarettes. I welcome the Science and Technology Committee’s investigation into them. We have asked Public Health England to include messages about the relative safety of e-cigarettes in its Quit Smoking campaign next month, but it is for local organisations and businesses to implement their own policies on e-cigarette use in the workplace.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Steve Brine
As the House knows, cancer is a huge priority for me and for the Government. Survival rates are at a record high, but we know there is much more work to do. Early diagnosis is key, and that is never more true than with oral cancers. We are supporting dentists to play a vital role in spotting mouth cancers early. I was discussing this very point just last week with the British Dental Association, which shares our passion on this issue.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Hunt
We have not been very good at making it easy for people to work flexibility in the NHS. Contracts are too rigid and we are looking to change them. We recognise that for many nurses their commitment to the NHS runs very deep, but that they have to juggle that commitment with family responsibilities. We want to do better.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
There are many very committed individuals working in health and social care services in Somerset, but one challenge is getting enough registered nurses into the system to allow them to integrate. What can the Minister do to help to get more registered nurses?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend will be aware that last week we published the workforce strategy. One major focus was on meeting the Secretary of State’s commitment to increase the number of registered nurses by 25% and to broaden the routes into nursing. There is a commitment to expand the nursing associate role, which is helping to provide opportunities, through an alternative route, for healthcare support workers to become registered nurses.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Steve Brine
There is huge interest in this subject in the House. Over the past three years, there has been extensive work to communicate advice on the risks of valproate in pregnancy, through a huge number of channels, to help professionals and patients. It is evident from monitoring activities that providing health professionals with information, even when repeated constantly through multiple sources, is not changing prescribing behaviour sufficiently to minimise harm to children exposed to valproate in pregnancy. The expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines is informing the UK position in European negotiations and advising on the national action required within the UK health system. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Forgive me. I did not mean to be unkind to the Minister who was attending closely to his answer. It is just that we want the whole House to get the benefit of it.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister provide an update on efforts to move Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust out of special measures, and on the status of the promised £29 million for much needed capital improvement programmes?
Mr Dunne
As my hon. Friend is aware, I visited all three hospitals in the trust. I am pleased to be able to announce to him today that the Department of Health has concluded its analysis of the outline business case for the £29 million allocated in July and that it has been approved.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On admissions to hospital for malnutrition, will the Minister tell me what has been happening at Wirral University Teaching Hospital? Admissions for malnutrition went up from 21 in 2009-10 to 707 in 2014-15. They went up again to 728 and this year currently stand at 586. That seems very, very high. Can anyone tell me what is going on? If not, will Ministers write to me to explain these huge figures?
Steve Brine
There is £2.8 million in extra winter funding, but I will write to the hon. Lady with the details she asks for.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I would like to thank the Minister for listening very sensitively to the victims of Paterson, the rogue surgeon, many of whom are constituents of mine. Does he agree that the evidence from the Hillsborough inquiry is that a bishop-led inquiry can indeed get justice and closure for victims? Will he join me in wishing the Bishop of Norwich great success in getting a good outcome from this inquiry?
Mr Dunne
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her role in helping to support the victims, many of whom, as she said, are constituents of hers. We are pleased that Bishop James has agreed to take on this inquiry. Bishops provide the ability to empathise with victims and their families, which might not always be the case with judge-led inquiries. As she rightly points out, the Hillsborough inquiry was led by a bishop, but so too is the current Gosport inquiry, while the Morecombe Bay inquiry was led by Bill Kirkup, rather than a judge.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Those with erythropoietic protoporphyria cannot be exposed to sunlight or even some artificial light without extremely painful and violent skin reactions. Trials of the drug Scenesse have proved life-changing for constituents such as James Rawnsley, who, for the first time, can now take his kids to school and go on holiday. The decision to make it available on the NHS will be taken soon. Please will the Minister look at it?
Steve Brine
EPP has a devastating impact on a person’s health and quality of life, and is something that the hon. Lady has discussed with me before. We will of course take the matter seriously, and I am very happy to talk to her more about it.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Given that my own brother’s funeral will be held later today, may I ask the Secretary of State what help and support he is giving to the families of drug and alcohol abusers?
Mr Hunt
The whole House will want to express its condolences to my hon. Friend on what is happening this afternoon. He, alongside many people on both sides of the House, including the shadow Health Secretary, has raised this issue, and we are looking closely at what more support we can give to children in one of the most vulnerable situations imaginable. I thank him for raising the issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The NHS patient declaration form for free dental care and prescriptions requires patients to determine the difference between contribution and income-related employment and support allowance. Getting it wrong attracts really hefty fines. Will the Minister ensure that patients first get the opportunity to make the right choice before fines are applied?
Steve Brine
Yes, of course. The NHS Business Services Authority issues the penalty charge notices for incorrect claims for exemption from NHS dental care and prescription charges. We have recently increased the number of checks, however, because ultimately this is taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that it is spent properly and legally.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the extra £1.1 million to help with winter pressures at Luton and Dunstable Hospital, and I can tell the ministerial team that the merger with Bedford Hospital is proceeding well, but it needs £150 million of capital. May I ask that favourable consideration be given to that in the allocation of the £3.5 billion announced in the Budget?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor provided a package of £10 billion in the Budget last month to be invested in the NHS, of which £3.9 billion will come from the Treasury. All bids for capital are being assessed through the STP prism. The proposal that his area will be making will be assessed against others. As far as I am aware, no such proposal has yet been made to NHS England, but it will obviously be looked at in due course.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
You may recall, Mr Speaker, that I raised earlier in the year the issue of a private mental health hospital in my constituency where a young woman had MRSA and was infecting staff and patients. Since then, there have been numerous inspections in relation to children having access to ligatures and medicines in order to overdose. Will the Secretary of State commit to a policy to ensure that no child or young person is placed in a mental health facility that is deemed unsafe?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue, which she and I have met to discuss before. She is right to highlight the ongoing inspections and issues, and I have written to her to offer to discuss the matter with her again. It is absolutely unacceptable that anybody is placed in a facility that is deemed unsafe.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
May I thank the ministerial team on behalf of my constituent Susan Bradley for finally laying the remedial order for single-parent surrogates, and can they assure me that they will do everything they can to get it through Parliament as quickly as possible?
Mr Dunne
An all-party parliamentary group has been established this week, I believe, to take this issue forward, and I look forward to speaking to that group, if invited, next month. The remedial order will follow due parliamentary process, which involves its being laid for 60 days and then, after an interval, for a further 60 days.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
There have been 15,000 violent assaults on mental health workers in the west midlands over the last five years. What is the Government’s response to the Care Quality Commission’s opposition to routine searches of all mental health service users for weapons on admission or return to acute in-patient units?
Mr Hunt
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are putting a lot of effort into patient safety and staff safety in mental health trusts, and we are discovering that there is a wide variation between practices. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and, if I may, I will write to him to inform him of our progress.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The patient transport service in northern Lincolnshire is contracted to Thames Ambulance Service Ltd, which is failing miserably to perform to an adequate standard. Will the Minister meet me, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and other neighbouring Members, to discuss what influence the Department can bring to bear?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I appreciate the commitment of colleagues. The session has overrun, but I feel that colleagues will go home for Christmas content only if they have asked their questions and they have been answered. I am extremely grateful to the Front-Bench teams on both sides of the House.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that in the course of this hour there have been more questions about hospital closures than about almost anything else, covering East Yorkshire, Berwick on his own side, Warwickshire on our side, and High Peak in Derbyshire, including Bolsover and Bakewell Hospitals? There is a growing suspicion that what this Secretary of State is up to is leaving those hospitals and losing all the beds in them forever so that the private sector can move in and take the lot. That is what is going to happen.
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Christmas cheer. Let me just say to him that if that were the Government’s intention, we would not have found an extra £2.8 billion for the NHS in the Budget, including £1.95 million for Chesterfield Hospital, which will benefit his own constituents.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Some 50% of young people do not use a condom with a new partner and one in 10 young adults never uses one, which means the chance of an unwanted pregnancy or, indeed, a sexually transmitted disease. Please will the Department do something to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of condoms?
Steve Brine
Men may not be very good at wrapping at this time of year, but they need to get this one right. I welcome Public Health England’s “protect against STIs” campaign, which was launched last week and aims to reduce rates among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I encourage young people having fun this Christmas to do so sensibly.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
There is an increasing trend for women to share breast milk over the internet with no recourse to the milk banking guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Will the Minister meet me, and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, to discuss the matter further and to ensure that breast milk can be used safely?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As the hon. Lady says, it is important for us to ensure that anything that happens in this space is safe, and I should be very pleased to meet her and other members of the all-party group.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members can ask questions consisting of no more than one sentence each.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
What funds are being made available to our mental health services to meet the additional demands placed on them by changes in the Mental Health Act 1983, which came into force on 11 December this year?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
NHS Property Services exists on a merry-go-round of taxpayers’ money. Will the Secretary of State give us all a Christmas present by closing it down and returning the control of property to local health communities?
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State consider the NHS as a funder of last resort for hospices such as Bury hospice, so that they can operate at full capacity and play their part in the delivery of social care?
Petition
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition opposing the proposed waste incinerators in my constituency, which has been signed by 148 people in addition to the 246 people who have signed the petition online.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Sowerby Bridge,
Declares that Calder Valley Skip Hire Ltd have submitted an application for an Environmental Permit for an incinerator at their site at Mearclough Road; further to planning applications for another incinerator at their Belmont site at the other end of Sowerby Bridge; further resulting in increased levels of air pollution affecting a number of schools in the local area; further to causing more pollution in Air Quality Management Areas; further that traffic congestion would worsen as lorries bring waste to the site; and further to the site having recently flooded any future development could result in waste entering the river.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to take all possible measures to prevent these waste incinerators being placed in the Sowerby Bridge area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002092]
Local Government Finance Settlement
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on funding for local authorities in England next year.
From 2015 to 2020, councils in England have access to over £200 billion to deliver the high-quality services their local communities need. They deserve no less; local government is on the frontline of the country’s democracy, with councillors and officers working at the heart of the communities that they serve. But to make the most of that local knowledge, councils need greater control of the money they raise: they need greater freedom to tackle challenges in their areas, and they need the certainty and stability that will allow them to plan ahead.
This Government are committed to delivering that, and today I am publishing a draft local government finance settlement that marks an important milestone in the journey to doing so. It comes in the third year of a four-year deal that was accepted by 97% of councils in return for publishing efficiency plans. We will continue to work with the sector to help councils to increase transparency and share best practice, supporting greater progress in delivering increased efficiency over the coming year. I expect this to have a tangible impact on the steps that councils take to promote efficiency from 2019-20.
Local government operates in a society that is constantly changing, and the system of financing local government needs to reflect that. The current formula of budget allocations has served local councils and communities well over the years, but to meet the challenges of the future we need an updated and more responsive distribution methodology that gives councils the confidence to face the challenges and opportunities of the future. So I am today publishing a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. I aim to implement a new system based on its findings in 2020-21.
Alongside the new methodology, in 2020-21 we will also be implementing the latest phase of our business rates retention programme, a scheme that gives local councils the levers and incentives they need to grow their local economies. The aim is for local authorities to retain 75% of business rates from 2020-21. That will be done through incorporating existing grants into business rates retention, including the revenue support grant and the public health grant. Local authorities will be able to keep that same share of growth on their baseline levels from 2020-21, when the system is reset. So from 2020-21 business rates will be redistributed according to the outcome of the new needs assessment, subject to suitable transitional measures.
A number of 100% retention pilots have already been announced and they will continue. A further pilot will begin in London in 2018-19, and we had intended that a further five pilots would begin that same year. However, interest in the scheme was such that we will now be taking forward twice as many as planned. I am pleased to announce today that the new pilots will take place in Berkshire, Derbyshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Kent and Medway, Leeds, Lincolnshire, Solent, Suffolk, and Surrey.
The first batch of pilots is taking place largely in urban authorities; the second wave will mainly cover counties. This ensures that councils right across the country will benefit, that the scheme can be tested in a wide range of environments, and that the benefits of growth are broadly comparable between London, existing pilots and new pilots. We received so many applications to take part that we will continue the pilot business rates retention programme in 2019-20, and further details will be published in due course.
Over the past year, my Ministers and officials have been listening to councils of all shapes and sizes, understanding their concerns and working together to develop ways of tackling them. The result of those conversations is reflected in this draft settlement. For example, rural councils have expressed concern about the fairness of the current system, with the rural services delivery grant due to be reduced next year. So today I can confirm that I will increase the rural services delivery grant by £15 million in 2018-19, meaning that the total figure will remain at £65 million for the remainder of the current four-year settlement.
We have also heard concerns about the proposed changes to the new homes bonus. To date, we have made almost £7 billion of new homes bonus payments to reward the building of 1.4 million homes. Over £946 million in new homes bonus payments will be allocated in 2018-19, rewarding local authorities for their work on fixing our broken housing market. I have consulted on proposals to link new homes bonus payments to the number of successful planning appeals, and considered raising the NHB baseline. Following conversations with the sector, I have been persuaded of the importance of continuity and certainty in this area. So today I can confirm that in the year ahead no new changes will be made to the way in which the new homes bonus works, and that the NHB baseline will be maintained at 0.4%.
As I set out in the housing White Paper, local authorities will be able to increase planning fees by 20% when they commit to investing the additional income in their planning services. This is a significant step towards addressing widespread concerns about under-resourcing in local planning authorities. Following discussions with the sector, I am also announcing a continuation of the capital receipts flexibility programme for a further three years. This scheme gives local authorities the continued freedom to use capital receipts from the sale of their own assets. This will help to fund the costs of transformation and release savings.
One particular issue causing concern for some councils is so-called negative revenue support grant. This is where changes in revenue support grant have led to a downward adjustment of some local authorities’ business rates top-up or tariff for 2019-20. I recognise the strength of feeling in local government on this issue, and I can confirm that my Department will be looking at fair and affordable options for dealing with negative RSG. We will formally consult on proposals in the spring, so that the findings will be in ahead of next year’s settlement.
Of course, anyone who has spoken to anyone in local government will be aware of concerns about funding for adult and children’s social care. That is why, over the past 12 months, we have put billions of pounds of extra funding into the sector, and why the Department for Education is spending more than £200 million on innovation and improvement in children’s social care. In the spring Budget, an additional £2 billion was announced for adult social care over the next three years. Along with the freedom to raise more money more quickly through the use of the social care precept that I announced this time last year, we have given councils access to £9.25 billion of dedicated funding for adult social care over the next three years. However, we also need to find a long-term solution to challenges that are not going away. That is why we have already announced that a Green Paper on future challenges within adult social care will be published in the summer of 2018.
Finally, I am conscious of calls for further flexibility in the setting of council tax. We all want to ease growing pressure on local government services, but I am sure that none of us wants to see hard-working taxpayers saddled with ever-higher bills. This settlement needs to strike a balance between those two aims, giving councils the ability to increase their core council tax requirement by an additional 1% without a local referendum, bringing the core principle in line with inflation. We have abolished Whitehall capping. Under the Localism Act 2011, local government can increase council tax as it wishes, but excessive rises need to be approved by local residents in a referendum. This provides an important check and balance against the excessive increases that were seen under the last Labour Government, when council taxes more than doubled.
This change, combined with the additional flexibility on the adult social care precept that I confirmed last year, gives local authorities the independence they need to help to relieve pressure on local services such as adults’ and children’s services, while recognising that many households face their own pressures. In addition, directly elected mayors will decide the required level of precept by agreement with their combined authorities. I am sure that voters will be watching closely, as I will, to ensure that that freedom is not abused.
I can also confirm that the Government intend to defer the setting of referendum principles for town and parish councils for three years. This is subject to the sector taking all available steps to mitigate the need for council tax increases, and the Government seeing clear evidence of restraint in the increases set by the sector as a whole. I have also agreed measures with the Home Secretary to make it easier for police and crime commissioners to meet local demand pressures by allowing a £12 council tax flexibility for police services, raising an additional £139 million next year.
This settlement recognises the need to keep spending under control while also tackling many of the issues that have been raised by local government over the past year. Two years of real-terms increases in resources being made available to local government will give local authorities the funding and freedom they need to make decisions in the best interests of the communities they serve. It is a settlement that offers councils the resources they need, the stability they have requested and the fairness they deserve, and I commend it to the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a copy of his statement. I have had the briefest possible time in which to adequately consider its contents, but it was nevertheless given to me in advance.
I pay tribute to councillors and officers across the country who are on the frontline of this Government’s austerity agenda yet continue to serve our communities as well as they can. Many of them will have been looking to today’s settlement for assurances that the Government understand the challenges facing local government. Councils have already experienced unprecedented funding cuts since 2010, and since the general election, they have been left in the dark about the Government’s sustainable long-term funding plans.
The Secretary of State says that he is listening to councils “of all shapes and sizes”, but why must he exacerbate the rural-urban split? He has listened to Surrey—that much is clear—but in doing so, he has ignored the needs of Stockton, Salford and Sheffield. Before the general election, we had been promised a full legislative package to fund local government beyond the revenue support grant. Now, however, we have been promised not legislation but a consultation. Councils are desperate for additional funding, and they might well appreciate some of the piecemeal solutions offered by the Secretary of State today, but we are still without a sustainable plan or a vision for how the sector will be funded in the future. The Secretary of State notes that the aim is for authorities to retain 75% of business rates by 2020, and I look forward to hearing more details of how that will function, recognising that not every area has the ability to raise the income locally.
Many will have looked to today’s announcements to offer solutions to the crisis in children’s services, after the Chancellor failed to mention them in his Budget. Demand for children’s services is placing unbearable pressures on local authorities. Central Government funding to support children and their families has been cut by 55% over the past seven years—a total cut of £1.7 billion —forcing less money to be invested in intervention to cover the cost of emergency care. The result of these cuts has been appallingly clear—[Interruption]—if the Secretary of State chooses to listen. Cuts to early years intervention have meant a record number of children—some 72,000 last year—being taken into care. The number of serious child protection cases has doubled in the last seven years, with 500 new cases launched every day. More than 170,000 children were subject to child protection plans last year, which is double the number seven years ago.
The Secretary of State recognises the crisis facing children services, but he just brushes it aside. I suggest that he listens to Lord Gary Porter, who warned recently that both adult social care and children’s services were “at the very top” of the Local Government Association’s “worry list”, saying:
“If we don’t look after our older and younger people, it’s bad for our residents, bad for our communities and bad for our services more widely.”
It was important that today’s statement provided much-needed certainty to our communities. Instead, it acts merely as a sticking plaster and pushes the problems down the road for another Secretary of State to fix.
Our key tests for today’s announcement are whether it addresses the cuts to everyday services and properly funds councils to deliver those services in future, whether it assists the funding crisis in children’s services, and whether it fully pays towards local government staff getting a decent wage. It is interesting that the council-tax-raising flexibilities will not even cover the pay rise, which will itself place further pressure on the cutting of services. On the day that Labour’s shadow Health team announced that 2.3 million older people have been left with unmet needs, which is up from 1.2 million, another test is whether the announcement ensures that our aged and vulnerable people are supported and protected. In addition, does it ensure fair funding in the truest sense of the word “fair”? Does it address the uncertainty around RSG, recognising that areas with greatest social and health inequality are also the least able to fill the funding gap by other means?
The statement fails on all those counts. While today’s announcement offers some additional support, it merely pays lip service to many of the problems facing our local councils. The Secretary of State has today presented himself as Santa, but the details of the announcement really show him to be the Grinch.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Christmas spirit. Time and again, he stands at the Dispatch Box and says just one thing: he wants more spending. He wants more spending on police, fire services, children’s services, adult social care, sprinklers, pay and pensions—spending, spending, spending. It is the only thing he knows. However, not once has he appeared at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else to tell the country how he intends to pay for all that spending. The truth is that it is the same old Labour, and Labour is all about higher spending, higher taxes, higher debt—all the same polices that will take our economy down to its knees and crash it. It is the only thing that Labour knows.
I want to remind the House about what happened the last time Labour was in office. We had the deepest recession in almost 100 years, which destroyed the lives of so many millions of people in this country. Unemployment was 500,000 higher when the Labour Government left office than when they first came into office, ensuring that they delivered on the one promise of every Labour Government: they will always leave unemployment higher than they found it. Under the 13 years of Labour Government, council tax bills went up by almost 110%, and their measures contributed to the deepest budget deficit of modern times. We will take no lectures at all from the hon. Gentleman.
I of course recognise the pressure on councils, and we have done something about that in the settlement by increasing real-terms spending power for the next two years while ensuring that we maintain a balance between the need for councils to provide services and taxpayers themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned negative RSG, but perhaps he was not listening carefully because I said that I will be consulting early in the new year on options to deal with that challenge, which will be welcomed by the sector even it if it is not welcomed by him. He referred to the business rates retention pilots, suggesting that there was some political dimension to how they were chosen. He said that Sheffield and Stockton did not get a pilot, but it would have helped if they had actually applied for one. Councils need to apply for something before they can get it. He then mentioned Salford, but perhaps he does not know that Salford is part of a business rates retention pilot as part of the Greater Manchester region, which received a pilot earlier this year. It would really help if the hon. Gentleman did his homework before he appears at the Dispatch Box and starts making things up.
As for social care, the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that we have acknowledged the pressures, particularly the short-term pressures, which was why the spring Budget allocated an additional £2 billion. Together with the extra flexibility through the precept, that will lead to a real-terms spending increase in each of the next three years.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about his tests, which included seeing whether local authorities are properly and fairly funded. The one thing he should know is that, in order to fund any public services fairly, including those provided by our excellent local authorities, we need a successful economy, which Labour will never deliver.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As per usual on a matter of this kind, there is extensive interest in participating in the exchanges on the statement, so I will just make two points. First, people who arrive late obviously should not stand or expect to be called. Secondly, because of the pressure on time and the fact that there is another statement to follow, there is a premium upon brevity, which must be exhibited—even by a lawyer. I call Robert Neill.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Will he confirm that it is particularly important for councils with a long history of efficient financing and a low cost base, such as the London Borough of Bromley, that the review of relative costs and needs ensures that financial efficiency is properly incentivised within the local government finance system?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend speaks with experience as a former Minister in this Department, and I thank him for his comment. I can confirm that. This is all about efficiency and ensuring that local authorities have the right incentives, which is why our business rates retention plan, for example, will help to deliver just that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. On the distribution methodology, I am glad to see quite a long lead-in time for that and a consultation in advance of something being done. Will he tell us more about how closely monitored the business rates retention scheme will be to ensure that there is no gap between business rates and the revenue support grant? If a big business goes to the wall, a gap could suddenly appear in a local authority’s budget, so how does he intend to cushion the loss of a high-tariff business rates company in a council area?
How does the Secretary of State intend for local authorities that have already disposed of a lot of their assets to gain capital receipts, which are clearly a declining resource for some local authorities? What advice would he give to councils that have essentially sold off everything they can?
The Communities and Local Government Committee, of which I was a member in the previous Parliament, published a fair and reasonable report on adult social care, but the Government unfortunately did not accept all its recommendations. When the Secretary of State brings the Green Paper to Parliament, will he look again at some of those recommendations? Will he provide some more detail on why summer 2018 has been chosen? It is quite far away, and this Government have broad definitions of what seasons are in this place. Is there really a need to wait for at least another six months?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady raises several points, but I will try to answer them all quickly. It is important that we take our time to get the fair funding review right, and I think she would agree with that. Part of the process involves ensuring that issues are properly consulted on, which is why we launched the 12-week consultation today. On capital flexibility, it is important to give local authorities more freedom to raise funds, including capital funds. If they want—it is their decision alone—to sell capital assets and to use that funding more efficiently for local people, that option should be open to them, so guaranteeing that flexibility for another three years is important.
On adult social care, I welcomed the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report. It made a number of recommendations, including one about more short-term support, which is why the funding that we provided in the Budget, for example, earlier this year is important. As for the Green Paper, it is very important that we take the time to get things right, consult widely, try to work across different parties and listen to people as well as care users. By taking that time, we can come up with a more sustainable long-term system.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned that 97% of councils are in the third year of a four-year settlement. Will he therefore confirm the position for the small group of councils that refused to publish an efficiency plan? Will they be rewarded for their failure, or will they be penalised in the funding they receive under this settlement?
Sajid Javid
The reward for accepting the four-year settlement is actually for the local people those local councils represent. The councils that did not accept the four-year settlement—it was around 10 councils, so it was a very small number—should reflect on what that means for local people, because local people want to see certainty on the delivery of services. Those councils should certainly take a close look at that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently reiterate that those who arrived late should not stand. I have already made the point once, and it should not be necessary for me to make it again, but regrettably it has proved to be so.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome some aspects of the statement, such as the increase in money from planning fees. On the flexibility on council tax increases, will the Secretary of State confirm the figures given to me by the Local Government Association that show that, even if the flexibility were fully used, it would raise just £250 million next year? That compares with the LGA’s estimate of the shortfall in funding for social care of more than £2 billion, even after the measures previously announced by the Government are taken into account. Will he also confirm that councils will raise very different amounts of money from such flexibility, depending on the size of their council tax base?
Sajid Javid
I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I know he looks at these issues carefully. The extra flexibility on council tax means that the total core spending power this financial year of £44.3 billion will rise to £45.6 billion by 2019-20. That is an increase in real terms, so there will be real growth in core spending power in each of the next two years.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the continuation of the 100% business rates retention pilots in areas such as Greater Manchester. Does he agree that the success of business rates retention is key to continued growth in Greater Manchester and the success of the northern powerhouse?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have already seen that the early pilots encouraged local authorities to think much more carefully about how they can attract local business, and we will see much more of that in the new pilots we announced today.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Thirty per cent. of Liverpool’s children are now in poverty, and the council is set to lose 68% of its budget by 2020. What is the Secretary of State going to do about the looming crisis in children’s social care? It did not even get a mention in his statement.
Sajid Javid
I gently say to the hon. Lady that I did talk about social care and children’s social care in my statement, and I certainly highlighted the additional funding that is being provided over the short term, including the £2 billion in the spring Budget. She mentions Liverpool. Based on what I have shared today, and if Parliament votes through the draft settlement, there will be an £8.7 million increase in her local authority’s core spending power, which it can decide to use as it wishes.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that, last Thursday, there was a local referendum in Christchurch in which more than 17,600 people voted against the abolition of Christchurch Borough Council. He has given the council only until 8 January to make an alternative submission. In the light of the financial implications of his announcement today, will he extend the period so that the implications of these important changes, which particularly affect rural Dorset, can be taken into account in making that alternative proposal?
Sajid Javid
We are not looking to extend that period. However, we will listen carefully to what Christchurch Borough Council has to say following the referendum. As I have said right from the start, at this point it is a “minded to” decision. There is no final decision, and it is important that we listen carefully to everyone, including of course Christchurch Borough Council.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
What planet does the Secretary of State live on? How can it be right that Birmingham loses £700 million, the biggest cut in local government history, and that every household in Birmingham loses more than £2,000, yet the leafy Tory shires of Surrey and Sussex and the Prime Minister’s constituency of Maidenhead gain at the expense of Britain’s second city?
Sajid Javid
What the hon. Gentleman fails to mention, and it is not surprising, is that Birmingham has one of the country’s highest core spending powers per dwelling. If it were a better-run local authority, it would be able to do a lot more with that money.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Seven of the business rates retention areas mentioned by the Secretary of State are counties, so I was disappointed that West Sussex was not named as one of those areas, despite the strong bid by the district and county councils. With education pressure in the county, can I have early consideration of West Sussex being allowed business rates retention in the near future?
Sajid Javid
There were, I believe, 27 bids for the new pilots. As I mentioned, we intended to have five pilots, which we managed to increase to 10. I know the decision will still disappoint some colleagues, which is why I also announced today that we will be taking many pilots forward into the following year and announcing further pilots early in the new year.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Given that Halton Borough Council will have had its budget cut by £61 million by 2020 and that Cheshire West and Chester Council faces a further £57 million-worth of cuts, how does the Secretary of State propose that they provide vital services to the most vulnerable residents and constituents in Weaver Vale?
Sajid Javid
I know that the hon. Gentleman will never want to be my friend and share a beer with me, but he should be pleased that, under the draft settlement, the Halton unitary authority will see a £1.7 million increase in spending power, which I know will be welcome.
Mr Speaker
I have just noticed that two Government Whips are wearing identical ties, which takes the concept of party discipline to a new level. I am not sure whether to be encouraged or appalled. I leave it to colleagues to make their own judgment, political and aesthetic.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council.
Northamptonshire County Council might be the local highways authority, but it has run out of road. The council will set a legal budget for 2018-19, but it has made it clear that it will not be able to finance its statutory functions in 2019-20 unless something changes. Part of the solution is obvious to many local councillors: local government needs to be restructured in the county. Will the Secretary of State encourage the presentation of such proposals for his consideration?
Sajid Javid
The proposals in today’s statement will lead to almost £13 million of additional funding for Northamptonshire County Council, which I know will be welcome. My hon. Friend makes a wider point about longer-term sustainability, and he will know I am ready to consider any proposals on restructuring from Northamptonshire County Council or other local councils in the area. I will take such proposals seriously if they come forward.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Halton Borough Council has had a 60% cut since 2010, and it is struggling to ensure it has enough money to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. If the funding situation continues as it is now, the council will have a real problem in future years. What is the Secretary of State doing to consider smaller unitary authorities such as Halton that have a very good record on efficiency but are struggling with the current financial settlement? He did not set out today any sustainable financial help for local authorities such as Halton, or any financial funding solution for local government in general.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that other council areas have come forward with restructuring proposals, and we are looking at having a bottom-up approach. If a local authority area has an idea and it wants to restructure, it should approach us. The Dorset region was mentioned earlier. We are looking at a proposal on that region, which includes some smaller unitary authorities as well. We want a bottom-up approach where these ideas are put to us and we will give them active consideration.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
On children’s services, may I urge my right hon. Friend not to take lectures from the Labour party but to look at what is going on in Conservative-run North Lincolnshire Council, where we have turned children’s services around to such an extent that they are one of only three to be rated as outstanding? There is a particular emphasis on the social enterprise PHASE, which is helping young people on a ladder into permanent accommodation and tenancies when they leave. May I urge him to visit North Lincolnshire to see the incredible work that has been done to help young care leavers in our county?
Sajid Javid
I would be happy to visit North Lincolnshire. The council is doing an excellent job. I am sure that it will be pleased at today’s announcement that it will be part of the Lincolnshire business rates retention pilot.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Having had one of the deepest cuts in Government support in the entire country, leading to the closure of the entire youth service and cuts of more than a third in children’s services, Westminster City Council has announced plans for a voluntary levy on properties worth more than £10 million. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of making contributions to local taxation from the super-rich, in effect, a matter of personal choice?
Sajid Javid
First, the hon. Lady will know that, because of the disastrous state the economy was left in by the Government she supported, all local authorities, not just Westminster, have had to learn to spend money more wisely. With this settlement, Westminster, like other local authorities, will see an increase in spending power. If Westminster wishes to come forward with a voluntary plan that it wants us to consider, it should submit it to us.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The business rates retention pilot for Suffolk is very welcome news, but residents in county areas such as Suffolk are facing significantly higher council tax burdens. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the fair funding review is going to be progressed with real urgency?
Sajid Javid
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are looking seriously at fair funding issues, which is why today’s launch of the consultation is an important step. Over the next 12 weeks, we will look at the cost drivers, which will have a direct input into the outcome of that review, making sure that all local authorities are funded on the basis of their actual needs.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the Secretary of State will agree that any funds available should be allocated on the basis of need and evidence. He is surely not going to look at what he did previously, when he used the transitional grant scheme and a large lump of money mysteriously found its way to wealthier areas, bypassing the midlands, the north and cities such as Nottingham. The National Audit Office criticised the opacity and political allocation of that. He is not going to use that discredited ruse again this year, is he?
Sajid Javid
There would have been less of a need for a fair funding review to make sure that funding is allocated based properly on needs if the last time it was done, in 2007, it had been done properly and had actually been based on needs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s central point, which is that we need to look again at how funds are allocated to make sure that that is done on the basis of need. That is why I think he will welcome today’s consultation.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement on flexibility on the police precept, but may I ask him to consider some flexibility on the county council precept for care, as counties such as Staffordshire, which have kept their costs to a minimum over the years, are at a disadvantage with the percentage-based increase, as opposed to a flat-rate increase?
Sajid Javid
I assure my hon. Friend that care, be it children’s social care or adult social care, is at the forefront of our mind when looking at this settlement and making sure that the resources that are needed are in place. That is why we have the increase announced at the spring Budget, with half of that £2 billion coming this financial year. As for Staffordshire, it has that extra flexibility, like other councils, but this settlement will also lead to an additional £10.6 million, which I am sure will be welcome.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Has today’s announcement actually reversed anything in the long-term tendency to punish more deprived areas in this country?
Sajid Javid
What today’s announcement has done is make sure that local authorities have the resources they need to look after their local communities.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome the fact that progressive councils such as Rugby Borough Council will continue to receive incentives to provide much-needed new housing through the retention of the new homes bonus. Will the Secretary of State also confirm that they will be rewarded for doing the right thing by continuing to make available adequate land for commercial development?
Sajid Javid
Yes, my hon. Friend raises an important point. We had a number of representations from local authorities for us to provide some continuity and certainty on the new homes bonus, which is exactly what I have proposed today. I hope that continues to lead councils such as Rugby, and others, to plan for the homes and commercial property that local communities need, so that they can have stronger local business and enterprise.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Cash-strapped Wirral Council has found more than £300,000 to deal with the consequences of the New Ferry explosion. So far the Government have not done enough. Will the Secretary of State update me as to their response to Wirral Council’s rebuild plan for New Ferry?
Sajid Javid
I am determined to try to help with that disaster and help the council deal with it. The council would have helped itself by presenting its business case a lot earlier, and not taking months and months to put it together. The council should show better efficiency with the public money it has. For example, it could stop spending 240,000 a year on a local newspaper publication. Things like that would help build local confidence.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
May I invite the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) down to East Sussex, as I am not sure I recognise the picture he was painting? East Sussex County Council has made £110 million in savings, it has allocated its reserves, it does not have a great business rate yield and many constituents of Members in this House will retire in East Sussex. Is it time to look at having the social care model along the lines of the NHS and consider centralised funding?
Sajid Javid
First, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating East Sussex on its approach to the challenges it faces, including on social care. It is a great place to retire, which leads to changing demographics. That is one of the things that will be looked at by the Green Paper we will publish next summer.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On the formula for transitional funding, what consideration is given to the percentage of core spending a council derives from revenue support grant? In Durham’s case it is 14.3%, whereas in Surrey’s it is 3.5%. That meant that last year core spending in Durham fell by 1.2%, whereas in Surrey the figure was 0.1%.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that for various reasons, over a number of years, councils have had a different proportion of central grant versus funds that are raised locally, for example through business rates. It is important to take that into account for all councils. What really matters is their core spending power: all the sources of spending power they have. He will be pleased to know that with today’s proposal there will be an increase for Durham of £5.6 million, which is 1.4%.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I certainly welcome a fundamental review of local government finance and, in particular, the fairer funding commitment, but is there any help coming down the track for local authorities that are particularly affected by the issue of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, which places a cost pressure on those local authorities, such as Northamptonshire County Council?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. I recognise the good work that so many councils do to look after unaccompanied asylum seeking children, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. One thing I am doing today is making an additional £19 million available for next year to help the local authorities most affected to help some of the most vulnerable people.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The modification of the 2016-17 allocation formula to take account of councils’ ability to raise council tax was at least the start of an acknowledgement that councils with the highest levels of deprivation should not face the biggest cuts. Nevertheless, will the Secretary of State take it from me that the failure to address that issue in the previous two years has meant that Birmingham is now being short-changed to the tune of £100 million? What is there in his statement to address that and avoid even more swingeing cuts hitting children’s services and adult social care in my city?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman’s central point is that there has to be a recognition that different councils have a different council tax base, and so are affected in different ways when they make a percentage change to that council tax. In the case of Birmingham and many other local authorities in which the council tax base might be relatively low, that is recognised so that with respect to, for example, adult social care, when new funding is allocated, including the additional £2 billion announced earlier this year, the improved better care fund makes sure that the fundraising powers that exist locally are taken into account.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Deprivation is by no means limited to urban areas, and I know that that is why the Secretary of State has listened to the powerful fair funding case made by Lincolnshire County Council. I welcome the fact that the business rates pilot is coming to the county, but will my right hon. Friend tell us how else such big, sparsely populated counties will be helped by the settlement? What more money is coming to Lincolnshire?
Sajid Javid
The business rates pilot will certainly help Lincolnshire and give it more incentives to attract more local business. Today’s announcement of an additional £15 million for the rural services delivery grant will help Lincolnshire and many other local authorities. If we exclude any extra income from the business rates pilot, today’s announcement will mean £11.5 million of additional spending power for Lincolnshire, which I know will be welcomed.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Whether it is the community protection officers who keep our neighbourhoods safe, the social workers who protect vulnerable children or the workers in libraries, museums, schools and day centres, local government staff are working harder than ever and deserve a pay rise. What resources will the Secretary of State provide to ensure that councils can afford to give them one without making even deeper cuts to services?
Sajid Javid
I can mention a few changes that will help local councils to deliver services: the increase in the police precept, on which there will be a further statement after this one; the adult social care funding that was provided in the Budget; and today’s announcement of additional flexibility in council tax.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) that West Sussex is not included in the business rate retention pilots. I welcome the consultation, but will my right hon. Friend make sure that it recognises the hidden deprivation in many coastal communities, such as mine in Sussex? We have a much larger elderly population with a dependence on social services and the health service, lower-skilled jobs and higher-needs children, and those things often get overlooked.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point, which is precisely one of the reasons why we need to conduct a fair funding review and why I have launched the consultation today. I encourage West Sussex council to input into the consultation and provide more data on the increased deprivation that sometimes happens in coastal communities so that we can get the formula right and help places such as West Sussex.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s birthplace, Rochdale, has lost £176 million from local government spending, which has had a real impact on children’s services and adult social services. The reality is that, with local people already hard pressed, Rochdale’s capacity to raise new money by increasing council tax is not anything like as significant as it is in places such as Surrey. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, under his fair funding review, the Rochdales will end up in the same advantageous positions as the Surreys?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the purpose of the review is that it is based on evidence, and I am not going to pre-empt that. We will take our time to get it right. If Rochdale has a case to make, it should certainly respond to the consultation I launched today. Rochdale is part of the business rates retention pilot, and I know it welcomes that. When we allocate new funding for things such as adult social care, other fundraising powers are taken into account.
Justin Tomlinson
With local authorities being given greater resources, powers and flexibility, what are the Government doing to share best practice to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely?
Sajid Javid
We do a number of things to try to encourage efficiency. The four-year settlement essentially requires of each of the 97% of authorities that accepted it an efficiency deal with the Government, through which we want to be convinced that those authorities are doing all they can to spend taxpayers’ money more wisely. We also work with the Local Government Association to share practice, which I know much of the sector welcomes.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Social care in Birmingham is in crisis now, and it is facing an £800 million black hole. How is a Green Paper in the summer next year going to help people who need care now?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that the extra funding that we have announced for social care this year and the extra flexibility in the adult social care precept is helping up and down the country, including in Birmingham. The Green Paper is essential to ensure that we have a longer-term, sustainable model that deals with the increased demand that we see and is something on which we can all rely.
Martin Vickers
The Secretary of State mentioned Lincolnshire among the places where there will be new business rate pilots; will he clarify whether that includes the two unitary authorities of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire as well as the county council? With respect to the devolution deal for Lincolnshire that failed earlier this year, will he confirm that he would be prepared to look again at another proposal that would provide additional funds for coastal communities such as Cleethorpes and, indeed, Skegness?
Sajid Javid
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Lincolnshire pilot includes North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire. I can also confirm that when we are looking into the fair funding review, starting with the consultation announced today, we will certainly consider the special needs of coastal communities.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State cannot persuade the Treasury to fund local government adequately, will he let me know which services he would personally advise councils to stop providing?
Sajid Javid
I want local authorities to decide for themselves how best to deliver local services and respond to the needs of the local community. It is my job to make sure that they are properly resourced and, with the measures we have taken this year, including the proposals I have announced today, that is exactly what they have: the resources that they need.
John Stevenson
In certain circumstances, councils can still make substantial savings. In Cumbria, the Labour leadership on the council has failed to reach a devolution deal, which was an opportunity to review local structures that could have saved millions of pounds for local services. Does the Secretary of State agree that fewer councillors and councils in Cumbria would benefit local services enormously?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises the issue of restructuring. Whether it is about changing council borders or the number of councillors, we will look at the proposals that are put to us. They must be bottom-up proposals, but we would look actively at any such proposals.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On 8 March, the Chancellor announced a complete review of business rates, not just a redistribution. In places such as York, the valuation rates are so high that it is pushing businesses out of business. How will the Secretary of State’s process interface with the Chancellor’s?
Sajid Javid
I remind the hon. Lady that when the revaluation happened, it came with £3.6 billion of transitional funding, which will help throughout the country. She is right to ask about some of the longer-term issues relating to the structure of business rates. It is for the Treasury to respond on that and certainly on the timing of any future review. The pilots announced today are part of a plan to make sure that, whatever their future structure, if business rates can be retained more locally, that will give local councils the right incentives.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State did not decisively address the question of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), about the transition grant. Perhaps I will have more luck. If the transition grant is to remain, will the Department for Communities and Local Government—after two years of repeated requests from Nottingham—publish both the formula and the assumptions that sit behind it?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Care Quality Commission’s local system review of adult social care in Trafford, which I received this week, says that investment in social care was not as much as it should be, while, at the same time, the council was trying to transform social care. Delayed transfers of care are very high in the borough. Will the Secretary of State say whether Trafford Council has been adequately funded both to maintain social care as required now and for transformation in the future?
Sajid Javid
Trafford is a very well run council, which can set examples for many others in that area, but, like many, it is having to deal with added pressures, including on social care. I know that it has certainly welcomed the additional funding that we announced earlier this year, and the flexibility that I announced this time last year.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that local government is at the frontline of the country’s democracy, yet he is systematically dismantling council services. The spending power of my own local authority of Derby has been reduced by £161 per head since 2010. The latest iteration of that is that it is giving its libraries to the voluntary sector to run. Is the Secretary of State trying to finish the job that was started in the 1980s by his predecessor, Nick Ridley, who said that his idea of a good council was one that met once a year to dish out the contracts to the private sector?
Sajid Javid
Derby, like many local authorities, will be welcoming—I hope—the part of the settlement where we have announced additional funding. In the case of the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, Derby will be getting an additional 1.5% increase in its core spending power, which will lead to £2.7 million of additional spending, and it can use that on libraries as it wishes to look after local people’s needs.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the very serious concerns raised by a number of my hon. Friends about cuts to children’s services—more pronounced in many areas because of the cuts by this Government and the fact that the weighting for deprivation was taken out of the local funding formula—Liverpool has seen a 9% increase in the number of looked-after children. Despite significant investment, we are facing a black hole to the tune of millions of pounds. How will the Secretary of State ensure that children in my constituency and across the country will be kept safe?
Sajid Javid
Liverpool, like many local authorities, is dealing with many pressures. That is why there is a lot there to help it. It already has one of the highest core spending powers per dwelling in the country and, from this set of proposals today, it will see an £8.7 million increase. On top of that, it is also part of the business rates retention pilot.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the inclusion of Gloucestershire in the pilots, but will the Secretary of State ensure that the county’s MPs have the opportunity to look at the operation of the pilots as part of discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government, and will he say that these pilots do not preclude local government reorganisation if and when that comes to Gloucestershire?
Sajid Javid
No pilots preclude any kind of reorganisation. It is up to that local area to decide whether that is something it wants and to put a proposal to me. I know that the business rates pilot is very welcome in the Gloucestershire region; it will give more incentives to help local businesses. On top of that, today’s announcements will lead to an increase of £9.2 million of additional spending power for the local authority, which I know will be welcome.
Policing
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police funding.
Today, I have placed in the House the provisional police funding settlement, detailing how much money each police force in England and Wales will receive in 2018-19. This amounts to a year-on-year increase of up to £450 million across police forces for 2018-19. Taken together with the continued scope to improve police efficiency and the existence of £1.6 billion of police reserves, this represents a comprehensive settlement that makes sure that the police have the resources they need.
Before taking decisions on the settlement, I have spoken to every police force in England and Wales. I have listened to police and crime commissioners, chief constables and frontline officers, asking them to be completely upfront with me about the challenges that they face, and they were. I have been on patrol with officers on the streets of our city centres and I have visited firearms teams and projects to support the most vulnerable in society.
What is very clear to me is that demands on police forces are changing. Crimes traditionally measured by the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales have fallen by well over a third since 2010—I hope the House will welcome that—but, at the same time, it is clear that there is a shifting pattern of demand on the police. There are more victims of high-harm, “hidden” crimes such as domestic abuse, modern slavery and child sexual exploitation, as well as more victims of cyber-crime coming forward. That willingness to come forward is to be welcomed, but it does put pressure on policing, to which we must be sensitive. Alongside this, terrorist attacks in London and Manchester have served as a reminder of the very real and changing threat that we face from terrorism. As a Government, we are acutely aware that the demands facing our police forces are considerable and changing. That is why this Government made the decision to protect police funding in the 2015 spending review and it is why, today, we are proposing a settlement for our police that will increase funding for police forces by a further £450 million in 2018-19.
Let me break this down. We propose that police forces get the same cash grant from the centre as in 2017-18. On top of that, we want to respond positively to requests from PCCs for more flexibility around the levels of police precept, so we propose empowering them to raise council tax contributions for local policing by £1 a month per household—£12 a year. If they all use this flexibility, that will result in a £270 million increase in the money that we invest as a society in our policing system.
Five attacks in London and Manchester darkened our spring and early summer. Thirty-six people died, 10 of whom were children. The first responsibility of Government is to keep our country and its citizens safe. It is also to protect our way of life and the values that we hold dear. We are clear that we must ensure that counter-terrorism police have the resources they need to deal with the fast-changing and increasingly challenging threat from terrorism. That is why we are also increasing the counter-terrorism policing budget by £50 million in 2018-19. That will mean that the counter-terrorism policing budget will go up by 7%, to at least £757 million next year.
We are also providing an extra £130 million for national priorities such as investment in digital technology and special grants to help forces with exceptional costs. I hope that the House will agree that it is right that the Government continue to provide crucial investment in police technology to make sure that the police have the modern digital infrastructure they need to protect the public, and it is right, surely, that we increase funding for the police special grant so that we can support the police with exceptional and unexpected costs such as the responses to this year’s terrorist attacks. However, to fully meet public expectations, the police cannot simply rely on this additional investment; that is just one part of the equation. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services is clear that there are more opportunities to increase productivity and efficiency, and so are we.
Forces have already achieved significant savings from better procurement since 2015, but there is a lot more to do. I want to see forces unlocking more than £100 million-worth of opportunities for commercial savings that we have helped them to identify. Forces must work together to increase their buying power by procuring goods together, rather than buying them in 43 different ways.
We want modern police forces to make the most of the opportunities that digital technology brings—better information and decisions, faster processes and more productive police officers. Striking research indicates that if all forces took advantage of mobile working as the best forces do, that would mean that an average officer could spend an extra hour a day on the frontline. Extrapolating from that, in theory this has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers across England and Wales. The Government are committed to meeting the challenges of embracing digital technology and improving productivity, and we want policing to do the same.
The police still hold more than £1.6 billion in financial reserves, compared with £1.4 billion in 2011. The figure has gone up. Current reserves held represent 15% of annual police funding to police and crime commissioners. There are wide variations between forces with Gwent, for example, holding 42% and Northumbria holding 6%. We propose to improve transparency around reserves so that the public are clear whether they are being held for good reasons. That is why we will toughen the guidance on the information that police and crime commissioners must publish, and we will provide comparable national data on police and crime commissioner financial reserves. If the police make substantial progress on efficiency and productivity in 2018, I should signal that the Government intend to provide police and crime commissioners with a broadly similar settlement in 2019-20.
To support this process of reform, police forces will benefit from the £175 million police transformation fund in 2018-19. Since its inception in 2016, the fund has already invested £220 million in policing projects, including £8.5 million for forces to better tackle modern slavery and £40 million to help the police to improve their response to serious and organised crime. It is clear that the fund, led by police, is delivering real results and enabling forces to invest in transformation and digitisation for the future.
I end by recognising the exceptional attitude and hard work of our brave police forces around the country. We have listened to their concerns, and we have now proposed a funding settlement that will strengthen the police’s ability to fight crime and keep us all safe. Whether it is local forces or counter-terrorism capabilities, this is a comprehensive settlement to strengthen the police now and make forces fit for the future. We will now consult on the police grant report and I look forward to hearing views from across the House. I commend this statement to the House.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The test of the Government’s police funding proposals is the impact they will have on policing and counter-terrorism activity on the ground. The Minister can spin a convincing story here in the Chamber, but will what he is announcing really enable police forces to meet the challenge and reality of modern policing?
The Minister says that he has been listening to chief constables and police and crime commissioners. The Opposition would contend that he has not been listening hard enough. Is the Minister aware that we have seen the highest annual rise in police recorded crime for more than a decade? That includes an 18% rise in violent crime, a 26% rise in the murder rate, and a rise in knife and gun crime that is of particular concern to our major cities. Is he aware that the public are increasingly conscious that austerity is as damaging to policing as it is to other public services, because we cannot keep people safe on the cheap? Is he further aware that although the Government’s announcement that they are lifting the police pay cap is welcome, they have not funded it, so it must therefore put even more pressure on police budgets?
Is the Minister aware that police leaders all over the country are expressing their concern about the funding gap? He spoke about the scope for increasing police efficiency. Many forces including my force, the Metropolitan police, have done a great deal on police efficiency. He spoke about embracing digital technology. I recently met the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, who briefed me on the great work it is doing with digital technology. The Minister also mentioned reserves. I must say that it defeats many police leaders to understand why the Government think that they can meet recurrent expenditure out of reserves.
All in all, the Opposition doubt whether this package—even including the Government’s proposals on the precept—will really meet the policing challenges of the 21st century. This is why the chief constable of Merseyside is warning that he does not have the resources to fight gun crime and the chief constable of Norfolk is warning of the reduction in the numbers of neighbourhood police officers. The chief constable of Lancashire has stated that people are “less safe” because of the money and people “taken out of policing”, and Northumbria’s chief constable has said:
“If the day of not being able to provide a professional service was here, I would say. It is not here, but it is getting very, very close.”
Is the Minister confident that his funding settlement will allow forces to remain at current staff levels? And can he give an undertaking that there will be no more cuts to police numbers?
Mr Hurd
I know that the right hon. Lady has been on a bit of a personal journey in her relationship with the police, having previously called for the police to be dismantled and replaced with our own machinery of class rule. We welcome her journey.
The right hon. Lady accuses me of not listening to the police, even though I have spoken to every single police force in England and Wales to fully understand the pressures they face. Before criticising the proposed settlement without investigating the details, I suggest that she speak to the PCCs, who have welcomed it. If she had done her homework, she would also be aware that our demand review was worked out in co-operation with the police-led review. That asked for a similar amount of new investment in 2018. This Government have listened to the police, and we are talking about an increase in investment of £450 million.
The right hon. Lady referred to us doing policing on the cheap. That will come as a bit of a surprise to the British taxpayer, given that as a society, we will be investing £13 billion in our police system next year. That is up from £11.9 billion in 2015-16. She chides me on reserves. Let us remind ourselves that reserves are public money sitting there, and the public we serve have the right to better information about how the police intend to spend that money for the public good.
The right hon. Lady talked about what the proposed settlement means for police officer numbers. She knows that the position of the Government is that our responsibility is to ensure—in close consultation with the police—that the police have the resources that they need. It is for local police and crime commissioners and local chiefs to determine how those resources are to be allocated. That feels like the right approach.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In deploying the substantial new resources for counter-terrorism, does the Minister agree that the police should include a strong focus on cyber-crime because of the harm and disruption that terrorists could do with this form of activity?
Mr Hurd
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. If there is a powerful symbol of the change in the pattern of demand on policing, it is how much crime is now digitally enabled. We know from our constituencies how vulnerable our constituents are; they are many times more likely to be vulnerable to a crime online than they are on the street. That is part of the change in policing that we have to respond to, which is why we have just under £2 billion-worth of investment earmarked for cyber-security.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement.
Let me be charitable and start by welcoming one aspect of the statement, namely the £50 million increase in counter-terrorism resources. However, I echo entirely the sentiment of the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that, given the huge pressure on the police service in England and Wales, a flat-cash core settlement from the Government is simply not enough. In doing so, I pay tribute to all police officers right across the UK for the hard and oftentimes dangerous work they do to keep us safe.
Just last week, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Derek Mackay, committed to increasing the police authority’s Government-allocated budget in real terms in 2018-19—a clear difference from the approach taken by this Government. In March 2017, there were 32 officers per 10,000 population in Scotland, compared with around 21 officers per 10,000 population in England and Wales—over one third more police officers per head keeping Scots safe.
In Scotland, public confidence in the police remains strong. Recorded crime is at a 42-year low, recidivism is at a 16-year low and police clear-up rates are the highest for 40 years. That is all while, in the words of Calum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, UK Government cuts
“have put almost immeasurable financial stress”
on public services, including the police. He went on to highlight the fact that the police VAT relief could have been delivered with the stroke of a political pen, and that inaction put further unnecessary stress on police funding.
Following a sustained SNP campaign, we welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will be eligible to reclaim VAT in the future. However, in the spirit of today’s statement, will the Minister commit to requesting that the Chancellor also reimburse the £125 million already taken from frontline police services in Scotland so that it can be used for future reinvestment in Scottish policing?
Mr Hurd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. It is fair to say that there are mixed views across Scotland about the benefits of merging all the forces into one, and time will tell. However, I thank him for his welcome for the additional £50 million for counter-terrorism policing.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a flat-cash settlement. It is no such thing; we are talking about an increase of £450 million in investment and, at the local police level, a move, effectively, from flat cash to flat real.
The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts. Again, he is allowed his own opinions, but he is not allowed his own version of the facts. Overall, public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion next year if these proposals are accepted by the House. That is not a cut in my language.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
As a London MP, may I start by paying tribute to the officers who do an extraordinary job of keeping us safe in London?
The Minister will know that, since 2015, the Met has received £2.5 billion of direct funding. There is more funding for London in today’s settlement, there is the opportunity to raise £43 million and there is an extra £50 million going into counter-terrorism. Does the Minister agree that it is time the Mayor started playing his part by protecting frontline numbers at police stations?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend. As a fellow London MP, I join him, as I am sure will all London Members, in congratulating Met police officers on the work they do. He singled out the implications of this settlement for the London Met, which is rightly the best-resourced police force in the country in terms of numbers of police officers and funding per head.
My hon. Friend is right about his fundamental point, and it is one that the Labour party refuses to embrace. We operate a system in which accountability for police forces is devolved and rests with the police and crime commissioner or the Mayor. In London, that means the Mayor, and I would gently suggest to the Mayor that the combination of this increased investment, the reserves and the opportunities for greater efficiency means that what we need to see from him is action rather than more letters calling for more money.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I would just ask the Policing Minister to confirm that a flat-cash grant to local police forces in fact means a real cut, given the level of inflation; that the money from central Government to police forces will be cut in real terms; and that while the counter-terror funding is welcome, the police chief Sara Thornton has warned:
“Fewer officers and police community support officers will cut off the intelligence that is so crucial to preventing attacks.”
I gently say to him that I am sure he must know in his heart of hearts that this is really not enough funding for police forces across the country, given the immense pressures they face. He and the Home Secretary will really need to make a much better case to the Chancellor; otherwise, they will be threatening the good work of police forces right across the country.
Mr Hurd
I hesitate to correct our very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee—for whom I have great respect—and I welcome the welcome she has given to increased investment in counter-terrorism policing, but I do need to correct what she said. Once she has time to get into the details of the settlement, she will see that, in effect, we propose to move from flat cash at local police force area level to flat real, on Treasury assumptions. That is a significant shift. When she gets into the detail of it, she will see—[Interruption.] No, I am afraid that the cries from Opposition Front-Bench Members reflect the fact that they have not had time to read the statement or to understand the dynamics of the police funding settlement.
The right hon. Lady will know, or should know, that, in the context of the 2015 police funding settlement, there are two components to flat cash at local police level: one is the grant from the centre, and the other is the precept. In the context of increased precept, the cash from the centre would have fallen. It is not going to fall; it is going to be held flat. That means that, in terms of what police and crime commissioners would have expected for 2018-19, there is a £60 million upflip from keeping the grant from the centre flat, rather than reducing it, which is what would have happened under the 2015 settlement. It is complicated, but the right hon. Lady will see from the—[Interruption.] That is not being disingenuous; these are the facts.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Hampshire’s constabulary, under the excellent leadership of Olivia Pinkney, does a fantastic job in meeting the changing policing needs my hon. Friend talked about. However, what has not changed is the need for frontline policing. What can he do to make sure that more of the money he has talked about today gets to the frontline to increase the frontline policing our constituents so badly want to see?
Mr Hurd
I wholly endorse my right hon. Friend’s praise for the work of Olivia Pinkney, as the chief of Hampshire. The short answer to her question is that it is the local police and crime commissioner who is accountable for how resource is allocated. If it is the local view that more resources need to go into frontline police officers, that is something the police and crime commissioner has to respond to. Our duty is to make sure that police forces have the resources we think they need to do the job. How those resources are allocated at a local level is the responsibility of the democratically accountable police and crime commissioner.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
What an extraordinary exercise in spin. The statement says very clearly: “We propose that police forces get the same cash from the centre as in 2017-18”, so that is a real-terms cut from the centre. Will the Minister explain, given the additional pressures on South Wales police politically—with Cardiff being a capital city, and the pressures that that places on police in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan—whether we will be getting any additional support?
Mr Hurd
I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that, once those on the Labour Benches take a bit more time to understand how the police settlement actually works, they will know that the flat-cash settlement is a combination of precept and the grant from the centre. Taking those in combination, local police forces are going to move from a situation of flat cash to flat real. That is a significant change. If the hon. Gentleman bothers to go and talk to his local PCC, which I am sure he will, the PCC will explain it to him.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for this very encouraging statement, particularly around flexibility in the police precept—an issue he knows I have been campaigning on for some time. However, will he confirm that the settlement will dramatically improve policing across Essex and particularly on my much overlooked sunshine coast at Clacton-on-Sea?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend and other Essex colleagues who were very forceful and constructive in coming to me with clear endorsements from police and crime commissioners across the system for the proposals on increased flexibility on precepts so that democratically accountable police and crime commissioners have the freedom to increase local taxes for local priorities. Roger Hirst, an excellent police and crime commissioner, has surveyed several thousand people in Essex. The results of that survey show that what we are proposing today will be extremely acceptable to the people of Essex because they want to see more investment in their policing, and that is what this settlement will deliver.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Were I still a police and crime commissioner, I could not maintain the same level of policing on this budget, and the Minister must know that. The reality is that with inflationary pressures in general terms and the need to fund a legitimate police rise, and, on top of that, the increasing demand for policing services, it simply is not possible to maintain public safety. He really has got to stand up and tell the public the truth. This is not a fair settlement.
Mr Hurd
Again, I hesitate to correct someone who knows what he is talking about, but the hon. Gentleman is talking as though this settlement is proposed in complete isolation. He and Labour Front Benchers are ignoring the fact that we work closely with police chiefs and the PCCs. The independent review that the PCCs and chiefs undertook, independently of Government, came to a very similar conclusion about what was needed in terms of funding for 2018-19. We have listened to them and delivered on that. It is their view that we are most interested in.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome more funding. Does the Minister, like me, recognise that Cambridgeshire has done an outstanding job in introducing 50 new recruits at the same time as making efficiencies?
Mr Hurd
I certainly join my hon. and learned Friend is supporting the work that Cambridgeshire has done, under excellent leadership. The evidence of that is in its HMIC rating of “good”. I know that it will welcome the increased investment and put that money to good use. Labour Members still do not seem to accept the maths; I know that that is not their strength. The maths says that an increase in investment of £450 million is in fact an increase.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I need, for my simplistic mind, to have some clarity on the Minister’s statement that forces will get the same cash from the centre as in 2017-18. It may be that North Wales police’s precept goes up and my local council tax payers pay more in a hard-hit area, raising perhaps less than in Surrey, but at the same time we have, according to my chief constable, a 35% increase in crime, an 18% reduction in staff, and £30 million of savings already made. This settlement is simply not good enough. Speaking as someone who was Policing Minister when we had 21,000 more police officers than now, I say to the Minister that he needs to go back to the drawing board.
Mr Hurd
I would suggest that the former Policing Minister talks to his PCC, who will explain why a flat-cash grant from the centre is actually an improvement on what he or she was expecting. I will leave them to explain that. The right hon. Gentleman talks about reserves. I come back to the fundamental point. It is public money—£1.6 billion, a figure that has gone up since 2011. There is a very good reason for holding reserves, but we need more transparency and accountability about local police plans to use what is ultimately public money.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement of £130 million for national priorities. Can he confirm that dealing with online child abuse is a national priority, and therefore that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the National Crime Agency will be receiving more resource to help them to combat this growing menace?
Mr Hurd
I can certainly agree that it is a national priority because of its increased prevalence in public life. It is something that matters a great deal. The Minister for Security, who is sitting alongside me, and I continue to make sure that the NCA is properly resourced to do that work.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Residents in Walthamstow are deeply perturbed following a rise in violent gang and drug-related crime, and the evidence from the Met commissioner herself that London is losing 3,000 police officers in the coming years. No mobile app is going to address that. It is individuals, not iPads, that people want to see on their streets. Can the Minister confirm that he will make available to the Met the money needed to keep those 3,000 police officers, or is “flat real” a crime against the English language?
Mr Hurd
No. I am a fellow London MP and I have spoken to the commissioner. Any PCCs or police chiefs making projections about losses of officer numbers in future are doing so on the basis that they do not know what the police funding settlement is. I expect and hope that when they look at what we are proposing today in terms of new investment—and it is new investment, given the continued scope for efficiencies and the level of reserves—they will see that there is no reason why any police force should be reducing officer numbers. However, it is ultimately a local decision.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Community-based policing is the cornerstone of policing in Hertsmere and has a much valued role. I welcome the flexibility that the Minister has shown over the precept. However, what reassurance can he give me that community-based policing will be properly funded in small towns such as Potters Bar that might be disadvantaged relative to larger urban areas?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming an increase of £450 million in our policing system next year. That feeds down into an additional £6.2 million for Hertfordshire. I absolutely take his point about community policing. He needs to have that conversation with David Lloyd, the excellent police and crime commissioner.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Met commissioner and Sara Thornton have both said that tackling terrorism places a heavy burden on all aspects of policing. At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats called for the Government to spend £300 million extra on community policing. How much more does the Minister think will be spent on community policing to enable officers to assist with tackling not only terrorism but antisocial behaviour, violent crime, and domestic violence?
Mr Hurd
Again, as a fellow London MP I say to the right hon. Gentleman that our role is to propose a settlement that we think is comprehensive in making sure that the police have the resources they need to do the job against the background of a shifting pattern in demand. It is a very complex environment. With regard to London, which has the best resourced police force in the country, I am satisfied, as a London MP, that the Met has the resources it needs. If the Mayor, as the police and crime commissioner, disagrees with that, he has his own resources to contribute as well, which he has been very reluctant to do. How those resources are allocated to some of the priorities that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is a decision for the Mayor and the Met on which they are both accountable to us as MPs and the constituents we serve.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly in giving PCCs more flexibility regarding the levels of the police precept—a measure that Staffordshire MPs and our police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis, have been calling for. Does he agree that giving police and crime commissioners more flexibility and power regarding the precept is ensuring that PCCs are making decisions about funding that they are democratically accountable for?
Mr Hurd
I could not agree more. One of the great reforms that we have made in policing is to make sure that there is much more local accountability on the performance of the police. I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming precept flexibility. She is quite right. Matthew Ellis and other police and crime commissioners have been very vocal in pressing for this because they want that flexibility in order to be able to deliver on their crime plans.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
What universe is the Minister living in? We have seen nearly 40% of police stations cut over the past seven years, thousands upon thousands of police officers cut, police community support officers cut, and police staff cut, and now we see a rise in violent crime. He refuses to acknowledge in his statement that it is proposed that police forces get the same cash from the centre as in 2017-18—a real-terms cut. That is what is going to happen to police forces like my own in Nottinghamshire and those up and down the country.
Mr Hurd
The universe I am living in is the real one, where public resources are tight and we have to proceed on an evidenced basis. Labour is giving the same old response: more money, more money—whoops, we ran out of money. It is the same as ever; it never changes. When Labour Members read the detail and understand how this works, they will see that we are proposing a combination of things that will result in an increase of £450 million in our investment in our policing system.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister knows that I have set out my concerns about the capacity of Bedfordshire police in person with him, and in an Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the extra £2.9 million in the statement for Bedfordshire police, but will he explain more fully what he sees as the future of the force?
Mr Hurd
May I place on record my admiration for the tireless work that my hon. Friend has done over many years, through a cycle of many Policing Ministers, to advocate for a fairer funding settlement for Bedfordshire? I thank him for his welcome of today’s settlement, and he will note the increase in counter-terrorism policing. In the written ministerial statement, he will see information about the direction of travel of the fair funding review, which we think is most appropriately dealt with in the next spending review.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you have noticed that although the Minister handed out his statement to us, he did not hand out the table containing details of the settlement? Of course, he was hoping that we would not get it so that we would not notice that in Durham, for example, the change in cash is less than inflation and less than the pay rise. Therefore, there will be more cuts on top of our previous loss of 350 police officers.
Mr Hurd
The table to which the hon. Lady refers is attached to the written ministerial statement. [Interruption.] If that is not the case, I will investigate. I think Opposition Members are failing to distinguish between the oral statement and the laying of the grant formula, which has happened in parallel. They can find that table.
The hon. Lady is lucky to represent a constituency that is served by an outstanding police force. She will find that as a result of this settlement, if the PCC maximises precept flexibility, the cash increase for the force will be around £2.4 million. When Opposition Members get into the detail, they will see that the Government’s intention is to make sure that if local police and crime commissioners maximise their precept flexibility, forces will move from flat cash to flat real. Hon. Members will see that in the written statement.
Mr Speaker
Further to the observation with which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) prefaced her question, I think the correct position is that the table to which reference has been made, and which some Members have been ostentatiously brandishing, is electronically accessible but I am advised that it was not delivered either to the Library or to the Vote Office. I think it would help in these matters, particularly where complex formulae are involved, if the material could be available at the time of the commencement of the statement. I do not wish to dwell on the matter further. The Minister has said what he has said, and I thank him for saying it.
I call Mr Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I shall demand an urgent question if this continues.
I thank my hon. Friend for the increase in police funding, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not speak up for the funding of Dorset police, which has been underfunded for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that although things such as cyber-crime are taking police officers off the streets—the police are doing a wonderful job—we need to keep a uniformed presence on the ground, because that is where the deterrent is most effective and the intelligence is gathered?
Mr Hurd
Mr Speaker, may I place on record the fact that I note your earlier remarks?
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the changes that have occurred in society. I know for sure that my constituents are much more vulnerable to crime online than they are when they walk up and down Ruislip high street, and our policing needs to respond to that. I also understand the importance that our constituents attach to seeing the police on our streets. Getting the balance right around capabilities is the job that we have given to police chiefs and democratically accountable local police and crime commissioners. I thank him for welcoming the increase in investment, and I am sure that he will make representations to his police and crime commissioner about the allocation of the additional resources.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given the huge number of A and B council tax band properties in Birmingham, is not the reality of the proposals that the poorest people in Birmingham are going to pay the most for a declining police service, in what is becoming the worst-funded police force in the country?
Mr Hurd
The hon. Gentleman and I, along with other west midlands MPs, had a constructive conversation about the challenges of policing in the region. I simply do not see how local people will be worse off, as he is trying to suggest, from an increase of £450 million in investment in our police system next year, including an additional £9.5 million for the West Midlands police. I do not see how he can, with any real integrity, present that as downgrading the police force.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Thames Valley police on its outstanding ranking in the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy review. Will he also tell us how the funding settlement takes into account the needs of rural policing?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I join him in congratulating Thames Valley on its outstanding rating, which I know it takes great pride in. Rural policing is extremely important to many constituents. I come back to the central point, which is that we have devolved accountability and responsibility in the police system. The allocation of new resources and new investment in our policing is a conversation to be had with the local democratically elected police and crime commissioner. I know from personal conversation that they take the matter extremely seriously.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify that we are talking about a real-terms fixed amount for police and crime commissioners’ budgets, and that in reality we are taxing the most vulnerable more to pay for those services? The PCC is saying to me that the top-slicing will lead to a reduction in policing on our streets.
Mr Hurd
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go back and talk to his PCC and police chief. The reality of our proposal is that we will increase investment in our police system by £450 million next year, and that we will work towards broadly the same kind of settlement in 2019-2020. That is a reflection of our recognition that demand on the police has changed and become more complex. We have to respond to that and invest accordingly. The basic rule is that public investment comes from two sources: extra borrowing and taxation. That is the choice in the real world in which we live.
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me; I am uncertain. If the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) can confirm to me that she was present at the start of the statement—
Mrs Badenoch
I and several other Essex MPs requested more flexibility in the application of the precept, and we welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that it is a good example of the Government devolving power to local communities and giving them more control over their own policing?
Mr Hurd
I do, and I will go further than that. The statement is an exercise in demonstrating that the Government have listened closely to the police. We have challenged the police, but we have listened to them, and our proposals are very similar to what they asked for. That fact has been ignored by Labour Members. We have listened to police and crime commissioners, who have said, “We would like to increase investment and be empowered to increase local investment in local priorities, and we would like more flexibility around the precept because we think that we can present that to our people.” They have tested that idea in surveys and encountered a very positive reaction from the public.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The legacy of the Government’s cuts means that there are fewer officers per head than at any time on record. Can the Minister explain how that is making communities in my constituency safer?
Mr Hurd
Let me say two things to the hon. Lady. Let us attack the fake news that cuts are being made to police funding. The amount of public investment that we make, as a society, in our police system will have grown from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion next year if these proposals are accepted. I do not see how that can possibly be presented as a cut. When she has digested the news, I hope she will also welcome the increased investment for her area, and that she will discuss with her local police and crime commissioner how these additional resources can best be allocated for the benefit of her communities.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Of course, the money to pay for more police has to come from somewhere. I am happy to accept the principle that communities choosing to have more resource should pay more towards it, but the proviso must clearly be that they definitively see more warranted officers. Does my hon. Friend accept that in counties such as Suffolk, communities are clear that they want such officers to have a more visible presence in our villages and rural areas, as well as in our towns?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I completely understand his point. He has made it very strongly to me, and I know he will make it very strongly, as he has done, to the Suffolk police and crime commissioner and the chief constable if that is what he thinks his constituents need.
On my hon. Friend’s point about local taxation, I should say that no decision about increasing council tax precepts is taken lightly. This Government take a lot of pride in what we have done over many years in trying to keep council tax as low as possible, which is in stark contrast to the approach of Labour Members because it doubled under their watch. Even in these difficult times, we feel the proposal of an additional £1 a month to get more investment in local policing is acceptable to the public, not least because PCCs have tested it.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I do not believe the Minister’s argument is well served when there is an absence of facts in the discussion in this Chamber, and perhaps the information in the tables should have been provided. In Lancashire, we have rising crime and falling budgets. Nationally, we have lost 21,000 police officers. This is a simple question: in 2018-19, will there be more officers on the beat or fewer officers on the beat under this Government?
Mr Hurd
Again, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. He will know that he needs to ask the police and crime commissioner that question. He can ask the Lancashire police and crime commissioner what he is going to do with the additional £6.1 million of investment proposed as a result of this settlement and, by the way, what he is doing with his reserves—currently worth 18% of net revenue, which is above the national average. I suggest the hon. Gentleman has such a conversation with his local police and crime commissioner.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Essex police officers do an excellent job—we are already delivering mobile working and joint working with the fire service—and it is certainly not sitting on a hidden stash of reserves, but we are one of the lowest funded forces in the country. Being able to raise the precept will deliver an extra £8.8 million, which is a helpful start. Next year, will the Minister look at fairer funding models, so that lean and efficient forces such as Essex police are not put at a disadvantage?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend, and I join her in congratulating Essex police on its work. Essex is excellently led at both PCC and chief constable level, and she is quite right to point out that it has a relatively low level of reserves, at 8% of net revenue compared with a national average of 15%. I can give her a twofold assurance. She will see in the statement that there is an intention to work towards broadly the same type of settlement in 2019-20, which will allow additional precept flexibility for Essex. We are also clear in the statement that the work on the so-called fair funding review is not lost; we just feel that the most appropriate point at which to revisit it is in the context of the next spending review.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
What the Minister has done today is to pass the buck from the Government to local police and crime commissioners. He has done this at a time when the West Midlands force has lost £145 million in real terms in the past seven years, and 200 officers are no longer there to keep the public safe. Does the Minister not accept that if the tables were turned, and Conservative Members were in opposition facing a Government who had cut police numbers by over 20,000, they would be screaming about the injustice of it from the rooftops?
Mr Hurd
I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s attitude, because we are talking about an increase of investment for West Midlands of £9.5 million for 2018-19, if the local police and crime commissioner maxes the precept flexibility. I cannot see how that can be a cut. He will also be aware that his force, which is excellently led, is relatively rich in terms of the reserves it holds. They are worth 20% of its net annual revenue, a number that has actually grown. He will have lots to raise in his conversations with his police and crime commissioner and chief constable about how this increased investment can benefit his community.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Today’s announcement is welcome news, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister has spoken to and listened extensively to police authorities and PCCs, including in the west midlands. I am grateful to him for taking the time to enable me to raise some of the issues in my constituency regarding frontline policing and our Remembrance Day parades, which are so important to us. Does he agree that this extra investment and greater flexibility for police and crime commissioners will allow them to support all of our local communities, including those in my constituency?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend, and I again place on the record that she has been tireless in her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and in challenging me about police resources. I hope that she will welcome the additional investment in her police force, if the police and crime commissioner maximises the precept flexibility, and she will be looking forward to holding the PCC to account on how those resources are allocated.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Londoners are absolutely sick and tired of the spectacle of Tory MPs crying crocodile tears in their local papers about police station closures, and then coming to the House to cheerlead the cuts that make them necessary, but perhaps that is why London Tory MPs are an endangered species. Is not what the Minister has announced today the worst of all worlds? He is asking people to pay more in taxes, he is cutting support from central Government and he is still not giving the police the funding they need to tackle the crime that is blighting our communities.
Mr Hurd
Now the hon. Gentleman has got that entirely artificial rant out of his system, let us examine the facts. The proposals to close police stations are controversial in London, but they are the decisions not of the Government but of the democratically elected—as it happens, Labour—Mayor, and he is accountable for that. The Mayor has got most such decisions wrong, but I see he is changing many of them—he certainly is in my area—and I congratulate him on doing so. The fact of the matter is that the Metropolitan police, and I speak as a London MP, is relatively well resourced compared with the rest of the system.
Mr Hurd
The hon. Gentleman tells me to get real, but the reality is that if we look at the performance of the London Met now as compared with 2008, there are—on the latest figures I have seen—100,000 fewer crime incidents and broadly the same number of police officers, and it is £700 million a year cheaper for it to run the policing system. In his world, those are cuts; in my world, they are efficiencies. The Met does a great job and is on a journey to becoming even more efficient, and this funding settlement, with the increased investment for it, will help it to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Policing Minister confirm that his settlement gives an extra £3.5 million to Northamptonshire police, which is an increase of 2.9% against a national average of 2.4%, and therefore represents further good news for a police force that is rated good for efficiency and has been busy recruiting new police officers?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that, but his is not the only force that is recruiting more police officers. His force also stands out as one of the most effective in maximising the benefits of collaboration with other blue light services. I thank him for welcoming the additional £3.5 million of investment in the local policing system, if the PCC maximises his precept flexibility.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Despite the dedicated work of officers in Gwent police and South Wales police—my constituency covers parts of both forces—the pressure on frontline policing is greater than it has been for many years. Under the heading “Additional Rule 1” in the documents published today, South Wales police will face a reduction of £13,416,000 and Gwent police, which is one of the smallest forces, will face a reduction of £917,247. That is a cut—a reduction. It is less money whichever way the Minister tries to dress it up. With the Office for National Statistics saying that visible policing is lower than it has been in many a year, how can the Minister justify the Government’s position that they are keeping this country safe?
Mr Hurd
Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 1 on the “Provisional change in total direct resource funding compared to 2017/18”—I apologise to Labour Members if they do not have it to hand—which tells me that, if the proposals are accepted, and they are out for consultation, South Wales will see an additional £6.7 million cash increase in investment; and Gwent, which we should note is sitting on reserves worth 42% of its income, will receive a cash increase of £3 million. Again, I do not see how that can be a cut in anyone’s language.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Lincolnshire’s police and crime commissioner tells me that he considers the precept changes to be very good news, so I welcome the Minister’s statement. Can he confirm that the unique challenges faced by large, rural and sparsely populated counties, such as Lincolnshire, will be addressed by additional money for digital transformation?
Mr Hurd
Lincolnshire police are a good example of a force that feels under a great deal of pressure at the moment, so I am glad that the PCC has welcomed the settlement, as most have. I am sure that Labour MPs, when they talk to their PCCs and chiefs, will recognise that this settlement is better than many of them expected. My hon. Friend’s point about digital transformation is absolutely fundamental, and Lincolnshire police is a leader in that regard. I remember sitting around a table in the police headquarters listening to a young officer talking about how mobile working and the platform that has been developed there has transformed the force’s efficiency and productivity. I repeat my previous statement about the amount of police officers’ time that can saved by embracing the full digital potential. The Government are determined to support the police in achieving that.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister has visited Durham’s outstanding police force. He has said that he is listening to chiefs and to police and crime commissioners. Both Ron Hogg, the Labour PCC, and Mike Barton, the chief constable, have raised with him a particular problem that Durham has, which is that 50% of our properties are in band A, so relying on precept to cover the hole that has developed as a result of cuts to central funding is not a long-term solution for Durham. With pay increases and inflation, it will mean a cut in policing in Durham. Before he tells me that they have to become more efficient and work better, let me tell him that they have done all that and been rewarded for it. Can he suggest what the long-term solution is for forces, such as Durham’s, that have that problem?
Mr Hurd
I know that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the table, but it shows that if the proposals are accepted and the PCC does what we are empowering him to do, Durham will receive a cash increase of £2.4 million next year. I suggest that he goes back to Mike and Ron and asks whether that is helpful, because I suspect that the answer will be yes.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I look forward to studying the Minister’s proposals in detail. Suffolk constabulary is an efficient force, but it is historically underfunded and faces a whole variety of modern-day pressures, such as responding so quickly to the incident at RAF Mildenhall yesterday. Can the Minister confirm that he will continue to work with the PCC, Tim Passmore, and Suffolk MPs to put the funding of Suffolk police on a sustainable, long-term footing?
Mr Hurd
Yes, I can give that undertaking, and I am more than happy to maintain that conversation with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) as well. I have visited Suffolk police, as I have visited Durham police, and had conversations with Suffolk MPs. I know that the settlement is a step on a journey, which is why we are keen to signal the direction of travel for 2019-20 in the written statement, but the facts of the matter remain: this represents an increase of £450 million in investment in our policing system in England and Wales. I hope that colleagues across the House, once they have digested that, will welcome it.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The stark reality in Merseyside is that we have lost 1,000 police officers and £100 million from our budget, and we have rising crime—violent crime and gun crime. Merseyside MPs have lobbied Ministers time and again to deal with the financial problems in our police force. Our chief constable, Andy Cooke, has described the force as being “stretched to the limits” in a way he has never seen before. Are the Government really proud of their record on protecting British citizens on our streets?
Mr Hurd
We are proud that crime has fallen by a third on our watch. I recognise—because I have visited the force and spoken to Andy personally—that Merseyside police, like many police forces across the country, clearly feel very stretched at the moment. That is why, having done this review, we have gone back, looked at the settlement, listened to the police and the PCCs, and come forward with proposals that will increase investment in the policing system by £450 million, including an additional £5.2 million for Merseyside next year, if the PCC maximises his flexibility.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
The Mayor of London took the decision to cut the policing budget by £38 million this year, while stockpiling reserves that are equivalent to 10% of funding and overseeing an increase in serious crime. I welcome the statement, which will allow the Mayor to reverse that decision and allow the increase for Metropolitan police funding by up to £43 million. Does the Minister agree that this shows that with the Conservatives people get good results and sound management, and that with Labour they get neither?
Mr Hurd
I agree. Labour MPs are chuntering about tax increases, but when they call for more investment, where do they think it will come from? I was accused earlier of passing the buck. The reality—I know that the Labour party does not like it—is that we have changed the model so that the public can see clearer lines of responsibility and accountability for the performance of their police service, and in London that means the Mayor. Instead of sitting in his bunker writing letters asking for more money, the Mayor should get out there and tell us what he is doing to implement his crime plan.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Two thousand West Midlands police officers have gone. Crime is up by 15%. There have been nine stabbings and shootings in Erdington in recent months. Pensioners are afraid to go out at night. Shopkeepers are saying that people are increasingly afraid to come out and shop at night. They all had hoped that their voice would be heard by the Government. A flat-cash settlement delivering £9.5 million will come nowhere near the £22 million that West Midlands police needs in order to stand still. That will mean further reductions in police numbers and betraying the first duty of any Government, which is the safety and security of their citizens.
Mr Hurd
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is welcoming the additional £9.5 million of investment or not. We had a very sensible and constructive conversation with the rest of the west midlands MPs, and I think that he knows in his heart of hearts that when he goes back to speak with his chief and his police and crime commissioner, they will tell him that it is a better settlement than they expected.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, his engagement with police and crime commissioners across the country and the policing innovation we are seeing in Northamptonshire. Is he, like me, pleased that this Government did not adopt the approach of cutting the policing budget by 10%, which Opposition Members were arguing for not that long ago?
Mr Hurd
That certainly was recommended by a previous shadow Home Secretary—he was more moderate than the current shadow Home Secretary, who is on record as saying that she wanted to dismantle the police. I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the settlement, and I am sure that he will have constructive conversations with his PCC about how the additional £3.5 million will be spent next year in the best interests of his constituents.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My constituents have seen what this Government have meant for local policing: fewer officers on their streets and crime on the rise. Will the Minister confirm that even though he must know that council tax is highly regressive, he is asking those same constituents, many of whom are low paid or on fixed incomes, to pay more while he will not provide a penny more and central Government grant is falling in real terms?
Mr Hurd
I hesitate to challenge a local MP, but the fact of the matter is that Nottinghamshire police is one of a number of forces that intend to increase officer numbers next year. The hon. Lady talks about tax, and of course this is a hugely sensitive issue, but we should not lose sight of the fact—I have not said this before—that it is not mandatory for PCCs to impose this increase if they feel that it is not the right thing to do; it is about flexibility. In reality, because many of them have tested it—she will have her own view in Nottingham as to whether an additional £1 a month for investment in local policing is an acceptable proposition—each area will have a different view on that.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have never heard so many Tories come into the Chamber and welcome a council tax increase. The look on the Minister’s face while he has been standing at the Dispatch Box—if he walked down the street, he would be stopped and searched. He has one hand in the pocket of every single citizen in this country, and he is telling them that they will see an increase in funding for their police, but they have to pay more tax for it. That is exactly what he is doing, and he is making the poorest in our communities pay for it. The Metropolitan police has been cut by £1 billion since 2010, under the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Is he suggesting that we put a precept on council tax to backfill that hole? Crime is increasing and police numbers are down to the lowest they have been in 20 years. What is he going to do about that?
Mr Hurd
The hon. Gentleman simply articulates the problem with the Labour party: year after year and decade after decade, the answer is always more and more money with no understanding of where it comes from. There is no such thing as Government money—it is taxpayers’ money. The only way to increase investment in policing, which is what we all want to do, is to either increase borrowing or increase taxation. As he will see, this settlement increases investment from the centre by £130 million. We are enabling locally accountable police and crime commissioners to go to their public and say, “Will you give us an extra £1 a month to invest more in our local policing?” I suspect the answer will be yes.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Further to my hon. Friend’s point, the Minister will be well aware of the really significant variation in the money that can be raised through the precept, which often means that some of the forces with the greatest need are able to raise the least. What is the Minister planning to do to help to reconcile some of those imbalances so that we can meet demand?
Mr Hurd
I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution. She is extremely thoughtful on police matters and has done great work over the years on the “Protect the protectors” agenda. I hope she welcomes the additional £8.9 million that her force should see next year. She raises a thoughtful point. It is a complex system. There are some forces whose ability to raise precept is low, or whose historical precept levels are low. That often reflects historical political decisions, which I cannot do anything about at the moment. She will notice that this has been structured in terms of an additional £12 rather than percentages, which has been the historical route. There is a reason for that: it advantages slightly those forces that have low precepts.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister was kind enough to acknowledge the bravery and hard work of police officers right throughout this country, but far from looking at the financial settlement for next year, serving police officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland have yet to learn of their pay award this year. Given the political difficulties in Northern Ireland, will the Minister at least engage with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and stand up for policemen right across this country?
Points of Order
Tuesday 19th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House. We have just had a statement on the police grant assessment and the figures for individual forces are now available. On the local government financial settlement, however, I have just been to the Vote Office and there are no figures for individual authorities. No doubt Members will be contacted and asked about these matters. In the past, the figures have always been available at the same time as the settlement. Mr Speaker, could you ask those on the Treasury Bench whether there is any way they can speed this up so that we can at least get them before Christmas? I do not want to have a situation where all of us are being asked about this but we have no idea what it means for our individual authorities.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order and for giving the Chair advance notice of his intention to raise it. As I recall it, in respect of the local government finance settlement and the statement thereon, the Secretary of State did not refer to any laid documents. I appreciate that hon. Members may customarily expect documents on these matters—that has tended to be the case—but this is a matter for decision by Ministers. I am sure the concerns, expressed by the hon. Gentleman in his point of order and by other Members in the course of the exchanges, will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
I would just add, if I may, one point in underlining the significance of the hon. Gentleman’s point. It would, in respect of local government finance in particular, be helpful to Members in their attempted interrogation if the documents were available before the start of the statement. The reason why I say that “in particular” in respect of these matters is that it was long ago observed by many people to me when I started in my political activity that only three people in history were ever thought to have understood local government finance. In that sense, it was considered to be analogous to the situation appertaining to the Schleswig-Holstein question, about which it was also said that only three people had ever understood: one had since died, the second had gone mad and the third had forgotten the answer to the question. It is therefore useful to have more material rather than less in relation to these matters.
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman wants the Second Deputy Chairman to respond to his point of order.
Dan Carden
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Once again, Liverpool Prison in Walton in my constituency is subject to media reports following its most recent inspection in September this year. Perhaps most damning of all, the report states:
“We saw clear evidence that local prison managers had sought help from regional and national management to improve conditions they knew to be unacceptable…but had met with little response.”
This morning, the Justice Secretary promised an action plan would be forthcoming in the new year. That is too little, too late. We need answers to how HMP Liverpool was allowed to sink into such disrepair and squalor in the first place. This cannot be brushed under the carpet. This is a failure of the state of the highest magnitude. The Government and Ministers must be accountable to this House, so I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how I can get answers to what happened at HMP Liverpool.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that he would certainly have an opportunity at business questions on Thursday to raise this matter with the Leader of the House if he is so inclined. There are various other means by which matters can be raised and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the arsenal of weapons available to a Back-Bench Member. I completely understand his concern. If he is asking me, “Is there at least one method of raising it before we rise for the Christmas recess?” the answer is yes and there may prove to be more.
Bills Presented
Pension Benefits (Ill Health) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require pension providers to make lump sum payments and other pension benefits available to people with ill health, including people with a terminal diagnosis, prior to such people reaching minimum pension age; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 143).
Access to Radiotherapy Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron, supported by Mr Jim Cunningham, Norman Lamb, Stephen McPartland, Layla Moran, Grahame Morris and Tom Brake, presented a Bill to make provision to improve access to radiotherapy treatment in England; to define access in terms of the time that patients are required to travel to places providing treatment; to specify 45 minutes as the maximum time patients are to travel; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 144).
Emergency Response Drivers (Protections)
Tuesday 19th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Emergency Response Drivers (Protections) Bill 2017-19 View all Emergency Response Drivers (Protections) 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
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide protection for drivers of emergency vehicles responding to emergencies from civil liability and criminal prosecution in specified circumstances; to make related provision about criminal proceedings and sentencing; and for connected purposes.
I want to look at the case of PC Richard Jeffery, a Norfolk officer who, on a dark night at the end of his shift, was driving back towards the police station when on the radio came through a report of a stolen car being driven erratically with no lights. He intercepted the vehicle and followed it. He followed his training to the letter: he kept a sensible distance and did not tailgate the vehicle. The vehicle carried on being driven erratically and after a mile or so it crashed. Tragically, the driver was killed. He was four times over the limit and it was a stolen vehicle.
PC Richard Jeffery was suspended and investigated for gross misconduct. Understandably, and as one would expect, the case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. After three months, it decided there was no case to answer. The family of the victim appealed the decision to the CPS, however, and the case went on for several more months, but still there was no case to answer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission then investigated the accusation of gross misconduct for nearly two years. Throughout that time, PC Richard Jeffrey was suspended, Norfolk constabulary lost a long-serving and experienced officer, and at the end of it, he was completely exonerated.
The key point is that the CPS and the IPCC could not look at the extra training and expertise of the police officer—they could not apply the test of a competent and careful trained response driver; they could judge him only by the “competent and careful driver” standard, which is the standard applied to us all. This officer faced a dilemma. He could easily have said, “It’s the end of a long day, I won’t take the risk, I’m going back to the police station.” What would have then happened if this car, which was being driven by a driver four times over the limit with broken lights and on a wet road, had gone off the road and killed several people? He would have had that on his conscience forever, so of course his training kicked in, as one would expect.
There have been many other such cases recently, but I will pick up on just a few. A colleague in the House this afternoon brought to my attention the case of a constituent of his who was a highly trained and decorated officer. He was actually the pursuit commander and tactical adviser during an incident involving a moped that was being driven highly erratically. In fact, the driver was almost deliberately trying to goad the police. The police followed. He was in the second car, but he was the commander. Tragically, the moped rider went off the road and was killed. The officer was suspended, as one would expect—one does not necessarily object to that. Eighteen months on, however, he had been forbidden to work in any capacity and, quite staggeringly, forbidden to leave his home for more than three days. There is still no end to this saga—the case is ongoing—so I cannot comment in more detail.
It seems that there is a scourge of mopeds being used for crimes, and often moped riders know that if they take their helmet off, they have more chance of getting away. Two months ago in Kent—I am glad that some of my hon. Friends from Kent are here today—a moped was being driven highly erratically. It was actually doing wheelies and going up the wrong side of a dual carriageway. Four police vehicles were involved. The police officers concerned decided to take action and follow the moped. The moped driver had an accident, went flying off and injured himself—not critically, although it was thought he had severe head injuries. The police officer driving the car closest to the incident was suspended and then investigated for grievous bodily harm and dangerous driving. The case is ongoing. In fact, the driver recovered from his head injuries very quickly, and two weeks on was committing further crimes, while the police officer, who was doing his duty, ended up being suspended. I cannot comment further because the case is sub judice.
I want to look at cases that are no longer in the court arena and have been decided—these are on the public record. A firearms officer in Hampshire was deployed to a domestic violence incident on new year’s eve in 2015. While progressing to the incident, he used all his training to drive highly professionally, correctly and properly; he went through a couple of red lights and was involved in a slight injury collision with a member of the public. In the end, the “competent and careful driver” test was applied—neither the CPS nor the IPCC could consider his training and expertise—and he was charged with dangerous driving, and nearly two years later the trial took place. I am pleased to say that he was acquitted, but throughout that time Hampshire was without its most senior firearms officer.
There have been other cases. There was one in Merseyside involving a firearms officer and another involving a PC Steventon in Yorkshire. The latter was in a car pursuing a vehicle that had been observed at a petrol station. The individual was suspected of burglary and other offences. The police officer gave chase, and a long time later was charged. The rationale was that, although he had an exemption for breaking the speed limit and going through a traffic signal, he did not have an exemption for the alleged dangerous driving. He was suspended for 18 months, therefore, went to court and was acquitted. Afterwards, the judge said:
“After all you and your family have been through it would be an affront to natural justice if you were to face another internal disciplinary procedure. I hope that will not be the case”
and he expressed his hope that he leave a free man.
There are many other cases, but what runs through them is the significant impact they have on the officers, who are doing their duty to and serving the public, and the forces. There are, however, guidelines. In a letter to one of my colleagues, a Home Office Minister wrote: “There are guidelines in place, and obviously the idea is to reduce the risks associated with this activity”—pursuit—“and to set out when it is in the public interest for a prosecution to take place. Police should be able, without fear of prosecution, to go ahead and carry out their duties”. The guidelines are obviously not working. Time and again, the IPCC takes the view—perhaps while wrapped up in the emotion and under a lot of pressure from families —that it should take action, but it says, “We won’t deal with it, we’ll let the courts look at it”. That, I think, is a cop out. It is quite wrong that these officers are being prosecuted in this way.
My Bill would simply make it clear that the expertise and training of officers can be taken into consideration. In other words, the test applied would not be the universal test but a specific test for these emergency vehicle drivers. Some of my colleagues have said, “Is this a charter for the police acting irresponsibly, going berserk and getting carried away?” It is categorically not. Obviously, they would have to follow their training, the training manual and their professional judgment, and nor would there be an exemption for aggravating factors—for example, if the police officer were over the limit, recovering from a sickness or driving recklessly. The good news is that the training of police drivers has now been consolidated across the entire country through the road policing driving training programme, so we have standard procedures across the country. It is time for the law to be changed. I know that the Minister is sympathetic. This simple change would tilt the balance in favour of these professional, highly skilled public servants.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Henry Bellingham, Bob Blackman, Jack Lopresti, Stephen Twigg, Robert Halfon, Steve McCabe, Sir Oliver Heald, Chris Bryant, Sir Roger Gale, Leo Docherty, Peter Aldous and James Cartlidge present the Bill.
Sir Henry Bellingham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 145).
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 19th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 December 2017 - (19 Dec 2017)
16:40 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:36 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chair (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Equality impact analyses of provisions of this Act (No. 2)—
‘(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,
(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must give a separate analysis in relation to the following matters—
(a) income tax (in sections 1 and 3 to 6),
(b) employment (in sections 7 to 10),
(c) disguised remuneration (in sections 11 and 12 and Schedules 1 and 2),
(d) pension schemes (in section 13 and Schedule 3),
(e) investments (in sections 14 to 17 and Schedules 4 to 5),
(f) corporation tax and other aspects of business taxation (in sections 2, 19 to 32, 36 and 37 and Schedules 7 and 8),
(g) the bank levy (in section 33 and Schedule 9),
(h) settlements (in section 35 and Schedule 10),
(i) stamp duty land tax (in sections 40 and 41 and Schedule 11),
(j) air passenger duty (in section 43),
(k) vehicle excise duty (in section 44), and
(l) tobacco products duty (in section 45).
(4) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.” .
This new clause requires the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out a review of the effects of the provisions of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.
Dawn Butler
New clause 6 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and those of other Members on both sides of the House. The aim of both new clauses is basically to help the Government. We want them to set an example to every Department and public sector organisation by fulfilling their own obligation under the public sector equality duty and publishing a meaningful equality impact assessment. The equality duty covers nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
The Prime Minister says that she understands the problems faced by members of protected groups and that her Government are committed to tackling inequality in the ways set out in the equality duty, but one thing confuses me. If she understands all that, why does she allow her policies to undermine and hurt women and other groups with protected characteristics? Such “words over deeds” undermine people’s trust in politics and politicians.
How can I be sure that the Prime Minister knows these problems so well? There have been two stand-out moments. The first was in 2010, when the Prime Minister said:
“there are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending.”
The second was when she said, on the steps of No. 10, that she wanted to tackle the “burning injustices” in our society. But all that she has done is make things worse. She has added fuel to the fire, and those injustices now burn brighter than ever. The Chancellor said that this Budget would be full of new opportunities—for whom? He failed to address the position of women born in the 1950s, violence against women and girls, the crisis in social care, falling wages, and a social security system that is leaving millions of children in poverty.
I am sure that the Minister will disagree with some of what I am saying, but let me challenge him. This is his opportunity—his moment—to carry out a comprehensive equality impact assessment, publish it, and prove me wrong.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
One of the issues that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—although I am sure that she will come to it—is the underfunding of women’s refuges.
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is right: I will indeed come to that issue.
As we approach Christmas, I ask the Minister to consider the impact that the Government’s policies are having. More than 128,000 children will be in temporary accommodation over Christmas, women’s refuges—as my hon. Friend has just said—are in crisis, and universal credit will leave people penniless and homeless over the Christmas period.
Dawn Butler
It is not nonsense. I challenge the Minister to sit in one of my surgeries and hear that it is not nonsense.
The Government have made £28 billion of cuts affecting 3.7 million disabled people, and the additional caring responsibilities have fallen on the shoulders of women. It is the same with the cuts in social services—women take up the slack—and the pay cap, which hurts women more than men. Indeed, 86% of the Government’s cuts are falling on women. Labour Members are not the only people who are saying that. In June, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said that the Government’s changes adversely affected
“women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and families with two or more children.”
If the United Nations can see that, and if Labour Members can all see it, why can the Government not see it and do something about it? The best policies are evidence-based policies.
Mr Jim Cunningham
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. I am sure she agrees that, given that this Government and the previous Government talked about £12 billion in cuts, and therefore universal credit must fit that target, that is why they will not conduct an impact study.
Dawn Butler
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and it points to the crux of the new clauses: if the Government would only do impact assessments even as the policy goes forward, they would be able to say, “Okay, this isn’t working: it’s hurting; it’s damaging people. Let’s do something different.” But, in their arrogance, they refuse to do that.
The House of Commons Library uses a different calculation in its assessments. I admit that some of the assessments are not straightforward, but that does not mean that they should not be done; after all, they are the Government. Most recently, the Government have argued that the equality impact analysis carried out by the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust does not take into account the impact of increases to the national living wage or spending on services that benefit women such as health, education, childcare and social care. I say again: “Oh yes it does.” Their report, “Intersecting Inequalities”, includes the impact of both the national living wage and changes to spending on a wide range of services. When the cuts to services are added, the impact is more severe. The Treasury says that individual Departments are responsible for the equality impacts of their own policies; yes they are, but the Treasury should also be responsible for publishing the equality impact of policies, since it sets the overall budget limits, and any impact assessments carried out should be available for everyone to see, and not hidden away.
The Government’s arguments are just excuses, allowing them to evade accountability for the impact of their policies. That shows a lack of commitment to tackling the major inequalities in our society. This Government are so evasive: we are still awaiting a response to the cross-party letter sent to the Minister for Women and Equalities on 29 November highlighting major concerns on this very issue.
If we were in Scotland or Wales, we would be legally obligated to carry out and publish equality impact assessments. We are the mother of all Parliaments and we should be leading the way. What is wrong with getting the facts and making policy based on them? That is sensible and it is right; people outside this place will not understand what the reluctance is all about.
The Minister will probably talk in his response about “due regard”, but what does “due regard” mean? There is some legal definition of due regard. The courts have said that it means sufficient information, so even on a lower bar of “due regard” this Government and their Departments are still failing, as they tend to produce superficial equality impact assessments.
I concede that more needs to be done to establish robust analysis, but if Scotland and Wales can do it, why cannot we? Current analysis should be taken as a starting point for Government action, not an excuse for inaction, so I call upon the Chancellor to give the country a Christmas present and to commit to doing things properly.
As my Christmas gift to the Government, here are three things as a start in that process. First, they should consider the impact of their policies at all stages of the legislative process. That means the Government examining the differential and intersectional impact of their policies and, if necessary, changing course to ensure equality of outcome. Secondly, they should work with organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust to produce analysis with a high level of detail. Thirdly, they should commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an independent review into the effects of the provisions of this Bill.
Everyone in this House can help tackle the burning injustices that blight our country today by voting for new clauses 6 and 7.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 6 and 7, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler).
Under the public sector equality duty, all public bodies, including the Treasury, are obliged to have “due regard” to the impact of their policies on equality. Yet, once again, this Government have refused to carry out a meaningful equality audit of their Budget.
I am grateful that the House of Commons Library has done research, and it has consistently shown that 86% of the burden of Tory tax and benefit changes since 2010 has fallen on the shoulders of women. Today, I will tell the stories of women impacted by this, and show how they are bearing the brunt of failed Tory austerity.
Women make up two thirds of public sector workers so have suffered most from the Tories’ pay cap. Women have to struggle with more caring responsibilities due to the ever-increasing gap in social care funding. Some 54,000 women a year are forced out of their jobs through maternity discrimination. Women in my constituency of Rotherham earn 11.9% less on average than men. And, shamefully, 94 women and 90 children are, on a typical day, turned away from refuges due to lack of space, according to Women’s Aid.
Let me talk about some specific cases. I want to talk about Martha, a single mother. A recent report by the Runnymede Trust and the Women’s Budget Group shows that by 2020 single mothers like Martha will have experienced an average drop in living standards of 18% since 2010. As a part-time NHS worker, Martha’s real pay has been slashed under the Tories. NHS staff have suffered a 14% real-terms pay cut since 2010. With inflation at a near six-year high of 3.1%, more and more women like Martha are struggling to put food on their table. Martha is not just about managing; Martha is only just about surviving.
The Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust analysis shows that black employed women, like Martha, are set to lose the most from cuts and changes to universal credit—around £1,500 a year. These changes include cutting the first child premium, which came into effect this year and would have been worth £545 a year to Martha.
Mr Jim Cunningham
A good example of the burden being been put on women is through tax adjustments. Under the last Government and this one, women have lost £14 billion in that way. Another good example is Sure Start. Women cannot get out to work because there are no Sure Start facilities.
Sarah Champion
That is the biggest frustration. We need the Government to audit all their policies and start to recognise the trends when certain groups are disproportionately impacted. We all pay our taxes and we all want the same services, but surely the best thing for the economic growth of this country is for everyone to be able to reach their economic potential. That is surely the best way to get this country back on its feet economically.
According to research by the Child Poverty Action Group, 61% of parents working part time who wanted to work more hours said that the cost of childcare was a barrier, and no wonder, when Government cuts mean that there are now 1,240 fewer Sure Starts than there were in 2010. Yet there was no mention of childcare in the recent Budget. When 41% of women in work have part-time jobs, compared with just 13% of men, it is clear how these policies have a disproportionate impact on women. An equality impact assessment would put a spotlight on those inequalities and on the need for action—but of course we can only assume that that is why the Government refuse to carry out such assessments.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to make my case to the five Conservative MPs on the Government Benches today. Inequality is an incredibly expensive business for everyone. I am pleased to see five fellow feminists sitting among the many of us on these Benches—
Stella Creasy
Goodness! The Minister says eight, but I can assure him that we have a good many more than eight feminists in total on this side of the House if he would ever like to test us. Our policies and our manifesto certainly speak to that fact.
The case that I want to make to the five men on the Tory Benches, given that gender inequality and equality impact assessments can sometimes be seen as special-interest issues, is that everything we are doing today is in everyone’s interest. Inequality costs us all dear. It holds everybody back in our society. Indeed, feminism is not about women; it is about the fact that power is unequally balanced in society so that 51% of those in our communities miss out on achieving their potential. That is what is behind new clauses 6 and 7. Good data help to drive good decisions. It is also good for Governments to follow their own policies. We have a public sector equality duty in this country, but the fact that the Government are not following it themselves makes it much harder for them to force other people to do so. Ultimately, we are here today to make the case that Britain will be better when we know more about the conditions that we face and about what impact policies are having.
Let me start with that cold, hard economic argument, because I am sure that the Minister, who once proclaimed his feminist credentials, already knows this, but I am not sure whether it has yet been put on the record. Bridging the gender gap would generate £150 billion in GDP by 2025. The economy has been struggling with a productivity problem for decades, and there is nothing stronger or faster that we could do to address that than to ensure that everybody in our society is able to realise their potential, but we should do more to help women in particular. We need to tackle the barriers and the discrimination they face that means they do not have that level playing field. Indeed, studies show the strong correlation between diversity and economic growth, so those who think that this is special pleading do not understand the maths behind the case Labour is making today. I would argue that the reason why they do not understand the maths is that we do not do the calculations, which is why it is so important to get the data.
Data is a good thing. It leads to difficult conversations. It makes us ask why, after the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, we still do not have equal pay in this country. I was born after that Act came into effect, but if the current policy continues, I will be dead before we have parity. That harms us all, because the 14% pay gap between men and women is not stagnating, but growing. There will be women in our constituencies who are missing out on equal pay because we are not acting as a country. Having this kind of data helps us to ask why that is and whether Government policy is helping to minimise the gap or exacerbate it.
This is not just about gender. The gap is much worse for women from ethic minority communities. The pay gap is 26% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women and 24% for black African women. This is also not just about ethnicity, because the same applies for disability and age. Only 36% of women in the constituencies of the Conservative male Members here will be getting their full state pension. When those women come to see those Members about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, they are coming because they have been living with poverty for decades. They are asking for help to make things right, because they do not want to be dependent on the state. They want a level playing field, but historical inequality in our society has held them back, and it is holding us back now. Having the data helps us to understand where that is happening and why. It would show us whether Government policies—individual Budgets—are going to make it easier to tackle that inequality, so that fewer women will come to constituency surgeries asking for a referral to a food bank, or whether they will make things worse.
If the Government want to tackle inequality, they need to know that data also tells us that this Budget, and the Budgets of previous years, are causing more problems. I do not doubt the sincerity of the five Conservative Members here or that they do want to tackle inequality in our society, but when I look at this Budget I do doubt whether they are going to be able to do that. This Budget will hit women 10 times as hard as it will hit men—13 times for women from an ethnic minority background. Going back to the equal pay issue, 43% of people in society do not earn enough to benefit from raising the personal income tax threshold, and 66% are women. We have unequal pay in our society, so 73% of the people who will benefit from changing the higher rate threshold will be male. Having the data and then looking at what is being done with tax and benefit policies will help us to understand just how much further this Budget is moving the goalposts for women and ethnic minorities. This applies to other policies, too. Corporation tax changes disproportionately benefit men, because we still do not have parity in the boardroom, in enterprise or in the number of women shareholders.
The lack of data also leads to bad decision making. As my colleagues have already set out, this Government have not done any equality impact assessments to understand just how far the goalposts are moving in getting to this House’s shared aim of an equal society. Tax information and information notes dismiss the issue and do not help Ministers to make good decisions. I am sure that the Minister, with his feminist soul, wants to make good decisions, but those assessments claim that there is little or no impact. Indeed, we do not even have TINs for all the policies that we know have a differential impact such as excise duty rates or fuel duty giveaways, because we live in an unequal society.
The lack of data also means that Ministers simply cannot come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that any concerns we may have about the differential impact of individual tax and benefit changes can be offset by the impact of other policies. If we do not know the impact of one policy, how can it be said that that can be offset by another? Even if we are concerned that men have received a windfall from Budgets for several years, it is simply not good enough for Ministers to try to tell us that women are being compensated through public services, because they cannot provide the analysis to show us that either case is true. Indeed, when we look at the impact of public service cuts—surprise, surprise—women, ethnic minorities and the disabled tend to be disproportionately hit again.
As I said at the start, it is also a matter of following our own laws. The public sector equality duty came into force in this country in 2011. It is a legal requirement, and it has driven some of these difficult conversations, whether in the Bank of England or in the BBC. It helps us to challenge everyone to do more to unlock the potential of every member of our society by reducing barriers and breaking down the discrimination that means, 40-plus years on, we still do not have equal pay.
If the Government themselves are not upholding their duties, what hope do we have in asking other organisations to do so? It is important to recognise that the legal duty is not passive. It is a duty not just to manage inequality but to do something about it. It is a duty to know the numbers before we make a decision so that we do not make things worse, as this Budget clearly does, and it is an ongoing duty that cannot be delegated. Ministers cannot leave it to a civil servant in the back office; they have to take direct responsibility. Crucially, it is a duty that, once a problem has been identified, the Government have to act, and not having the resources is no excuse for not acting.
The arguments Ministers are making against calculating the figures are not just about the practicalities, but they are completely surmountable. As the Women’s Budget Group, the Fawcett Society and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have shown, it is perfectly possible to make these calculations, and it is worth doing because it would help the Government to make better decisions. That it is possible to do it both for individuals and for households is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, single parents, who tend to be women, are disproportionately hit by these changes. Even if the Minister were to quibble about calculating the figures across households, we could certainly see the impact we are having on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The reason why we have called it “lady data” is to try to help Ministers understand what they are missing and why it matters, but in truth this is everyone’s data. Getting this right and having that information would help us to make better decisions and would help us to understand why it will take us 100 years from today to have parity, so that women who are still struggling with unequal pay—including women in the communities of the Members to whom I have referred—can have some confidence that they may still live to see that wonderful day when everyone in this society is treated equally and so that people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people living in poverty, and a poverty that is getting worse, can have some confidence that the Government are not ignoring them but understand where the challenges are and are considering a Budget that will do something about it.
Frankly, when we see the analyses that are being done, we know why the Government oppose new clauses 6 and 7. They do not want to do the maths because the figures tell the ugly truth about the inequality we have in Britain and its stubborn supporters, who unfortunately sit on the Government Benches. Jane Addams said:
“Social advance depends as much upon the process through which it is secured as upon the result itself.”
We cannot take the journey to a more prosperous, more successful and more egalitarian Britain if we do not know the direction of travel. The numbers will give us the direction of travel, but it is the political will that will give us the way forward.
Ministers should not dismiss this case as special pleading but should look at the economic argument for why tackling gender inequality matters and vote accordingly today to put Britain on a better path, because everyone will be richer for it.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), Labour's shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, said, new clause 6 would require the Chancellor to carry out and publish a review of the Bill’s effect on equality. In short, it touches on the fundamental difference between the Labour party and this failing Government, whose policies work for only the richest few. New clause 6 seeks to shed light on the truth of who benefits from Government choices and who does not.
In order to change society, we must understand society; and in order to have a fully functioning democracy, we need transparency. People in my constituency deserve to know what is going on, not least because this Government are failing the country on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.
New clause 6 refers to equality in relation to
“households at different levels of income”.
Real pay has fallen and is now lower than it was in 2010. Too many jobs that have been created are insecure and entrench poverty through low pay. These employment models fuel inequality, and certain parts of the country, particularly in my north-east region and my constituency, have a disproportionate number of workers on these contracts, where there has been a long-term move towards casualisation. This poverty is not just about worklessness; 60% of people in poverty live in a UK household where someone is in work. Many professionals have joined the queues at food banks, where, nationally, 1.4 million emergency food parcels were handed out last year—that has to be a perfect symbol of a failed state, does it not?—yet the Government just don’t get it.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Does my hon. Friend agree that the limit on child benefit now increases poverty? Does she recall that one of the Government’s slogans used to be, “Let’s make work pay”? Well, it does not pay because poverty wages are being paid.
Laura Pidcock
Absolutely. We are seeing lots of inadequacies in the universal credit system, which completely smash out of the water the idea that work pays under the Conservative Government.
Even taking account of housing costs, which I know take a huge slice of wages from people in the south-east, in the north-east we are still £84 a week worse off. The disparities in investment in my constituency create a vicious circle. We cannot attract the large-scale business investment that we desperately need without the infrastructure and the skilled people, and as much as Derwentside College in my constituency is a beacon of excellence in the education it provides, it is like every other further education establishment in the country in that it has a dwindling budget with which to educate the future skilled workforce that we need.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. There are very good FE colleges all over the north-east of England, with my local one in Gateshead being a very good example, but I am sad to say that when young people are leaving those colleges with skills, they are doing what generations of Geordies have done: leaving to come south for jobs because there is not the investment in the north-east of England.
Laura Pidcock
It is heartbreaking. Of course we want to keep as many of those brilliant young people in my constituency as possible, with the education they have received being put back into infrastructure and a rich economy, but the long-term employment just is not there.
New clause 6 would also address gender inequality, because it is women in my constituency and right across the country who have borne the brunt of inequality, as most women always do. Women, particularly working-class women, suffer structural inequality throughout their lives. On average, women earn less than men, have lower incomes over their lifetime and are more likely to be living in poverty. As has been mentioned, women are therefore less likely than men to benefit from cuts to income tax, and are more likely to lose out because of cuts to social security benefits and public services.
In conclusion, I urge Members to support new clause 6 and I call on the Government to carry out equality impact assessments so that my constituents can see, in black and white, the hard facts and the truth. If the Government are so proud of their achievements, why are they not shouting them from the rooftops so that they can receive full credit? Why not let everybody know what Government policy has achieved? Unfortunately, Opposition Members know that the facts will tell the truth and reveal that the Government do not care one jot about my region and that they are happy for wages to stagnate and for people to experience poorer lives with all the consequences that that entails. People in my constituency work extremely hard, and they definitely deserve much better. Please support the new clause so that we can see what the Government are actually doing to our region.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I rise to respond to some of the points that have been made by Opposition Members. I shall start with what the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) said about the Government, or the Conservative party, talking about how work is the best route out of poverty. Do correct me if I have misquoted you, but you went on to say that the work in our economy at the moment exacerbates poverty. You felt that it is currently not the best route out of poverty. Is that correct?
The Temporary Chair (Albert Owen)
Order. Is the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) referring to me, because he is saying “you”? He should refer to the hon. Lady, and if he wishes to take an intervention, he must sit down.
Laura Pidcock
In my speech I was talking about precarious work. In debates on universal credit, Government Members talk about it getting people into work faster, but we know that the system is for people who are in work and that they receive a top-up payment because their pay is low. I meet many people in my constituency, including social care workers who do not get paid for their mileage. They are working, say, 14 hours a day and getting paid for six hours. That entrenches their poverty because they do not have a proper contract and they are not being paid a fair rate, but they have all the outgoings that they would have if they were not receiving state help.
Bim Afolami
Whether it is in respect of the Bill, the new clause or what we are discussing now, the important thing is that it is of course the Government’s intention to create more better-paying jobs. That is what the Treasury team and everybody across Government strive to do every single day. That is not to say that every single person in this country is currently at the level of prosperity we would like, but that is the aim of all the activity that is coming out of the Bill and out of the Treasury.
Stella Creasy
If that is the aim, what data are the Government collecting to be sure that they are achieving it and to find out whether there are any variations? That is what we are talking about. The issue is not the policy, but whether it is having an impact and whether we can understand that impact. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that?
Bim Afolami
I do indeed understand that. There is currently so much data, much of which has already been talked about by Opposition Members, on regional disparities, and on disparities of race and age, and between urban and rural areas. There is so much data, so Government policy must aim to bear it all in mind, which is what Ministers do.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in taking interventions. We need to hear a few facts. The data that he is talking about, which we are citing as evidence of why this is so important, is being collected by charities and the House of Commons Library. With respect to both the duty of care and the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, this work should be done by the Government. That is what we are asking for.
Bim Afolami
If the hon. Lady will permit me, I will make a bit of progress and then I will respond to her remarks in the fullness of my speech.
It is important to make my next point in relation to new clause 6 clear. We have heard Opposition Members say that women, or certain members of ethnic minorities, are more likely to be lower paid than other members of society. By taking the lowest paid people out of tax and increasing the national living wage, we are benefiting those groups of people who might suffer from low earnings. In addition—
Ian Mearns
When Government Members talk about, and celebrate, the fact that people are being taken out of income tax altogether, what they are doing is celebrating an economy of low pay. They are celebrating an economy where people are being paid so little that they are just above, or just at, the income tax threshold. For me, that underlines what it is actually like out there in constituencies such as mine in Gateshead.
Bim Afolami
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is not celebrating low pay to say that people who are currently earning lower amounts should take home more of their money. That is not a celebration; it is about making their lives, every day and every week, that bit easier. It is worth saying that taking the lowest paid people out of tax and raising the national living wage is having significant benefits for many of the people—
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I think he may have missed one of the points that we are making. For example, when the Government raise the tax threshold, 66% of the people who do not benefit—because they do not earn enough—are women. Seventy three per cent. of the people who benefit from a rise in the higher income rate threshold are men. What he is talking about and what we are talking about are two different things. We are talking about the differential impact of policy, and asking the Government to do the sums that are currently being done in the charitable sector, so that we can make better policy. Surely he wants those sorts of policies to have an equal benefit, but at the moment they do not, because we do not have equal pay.
Bim Afolami
I believe that all policy in this area, or, frankly, in any area, should be set to make sure that we are trying to generate as innovative, dynamic and successful an economy as possible. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned cutting corporation tax in her speech. She thought that that effectively benefited more men than women because men are more likely to be shareholders than women. The way we should deal with that, in my view, is to encourage more women to be entrepreneurs. We should work to make sure that women have access to being shareholders and that women have more ability to reap the benefits of that—
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bim Afolami
If I may, I would like to make a bit of progress.
As the evidence has shown, cutting corporation tax increases, rather than decreases, the tax take going to the Exchequer. If that shows this country to be a better and more dynamic place in which to set up and start a business, that will benefit all people in this country. That is the approach that the Government should take. If we want to improve the performance of the British economy and if there happen to be more men than women who are shareholders, it is no answer to say that we should therefore not take action to improve the activity of the British economy.
Stella Creasy
I have a very simple question for the hon. Gentleman, although I appreciate that he is getting some assistance from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng): can he produce the data to prove that men and women will benefit equally from the changes to corporation tax?
Bim Afolami
I do not have the data now to be able to respond to the hon. Lady. What I do know is that Conservative Members will never take lectures from the Labour party; we have our second female Prime Minister, the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, and this Government have done more for childcare and support for families than the Labour Government ever did. The idea that this Government should take lectures on this issue from Labour Members is disgraceful.
Laura Pidcock
The hon. Gentleman is celebrating two female Prime Ministers somehow drastically pulling every single woman out of poverty. That is not the answer. We need structural change and the evidence to tell us whether women are equal, not the tokenism of two female leaders. Margaret Thatcher did not do much to pull women in my community out of poverty.
Dawn Butler
I am sure that the hon. Members around the hon. Gentleman are trying to get him to stop talking, but Labour Members do not mind. It is actually nice to see you go through your journey of trying to put the pieces together and understand the problems we are talking about. You cannot justify any of your statements because you have no data.
The Temporary Chair (Albert Owen)
Order. Too much “you”. The hon. Lady is an experienced Member of the House and she should set an example.
Dawn Butler
My apologies, Mr Owen. I am getting carried away in my enthusiasm to try to educate the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). The Government cannot justify anything you are saying, because you have no data to back it up. We are having to rely on data from voluntary groups and charities, which do an amazing job of crunching the numbers and looking at the intersectionality of the Government’s policies. But in order for you to make your statements, you need to have the data.
The Temporary Chair
Order. That was a very long intervention with too many “yous”. Let us get used to the parliamentary language and have a proper debate.
Bim Afolami
I will conclude my remarks by saying that it is important when we talk about these issues—in this House or outside—always to remember that improving the performance of the health service, the economy or anything relating to Government policy will benefit everybody in this country, if we make the right judgments and the right policy.
Jim McMahon
Well, well, well. When it comes to naivety, there is a very fine line; it can often be endearing before it eventually becomes quite offensive. And I did find the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) offensive. It began in the spirit of naivety. I could see that he was nervous at the beginning of his contribution—quite rightly, it turned out, towards the end—because he did not have the data that was being presented.
The debate went on and Labour Members presented the data, but rather than actually taking account of it, the hon. Gentleman continued, in a very odd way, to try to defend what most reasonable people would say is a quite indefensible position. He was essentially saying, “Listen—if men are doing okay, surely women will eventually do okay too.” I am not sure whether the solution he came up with to the shareholder conundrum was for women to find wealthy husbands who are shareholders, as if that might somehow lift them out of poverty and allow them to be the beneficiaries of the cuts in corporation tax.
Ian Mearns
We have discovered a new phenomenon: it is called trickle-down gendernomics. It is going to be the resolution to all the problems of poverty and the disparity in earnings between men and women in all our communities up and down the country—I don’t think so.
Stella Creasy
Obviously, having had two women Prime Ministers, that is quite enough women earning a serious level of income—the 33 million other women in this country do not deserve equal care and attention. This data would help us to find out just how much inequality there is and what we could do about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that facts should override fiction?
Jim McMahon
I think that where the hon. Gentleman was trying to get to—I will be generous—was that these things are symbolic and that symbolism in politics is quite important. However, to me, it is more symbolic that 46% of women have to skip a meal so that their children can eat. It is quite symbolic that women continue to be underpaid compared with men, and it is symbolic that the decisions the Government are taking disproportionately affect women on low incomes—the people who are trying to keep households together and who are raising the next generation of young people, who, because of this Government, will not have better life chances than the generation that went before them.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is also important that it was women politicians and women workers who campaigned and argued for the Equal Pay Act 1970? Will he also confirm that outstanding equal pay cases are at an all-time high?
Jim McMahon
That is absolutely right, but let us be honest: the Government are not in listening mode. They do not want to take into account what could have been constructive new clauses—new clauses 6 and 7. What they want to do is to maintain their stubbornness and their silence. They think that if they ignore this issue, there is not a problem in society, when we know that there is.
In terms of the pressures on income that many people in our communities face, the new clauses go beyond just gender inequality, and talk about disability and race as well. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to address the discrepancy in terms of opportunity, incomes, housing and the criminal justice system with members of the ethnic communities in this country. However, when we look at the way the Government have approached the Budget, the evidence just does not support that. If we look at the public sector, for instance, little effort is being made to widen participation in public sector jobs to members of the ethnic minority communities. In my constituency, a third of residents are predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi, but they are nowhere near properly reflected in the make-up of public services. In towns such as Oldham, where industry has, by and large, been hollowed out, the public sector is the place where people go for decent-quality, well-paid and, previously, quite secure employment. If people are restricted from entering those jobs, for different reasons, that has a material impact on their ability to lift themselves out of poverty, to get on in life and to do well.
When the coalition Government came into power, it was interesting that one of their very first acts of many that devastated towns such as Oldham was to cut the funding that went to Remploy. Remploy had a network of factories across this country that used to support people into supported employment. Those were not sympathy jobs, in the way I heard people say they were at the time; they were real jobs, and they produced goods of quality that people wanted to buy. In Bardsley, in my constituency, that meant a full factory employing 114 people making windows that they would sell to industry, housing associations and the private market.
Sarah Champion
The reason we want the equality impact assessment is not handouts; we are looking for a level playing field so that everybody can reach their economic potential and Government policies are not hampering that. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Jim McMahon
That is absolutely right. This is really odd from my point of view, because I have come from local government. In local government, when people are setting their annual budget, they have a legal responsibility to make sure that these audits are carried out and that proper consideration is given to the impact on protected groups. The Government now seem to believe that legislation passed in this House is good enough for one part of the public sector but not the other, but I am afraid that that just does not hold water. A lot of public bodies—whether it is the NHS, local government, a police force or anywhere else in the public sector—will be looking at the Government and thinking that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the laws passed here, which the Government do not seem to apply to themselves.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Specifically on Remploy, yes, there were some great practices there, but the Government made that decision because very few were able to progress into work, and we wanted to create more opportunities so that more people can benefit. That is partly why we have seen an extra 600,000 disabled people find work, which is a great thing.
Jim McMahon
How dare the hon. Gentleman suggest that the 114 people working in that factory in Oldham were not in proper employment? They were producing, they were manufacturing, they were selling, and people wanted to buy the goods because they were of a high quality. It was not a handout or a giveaway. They were not sympathy cases: they were people who were working hard in a supported environment to produce something that people wanted to buy.
In some ways, this is the problem that we face. When the problem is so disconnected and not part of the everyday experience of Conservative Members, it is easy for them to ignore it. I cannot ignore it. When I go back to Oldham West and Royton, it is my community. I see the impact of cuts, of austerity, and of suppressed wages. I see the hollowing out of our employment structure. All right, people at the top are doing very well, and there are more jobs at the bottom, but the middle has been completely taken out. People talk about an economy that will support people into better employment, while 8 million adults and children are living in poverty in working households.
That is the economy we have in this country, because the routes of progression in employment simply do not exist. We are happy to be the bargain basement employment capital of Europe in this new relationship—let us be honest. Providing that the bankers and the insurance services are all right, we really do not care what it means for the rest of the economy as long as there are people working at Costa Coffee to serve the coffee in the morning. That is what the Government really believe. It is okay hon. Members shaking their heads, but where has the investment in our key industries gone? We need investment in manufacturing and engineering, creating jobs that produce things that people want to buy, pay decent wages, and support people into a lifelong career so that at the end of it they have a decent pension.
Speaking of pensions, what did the Government do in the autumn statement for the WASPI women? These women have worked and contributed all their lives, doing everything that was asked of them by Government. At the last minute, planning for their future, they were left cut adrift, and when they came to the Government to ask for support, the Government turned away.
Jim McMahon
I absolutely give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can justify that.
Bim Afolami
Would the hon. Gentleman welcome anything at all in the Government’s recently announced industrial strategy, which was, in many respects, targeted towards some of the poorer communities in this country?
Jim McMahon
I am going to give the hon. Gentleman a real answer on this point and not just grandstand, because it is important. I will explain the problem with the industrial strategy as it stands. For a town like Oldham, it is absolutely critical that the UK has an industrial strategy that holds water—that is forward thinking, ambitious, and has a framework of funding to support growth. I would welcome an industrial strategy that did that, and I think that when it started, that is what it tried to do. The problem is that something fairly dramatic has happened in the meantime, and that is Brexit. What I would have expected the Government to do in the context of the referendum result is not just to dominate Parliament’s time with the transitional and transactional relationships with Europe now and when we leave. I would have expected the Government of the day to produce a real, compelling vision of what type of Britain there is going to be when we leave the European Union. That has not taken place. The domestic legislation coming through this place is non-existent. Money is being taken out of vital public services that would be the foundation for the type of industrial strategy that is being talked about. Money is being taken away from our education and skills system, which would be the starting point for any investment strategy in our economy, particularly in manufacturing and engineering.
So would I welcome anything in the industrial strategy? I would simply welcome the principle of an industrial strategy, but it cannot be done on the cheap. We have seen—let us be honest about this; it transcends different Governments—a complete turning away from UK manufacturing and engineering, at the cost of the communities that people in this place represent. In order to replace that with a forward-thinking industrial strategy, the resources then have to follow, and we have not seen that—we have seen the opposite. Money has been taken away from our Sure Start centres and from our schools. Our colleges are chronically underfunded, with many on estates that are crumbling, struggling to keep up even with basic maintenance. Our apprenticeship system is in tatters since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. All these things matter if we have a forward view about what type of country Britain can be.
The new clauses are important in that context because if we want to create, after Brexit, an inclusive and fair Britain that allows everybody to benefit, we have to make an honest assessment of where Britain is today. We are not in a good place. Our economy is shot. Our job market has been hollowed out, and the good, well-paid jobs in the middle have been taken away. Our housing stock is not fit for purpose and we are investing £9 billion a year into the pockets of private landlords, although we know that 40% of that stock does not even meet the decent homes standard. Those are the really important issues that Members need to think about. If they do not take proper account of what the information tells us, how on earth can we collectively make informed decisions that send us in a different direction?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Whether Members on either side of the House agree with the policies, having good data to enable us to understand their impact helps us to make or dispute an argument. I am struggling to understand why any MP would be against having the facts about the impact of policy, which is all that the new clauses will do. If we had that information, Government Members could confidently tell us what great proposals they are making to improve the country’s prosperity, rather than using anecdotes—or two women.
Jim McMahon
I believe it comes down to priorities. If the Government were determined to do something about this, having the evidence base would be of great benefit to them. They do not want to do anything about it, so the evidence base is a hindrance because the Opposition can use it to attack the Government about the fact that progress just is not being made. That is the real reason why the Government are not making progress, and why they are determined not to support the new clauses. It would be far better for the country if the Government were to step up, to be honest and to recognise that the country has some really ingrained challenges that we need to face. Understanding the scale of the challenge from day one is important in making sure that we get into a better position.
My challenge is this: why not? If the Government believe that they are doing the right thing, and that by virtue of their second female Prime Minister they are the party of gender equality and the champions of all that is equal, now is the time to prove it. Members have two choices: they can go through one or other of the voting Lobbies. Perhaps they have a third choice, which is to stay away completely. They can get behind the new clauses and support our request for the data set, which will inform decisions; they can shirk responsibility entirely and stay away from both voting Lobbies; or they can keep their heads down and maintain their own position on the Government Benches, and vote against new clause 6 because it happens to have come from the Opposition. I would say that that is not putting the interests of the country first.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I would like to start by correcting an omission that I made yesterday. I should have said that our thoughts are with the Chairman of Ways and Means and his family at this time. It sounds like a really horrendous thing for a family to go through, particularly at Christmas time.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), not just for tabling new clause 6, but for the way in which she engaged with us in advance of the debate. I appreciate the time that she took to speak to us about the new clause so that we could discuss how it looked. I think it is absolutely brilliant; it is one of the best new clauses that we have seen when considering a Finance Bill, and I have tabled a few in my time. I want to speak in favour of the new clause and state our support for it.
I will start by covering why we need the new clause. Although there has been a bit of discussion, we have not talked about what it means in its widest sense. Subsection (2) talks about
“the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income”,
as well as on protected characteristics, the public sector equality duty and
“equality in different parts of the UK and different regions of England.”
A lot of the debate today has focused on women, which is completely reasonable, but the new clause captures several other things that could have been more fully discussed.
Why do we need an assessment of the impact on various groups, particularly those mentioned in new clause 6? We need it because people in the protected groups or at the lower end of the income spectrum have been disproportionately hit by the actions of this UK Government, as can be seen in a number of ways. It can be seen in the fact that we have young people in jobs on zero-hours contracts. We have those jobs, and the Government say it is wonderful to have so many people in employment, but despite that, we are not seeing an increase in household disposable income because people are not receiving the wages they should receive for such employment. They are in precarious jobs and they are not receiving enough money, and the benefits freeze has been a major added factor. It means that people are earning even less, because the benefits freeze has hit them doubly.
The Government have caused another issue by reducing disability payments. The UN has said that the UK has not done enough to ensure that the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities is being met, and no Government in any developed country or nation should seek to be in such a position. We have not had a proper assessment of the impact on disabled people of the changes that this UK Government have made.
The UK Government have also not taken seriously their responsibility to young people in society. We have a living wage that people cannot live on: it is not calculated as something that people can live on; it is a pretendy living wage put forward by the Government. It is not applicable to people younger than 25. Therefore, we have a living wage that people cannot actually live on, but the Government somehow think that the labour of people under 25 is worth less than that of those over 25, even though they may be in exactly the same job and should therefore be earning the same amount.
As has been pretty widely covered, the Budget and successive policies of this UK Government have a disproportionate impact on single parents, the majority of whom are women. We see a disproportionate number of them coming through the doors at our surgeries. Do you know what, Mr Owen? It is absolutely and totally ridiculous that we are seeing a rise in rickets in this country. We are seeing people who cannot afford to eat or to give their children nutritious food because of the decisions of this UK Government.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree it is a scandal that many children will be getting food and presents this Christmas only through the actions of food banks and charities, such as Moray Firth Radio’s Cash for Kids in my constituency? That should not be allowed to happen. With universal credit, this is happening far too often across the nations of the UK.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. This year—in 2017—my office has referred 35 people to food banks, and we have gone to the food bank on five occasions on behalf of constituents who have come through the door and told us that they have not eaten for a number of days. This is supposed to be a country that cares for people who are just about managing, but it is failing them. The people who go to food banks nowadays are working. They are not earning enough money from their jobs to feed their families, so they are having to go to food banks.
We have seen this Government attack people who have protected characteristics, but we have not seen any impact assessments because the Government do not want to admit what they are doing. We have seen attacks on the WASPI women, who, despite having worked all their lives, are being asked to wait even longer for their pensions. We have seen changes with the rape clause and the two-child policy, meaning that women should not have more than two children and, if they conceive as a result of rape, they must write that down on a form and say so explicitly. Why should they have to relive that just to please this Government? We have seen increasing household debt—that has been raised as an issue by the Bank of England—and decreasing household savings. We have seen young women unable to go to school because they cannot afford tampons and towels to provide themselves with a basic level of human dignity.
Another change that has not been talked about hugely in this place is the attack on a group of people with protected characteristics. A massive and increasing number of people come to my surgery because they have no recourse to public funds. It is a particular issue with those fleeing domestic violence, the majority of whom are women. The UK Government have determined that they should have access to public funds for only six weeks if they are from outside the EEA, and not at all if they are from inside the EEA. If they have been living on a joint income with their partner and are fleeing domestic violence, they have no protection from the UK Government because they are giving them no recourse to public funds. That is an attack on a group of people with protected characteristics, and we should no longer tolerate that.
The hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned what local authorities have to do in relation to impact assessments. I was a local councillor for eight years before being elected to this place. When we produced budgetary measures, or anything we were going to do in the city that would have an impact on communities, we had to produce an impact assessment specifying how it would affect people with those protected characteristics. If a local authority making decisions for the third largest city in Scotland has to do that, why are the UK Government making decisions that affect every man, woman and child across these islands without producing an impact assessment? Is it because they are ashamed of what they are doing and unwilling to be honest with the people?
In Scotland we are looking at having a progressive taxation system. We are lifting the pay freeze and next year we will be the fairest taxed part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says that we will be the highest taxed part. Some 70% of taxpayers in Scotland will pay no more tax next year than they do this year. Only the highest earners will be paying moderately more. [Interruption.] No one earning less than £33,000 next year will pay any more income tax than they would in England.
Chris Stephens
Is it not a bit rich for some Government Members to try to shout down my hon. Friend, complaining about people on high incomes paying a bit more tax but saying nothing about disabled individuals losing £30 a week in benefits?
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. If Government Members cared about what they were doing to disabled people, they would produce the impact assessments that are being requested today, and they would be honest about the changes they have made and how the heaviest impact has been on the most vulnerable in society.
There are folk who have been left behind by this Government. There are folk who have been failed by the safety net. Those are the people we see—I am sure that Government Members see them, too—walking into our surgeries on a regular basis. They say, “I have worked hard all my life, but I still cannot afford to feed myself and my family.” People who have worked every day for years now find that their state pension is being pushed back as a result of this Government’s policies. People find themselves homeless because they have made one or perhaps two bad decisions in their lifetime, which is far fewer than those of us who have bought a safety net and have support structures in place are able to make.
We need a culture change. The conversations we have had in this Chamber are along the same lines as those that have been had in the context of the #metoo hashtag. Women have come forward with #metoo to say that they have been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or even raped, and people have replied, “We don’t believe you,” “It can’t be that bad,” or “You’re trying to make a big thing of this.” What the SNP and the Opposition are trying to do in this debate is to highlight the fact that these disadvantaged groups are being actively disadvantaged by the UK Government’s policies. We are asking the UK Government to produce the impact assessments, because if they deny that that is the case, they should not be scared of producing them.
Mel Stride
This Government are committed to equality. That is not to say that no further steps need to be taken—a situation that pertains perhaps to every Government who have ever been in office—but we have a strong record on equality. More women are in work than at any time in our history, at 70.8%. Last year, over 60% of growth in employment was through women joining the workforce. We have the lowest gender pay gap for full-time employment on record and we have taken action to ensure that companies with 250 employees or more will, from next year, be required to publish details of their gender pay gaps.
For those who are disabled, we are spending more than £50 billion a year on benefits for disabled people and those with health conditions. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra £42 billion for the disabled facilities grant to encourage and assist those with disabilities into the world of work.
For ethnic minorities, when our Prime Minister assumed office last year, one of her first actions was to announce an audit into the differing impacts on ethnic minorities in terms of their use of public services. The report was published in October and will inform our policy going forward.
In the Budget, we increased the national living wage by 4.4% from April, which will disproportionately assist ethnic minority people. We are committed right across Whitehall to ensuring an increase in the uptake of apprenticeships and employment within our police forces and our armed services for ethnic minorities.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I am afraid he has to stop talking absolute guff when it comes to the national living wage. The Government continue to talk about a national living wage, but that is in fact a con trick because it does not apply to under-25s.
Mel Stride
It applies to a large number of people and there is the national minimum wage as well. My point is that the 4.4% increase in April will be well above inflation, and will disproportionately assist women and those from ethnic minority communities.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for giving way and I am listening to the case he is making. If he is so confident that the Government’s policies promote equality, why is he against having an independent Office for Budget Responsibility equality impact assessment to tell us all the good news?
Mel Stride
I ask the hon. Lady to be a little bit patient, because I am coming to those very points shortly.
On assessments, we are required, under the Equality Act 2010, to take due regard of protected characteristics, but it is not just for that reason that we do so. It is not just for that reason that I and my fellow Ministers took those issues into account at every stage; it is because we believe it is the right thing to do and we wish so to do.
To come to the hon. Lady’s intervention, a number of reports are already out there. We have heard about tax information and impact notes. I do not think the Opposition should dismiss them. They did not mention the distributional analysis the Treasury provides and publishes at the time of the Budget, or the public expenditure statistical analysis, which looks at how expenditure affects different protected characteristics and runs to hundreds of pages in length. What the Opposition are calling for is fundamentally impractical. That is the heart of the matter and the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. Such analyses almost invariably focus on the static situation. They focus on the effect of tax and income changes on individuals without considering the behavioural changes they induce and the implications of changes in the wider economy, such as the level of employment. They are selective and tend to avoid focusing on those who benefit from public services or are affected by taxation. For example, the provision of childcare, social care and health services is normally exempt from such analyses.
The final point, which has been raised already and which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) indeed recognised, is that where an individual’s income changes, that individual will almost invariably live within a household with other individuals. She said that the personal allowance increase for taxation disproportionately benefited men, but of course men often live in households with women, and income is distributed across the household. The same is true, of course, where a woman benefits and brings income into a household in which men are also present.
Stella Creasy
It is extraordinary that the Minister does not understand the concept of doing both individual and household analyses, or indeed behavioural alongside static analyses. There are many different ways the Government could be doing equality impact assessments. The problem is that they are not doing any.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is right: there are many ways it can be done, and the Government are indeed doing it in many ways. She need not only look to me for the observations I have made; the IFS has recognised my very point about household income. We will, however, continue to look at how we provide information and assess policies, and we will work with the ONS, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget.
In conclusion, the Government have a vision for a society that is equal, not in terms of levelling people down, but in terms of giving people the opportunity to go up. In yesterday’s debate on the Bill, the Labour party chose to vote against a measure to encourage young people to get a foot on the housing ladder. That is not acceptable, and that is an example of what we will do to promote equality of wealth and opportunity at every turn. I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 6 and 7.
Dawn Butler
The Minister referred to distributional analyses. The distributional analysis carried out by the IFS, the non-gendered and gendered analyses of the Women’s Budget Group, and others, such as those carried out using the Euromod tax-benefit model for EU countries, all share the same characteristic: they are static. The exact same method is adopted by the Treasury itself when it assesses the distributional impact of Budget measures in Budget and IFS documents. If the Treasury does not like other people using the model, perhaps it should not use it itself. The Government cannot criticise others for using the same method as them to analyse their own Budget.
The Minister said several times that the Government believed in equality, but their actions fail to carry that through. They say one thing and do another, and they are exacerbating inequality in our society. [Interruption.] The Chancellor says from a sedentary position, “Unlike the Labour party.” The Labour party is more competent than this Government have ever been in ensuring that this country is more equal. All the equalities legislation has come from a Labour Government—[Interruption.] Productivity, growth, all the equalities legislation has come under a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government. In fact, every time the Conservatives enter government, everything starts to go down. Food banks were not part of the Department for Work and Pensions scheme when Labour was in government. Period poverty was not part of everyday life for young women when Labour was in government.
I say to the Minister, “If you in any way believe in equality, you should not lead your merry men into the No Lobby. You should lead them into the Aye Lobby, and vote with us.”
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It will not have escaped Members’ attention that Christmas is coming. In fact, some of us may even have thought that Christmas was already here given that we enjoyed the previous debate so much. However, I must say that discussing this Finance Bill again feels like an alternative celebration on this side of the Chamber: groundhog day. For the third time since entering this House, I rise to speak about yet another woefully thin and inconsequential Finance Bill that fails to take the action that our economy so clearly requires.
The consequences of a Government focused on the management of internal party disputes, not sustainable economic growth, have become clear for all to see over the past few weeks: growth levels the third lowest in the OECD during the first half of this year; productivity growth lower than in the eurozone and well below the average of the EU as a whole; falling living standards, with wages under their longest squeeze since Napoleonic times; and a Government who have had to revise their targets for eliminating the current deficit no fewer than five times, and who are now resolved to eliminate the deficit only by 2030—15 years after the end date promised during the 2010 general election campaign. It’s behind you, to use a pantomime phrase—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was keen on them in the previous debate. In that context, it is depressing to see the Government yet again pass up the opportunity to deal with aggressive tax avoidance and evasion in a steadfast manner.
Labour’s new clause 8 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of the Bill in tackling artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion, and in reducing the tax gap, within six months of it entering into effect.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the first part of her speech. Some three or four years ago, the distinguished tax expert Richard Murphy estimated the total tax gap at £119 billion a year. To my knowledge, that figure has never been seriously challenged or debunked, and it may now even be higher. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Government were serious about dealing with this matter, they could pay off the deficit and have plenty more to spend on public services?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The calculations made by economists and accountants, such as Mr Murphy, reflect the cost to our Exchequer of international profit shifting, which the Government’s estimate of the tax gap does not.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Does my hon. Friend agree that low wages mask inefficiency? One of the big problems with the economy is that we have 4 million or 5 million people in that category, which encourages less efficiency, not improvements.
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, a problem that underlines our productivity gap is the worryingly low levels of private investment in our economy, which is reducing efficiency and places Britain outside the sphere of many comparable nations on investment. Sadly, the Government did not grasp that problem in the Budget.
The Opposition are calling for a review in the absence of the ability to call for more wide-ranging changes to the Bill given the Government’s unwillingness to table a general amendment to the law motion as part of this Finance Bill. That is unfortunate given the lack of new measures in the Bill, the limitations of the measures that are included, and the fact that much of the Bill represents a cleaning-up of previously announced but ill-thought-through measures. I will deal with each of those matters in turn.
It is, to say the least, regrettable that Members from across this House are unable to introduce new measures to the Bill. Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme sets out several areas where the Government should be taking action to tighten up our leaky ship, but we see no such ambition from the current Administration. Again, there is an unwillingness to engage with those who do have the energy and expertise to promote new measures.
When it has been possible for Members to amend Finance Bills, they have often done so to good effect. So it was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) amended what became the Finance Act 2016, giving the Government the power to introduce public country-by-country reporting and requiring multinational firms to indicate their profits, staff and tax paid in the different jurisdictions in which they operate. The measure is already in practice in the banking and extractive industries, where it has effectively promoted tax transparency and has offered a lot of evidence and information that has been very helpful to investors in those fields, but Members on both sides of the House who are keen to see the Government use the powers already available under the 2016 Act to make country-by-country reporting public, and who believe the Government should be playing a leadership role in this area, are sadly emasculated by the Government’s unwillingness to allow colleagues to table proper amendments to this Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree it is disgraceful that some of those named in the Paradise papers are now threatening court action against those whistleblowers and are trying to scare people into not releasing such information in future?
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. There is a particular onus on the Government to be steadfast and clear in their rejection of those legal challenges and the problems they potentially pose to our democracy. Of course it is just the BBC and The Guardian that have been threatened with legal action, not any of the other 90 or so media outlets based in other countries. It is UK-based firms and media organisations that have been threatened with that action, so I hope the Minister will make clear to us today whether or not he agrees with Appleby’s threat of legal action against those who revealed the details of the Paradise papers in the public interest.
Many of the measures in the Bill intended to prevent aggressive tax avoidance and evasion do not go far enough. I have already referred in this House to clause 21, which seems to adopt a confusing new approach to measuring profit shifting, rather than aiming to reduce it per se. Yet again, there sadly appears to be deafening silence here concerning the need for tax simplification, with only minor measures that do not meet the required standard of a thoroughgoing, holistic assessment of the overall impacts of tax reliefs, which we desperately need in this country if we are to have proper Government accounting.
Finally, we see in the Bill a number of additional measures that seem intended mainly just to clean up previous mistakes by this Government, many of them following criticism from Labour Members. In clause 35 and schedule 10, for example, we find anti-avoidance provisions in relation to payments and benefits made from offshore trusts, no doubt reflecting the concerns we raised about the potential misuse of offshore trusts by non-doms. Let us be clear, before this issue crops up yet again in this debate: this Government have not abolished long-term, non-dom status. The new measures do not apply to those whose parents are non-doms, as is often the case, and a 15-year window is provided for individuals to get their affairs in order. In another example, clause 28 closes the loophole introduced by the coalition Government in 2011 that allowed foreign companies to hold on to an asset-stripped subsidiary for six years until they were then able to claim loss relief in excess of any genuine economic loss to the group. Again, the measure tidies up a problem that was created previously by those involved with this Administration.
To conclude, this Finance Bill was a chance for strong action against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, but, sadly, we have here a paltry Bill, which some Conservative Members have praised in some of these debates for being thin. It is not thin because it is concise; it is thin because, sadly, just like this Government, it is lacking in ideas and ambition. We need a change now, more than ever.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I welcome this Finance Bill, because it does three things so far as taxation is concerned: first, it prioritises increasing the total pot for public services while recognising the common-sense proposition that we must live within our means; secondly, it entrenches and enhances the fundamentally progressive nature of the tax system; and, thirdly, it redoubles our country’s efforts to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The theme that unites those three strands is a relentless focus on discharging our obligation to the next generation: on ensuring that we are laying the foundations for a better, fairer country; one whose best days are yet to come. In doing so, we are observing our solemn duty to those who will come after us. We must not fail them, not just because history will condemn us if we do not, but because we ought to be able in this House to recognise that moral obligation for ourselves.
On tax avoidance and evasion, there has rightly been a sense that multinational corporations have been seeking to game the taxation system, using their market power to their financial advantage. That sticks in my craw, the craw of my constituents and the craw of Members across this House, because when we talk about the rule of law, that is about ensuring that we are all equal before not only the criminal law, but taxation law. Few things are more corrosive to public confidence in the enterprise economy than the sense that large corporations are wriggling out of their responsibilities to society—these responsibilities provide free healthcare and education, as well as a safe and secure environment to operate in. So I welcome the fact that the tax gap in our country has been driven down significantly, from 8% to 6%. That translates into an additional £12.5 billion per annum, which is more than the entire Ministry of Justice budget and far more than the entire annual spend on the prison system. We have the lowest tax gap in the world.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that 6% does not take into account profit shifting? It comes from HMRC effectively marking its own homework and patting itself on the back.
Alex Chalk
Absolutely not. It is an internationally recognised statistic that shows that this country bears comparison with any other developed nation in the world, and it marks a significant improvement on the situation that prevailed under the previous Labour Government. The fact is that more than £160 billion extra has been received since 2010. To put that into context, it is more than the entire annual NHS budget.
We have addressed egregious loopholes that allowed some foreign nationals not to pay capital gains tax when they sold houses in the UK. That allowed people to live in the UK permanently but claim non-dom status; and it allowed people to avoid paying tax by calling their salary from their own company a loan. Those were abuses and we have closed them down. It is important to note that the UK has spearheaded a groundbreaking initiative to share information on beneficial ownership with more than 50 jurisdictions, including every British overseas territory and Crown dependency with a financial centre.
Alex Chalk
No, because I am going to conclude.
All that I have described shows the UK’s commitment to transparency and that we are at the cutting edge of financial propriety.
It is absolutely right that the Government take further action to raise £4.8 billion by 2022-23. First, we are tackling online VAT evasion by making online marketplaces jointly liable for their sellers’ unpaid VAT; secondly, we are investing an additional £150 million to fund HMRC staff and the latest technology; and thirdly, we are tackling further disguised remuneration schemes, because if people are gaming the system, we should call it out.
In short, the Bill bears down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. It sends out the clear message that we in this country believe in innovation, modernisation, investment and employment. We will back businesses that unlock human potential and generate jobs and wages, but we expect businesses to play by the rules, honour their dues to society and respect the next generation. The Bill meets those priorities and lays the foundations for a country that is fit for the future.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that above all else, this is about persistent, detailed work over time to close the loopholes and deal with the tax gap? It is not about making a speech and pretending we can spend all the money that is being lost; it is a question of grinding away over time and getting the tax gap down from 8% to 6% and so on.
Alex Chalk
As always, my right hon. and learned Friend hits the nail on the head. There is no substitute for hard, detailed work. Ultimately, it is a game of cat and mouse, because those who seek to avoid tax will be ever more inventive. It requires detailed work to ensure that the loopholes are closed, and the Government are absolutely committed to that task. The Bill shows that and I am happy to support it.
Kelvin Hopkins
I shall speak briefly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on her excellent Front-Bench speech.
Early in his speech, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) talked about morality. There is morality in paying tax: we cannot have a civilised society without people paying tax to pay for public services and income being redistributed from those who have more than they need to those who have less than they need.
The crisis in 2008 and the problem of tax avoidance and evasion, overseas tax havens and so on, all arose as a result of Geoffrey Howe’s disastrous decision in 1979 to abolish exchange controls immediately. That led to the crisis and the massive flows of money across national boundaries around the world, causing all sorts of problems. Even the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, suggested to the Treasury Committee at the time of the 2008 crisis that if things got really bad, we might have had to reintroduce exchange controls. I am not suggesting that I will be able to persuade the Government to do that at this stage, but in time we are going to have to look at how we manage the vast flows of money across national boundaries around the world. It is the bankers who are the crooks—not the good bankers who look after our ordinary accounts, but those who gamble with money and often worthless bits of paper on the foreign exchanges.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham talked about morality. Millions of ordinary people in this country do have a very moral sense. Many of them, including me—I am very well paid compared with ordinary people—say that they would pay a bit more tax if they could guarantee that the money went to the health service and to people who are less well off than themselves. At the same time, the mega rich, the corporates and the bankers are resisting any kind of constraint on their activities. I see where the morality lies: it lies with decent ordinary people, not with bankers. We must constrain those bankers somehow and have serious measures that will actually have the effect of stopping the tax avoidance and tax evasion that has bedevilled our society for so long.
Kirsty Blackman
The discussion that we had earlier today and that we are having now in relation to tax avoidance really goes to the heart of the question: what kind of country do the Government want to be in charge of. It was clear from the earlier debate that the Government do not want to be in charge of a country that is open and upfront about tax changes and the impacts that they will have. They also have issues with tax avoidance and evasion and with the choices that they make. Their choices are very much not the ones that Scottish National party Members would make, nor indeed, I think, ones that Labour would make.
On the issue of the tax gap in particular, the UK Government took the decision that it was more important to have immigration officers who were concerned with ensuring that the “wrong sort of people” did not get into the country than it was to have customs officers. We have ended up in a situation where there are very few customs inspections, which is a major contributor to our tax gap. We are talking about tax avoidance and tax evasion and about going forward into a situation in which we will need to make many more customs checks, when the UK Government have got rid of most of the people who know what they are talking about in relation to customs. We have a major problem that needs to be solved if we are to fix those issues.
A Transparency International report mentioned 766 UK companies that had avoided tax. A quarter of those companies are still active in the United Kingdom. The UK Government do not seem to have taken any action to ensure that they cannot dodge tax in the way that they have. Among the actions that we have been talking about is protection for whistleblowers. We continue to call for whistleblowers to be better protected. It is really important for people to feel that they can come forward safely and that they can uncover major problems that exist at the heart of some organisations that operate within this country, and at the heart of some schemes that operate within these islands. If the UK Government produced stronger guidance and stronger protection for whistleblowers, it would allow and encourage more people to come forward.
On the issues around the general anti-avoidance rule and the complexity of the tax code, we have been consistent in our criticism of how complex the tax code is. Someone posted a picture recently of the new version of the UK tax code that had just appeared: the thing was almost as tall as me. An absolutely huge number of bits of paper are required to make up the tax code. Is it any wonder that there are unintended loopholes that people can exploit? If the tax code was much simpler, if there were fewer tax reliefs and if the UK Government chose instead to give money to people rather than a tax relief, it would make things slightly better.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
The hon. Lady suggested that there is a confusion in the tax codes. It is only in recent days that the Scottish SNP Government have introduced a raft of new bands for tax and indeed increased tax. I find that anomaly quite strange.
Kirsty Blackman
It is not actually a raft of new tax bands. As far as I know, it is one more band in the tax system with slightly different numbers for the pennies. But that is only in relation to income tax. Some 70% of people will pay less tax and 55% will pay less tax than they would in England. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, therefore, that the English system is taxing people unfairly compared to the Scottish system?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for indulging me. She says that 70% of Scottish taxpayers will pay less tax, but will she accept the fact that that is largely due to the changes made by the UK Government in raising the personal allowance?
Kirsty Blackman
The Scottish Government’s new starter rate of 19%, rather than 20%, for the first £2,000 that people earn is really positive. It is an incredibly progressive taxation measure, and it is something that the UK Government cannot claim; it is something that the Scottish Government are doing.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
If Conservative Members wish to debate the progressive taxation system introduced by the Scottish Government, maybe they should stand for the Scottish Parliament.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do, however, want to say one more thing on the Scottish tax system, so I hope he will indulge me.
The Scottish tax system is progressive. It is making a difference by ensuring that people who earn under £24,000 pay less tax. That is a positive measure and a good way forward. If members of the UK Government have concerns about the Scottish Parliament’s choices on tax, perhaps it would be better for them to support an increase in the block grant. They could also tell us whether they would cut the money that is going to be made up from the Scottish Government’s tax changes from education, local authorities or the health service.
I will bring the Committee back to tax avoidance. I am sorry, Sir Roger, for testing your patience slightly. The Scottish National party has been consistent in its criticism of Scottish limited partnerships. My former colleague, Roger Mullin, was like a dog with a bone; he would not let go of this matter. That was to his credit because the UK Government decided to make changes to the SLP regime as they recognised that it is massively used for tax avoidance and dodging. There was a review of SLPs, but we are yet to see changes as a result. Will the Minister let us know at least the timeline for making those changes in order to ensure that SLPs are no longer used as a tax-dodging mechanism? This is an important change that really needs to be made, preferably sooner rather than later.
Talking about the UK Government not working as they should regarding tax avoidance and evasion, the Panama papers and the Paradise papers have both been published in my time as an MP. It is very clear that the tax system—not just the global tax system, but even the system in the UK—is failing. It is allowing people and organisations to dodge tax. It is all well and good to talk about overseas trusts. In fact, this frustrates me a huge amount because the Government try to give the impression that overseas trusts are used by organisations such as rural churches in order to fix their roofs. It is not the case that they are used by organisations like that; they are used by people who are trying to dodge tax. We need the hardest possible line on that.
We cannot see the United Kingdom turn into a low-tax, deregulated tax haven. If the UK Government are deciding what kind of country they want the United Kingdom to be, they should not choose one that involves deregulation. With Brexit, they have the opportunity to put their stamp on the future, but I am incredibly concerned about the way that it will go. In bringing back control, some of the reins that have perhaps been put on the UK Government will be taken off and they will be free, for example, to take away the working time directive, and to make changes to our world-class social security system, fair society and good business practices. That is incredibly concerning.
We have called before, and we will not stop calling, for powers to deal with tax avoidance and evasion to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We believe that we would do a better job because we could not really do a worse one. We would put forward a fair and moral tax system and a general anti-avoidance rule in order to discourage people from dodging tax, and we would ensure that our tax gap was way smaller than the UK Government’s.
Mel Stride
This Government are committed to bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance like no other Government in history. While I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Minister, and I respect the spirited nature of her attack on our record, I am afraid she is misguided.
We have a strong record. We have brought in and protected £160 billion of potentially avoided tax since 2010 as a result of over 100 measures that we have brought in. We have, as we have heard in the debate, one of the lowest tax gaps in the entire world, at just 6%. Contrary to some of the suggestions from those on the Labour Benches, that is a robust and firm figure; it is described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world. It is, indeed, produced by HMRC, but it is produced to strict guidelines set out by the Office for National Statistics.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister mentioned HMRC. One of the things the Government have done over many years now is to squeeze HMRC, which has fewer offices and not enough staff. Does he not accept that every single additional tax officer collects many times their own salary? If the Government were serious about tax collection, they would expand HMRC substantially.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman may know that, in the last Budget, £155 million was set aside to be invested in HMRC, for exactly the activity that he has described. That is expected to bring in £4.8 billion through a further reduction in tax avoidance over the forecast period.
The other point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that HMRC’s effectiveness is not all about having lots of regional offices staffed with tax inspectors. Tax is collected today using sophisticated intelligence-led and data-led techniques. We need to invest in that if we are to continue to achieve the outstanding results we are achieving at the moment.
We have borne down with penalties for developers and enablers of tax avoidance schemes. On the international side, our country has been in the vanguard of the base erosion and profit shifting project. We now have over 100 countries involved in common reporting standards, so HMRC can access information in real time to bear down on non-compliance in those jurisdictions. We have introduced new measures in this Budget in relation to clamping down on the abuse of overseas trusts. Since 2010, we have brought in £2.8 billion in additional revenues as a consequence of clamping down on the activities of UK residents hiding their wealth inappropriately in overseas trusts.
We have, of course, been the Government that abolished permanent non-dom status. I have to disagree, I am afraid, with the hon. Member for Oxford East, who suggested that if someone’s parents were non-domiciled, that in some way suggests that that person would not be subject to the rules we have brought in. That is simply not the case. If someone has been resident for 15 of the previous 20 years, they will be deemed domiciled, irrespective of who their parents happen to be.
New clause 8 suggests we should have yet another assessment. We have heard consistently in all the debates we have had on the Floor of the House on this Bill about having more and more assessments, but I would say to Opposition Members that we already have a robust figure for the tax gap. As I have said, it has been described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world, and we certainly do not need even more information out there to prove just how successful this Government have been in bearing down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.
However, as a consequence of this Bill, we will go even further than we have to date. Clause 38 relates to online VAT fraud, and we will make online platforms jointly and severally liable where VAT avoidance occurs, extending that approach from overseas sellers to domestic sellers, and ensuring that they are responsible for supplying accurate and appropriate VAT information on their sites. That will raise £1 billion by 2023.
Clauses 11 and 12 will complete our work on disguised remuneration, and bearing down on that will have brought in £3.6 billion by 2019, when we will be closing down on those schemes.
Clause 42 ensures that where there is illegal landfill activity, we apply the tax that would have been in place had those activities been legal, bringing in a further £145 million. There are also the changes brought in by clauses 20 and 21 to address avoidance involving intellectual property within companies.
This Government have a record that is second to none when it comes to clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. Labour had 13 years in which to implement such measures, and did very little. In fact, the tax gap under the previous Labour Government was such that if we had it today, we would be over £12 billion short every single year—enough to fund every policeman and woman in England and Wales. We will continue to bear down, as appropriate and with vigour, on tax evasion and avoidance to ensure a fair and civilised society where those who are due to pay their fair share do so, to support our public services. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 8.
Anneliese Dodds
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
First, let me respond to the Minister’s comments. I said before that it feels a little like groundhog day, although that is in February rather than at Christmas time. While I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, and I am very grateful for his gracious comments, I suggest that in a moment he may be in the position of the Mayor of Wisconsin, who, he may remember, was nipped by the groundhog on groundhog day. I fear that the Minister is going to be nipped slightly after saying that Labour in government did very little on tax avoidance and tax evasion. He will be very much aware, because I have said this many times to him and to other Government Members, of the huge role that was played by Dawn Primarolo when she chaired the Code of Conduct Group. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) makes a comment about the tax gap. We have already discussed some of the conflicts around the calculation of the tax gap, such as the fact that, sadly, it does not include international profit shifting. If it did, we would have a much larger tax gap.
I have mentioned the role of Dawn Primarolo, for Labour, chairing the Code of Conduct Group, which identified, published and eliminated 68 harmful tax measures. I can now reveal that there is much, much more that Labour Governments did. Perhaps, regrettably, the Minister has not been given sight of the letter to the Chancellor by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House. When she asked the House of Commons Library exactly what Labour Governments had achieved in the field of tax avoidance and evasion, it provided very full information, which she has sent on to the Chancellor. The Library made it very clear that under Labour Administrations there were 14 Budget reports, each of which included measures on preventing tax dodging. As well as those instances of action, there was the introduction of the disclosure regime and the Primarolo statement, which, in practice, revolutionised HMRC’s ability to tackle tax dodging. Labour Members will not take lessons from Government Members when we have a strong record in this area.
The Minister did not make clear what the Government’s approach will be to the inclusion of business-like trusts in registers of beneficial ownership, as is now EU policy. Will that be the UK’s policy? That has been resisted by Conservatives so far; I hope that they will now change their tune. He also did not enlighten us on his opinion of the legal action that is being taken against a British newspaper and the British Broadcasting Corporation because of their revealing the reality of international tax planning by some actors who are giving others in that area a terrible name. I regret that he did not respond to my direct questions on those matters.
I would like to respond briefly to comments made by other Members. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), when asked about whether HMRC’s figure on the tax gap included international profit shifting, refused to respond, sadly. I want to respond to the point about whether the Finance Bill protects governmental revenue. I do not want to go over the debates that we had yesterday and the many comments made by Labour Members, but I regret that in their new approach to the bank levy—reducing its rate and scope, and imposing an inadequate surcharge—the Government have decided voluntarily to reduce by a third the funds that come from the banking sector. Conservative Members can broadcast as much as they like about the additional tax that has arisen because of the banks’ profitability, but that is a natural consequence of the British economy’s return to profitability after the financial crisis. In practice, the Finance Bill does not act up to those goals in any sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has campaigned on tax transparency for many years, and he made several prescient points. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) referred to the personnel challenges being experienced by HMRC. They are of enormous concern, as she said, in the context of Brexit, as a result of which we may have more customs challenges. There has been a substantial reduction in HMRC’s headcount of, I believe, around a fifth since 2010. I take on board the points that the Minister made about having the right capabilities and the right technical facility. However, when I look back at the Home Affairs Committee’s discussion of whether HMRC would be ready with the new CHIEF system and have the capability to deliver it, I am filled, I am sad to say, with concern rather than confidence.
At this point, I will finish my remarks by commending to the Committee our new clause, which asks for a review of the provisions and whether they genuinely tackle tax dodging.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 18 December, be approved.
The threat level in the United Kingdom, which is set by the joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe. This means that a terrorist attack on our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat to the United Kingdom and our interests abroad, as well as to disrupt those who would engage in it. Recognising that terrorism is a global threat that is best tackled in partnership, it is also important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs.
Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the activities of terrorist groups and those who provide support to them. The order would add four groups to the list of proscribed organisations by amending schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000: al-Ashtar Brigades, including its aliases Saraya al-Ashtar, Wa’ad Allah Brigades, Islamic Allah Brigades, Imam al-Mahdi Brigades and al-Haydariyah Brigades; al-Mukhtar Brigades, including Saraya al-Mukhtar; Hasam, including Harakat Sawa’d Misr and Harakat Hasm; and Liwa al-Thawra. This is the 22nd proscription order under the 2000 Act.
The proscriptions send a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. Under section 3 of the Act, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise that discretion. These include: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of, a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public, such as flags that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Proscription sends a strong message to deter fundraising and recruitment for proscribed organisations. The assets of a proscribed organisation can become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. Proscription can also support other disruptions of terrorist activity, including for example the use of immigration powers such as exclusion from the UK where the individual is linked to a proscribed organisation and their presence in the United Kingdom would not be in the public interest. Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary only exercises her powers to proscribe after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of an organisation. This includes information from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of each case, but given the impact the power can have, it is appropriate that proscription must be approved by both Houses. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra are currently concerned in terrorism.
Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn. The first group the order proscribes is al-Ashtar Brigades and its aliases. It is a Bahrain-based Shi’a militant organisation established in 2013. Its aim is to overthrow the Bahraini al-Khalifa ruling family through violent militant operations. It lists the ruling al-Khalifa family, Bahraini security forces and Saudi Arabia as targets for attacks. The group has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks in Bahrain, including a jail break of 10 convicted terrorists that led to the death of a police officer in January 2017; an improvised explosive device attack in a bus station in Sitrah, which was claimed by the group under the name Wa’ad Allah Brigades in February; and an attack on a police vehicle near the village of al-Qadeem in July. More generally, the group has incited violent activity against the Bahraini Government, as well as the British, American and Saudi Arabian Governments on social media.
The second group the order proscribes is al-Mukhtar Brigades, also known as Saraya al-Mukhtar, a Bahrain-based Shi’a militant organisation established in 2013. It lists the al-Khalifa ruling family, Bahraini security forces and Saudi Arabia as targets for attacks. The group’s activities include the continued promotion and glorification of terrorism via social media throughout 2017.
The third group to be proscribed is Hasam and its aliases. Hasam is an extremist group targeting Egyptian security forces and the overthrow of the Egyptian Government. It announced its creation on 16 July 2016, following an attack conducted in Fayoum Governorate in Egypt. In September 2016, the group claimed responsibility for the attempted assassination of Assistant Prosecutor General Zakaria Abdel-Aziz and the attempted assassination of former Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa a month earlier. The group has claimed responsibility for over 15 attacks between March and September this year in Cairo. It carried out small arms fire attacks in March, May and July, and bomb attacks in March, June and September, the latter exploding close to the Myanmar embassy in Cairo.
The final group to be proscribed is Liwa al-Thawra, another extremist opposition group using violent tactics against Egyptian security forces and aiming at the end of the Egyptian Government. It announced its creation on 21 August 2016, following an attack in Monofeya. The group has claimed responsibility for attacks, including bombings and assassinations, including the attack in Monofeya in Egypt, the assassination of Egyptian Brigadier General Adel Regali in October 2016, and in April 2017 the bombing of the Egyptian police training centre in Tanta, Egypt.
In addition to adding these groups, we propose to remove Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin from the list of proscribed organisations. The HIG—for short—is an offshoot of the political Hezb-e Islami party and was formed in 1977 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. You must forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my mix of Arabic and Lancashire—it does not make for the best dialect of Arabic or Pashtun, but we will get there. The HIG—I will go easy on people’s ears—is anti-western and seeks the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Afghanistan. Since 2001, its main objective has been the removal of western forces and influence in Afghanistan as well as restoring Islamic law.
The HIG has been proscribed in the UK since October 2005. However, on 22 September 2016, the group agreed to a peace deal with Afghanistan’s Government. After careful consideration, the Home Secretary has concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the HIG continues to be concerned in terrorism as defined by section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under that section, the Home Secretary has the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations if she believes that it no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. Accordingly the Home Secretary has brought forward this order. If the order is approved, HIG will be removed from the list of proscribed organisations, which means that being a member of HIG, or inviting or providing support for it, will cease to be a criminal offence on the day that the order comes into force.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I broadly support the Minister’s proposals, but how can we be sure that adding organisations to the list in any way makes our authorities effective in combating them, given that in the last few months terrorist organisations have been parading openly with their flags—in Arabic—in the centre of London, and prosecutions have not occurred?
Mr Wallace
Proscription opens up a whole new level of offences for which people can be prosecuted. Proscribing an organisation allows asset-freezing and prosecution, but other offences can be linked to such activity. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it is often hard to prove membership—very few of these organisations have membership cards and joining ceremonies—but the order gives our law enforcement agencies more powers with which to prosecute a campaign against them.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned flags, no doubt referring to Hezbollah and Hamas. Those organisations are not proscribed in their entirety. Their military wings are proscribed, but as Hezbollah forms part of the Government in Lebanon and Hamas plays an active role in its part of the region as a member of a Government, the proscription applies only to the military wing. In some cases the flags are identical, but that does not mean that if people participate in Hezbollah-supporting actions here that constitute terrorism or anything linked to it, our police and law enforcement agencies will not act. We have acted in respect of Hezbollah and Hamas in the past, either to disrupt activity or to bring prosecutions.
We do not condone any terrorist activity, and we always take a cautious approach to de-proscription. De-proscription of a particular group should not be interpreted as the UK Government’s condoning any previous activities of that group. We have always been clear about the fact that HIG was a terrorist organisation. Groups that do not meet the threshold for proscription must remain within the law, and are not free to spread hatred, fund terrorist activity or incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action against individuals who engage in such activity, under the criminal law. We are determined to detect and disrupt all terrorist threat, whether home-grown or international. Proscription is just one weapon in the considerable armoury that is at the disposal of the Government, the police and the security services to disrupt terrorist activity.
The Government continue to exercise the proscription power in a proportionate manner, in accordance with the law. We recognise that proscription potentially interferes with individuals’ rights, particularly those protected by article 10—freedom of expression—and article 11 —freedom of association—of the European convention on human rights, and should be exercised only when absolutely necessary. The order demonstrates that when proscription is no longer necessary, we are prepared to act to de-proscribe groups that are no longer “concerned in terrorism”.
I believe that it is right to add these four groups—al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra Brigade—and their aliases to the list of the proscribed organisations in schedule 2 of the Act, and, equally, that it is proportionate to remove HIG from the list. Subject to the agreement of both Houses, the order will come into force on Friday 22 December.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I also ask him to pass on our thanks to the Home Secretary for the letter that she sent yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, setting out this decision.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the Opposition support the motion. We support the decision to proscribe the four groups that the Minister mentioned, and the de-proscription of HIG. Any Government’s first duty is to protect the public, and Labour Members appreciate the difficult balance that has to be struck when considering the application of the test in section 3 of the 2000 Act.
I turn to the four groups to be proscribed. We certainly hope that that decision will assist in tackling terror activity and send from this House a powerful signal of condemnation of the activities of those groups. I would, however, make three observations, and I hope the Minister will take them in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.
First, public confidence in this process is very important and, although I of course appreciate that some matters have to remain confidential for reasons of national security, to the extent that it is possible, transparency is important. The Minister will be aware that the former independent reviewer of the terror legislation, David Anderson QC, made various suggestions in successive reports, including when considering these matters, looking at the cohesion and capability of organisations. It would be useful if the Government could respond in due course to David Anderson’s 2016 report and the suggestions made therein.
My second observation relates to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes): proscription is of course only one of the measures available, and our ability to tackle terrorism, at whatever level and wherever it comes from, depends on proper resourcing of not only counter-terrorist policing but mainstream policing. When these terrible major incidents happen, it is not only counter-terror policing that is affected; resources are inevitably drawn in from mainstream policing as well. In addition, I commend neighbourhood policing, which not only provides reassurance in our communities, but can provide vital local intelligence in the fight against terrorism.
Thirdly, as we move on to the next stage of the Brexit negotiations, I hope that the Minister will speak to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about the toolkit available to us from the European arrest warrant and Europol to ensure that that is a high priority in this stage of the negotiations to enable us to tackle terrorism across the continent.
On the decision to de-proscribe HIG, as the Minister has set out, de-proscription is appropriate in some cases. Where it is appropriate, it should be promptly dealt with when the statutory test is no longer met. Again, however, I commend to the Minister as much transparency as possible on this decision. As recently as June of this year, a House of Commons Library briefing stated that HIG was believed to have some UK-based supporters, and there were indications that HIG had conducted attacks on Afghan and indeed western targets. Clarification of when the application to de-proscribe was made, when the statutory test ceased to be met and that this situation will be kept under review would be reassuring to Members across the House.
Above all, our counter-terror policy needs to be carefully thought out. Above everything else, it needs to be effective. The incidents this year at Westminster bridge, London bridge, Finsbury Park, Parson’s Green and the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester are a reminder of the terrible threat these callous acts cause to our society, but they also show the tremendous efforts of our emergency services, and the resolve and strength our communities have shown in the face of these threats should give us cause for great optimism.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to the order and I am pleased to confirm that my party supports approving it this evening.
Our task in scrutinising draft instruments of this nature is not always straightforward, for the simple reason that the Secretary of State has access to information and intelligence that we as MPs for very good reasons cannot have access to. However, given what the Minister has said this evening, there is no reason for me to doubt that the Secretary of State has exercised her discretion appropriately in deciding to proscribe two groups in Bahrain and two in Egypt; nor, indeed, to doubt her conclusion on de-proscription, given the developments in Afghanistan, although the shadow Minister raised a couple of sensible questions on that issue.
I want to make two short points. First, this de-proscription again raises the question of why proscription orders never lapse, despite recommendations from the former independent reviewer of terrorism and the Home Affairs Committee, and despite the fact that the Home Office itself has acknowledged that at least 14 proscribed organisations no longer meet the statutory test.
Secondly, I accept that, when deciding whether to exercise powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, it is right for the Secretary of State to take into account the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism, but we have to look at the broader context in those countries as well. I echo the statement issued by the US State Department in June, when it too was taking action against individuals associated with the al-Ashtar Brigades in Bahrain. The statement said of the Government of Bahrain that
“we encourage the government to clearly differentiate its response to violent militia groups from its engagement with peaceful political opposition”.
There are no excuses for the grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Governments in both Bahrain and Egypt. If anything, those human rights abuses risk assisting the recruiters for the very terrorist organisations that we are seeking to clamp down on.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for Security for his speech. It is much appreciated by my constituents that he and his team are working so hard to ensure their safety. This is an incredibly difficult challenge, because the threat keeps changing and it is always difficult for our security forces to identify the threat at each stage of its development. However, they are doing a fantastic job. It is important for the Minister to know that, when talking to our constituents, we all come across people who understand the enormity of the task that our security forces face and who respect the diligence with which they go about their business.
We face an incredibly difficult challenge. I look around the Chamber and see all my colleagues on electronic devices. We were talking yesterday about how electronic devices can spread hate and division. I know it is difficult for my right hon. Friend the Minister to be in everybody’s pocket, if that makes sense. It is difficult to have a police officer in everyone’s pocket, keeping an eye on what they are doing through social media, but these are the challenges that this country faces.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I support the points that my hon. Friend is making. At this time of year, when we are all preparing for the Christmas and new year holidays, this statement is a great reminder to us all that there are, thankfully, men and women in our security services who are diligent and ceaseless in their surveillance and assessment of risk, to the point that this kind of measure can be brought to the House.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The people who work in our security forces do not get a day, an hour or even a minute off. They are constantly vigilant. I imagine that, even when they are not on duty, they take home their concerns and their enormous sense of responsibility to society. We should congratulate them and respect them for that.
We talked about the responsibility of the tech companies yesterday, we are talking about it today, and will probably go on talking about it tomorrow. They simply cannot say, “It’s nothing to do with us, guv’. We just provide the platform.” That is no longer a sufficient excuse. Politicians around the world—particularly the free western world—are now identifying the fact that, if the tech companies are not willing to address the problem or to challenge those who use their technology for nefarious and dangerous purposes, we as legislators are going to have to do that for them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and particularly congratulate him on his Arabic pronunciation. If he had my Ulster Scots accent, the challenge would perhaps have been greater, but that is by the way.
I am pleased with and can support the legislation the Minister is bringing forward today and the information that he has laid before us. He mentioned social media, as did other Members, including the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and we perhaps need a bit more information on that. We all know that there are methods of recruiting terrorists, influencing terrorists, and influencing people who are not terrorists but who could be terrorists, so what resources are available to ensure that the influence that some people can have through social media is spent? I read in the press yesterday that a far-right group had been removed by one of the big social media companies, so if they are able to do that with far-right groups, they should be able to do that with all terrorist groups. I am unsure whether cyber-security comes under the Minister’s remit, but we have to ensure that things are being done the right way. The Minister did not indicate where far-right groups stand, so perhaps he will confirm whether the Government are keeping an eye on their activities and on what they are doing and saying online, of which we should be ever mindful.
I want to reinforce a point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is not currently in the Chamber to hear this. I went before the Backbench Business Committee today with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) to ask for a debate on the proscription of Hezbollah, and reference was made to the flags of proscribed organisations that were flown in central London. When that matter was referred to the police, they said that they could not take action due to some disparity over the rule of law. Many of us will be of the opinion that Hezbollah should be on the list and that the flying of its flag anywhere in this country, but particularly in London, should not be allowed, because Hezbollah sows a distinct hatred for Israel, for Israelis and for many others.
The Minister also referred to the Muslim Brotherhood. I am ever mindful that we have a good working relationship with President el-Sisi and the Egyptian Government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) is the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Egypt. He does good work, and we are pleased to see him in that position. From what the Minister says, I understand that we work closely alongside the Egyptian Government on matters relating to proscription, but will he reinforce our understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Stephen Kerr
I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, particularly those relating to the paraphernalia of extremism, which is all too often on public display. Will he add to his comments about social media? Social media platforms seem to wash their hands of full responsibility for the things that are published, but that washing of hands would not be appropriate for any other publication or source of publishing. What would the hon. Gentleman like to see done?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I want to see what has happened to the far-right groups. I want groups that espouse evil words and terrorist acts to be taken off social media. That is the action that we want, and I think the Minister is probably saying that, so we look forward to it.
Returning to the Muslim Brotherhood, it continues to be a difficult group that tends to try to undermine the Egyptian Government and President el-Sisi, and I want to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that democratic stability in the middle east can continue.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When we think about terrorism and counter-terrorism, it is easy to think in terms of world politics beyond our local communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the events of the past year show the importance of the work of our security services in keeping all our constituents safe? Also, will he join me in welcoming the Government’s recent announcement of extra funding for counter-terrorism?
Jim Shannon
Of course I welcome that announcement. I support our Government entirely in what they are doing. We would never do otherwise
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman —who, from his service with me on the Select Committee on Defence, I refer to as my hon. Friend—for giving way. Does he share my concern that there is a degree of complacency regarding the Muslim Brotherhood? Some organisations see the Muslim Brotherhood as running counter to terrorism, rather than, as in many cases, facilitators and inspirers of terrorism.
Jim Shannon
That is exactly the point I am trying to make to the Minister. We are very concerned about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, and we all look to the Minister and our Government to respond in a satisfactory fashion.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I put on record our thanks to all our security forces, our police, MI5 and every one of the emergency services that have contributed so much over the past year. Both inside and outside the House, we owe them an eternal debt.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his speech and on his work, a lot of which is completely unseen by our constituents.
My constituents in Redditch want to feel safe and secure at all times. We often see the high-profile plots—when those plots go tragically to plan, we all see the evil that is done on our streets—and we sometimes hear of the plots that are foiled, but I imagine most of us in this House will not know of the many, many more plots that are continually foiled and of the work that goes on all the time.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend mentions the occasions when the intelligence services have foiled the plotters and their dastardly plans. Will she comment on the importance of co-operation with the intelligence services of our friends and partners in Europe, in North America and across the world, and on the important part that passing intelligence between those agencies plays in making the picture more complete so that action can be taken to prevent loss of life in such incidents?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend touches on the critical point that, even as we leave the European Union, we must seek to cement our deep and special partnership on all these matters—and with our friends in the United States, too—because it is clear that these are the relationships that are keeping all our constituents safe, day in, day out.
We cannot imagine what it must be like to work in the intelligence services. I cannot even begin to imagine for one second what it must be like to face such threats and such terror, how frightening it must be and how brave those men and women must be to face it every single day. I add my thanks to those of Members on both sides of the House who have put on record their thanks to those brave men and women who go out of their way every day to keep us safe, and I know my constituents in Redditch thank them, too.
While I am welcoming announcements, it is great to see that additional funding has been announced for the police service today. Significant funding has been pledged to my West Mercia region, which will undoubtedly help our police forces to work in partnership.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Lady should look at the detail of today’s announcement. No extra Government funding has been announced at all. What is happening is that the cash from central Government is being kept flat and her local taxpayers will be asked to fund the gap.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) will stick to the subject of this debate, which is not actually police funding.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I will return to the subject of my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I also want to put on record the importance of education in our schools. We have heard Members from both sides of the House mention the work our schools do in talking to young people about terrorism and the sorts of extremist threats we are seeing in our communities. At this time, it is also important to recognise the work of my local communities in Redditch. I am sure everyone will have seen the way in which local communities come together proactively when we are facing some of the most tragic events in our country. I saw that myself in Redditch in an all-faith service and celebration at my local mosque, where it was so inspiring to see everybody coming together in the face of these threats.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the face of terrorism it is often so important that we, as communities and as a nation, demonstrate our coming together and our strength as a nation in our fight against terrorism and all that it holds?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She rightly celebrates that human spirit that is inside all of us. Sometimes it can take a tragic, awful, terrifying event to see the best of our human spirit shine forth. When I see that, I find it incredibly inspiring, and we should celebrate and recognise it.
It is also relevant to mention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) did, yesterday’s statement, when we looked at the role of intimidation and abuse, and the link it can sometimes have to extremism when it is taken too far. It is important that we recognise that in the round of the work that the Minister is doing in his Department to combat terrorism in all the forms it takes. I am sure he is looking at the role social media companies play. It is absolutely right that they play a role; we face a holistic threat, so we need a holistic response. One problem with the social media companies is that their business model is completely wrong, because they rely on the clickbait they put out on their platforms to whip up hatred. That is how they make their money; they actually receive revenue from clicks. They do not have any regard to what they are disseminating into the public’s mind. It can spread into schools and communities, among young people. We should all be aware of that. The work the Home Secretary and her Department is doing needs to look at all these issues together. The tech companies have a really important role to play and I am pleased to see that the Government are taking further action here.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we have to look at far-right groups. We have to look at all groups that pose a threat to our communities and our society. We have seen disgusting examples of this recently, so I am delighted to hear that the Government are looking at all the threats together and I congratulate the Minister on today’s statement.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I rise to add a few words of appreciation to the Minister for bringing this measure to the House and to compliment Members on how it has been received. I wish to pay a specific tribute to a number of different groups that are making our country safe. Mention has been made of our security services. It was said that the submariners represented the silent service, but in fact we have a modern-day silent service: those who are carefully and studiously monitoring what is going on, both online and all around us. So I pay tribute to our security services, and I do so on behalf of my constituents, who are the beneficiaries of their service, which, as has been mentioned, is a 365-day-a-year operation, day and night. That professionalism is what is keeping us safe. I join others in paying tribute to the security services—MI5 and MI6 were specifically mentioned, but many other branches of the security services are working together. It is because of their good work and the levels of co-operation between the national agencies not only of this country and our immediate allies but around the world that this order is possible.
I pay tribute to the work that is done locally to prepare for the eventualities that we all dread, fear and hope will never happen. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Stirling, I have had the opportunity to spend time with the Police Scotland officers in my constituency. I have been hugely impressed with their professionalism and how they carefully and diligently prepare themselves for any eventuality. It is humbling to listen to what they are doing day in, day out in anticipation of an event that we all dread. As it expands the range of services it offers, under excellent national and local leadership, the fire and rescue service in Scotland is also being prepared and trained to respond to the type of incidents that, as Members have reminded us, have taken place in our country this year. Those events have deeply shocked and shaken us.
The third group of people who deserve to be mentioned in the context of the resilience and resolution the country has shown is the British public. The perfect answer to all the events of this year and to the ever-present threat that the Minister mentioned in his speech is that when these events happen, or when it is reported that they have been averted, the British public’s response is to just get up and carry on. That is the full measure of the spirit of the people of these islands and it has been demonstrated and exemplified time and again.
Several agencies are doing excellent work to continue to raise public awareness of the threat of terrorism. As a regular user of the national rail network, I wish to mention a successful awareness-raising campaign mounted by British Transport police called “See It. Say It. Sorted.”, which is intended to activate and engage the British public in their role as the eyes and ears of the security forces on the ground, both locally and nationally.
I welcome the evidence of the intelligence services’ continuous assessment of the environment in which we all live and operate. We should remember the bravery and courage of those who this year have shown again the British people’s resilience, especially in response to the events we sadly witnessed that took place very close to the Chamber, before my time in Parliament.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is making a great case and setting out the important contribution that so many people make to keep us safe. Does he also recognise the volunteers who make up local neighbourhood watch groups—I am sure you have some in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—because although they may not be at the forefront of counter-terrorism work, they are still part of the effort to gather intelligence and keep abreast of what is going on?
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because it is a reminder of the point that I wish to make and enforce. When it comes to counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering and the sharing of information, we have an important part to play as individual citizens. My hon. Friend has just described the great tradition of our doing that in this country.
John Spellar
The overwhelming evidence from senior counter-terrorism officers is that much of the useful information they gather comes from ordinary beat police officers who are involved in their local communities. Is not it therefore deplorable that the Government have cut funding to the Metropolitan police in particular and are thereby denuding that capability?
Stephen Kerr
I am a Scottish Member of Parliament, but I understand that matters relating to the budgets of the Metropolitan police may be decided by the Mayor of London, just as similar such budgets in Scotland are decided by the Scottish Government. I do not want to introduce any controversy to the things that I am trying to say, because this is not necessarily a moment for any kind of party posturing.
Kevin Foster
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just funding, but the powers that the police have and the regulatory system that has been set up? All too often we have seen opposition to some of those powers by the Labour party, even though we might get some welcome consensus on these powers in relation to proscribed groups.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I strongly urge the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) to return to the motion before us.
Stephen Kerr
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to conclude my remarks if I may by referring back to the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) when he responded to my intervention about social media. I feel very strongly that the time has come for social media companies, with all their resources, to do something more than they have been doing in this area. For too long, too much has gone on to those platforms without appropriate intervention. I feel very strongly that they are things that we would not permit to be published in mainstream, traditional, and old-fashioned material. Why on earth would we turn a blind eye to it when it is on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or whatever? There are other social platforms as well. The Minister’s statement has brought home again the importance of dealing with that issue. I know that the Government are dealing with it and that they are stepping up their discussions with these social media companies. I appreciate that much is improving and changing, but, again, I am reminded today that perhaps for too long we have been guilty of that traditional British virtue of being too tolerant about some things for which, really, there must be zero tolerance.
Mr Wallace
With the leave of the House, I will reply to the points made by hon. and right hon. Members. I will, if I may, reflect on the tributes that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and by other Members of the House to the people who are working, as we speak, to keep us safe.
This morning, in Sheffield and in other parts of the north of England, there were a number of raids in which the police and security services disrupted what potentially was the 10th plot to cause us harm by some pretty determined terrorists, and they will keep going. The results of that raid will mean that investigators and detectives will have to work throughout Christmas and new year. In offices up and down the country, there will be people on duty—I am talking about the emergency services, the police, and intelligence officers. Even a Minister will be on duty at Christmas and new year as well. These people carry out their job unseen, often in some of the harshest conditions. They often have to deal with the aftermath for the rest of their lives, especially if they are first responders, ambulance personnel or police who are on the scene when an attack happens.
Over the past year, I have spent a lot of time in Manchester, meeting some quite remarkable people who were present when the bomb went off and throughout the process. They have never stopped trying to bring justice and comfort to the victims. At the same time, they have to live with the things they saw on that day. Those people not only demand but deserve our respect and support.
The Home Secretary and I strongly believe that al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra should be added and that HIG should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In answer to some of the points raised by Members on the Opposition Front Bench, the request for de-proscription of HIG was on 19 September 2017. I cannot comment on who made that request, but there was an application and we responded to it.
I totally agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) about the comments made by the former reviewer of terrorism legislation. For the rule of law and this law itself to be valid, we have to show that we change when the evidence changes. People may be particularly distasteful but when they move into violence or terrorism, we must act. We must also be in a position to help our friends and allies around the world who are sometimes the victims of terrorist organisations, and ensure that their concerns are heard.
Hon. Members have mentioned Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. Groups such as those are constantly under review to see whether they engage in terrorism. If they do—for example, if the non-military wing is viewed as not separate—we will review the situation, use the law and take the required steps. Proscription works: 51 people have been charged with membership of proscribed groups and 32 have been convicted. There are currently 71 proscribed international groups and 14 Northern Ireland groups. The law enforcement agencies often tell us how useful proscription is, and we will always listen to any changes they request. Indeed, we would also listen if they felt that the regime did not work. I am sure that Opposition Front Benchers would do exactly the same. Proscription is a tool for us to stay within the rule of law.
Over the past few weeks and months, we have heard a lot about dealing with terrorism. The big thing that we have heard on the difference between us and terrorists is that we believe in the rule of law with the oversight of this House. We make sure that we are better than them. Measures such as proscription are very important in forcing the Government, quite rightly, to mark out why they think something should be proscribed, and in holding those groups to account. But when the evidence changes, we change with it.
Hon. Members mentioned Brexit. As we have said and will continue to say, we seek tools similar to the European arrest warrant, which we find incredibly useful. It helps us and our law enforcement agencies. The Home Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union published a security paper that made many of those points clear.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that there are no new resources for the police. I am sorry to correct him, but today we announced £71 million more money for counter-terrorism policing. That is new money, on top of the £24 million increase we gave the police in response to the attacks and the £144 million armed uplift that we gave them post-Nice to ensure that our armed police are well-equipped to deal with threats.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Andrew Griffiths)
But you were wrong.
Mr Jones
From a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Gentleman says that I was wrong, but I was not. In Durham and other places, the flat budget for police funding from central Government will have to be made up by local taxpayers. Taking into account the pay increase and inflation, that will amount to a real-terms cut.
Mr Wallace
I heard the hon. Gentleman during the statement earlier. The question I could ask about the police funding settlement is: will police have more to spend on policing in their force areas after the statement today by the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service? The answer is yes. We can argue about whether this is from the core grant plus the precept, but the reality is that the police will be spending more on policing in the next year than they were last year. That is a fact.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I really want to ensure that we return to the subject of this debate.
Mr Jones
For counter-terrorism, the Minister is correct; there will be more money for counter-terrorism. But unless he can read the tea leaves and predict that every single policy authority will put the maximum on local precepts, he cannot give the undertaking on frontline policing that he has just given.
Mr Wallace
No Minister at this Dispatch Box can ever guarantee what a police force will do, because the police have independence in their forces. If the hon. Gentleman were on this side of the debate, he would not be able to give guarantees because he would know that police forces have operational independence. How much is spent is a matter for the police and crime commissioner and the police. That is why some forces have grown their reserves—some by over 100%. [Interruption.] Not Durham. I think it is the one force that probably has not. That is because the chief constable is from Lancashire; he is a proper chief constable—it takes one to teach people.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about online, which was mentioned by many other Members, the Government recognise the real challenges. That is why, a number of years ago, we set up the CT referral unit, which has seen 300,000 pieces of offensive or terrorist material taken down on request. It is a permanent unit that requests, and works with, communications service providers to take that material down.
However, of course we have said that we want the providers to do more. We want them to invest some of their very large profits in technologies to improve the speed of these things. We think they can do more, and that is why my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, through the Global Internet Forum, are leading international efforts to deal with this issue.
One of the challenges, obviously, with online is that many of these people are based overseas, and as much as I would like to take immediate action in some areas, we simply do not have the power to do that in other countries. It is incredibly frustrating to the Government that, on National Action, which we proscribed almost this time last year, an internet company in the United States refuses to take down some of its propaganda and some of its material. I have not checked whether it has been taken down in the last few days, but that situation is incredibly frustrating, and we are working with the United States to apply more pressure in that space.
I have already answered the points around Hezbollah and Hamas. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) that it is right that the point about what the services do is absolutely clear. That is why proscribing organisations gives the services extra power to their elbow to deal with them. It also means that people charged with terrorist offences—TACT offences—can and will often receive much more hefty sentences. That is why we are determined to continue at the moment to use this legislation.
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Democratic Unionist party for their support for this measure tonight. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social group, but it is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism. It is my and the Home Secretary’s firm opinion that, on the basis of the available evidence, all four groups in the order meet the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate in each case for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe these groups. The proscription of these groups demonstrates our condemnation of their activities. Proscribing them will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any supporters in the UK and to ensure that they cannot operate here.
It is also our firm opinion that, on the basis of the available evidence, HIG no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. However, as with all groups, we will continue to monitor its activity to make sure that it stays within the rule of the law and abides by the law. It is therefore appropriate in this case for the Home Secretary to remove HIG from the list of proscribed organisations in accordance with the de-proscription process set out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, and all Members of the House, a safe and secure Christmas? May I ask that Members remind their constituents to be vigilant over the festive period? Unfortunately, the threat has not gone away. However, I hope that, by being vigilant and by supporting our law enforcement agencies, our intelligence services and our other emergency services, all Members have a safe and happy Christmas. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 18 December, be approved.
Law Enforcement Co-operation and Border Control: Schengen Information System
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15812/16, a Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals, and No.15814/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU; agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals; and further agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt out of proposals on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this debate, which is about the EU’s second-generation Schengen information system, known more commonly as SIS II. I am also grateful to the Committee for the report it published last Friday to inform our debate tonight. I expect that many of the points made in that report will be raised this evening. In any event, I will reply formally to the Committee in writing.
SIS II is the EU’s automated system for circulating policing alerts to law enforcement officers across the EU and in non-EU countries that also take part in it. Alerts can be created in a number of categories, including people who are wanted under a European arrest warrant, suspected criminals, security risks on whom information is sought, and objects that need to be seized such as stolen vehicles and passports. We have taken part in SIS II since April 2015, although we operate only its police and judicial co-operation aspects and not those that support the passport-free Schengen area. We make SIS II alerts available to police officers in real time, and high-priority alerts are also made available at the border. This allows wanted people to be stopped and arrested on arrival, preventing them from posing a risk to the public. SIS II is therefore one of the most important EU policing tools that we have at our disposal.
Last December, the European Commission proposed three draft regulations to replace the legislation that currently governs SIS II. These consisted of one draft regulation to cover the police and judicial co-operation aspects of the system, one to govern its Schengen border control aspects, and a third that allows alerts to be circulated on non-EU nationals who have been subject to removal action in a member state. We are excluded from the regulation on border control as it builds on the aspects of the passport-free Schengen area that we do not take part in. The regulation on non-EU nationals subject to removal action would have applied to us only if we opted into it. The police and judicial co-operation measure would apply to us unless we opted out of it. The deadline for both opting in and opting out was 2 July. This means, as will be obvious to the House, that the Government have already had to take the decisions that we are debating, although I still hope that the House will endorse them.
Let me first explain the Government’s decision not to opt into the proposal on circulating information on non-EU nationals subject to removal action—the so-called returns regulation. This draft regulation would allow member states to circulate alerts on non-EU nationals to whom they have issued a decision requiring them to leave their territory. There could be some benefits to knowing this, as it might give us information about the immigration history of someone who tries to enter the UK or who comes to the attention of law enforcement while here.
However, in the Government’s view, the proposal is too closely linked to another piece of legislation that we do not take part in—the 2008 returns directive. This sets out common rules subject to Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction that govern the way in which member states return non-EU nationals who have no right to be in their countries. We do not take part in it because we think that these issues should remain under national control. The Commission has been very clear throughout the negotiations that we could not opt into the returns regulation without also joining the 2008 directive.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Have the Government had legal advice to confirm the Commission’s view, or are they simply accepting the Commission’s view? Have they conducted any assessment to demonstrate the balance between the benefits to our safety and security from opting in compared with the benefits from complying with the Government’s refusal to have anything to do with the European Court of Justice?
Mr Hurd
My understanding is that the Commission’s decision was based on legal advice that we accept.
I hope that the House will agree with our decision not to opt into the returns regulation. The draft police co-operation regulation would replace the 2007 legislation that governs this aspect of SIS II and would bring in a number of useful changes. For example, it would allow pre-emptive alerts to be created for children who are in danger of going missing through parental abduction rather than allowing for alerts only after the child has disappeared, as now. It would also allow member states’ law enforcement to ask specific questions of people on whom information is sought via an alert, and it would update SIS II’s technical standards.
However, there were some aspects of the proposals that we were less happy with. For example, the original text proposed to make it compulsory to create alerts in cases involving terrorism, with implications for the autonomy of our police and security services. We wanted to be clear in the regulation that none of the new actions that it provides for would require police to act contrary to national law, but we felt that we would be better able to address these issues if we did not opt out and thus continued to participate fully in the negotiations with a vote.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s pragmatic approach. The Justice Committee looked at the matter when we published our report in the last Parliament on the implications of Brexit for the legal system. It was very clear from the evidence given to us that a continuing involvement for SIS II in criminal justice and judicial matters is very much to our advantage, even though there may be some aspects that we will need to discuss, so I support him in his approach. Will he bear in mind the important issue of making sure that we have the proper data arrangements to enable us lawfully to exchange such information, as we wish to?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for his support of the Government’s position, based as it is on evidence received by the Justice Committee, which he chairs. I take on board fully his point about data.
I was saying that we had concerns about the proposal in the original text to make it compulsory to create alerts in cases involving terrorism. We felt in general that we would be better able to address the issues if we did not opt out, and thus continued to participate fully in the negotiations with a vote. Our feeling is that opting out at this stage would have sent the message that we sought to pull back from co-operating with our law enforcement and security partners after Brexit, and that is not the message that we want to give. On the contrary, we have always been clear that it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU that we continue to co-operate across borders through a range of tools, measures and agencies even after we have left the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the Government’s position clear in her speech in Florence this September:
“It is our ambition to work as closely as possible together with the EU, protecting our people, promoting our values and ensuring the future security of our continent. The United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security.”
The exact details of our future relationship with the EU on internal security will need to be agreed in the negotiations.
Robert Neill
Again, I welcome the Government’s pragmatic approach. The evidence to our Committee stressed not only that we should be looking at SIS II, but that it comes as part of a suite of measures that include access to Eurojust, to the other databases in the Schengen Information System, right across the piece, and to other information exchange arrangements and databases. Can the Minister confirm that it is our intention to seek a co-operative relationship across the raft of criminal justice co-operation measures?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive intervention and for his support for the principles that the Prime Minister laid out strongly. He will understand that the exact details of the future internal security relationship with the EU will need to be agreed in the negotiations. The Government’s paper on the future partnership that we seek with the EU on security, law enforcement and criminal justice makes it clear that we value our current capability to share law enforcement and security alerts with EU countries. That capability is provided by SIS II, but how we might retain similar capability after Brexit is a matter for negotiation.
The exit negotiations are an opportunity to build on what we have already achieved through decades of collaboration and working together. The decision to opt out would suggest that we wished to move in the opposite direction and disengage from security co-operation with Europe. That is not, and cannot be, our position, so it would have been wrong to opt out.
Before I wind up, I want to touch on how the negotiations on these legislative proposals have progressed. The Council of Ministers has recently agreed a general approach on all three draft regulations. That is an agreed Council position to form a basis for negotiations on the final text with the European Parliament. The police co-operation text was satisfactory in most respects. In particular, it gives member states sufficient discretion over whether to create alerts in counter-terrorist cases. But the Government voted against it because it did not address the restrictions on when alerts can be used for purposes other than those for which they were created.
In some limited circumstances, such an alert would be advisable; for example, where the alert shows that a person is particularly dangerous and needs to be kept out of the country. Unfortunately, the text on the general approach continues to make doing this too difficult, so we did not think it was ready for negotiation with the European Parliament. However, there was a qualified majority in favour of the text, and these negotiations are now under way. We expect the incoming Bulgarian presidency of the Council to try to conclude them in the first half of 2018. We will of course keep the European Scrutiny Committee updated.
The Government’s decisions show that we are committed both to protecting our borders and to effective co-operation with our European partners on policing and security issues, and I hope that the House will endorse them tonight.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I confirm that the Opposition support the motion before us, and I echo the Minister’s thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee for bringing forward this debate, because the motion raises some important questions about our national security and the consequences and potential implications of Brexit.
Our security, and the apparatus on which it rests, is utterly dependent on co-operation with our European partners. The UK should be rightly proud of the role it has played in establishing and developing our shared security through Europol, the European arrest warrant and the Schengen information system. As the Minister says, SIS II is already proving its worth, helping to underpin the operation of the EAW and delivering 12,000 hits on suspected criminals and terrorists since its introduction in 2015. It has been a game-changer for policing leaders and for day-to-day policing.
We know what the Prime Minister makes of the SIS II system from what she told the House of Commons in November 2014, the month in which she also said that support for it is vital
“to stop foreign criminals from coming to Britain, deal with European fighters coming back from Syria, stop British criminals evading justice abroad, prevent foreign criminals evading justice by hiding here, and get foreign criminals out of our prisons”.
However, without an agreement and a commitment that this will be foremost in the Government’s negotiating priorities, this apparatus will all fall away the second we Brexit.
Quite frankly, it is astonishing that the Government have given no guarantees that we will seek to retain full access to SIS II on our departure from the EU. Despite underlining its importance in the position paper earlier this year, in a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister said it was “too early to say” whether SIS II will be one of the measures that the Government will seek to include in a new post-Brexit agreement. The Committee has noted that
“there is no justification for this reticence.”
Our security depends on it, but we know why Ministers are showing such reticence. It is because of the role of the European Court of Justice and the EU charter of fundamental rights.
The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that there will be no permanent role for the ECJ, and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has explicitly dumped the EU charter. However, there is no precedent for a country to operate within SIS II—nor to operate the European arrest warrant, for that matter—without accepting that the ECJ will play a leading role. Indeed, the regulations before us explicitly prohibit third-country access to SIS II data. In his letter to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister attempted to suggest areas where countries do not submit directly to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but in the case of SIS II, the precedent is clear: whether direct or indirect, the determinations of the European Court are final.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. Does she not agree that this puts paid to the crazy suggestion of having no deal, because getting a deal on a security treaty will be absolutely crucial to the safety and security of this nation?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that no deal is simply not acceptable for security or for data, which I will come on to shortly.
The Minister mentioned that four non-EU countries are members of SIS II, which is absolutely right. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein participate by virtue of their membership of Schengen. These non-EU member states are bound to avert any substantial differences in the case law of the ECJ, and they are required to implement structures and procedures that keep pace with changes in the Schengen rulebook. If they do not do so, their agreements will be terminated.
Robert Neill
I understand precisely where the hon. Lady is coming from, but in fairness to the Minister, this may be a question about the direct nature or otherwise of the jurisdiction. Does she agree that the evidence to the Justice Committee was most compelling about the practical need to get the data regulations aligned so that data can lawfully be passed from EU member states to us as a third country in the same way that they are passed to the four non-EU countries she has mentioned?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he pre-empts my next point.
At the heart of these strictures is the issue of data. All SIS II systems operate on a hub-and-spoke model, with a central SIS II hub exchanging data from national servers in each participating member state. The European Commission is very clear that this is European data. Although the police may have some leeway on the speed at which they create an alert, once they do, the data passes to the central SIS II hub. Therefore, without an agreement on data transfers, we simply cannot participate in this critical information-sharing system. That is the insanity of having no deal.
The proposals before the House require compliance with EU data protection laws and fundamental rights enshrined in the EU charter. The EU will insist on these rights being protected in order for the UK to share information, so what exactly do the Government propose? Can the Minister reassure the House that no arbitrary red lines, on the ECJ or otherwise, will be put before the safety and security of the British public? Will he confirm that it is the UK’s negotiating aim to retain full access to SIS II? If not, can he explain how after Brexit we would track the hundreds, if not thousands, of serious criminals, foreign fighters and those who pose a threat to our national security who are flagged by the system every month? There are few areas in which the UK is more dependent on agreement than security co-operation as we Brexit. The consequences of failure are scarcely imaginable.
The regulations are necessary to maintain our membership of SIS II for the time being and for our negotiating position, but they signify the huge risk that Brexit poses to our national security and the gaping holes in the Government’s approach to negotiations. We will support the motion and any and all of the Government’s efforts to maintain access to such security systems and close co-operation with our European partners, but we will continue to hold the Government to account on their approach to negotiations that are so fundamental to our national security.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
This is the first of the European Scrutiny Committee’s reports to be debated on the Floor of the House in this Parliament. It is a great pity that the Committee was not set up somewhat earlier, but we have lived with that and managed to get through all the documents. We are now having this first debate.
In a nutshell, I have 16 questions for the Minister. He will be glad to know that I am happy to write to him with the details of the questions, many of which are set out in our report, so I do not need to go through them all now. They are important questions and I am absolutely sure that he will reply. If we have any further questions, we will continue to ask them until we get the right answers. There are, however, one or two matters that I want to deal with now.
The first matter relates to what the Minister said about the European Court of Justice. He said:
“There is…significant precedent for the EU to cooperate with third countries”—
which of course is what we will become—
“including in fields closely aligned to areas of EU law. There is no precedent for a third country to submit to the jurisdiction of the CJEU”
He of course is completely right. I made that point only a few weeks ago in a debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, when I invoked the former Belgian member of the European Court who said that there was no precedent for a third country submitting to the jurisdiction of that Court.
The Minister referred to the agreement between the EU and Iceland and Norway. There are other examples. Dispute settlement procedures in EU agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova involve an arbitration panel that is required to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on questions concerning the interpretation of relevant EU law provisions. The Prime Minister referred to that indirectly in her statement yesterday, but what form of arbitration panel we will have is part of the ongoing negotiations. I have raised this myself several times on the Floor of the House in the past few months. Martin Howe, who is a great and distinguished QC, has put forward various proposals and we know that they are under active consideration by the Government.
The Committee highlights those examples to illustrate the point that there is a wide spectrum of possible outcomes on the role and jurisdiction of the Court. We ask the Minister to indicate which the Government would prefer or rule out in any future agreement between the EU and the UK on security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation.
On the charter, the proposed police co-operation regulation, which we are primarily concerned with today, introduces a recital stating—this is important—that it
“respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”
The Minister tells us that
“matters such as complying with the EU Charter”
will need to be addressed during the expected negotiations. As we well know, because we have passed that point in the passage of the withdrawal Bill, under the Bill as currently drafted the charter will not form part of domestic law on or after exit day. We therefore ask the Minister to explain how the Government intend to address the charter as part of the UK’s exit negotiations.
Various questions remain outstanding. We take the view that this is an important issue and that there are ongoing questions about the European arrest warrant. I have the 16 questions I will be sending to the Minister. We will publish both the questions and the Minister’s replies in due course, so the House may be properly informed as to where this is going, which is, at the moment, part and parcel of the negotiations.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate. I am also immensely grateful to the many Members who did not speak earlier, as it means that we have got to this motion about four and a half hours earlier than we had at one point feared. We should not allow that to detract from the importance of the subjects we are debating today.
The Scottish National party’s position is that membership of the European Union makes us safer, and it supports co-operation between law enforcement and security services throughout democratic western Europe. Anything that weakens that co-operation is to be at least regretted and resisted if at all possible. I welcome the decision to opt in to one of these EU documents, and we will not oppose the decision to opt out, but it is disappointing that we did not have time for a fuller debate on the decision when there was still time to change it. As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the very capable chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I believe that there is still a degree of frustration at the Government’s reluctance to grant debates, either in the Chamber or in Committee, timeously at the request of the Committee. The situation is not as bad as it was, but there is still an issue around the Government not complying properly with the procedures that the House has put in place, so that Parliament can scrutinise what the Government are doing on our behalf on the European Union.
I want first to talk about the document that relates to the operation of European arrest warrants and related matters. It is important to realise just why the warrant is such a vital part of our protection against terrorism and organised crime, and why it is important that the system continues after we leave the European Union.
Since 2011, there have been 541 cases in Scottish courts, where proceedings were taken after an arrest under the European arrest warrant scheme. A total of 367 people were extradited from Scotland to face justice elsewhere and 45 people were brought back to Scotland to face justice in the Scottish courts. That is over 400 people across Europe who were wanted for serious crimes and tried to use international borders to hide from the law, but who found that the European arrest warrant prevented them from doing that. The warrant allowed every one of those 400-plus people to be extradited to face trial much more quickly, and with far fewer opportunities for legal loopholes, than previous extradition treaties alone would have allowed. It will not be enough if the European arrest warrant is replaced with extradition treaties. We need to make sure the European arrest warrant continues in no weaker a form than its current one.
The figures I quoted have already increased in the very short time that SIS II has been in place in the UK. In the first full year of its operation, there was a 25% increase in the number of people arrested in the UK under an EAW, simply because the police had much more detailed, accurate and—most importantly—more rapidly available information on the people they were dealing with. That is more than one additional arrest in the UK every day of the year. Over 400 suspected criminals a year are being taken off our streets who might still be on them if SIS II was not in operation. That is the scale of the benefit we derive from the system and the scale of the risk we face if it is not replaced by something equally effective after we leave the EU.
We therefore welcome the decision to opt into participation in SIS II, but we remain concerned about the longer-term implications of leaving the EU, particularly on the terms the Government have set out so far. On the continued decision not to opt into the draft returns regulation, document No. 15812/16, the Minister told the European Scrutiny Committee in his letter of 20 July this year that opting in
“would pose a risk to national control over how we remove people with no right to be here”.
He expanded on that by referring to the Government’s reluctance to have anything subject to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Clearly this is not the place or time to challenge the Government’s position on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, but their inflexibility over the status of the Court prevents us from deriving the additional benefits we would enjoy if we were part of the new returns regulation. In the Minister’s own words to the Committee earlier in the year,
“in principle there would be some benefit in knowing whether individuals seeking entry to the UK, or who had come here illegally, had been ordered to leave another Member State”.
That should not come as any surprise. Any licence holder of a pub could tell us that, if they are given information on people thrown out of other places, it is easier to keep them out of their place so that they cannot cause trouble there. It is easy to see that it would be useful to know that somebody had only pitched up at the UK border because they had been thrown out of every other decent country in western Europe.
The Government are willing, however, to sacrifice that additional assurance simply because they do not want us to have anything to do with the Court of Justice of the European Union. I will ask the Minister again the question he did not answer when I intervened on him earlier: what assessment have the Government made to show the benefits for security and safety that we might gain from opting in, compared with the benefits they claim we will achieve by opting out in its entirety from the European Court of Justice?
I have several other concerns about what the Government are proposing to replace SIS II after we have left the EU. I will not go into these in detail, however, because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) summed them up very well. At the moment, as with so much else on Brexit, we know what we are leaving, but we have absolutely no idea where we are going. On the safety and security of our citizens, we are getting close to the time when we really need certainty and answers.
We have asked the Minister to tell us what assessment has been made of the potential benefits of opting in. The hon. Member for Stone has asked this. If not the European Court of Justice, what dispute resolution mechanism will the Government support that will allow citizens of the UK or other EU countries to challenge the legality of data sharing in relation to criminal matters? We know what they do not want; it is high time they told us what they do want and gave us an indication that the Europeans are willing to give them what they do want. Will the UK Government be seeking a data adequacy decision from the EU before the end of the article 50 negotiations? What is plan B if that decision is not forthcoming or goes against us? If we do not get a data adequacy decision before we leave the EU, data sharing cannot happen. What happens then?
On the concerns that the Minister raised about the earlier draft of the regulations, I am puzzled to know in what circumstances we would want the police to do anything other than alert their colleagues in other European countries if they were dealing with a case involving terrorism. I thought that the whole point of the Schengen information system, and other data sharing among law enforcement agencies, was that crime and terrorism do not respect international borders. If policing is to be effective, the police must sometimes cross borders as well. That does not mean that they will physically chase people across borders as a matter of routine, but information sharing across borders must be made as easy, as free of bureaucracy and as free of legal challenge as possible. The reason the European arrest warrant works more effectively than a simple extradition treaty is that the process is so much faster. People can be returned to the jurisdiction where they are wanted and put on trial much more quickly—sometimes years more quickly—than was possible previously.
We will not force the motion to a vote. We do not want to oppose what the Government are doing, but at present they are not doing enough. We will need to see something very definite very quickly, so that people can rest assured that leaving the European Union will not produce the reduction in our safety and security that it currently seems it might well produce.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I shall speak only briefly, and very specifically, about the implications of SIS II and the new regulation on the protection of children.
Police and judicial co-operation and the necessary cross-border infrastructures and mechanisms referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, are very important to child protection. Increasingly, victims of complex cross-border crime are children: they are victims of, for example, trafficking, sexual exploitation and online abuse. As the Minister said, the new regulation will support a more proactive alert system in relation to children who are at risk of going missing, and that includes cases of parental abduction. It will mean that pre-emptive alerts can be placed on the system to enable the authorities to act before a child goes missing rather than afterwards.
While I welcome the Government’s decision not to opt out of this part of the SIS and the increased protection for children, I am—like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—concerned about the position if we leave the European Union in March 2019, and the possible uncertainty about the security and crime co-operation arrangements that will then be in place. I understand that the new measures that are currently being discussed in the EU are likely to be agreed before the Government’s intended exit date, but unlikely to be implemented until later. It is not clear whether they might be implemented during a potential two-year transition period, or even after that.
The Minister said that the Government want to be able to negotiate new arrangements for security law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation, but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, my good friend the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, has received a letter from the Minister which leaves us none the wiser about what specific measures such an arrangement might include.
Let me say very strongly to the Minister that the protection and welfare of children must be paramount in any new arrangements that are negotiated, and that includes seeking to maintain the benefits that we currently secure from our participation in SIS II and the stronger protections that the new regulation will introduce. There are practical questions about how that will be achieved. We heard about some of the circumstances relating to third countries that cannot create or enter alerts in SIS II, or use the infrastructure to search the system and exchange information. I understand that under article 62 of the proposed regulation, that will continue to be the case, and that, post Brexit, the UK would not be able to benefit from the data that some offer, and to lodge data as we can now.
It is true, as we heard, that other countries have been able to agree specific access arrangements with the European Union. Does the Minister think that the UK could follow a similar route to maintain access, particularly in relation to child protection, and thus effectively remain within the ambit of SIS II? In that case, article 62 would have to be amended, or is the Minister thinking of some other arrangement for the UK to access and enter information? Failing such an arrangement with the EU if we leave in March 2019, does the Minister think it will be necessary, or indeed possible, for us to have bilateral arrangements with each of the 27 EU countries? If that is the route that he envisages we might have to follow, what assessment has he made of the risks it would pose to children and how would they be mitigated?
Finally, even if we are able to remain in some way within the SIS II system and continue to share and deposit information, there would be gaps in protecting children if we leave the EU and lose the provisions of Brussels II in relation to family law. Yesterday’s written ministerial statement in response to the Justice Committee report on the implications of Brexit for the justice system was quite complacent about alternatives to Brussels II. There are potentially catastrophic consequences for children and families as we face considerable uncertainty about the loss of provisions in Brussels II that govern choice of law and enforcement.
We are not talking about whether the EU is dictating and making our laws; we are talking about mechanisms that enable us to ensure that protections and enforcement measures, and access to information and the sharing of information, can continue to be used and enforced if we leave the EU. In particular, mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that there is no weakening of the protection currently available to ensure the safeguarding of children. I hope the Minister will in his concluding remarks be able to give some assurances that that will remain paramount in the Government’s thinking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and want to state clearly for the record that my party and I will support the Government’s position on this matter.
I have debated the Schengen agreement before, not in this House but wearing a different hat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. At that time, I was discussing the merits of Schengen in relation to the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland. Bertie Ahern, who was then in office—that shows we are going a fair way back in time, and shows, too, my age—had determined that Schengen was not necessary for the Republic and felt that our cross-border co-operation was more than adequate. Bertie Ahern might have moved on and there might be a completely different man in his place, but the facts that prevented us from taking Schengen then apply now. We need no hard border, but if the Republic needs one, it can feel free to erect and pay for that on its side. We are a part of the UK and there is no back door to Ireland through any European proposal coming our way.
I am not going to pretend that there is no issue in leaving Schengen behind completely; it is useful to share criminal information among police forces, and I know that we will be working hard to secure some form of information sharing at the same level. The second-generation Schengen information system, which features highly in any argument about the merits of Schengen co-operation, is a database of real-time alerts about individuals and objects—such as vehicles—of interest to EU law enforcement agencies. It includes information on people wanted under a European arrest warrant, suspected foreign fighters returning from Syria or elsewhere, and missing people. It contains some 70 million alerts on individuals or objects likely to be of interest to border control and law enforcement authorities. Alerts created in any of the 29 countries operating SIS II are stored in a central database and are immediately accessible to around 2 million end users. This is of great importance to our decision making. There is no doubt that it is of benefit, and we must attempt to secure a shared information system that is beneficial to Europe as well as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are leaving Europe and to enhance Schengen and adopt these resolutions at this time is sheer madness. That is why I believe the Government are right to consider only adopting regulation 3 pertaining to police co-operation.
This is a two-way street, and let us not underestimate or undervalue the role of our intelligence agencies throughout Europe and across the world. We have premier policing and intelligence capabilities, and access to it for matters of cross-border security are not simply important to us but necessary to the safety of those in Europe. That is why we are happy to continue to share the information in the way that we have previously done, while still holding on to our sovereign right to determine who goes and who stays, and when they go and when they stay.
My party, the Democratic Unionist party, and I support the Government on this issue. The proposal is sensible and necessary, and this is another simple message to Europe that we are taking our sovereignty back, but that we still wish to be good neighbours and play the game that benefits us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15812/16, a Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals, and No. 15814/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU; agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals; and further agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt out of proposals on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Business without Debate
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electoral Commission
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I should like to take motions 6 to 12 together—
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I suggest that, while some of the motions might be unexceptionable, motions 9 and 10 might excite controversy and that it might therefore be better to take those together, with the others in a different grouping?
Madam Deputy Speaker
In that case, I will take them all separately.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Constitutional Law
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild Fisheries) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Government Resources and Accounts
That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2017, which was laid before the House on 11 September, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Town and Country Planning
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Local Government
That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 13 November, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Local Government
That the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 13 November, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Environmental Protection
That the draft Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017, which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Financial Assistance to Industry
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to eligible energy intensive industries in respect of a proportion of the indirect costs of funding the Renewable Obligation (RO) and small-scale Feed In Tariffs (FIT) totalling more than £30 million and up to a cumulative total of £565 million maximum.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Waste Incinerators in Sowerby Bridge
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition opposing the proposed waste incinerators in my constituency, which has been signed by 148 people in addition to the 246 people who have signed the petition online.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Sowerby Bridge,
Declares that Calder Valley Skip Hire Ltd have submitted an application for an Environmental Permit for an incinerator at their site at Mearclough Road; further to planning applications for another incinerator at their Belmont site at the other end of Sowerby Bridge; further resulting in increased levels of air pollution affecting a number of schools in the local area; further to causing more pollution in Air Quality Management Areas; further that traffic congestion would worsen as lorries bring waste to the site; and further to the site having recently flooded any future development could result in waste entering the river.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to take all possible measures to prevent these waste incinerators being placed in the Sowerby Bridge area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002092]
Roadchef Employees Benefit Trust
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I thank the hon. Members from across the House who have so far agreed to stay back to listen and perhaps contribute to the debate. What I am looking to discuss this evening can be boiled down to basic fairness and people getting access to what is rightfully theirs. I think it is important to set out some context to where we are today, before I come to the main points that I hope the Minister might be able to help with.
In 1986, the Roadchef employees benefit trust was established to give employees at Roadchef motorway services, such as those at Harthill in my constituency, Watford Gap, Hamilton or dozens of other locations across these isles, access to a John-Lewis-style employee-ownership scheme, whereby they would benefit from increasing share entitlements based on length of service. It was established honourably by the then chief executive Patrick Gee in consultation with and with the support of the GMB union. Sadly and tragically, Patrick Gee died aged 43 before the scheme could be fully realised and Tim Ingram Hill took over. He then transferred the shares that Mr Gee was making available to employees into a second employee benefit scheme, of which he was the only beneficiary.
When Roadchef was subsequently sold to the Japanese company Nikko about a decade later, Mr Ingram Hill made approaching £30 million on the shares that should have been made available to Roadchef employees. In 2000, he made a tax payment on his ill-gotten share windfall to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the tune of approximately £10 million, something which has only to come to light further down the line. On discovering the unjust enrichment, the trust then took Mr Ingram Hill to the High Court, and Justice Proudman found that he had acted in breach of trust and, crucially, that the shares were never his in the first place—they were the employees’ shares. The purchase of the shares in the sale of the company was therefore void and—this is important—the £10 million paid to HMRC also belonged to the beneficiaries, not Mr Ingram Hill.
Subsequent to the High Court ruling, Mr Ingram Hill settled with the trust, thus ending our interest in him for the purposes of this debate, but the trust then notified HMRC of the fact that the settlement had occurred and that it now intended to pay out to its beneficiaries, who total some 4,000 current and former Roadchef employees. The trust also wished to clarify that there would be no tax implications from the payments being made, thinking that that would just be a formality, but the response from HMRC was rather surprising. HMRC said that it would be happy to waive any tax implications for the beneficiaries as long as the trust did not pursue it for the £10 million paid in tax by Mr Ingram Hill. That was the first time that the trust had been made aware of such a tax payment. In accordance with any trustees acting on behalf of beneficiaries, the trust has challenged HMRC on the £10 million payment, which should be repaid to the trust with interest. That brings us up to date on this complex and unique case.
I am grateful to the chairman of the trust, Christopher Winston Smith, and to Huw Edwards for their insight ahead of this debate, and to the current CEO of Roadchef, Simon Turl, who I spoke to last night. Roadchef wants the issue settled for its current and former employees and has been working constructively with HMRC to that end. The trust has also worked with a number of hon. Members from across the House to raise the matter with HMRC, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
My constituents certainly want this issue settled. Twenty constituents, most of whom live around the service station at Harthill, have contacted me about the matter, but I am sure that more are waiting for their payment. They include Mrs Margaret Gibson, who lists some of the things that she has struggled to do in recent years that this money would have helped with, including borrowing money for home improvements, helping her son to pay for his wedding, or helping her and her husband to get by during periods of unemployment. She considers it a ridiculous amount of time to wait for what is rightfully hers, and I completely agree.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that what adds insult to injury here is that, as well as being deprived of the payments, many of the people concerned are also working on quite low pay?
Neil Gray
Absolutely. I believe that the main thrust behind Mr Gee’s setting up of the trust in the first place was to ensure that low-paid staff were able to benefit from the company doing well. That has sadly not happened yet, and many low-paid workers have suffered as a result. Many of my constituents—I will list some shortly—have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the payments not being made, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Linda McLeod and Margaret Main pointed to the time it has taken for their money to be returned, but they also highlighted the number of former colleagues who have sadly passed away and will not get the benefit their hard work merited. Caroline Todd contacted me on behalf of her mother, Mrs Quigley from Harthill. She desperately hopes this gets resolved soon so that her mum, who is getting older, is able to enjoy her own money. Margaret Forsyth just wants HMRC to settle matters so that she can have some security, a sentiment echoed by Jane Paxton and Elizabeth Campbell.
Joyce Simm’s husband has been receiving treatment for small-cell carcinoma for three years, and she has been out of work while she cares for him. They have had to survive on pensions and savings, which are fast disappearing. They have now been hit with the sad news that he has a carcinoid tumour and will be undergoing surgery on 21 December. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the family well, but clearly any pay-out now would be particularly beneficial.
Another constituent of mine visited my surgery. He is seriously ill and in a difficult financial situation, and the money he is entitled to get back would simply be life changing and would help him immensely. He is desperate to see HMRC settle as soon as possible. I know many other hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who are affected and, sadly, will be able to share similar stories. Indeed, I understand Mr Speaker has constituents who are affected by this issue.
It is worth mentioning someone else who has been affected by this case. The former company secretary at Roadchef, Tim Warwick, blew the whistle on what the then chief executive was doing before there was any kind of whistleblower protection. Exposing this affair effectively ended Mr Warwick’s career, and we should all thank and pay tribute to him for his efforts.
What can the Minister do to help my constituents and their 4,000 colleagues across these isles who are waiting for their money? I understand that HMRC is a non-ministerial department of Government and that the Minister is therefore somewhat restricted in what he can do, but I hope he can join me and colleagues on both sides of the House in calling on HMRC to settle this case with the trustees and to return the £10 million, plus interest, to the rightful owners—the trustees and beneficiaries.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is giving a moving account of how the wrongdoing of one person, compounded by the inaction of HMRC, is causing real misery to a lot of people. Does he see a contrast with HMRC’s generosity when it comes to settling deals with big multinationals that have been caught avoiding tax through barely legal, and sometimes non-legal, methods? Would it be fair to say that his constituents must now think HMRC applies one law to the rich and another very different law to the poor?
Neil Gray
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I draw the House’s attention to his professional background and expertise in this area. He makes a valid point to which I am sure the Minister has listened.
If HMRC does not settle the case, it will stand accused of laundering illegally obtained funds at the expense of those who have been defrauded. I understand from correspondence that HMRC is concerned about setting a precedent in this case. As far as I can tell, this is the only EBT fraud case that involves a tax payment made in error, so I am not sure what exactly the precedent would be. But even if it were not the only such case, returning the money to its rightful owner would be a pretty good precedent to set.
Will the Minister advise the House on whether today was the first time he was made aware of the £10 million that was wrongly paid in tax? I say that because, to date, as far as I can see, the £10 million figure has not been mentioned in all the correspondence between Members of this House, Ministers and HMRC. At best, it would appear that officials are failing to apprise MPs of the full facts, which is a very serious matter indeed.
HMRC might also have briefed the Minister to say that this case is time barred, which of course will not be the case until the two-year anniversary of the High Court ruling comes round early next year. Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, is not in the Chamber, but I hope she takes note of what I have presented to the House today, as I believe there is a role for her to play in getting the lead officials at HMRC to answer for the delay. I will be writing to her, as the Chair of the Select Committee, in the new year to get her to look at ministerial guidance to HMRC on unjust enrichment and to get this issue scrutinised in more detail.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the issues I have raised this evening on behalf of not just my constituents, but constituents from across these isles. Some 4,000 low-paid workers have been denied what is rightfully theirs, first by the breach of trust by their former boss and now by HMRC. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the chair of the trust, Mr Winston Smith, so that we can all work together to finally see justice for current and former employees of Roadchef. This is about natural justice, and it is not good enough for HMRC to say that it is too difficult or that it is precedent setting, or to give any of the other excuses offered so far. This is not HMRC’s money. It is my constituents’ money—it is our constituents’ money—and it should be returned to them without delay.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for having raised this issue and secured this debate. I congratulate him also on the vociferous energy with which he has pursued these important matters—the Government recognise their importance. I appreciate that this matter is a source of long-standing concern for those affected, and I can fully understand that they would want a resolution soon. I assure the House that HMRC is working hard towards resolving this issue. As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, I am of course constrained by HMRC’s duty of maintaining taxpayer confidentiality, so my remarks on the case will, of necessity, be limited to matters already in the public domain. HMRC will, however, continue to correspond in writing with the trustee chairman and assist the employee benefit trust’s representatives.
It may be helpful if I first set out the typical tax treatment for the sale of shares from EBTs. When a person exercises an option to obtain EBT shares, this is often chargeable to income tax and national insurance contributions, based on the difference between their valuation when they are obtained and the amount paid for them. If the shares are sold to a third party, the sale will then be subject to capital gains tax on the difference between the valuation used for the taxation of the option and the sale prices.
Turning to the Roadchef EBT, as we have heard, the issue we are discussing today has a long history. Before the sale of Roadchef in 1998, the company’s then chairman arranged for shares held by the EBT to be transferred to him. He subsequently sold the shares for a profit. Both the acquisition and sale were taxed appropriately at that time. The former chairman’s actions were contested, and in 2014 the High Court ruled that effectively the moneys from the sale of shares had to be paid back, net of tax, to the trust for distribution to its beneficiaries. The judgment stated that the proceeds from the shares sold had been held on constructive trust by the chairman for the beneficiaries. However, the implementation of the High Court’s ruling in 2014 and the subsequent distribution of the original shareholders has proved to be very complex.
HMRC has since been engaging with the Roadchef employment benefit trustees’ representatives to determine the correct tax treatment for the trust and the relevant distributions to its beneficiaries. This involves HMRC working closely with the trust’s representatives to fully explore all potential legal options to settle this matter. HMRC’s most senior technical people have been working on different aspects of the tax position, and a senior HMRC representative is regularly discussing the progress of the case with the trust’s representative. Several media outlets have also reported how earlier this year HMRC provided a technical analysis of its view of the correct tax treatment to the trustee chairman and its representatives. To be clear, HMRC has no interest in prolonging this matter. It is, however, legally bound to be even-handed and impartial in applying the law.
Neil Gray
Can the Minister understand my concern at HMRC’s approach to this? When the trust was first made aware of the £10 million tax payment, HMRC apparently told the trust that the beneficiaries would not have to pay any tax on any pay-out that is made as long as the trust does not pursue HMRC for the £10 million. I think he can understand why that is a little concerning.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific set of suggestions in the context of the dialogue between HMRC and the trust, and that very much strays into the area of confidentiality around discussions between our tax authority and a particular organisation. It would therefore not be right for me to comment on that. Indeed, in the normal course of events, I would not even be aware of such matters—certainly not from an HMRC perspective.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation, which he also extended in his speech. I am certainly prepared to consider meeting him and potentially others, although I would like to take advice on whether that would be entirely appropriate, given the situation. I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could explain more fully the exact nature of such a meeting, including who would be present and so on. In no way am I seeking to be unhelpful—quite the opposite—but I am conscious of the clear line that there must always be between members of the Government, MPs and, indeed, other members of the public, and the tax affairs that pertain between our tax authority and another organisation or business.
HMRC has a taxpayer confidentiality obligation, so I cannot comment in more detail on the specific tax treatment of the case. I can, however, assure the House that HMRC is doing everything that it can to resolve this issue promptly and fairly, while ensuring that the tax is paid appropriately in respect of the sale and distribution of the shares. Although HMRC has discretion as to how it goes about fulfilling its duties, as a statutory body it must of course apply the law fairly and collect the taxes set out in legislation by Parliament. When the law is unclear, HMRC can exercise some discretion to ensure that it gives effect to Parliament’s intent. For example, HMRC can exercise discretion to give up some tax if there is an unintended or unforeseen effect only a small group of taxpayers or that will be apparent only for a short time. I should note, though, that that discretion is by its nature limited and would not be applicable in all circumstances—for instance, it would not apply if the courts had made a specific ruling on a particular issue.
In summary, I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts again for securing this debate and for the tenacity with which he has pursued these matters on behalf of his constituents and those of other Members. As I have said, I can appreciate the frustration of those affected, who naturally want a swift end to this matter, which I hope there will be. I hope I have been able to provide at least some reassurance that HMRC is doing everything in its power to resolve this issue in a fair and timely manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland political parties) order 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The draft order will provide for the full publication of donations and loans received on or after 1 July 2017 by Northern Ireland political parties and other regulated donees or participants. The current regulatory framework provides for information on political donations and loans to Northern Ireland recipients above relevant thresholds to be reported to the Electoral Commission. However, the commission is forbidden by law from publishing that information except in very limited circumstances. Hon. Members will be aware that that contrasts with the position in the rest of the United Kingdom, where information on donations and loans to political parties is published quarterly.
Party funding regulations were introduced across the UK by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. At the outset, however, those arrangements did not apply to Northern Ireland, because the risk of intimidation of donors was a major concern at the time. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 extended the 2000 Act to Northern Ireland, with provisions in place to prohibit the publication of Northern Ireland political donations. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 made UK-wide provision for the reporting and publication of loans to political parties, similar to the provision already in place for donations. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 (Regulation of Loans etc: Northern Ireland) Order 2008—forgive me for all the long titles, Mr Hosie—extended the provisions of its parent Act to Northern Ireland, with modifications to prohibit the publication of details relating to loans made for political purposes. The donations and loans confidentiality provisions were always considered to be temporary. Public support for transparency has remained strong and consistent since the provisions have been in force.
The Government have made increasingly clear our desire for increased transparency with regard to Northern Ireland political donations and loans. In January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Northern Ireland political parties to seek their views on moving to full transparency. For the first time, all the parties that responded agreed that the time was right to introduce transparency to Northern Ireland. He also asked the Northern Ireland parties for their views on the date from which transparency should take effect. Of the parties that responded, only the Alliance party suggested that publication should be backdated. The issue was further discussed in the political talks that followed the Assembly election in March. Again, there was consensus that transparency should be introduced, and again only the Alliance party suggested that publication of donations and loans should be backdated.
The Secretary of State subsequently announced to the House that the Government would bring forward secondary legislation to introduce transparency, and I am pleased to present this important legislation to the Committee. In the light of the responses received from the political parties in Northern Ireland about the date from which transparency should take effect, and to ensure consistency with the Electoral Commission’s quarterly reporting schedule, the draft order will provide for the publication of details relating to all donations and loans received on or after 1 July 2017.
Let me take the Committee through the draft order in detail. Although its primary objective is to provide for the publication of donations and loans in the way I have described, it also contains provisions to address a range of related issues, particularly in relation to the operation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. That Act provides for details of donations and loans received over the calendar year by a recipient from the same source to be published when their aggregate total exceeds the reporting threshold. Articles 2 and 3 of the draft order therefore provide for the publication of details about a donation or loan received before 1 July 2017 if it is aggregated with a donation or loan received on or after that date.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 does not permit the draft order to make provision that would allow for any information on donations or loans made or entered into before 1 January 2014 to be published in a form in which it would be possible to identify the donor or lender.
Loans or donations may not be one-off events, and changes to a loan may be made over time. Certain changes to a loan—such as a change in value or rate, a change of repayment term, a change of parties or the loan coming to an end—must be reported to the Electoral Commission. Article 3 provides for reportable changes taking effect on or after 1 July 2017 to be published if the loan was entered into on or after 1 January 2014. The effect will be that a change to such a loan that takes effect on or after 1 July 2017 will result in the publication of all details relating to that loan, including from the pre-1 July 2017 period. However, the draft order provides that such publication will not take place if the change to the loan is simply the repayment of the whole of the debt, or all the remaining debt, under the loan.
The prohibition on commission officials disclosing information relating to Northern Ireland political donations and loans is supported by a criminal offence. That will remain the case for donations and loans received before 1 July 2017, unless the disclosure relates to aggregation or a reportable change to a loan, as provided for elsewhere in the draft order. Articles 2 and 3 further provide that the commission will not be acting contrary to the prohibition on disclosure if commission officials publish information relating to a donation or loan received after 1 January 2014 and before 1 July 2017, so long as the relevant donation or transaction report does not state that the donation or loan was received before 1 July 2017 and commission officials believe that it was received on or after 1 July 2017 and were reasonably entitled to hold that belief. I think that was the longest single sentence I have ever spoken in a Delegated Legislation Committee, Mr Hosie, but there may be more like it coming up.
Hon. Members may be aware that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act permits donations and loans from certain Irish citizens and bodies to Northern Ireland recipients. Additional information must be provided in donation reports to the Electoral Commission in respect of those donors in order to confirm their identity. Article 5 provides that such information, which includes passports and statements of naturalisation, will not be published by the commission; clearly it would be inappropriate to publish such sensitive personal information. However, I assure the Committee that all other information that relates to Irish donations and loans received from 1 July onwards will be published in the normal way.
Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 will require political parties and regulated donees or participants to provide dates on which donations or loans are received, particularly for those received before 1 July 2017. This will minimise the risk of pre-1 July 2017 donations and loans being published in error.
Articles 10 and 11 will ensure that the current verification steps undertaken by the commission to verify Northern Ireland donations and loans will continue to apply to Northern Ireland donations and loans received on or after 1 July 2017.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act provides for reports to the commission to be submitted and published at different times, depending on whether the recipient is a political party or a regulated donee or participant. Article 12 provides that the first publication of regulated donee information can take place only at the same time as, or after, political party information has been published.
I hope that the Committee has found that summary of the provisions helpful. As hon. Members know, the Electoral Commission will be responsible for implementing the arrangements set out in the draft order. The Government have fulfilled our statutory obligation to consult the commission about the draft order; I place on the record my thanks to the commission and its staff for their close co-operation and constructive input into the drafting process.
In summary, there remains widespread support among the people of Northern Ireland for full transparency. There has been a welcome recognition by the political parties of the importance of transparency to the broader political process.
While there is still much work to be done in re-establishing an Executive in Northern Ireland, I have no doubt that the order before us today is an important milestone that will strengthen confidence in and support for the democratic process in Northern Ireland more generally. For this reason, I hope that hon. Members will support the order.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
May I start by saying that we in the Labour party welcome the moves the Government are making today to introduce transparency in Northern Ireland? They are long overdue and we would like to be able to support them wholeheartedly, but we cannot because of one aspect of the statutory instrument—the timing of the commencement of this introduction of transparency.
I welcome the Minister’s explanation of exactly what the order does. There were a lot of long sentences and acronyms, but the matter is actually quite simple—the history, why there is some controversy around it, and why we in the Labour party and other parties feel we cannot support it as it is drafted. The simple truth is that Labour tried to introduce transparency across the whole UK in respect of political donations in PPERA 2000, but there was agreement between then and effectively 2014 that Northern Ireland would be exempted from those provisions because, as the Minister rightly said, of concerns about the security and safety of individuals, the exposure of whose names as donors within Northern Ireland might lead them to be at risk.
We supported the extension from 2006 of the rolling over, if you like, of restrictions, which allowed political parties in Northern Ireland to report the nature of their donations to the Electoral Commission, but for those not to be made public. We supported the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, which, again as the Minister said, changed that legislation and allowed the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland to publish from 1 January 2014 the details of individual donors if the Secretary of State—this is the key power that he was given in that Act—moved through an Order in Council, as the Government are doing today, the ability for the Electoral Commission to do so.
At this point, I want to pay tribute to the work of Naomi Long, the former Member for Belfast East, to ensure sure that that was placed on the statue book in 2014, and for being a resolute campaigner—both she, and her party more broadly—for transparency before and after that date.
The question—the controversy—today is essentially about the date of the commencement of this provision. The provision is retrospective: it looks backwards to the mid-point of this year, and applies to all donations that might have been made since July, but it could have been applied right back to 1 January 2014, as the original 2014 legislation envisaged.
The question is quite simple: why did the Government choose not to do anything between 2014 and 2017? Why, at the beginning of 2107, after seemingly having no interest in this matter for the previous three years, did they choose to write to the political parties in Northern Ireland, asking their opinion about whether the time was now right for the 2014 legislation to apply, potentially from the first date of retrospective action, 2014?
There is concern about that letter and the subsequent decision to make this only prospective, and apply it only going forward, because of one particular donation. That is a donation of £425,000—the biggest donation, as far as I know, in the history of Northern Ireland politics—to the Democratic Unionist party, £300,000 of which was spent during the referendum campaign on a wraparound advertisement on the front page of the Metro newspaper, which was never distributed in Northern Ireland, nor indeed had any impact, one would assume, in Northern Ireland as it is not read there. However, that was probably the biggest single item of political expenditure by a party in the history of Northern Ireland. In comparison, in the election prior to the referendum, the DUP spent around £90,000. So £300,000 on one single advert in Metro was a very large amount of money.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am listening with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned newspapers. In my edition of The Irish News—a publication with which I am sure he is familiar— of 14 July, he is quoted as saying,
“the decision not to back-date”—
that is, the decision of the Secretary of State—
“funding transparency to 2014 was the best decision, because it had the support of the majority of North’s parties.”
That is what the hon. Gentleman said to The Irish News in the middle of July this year. Either he is flip-flopping on the issue now, or he is playing fast and loose for party political reasons on a sensitive issue at a sensitive time. Which is it?
Owen Smith
It is very simple. When the facts change, I change my mind. I make no bones about it. When the political parties in Northern Ireland change their view about the rationale for concealing this and for leaving the date as only prospective not retrospective, I change my mind. I will explain why I changed my mind about this. The truth is that there was no political pressure from the parties in Northern Ireland for the Government to get on with introducing this legislation after 2014—I completely and freely concede that. Nor was there— as the Minister rightly points out—in the submissions made by the political parties in response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 4 January 2017, any indication that they would like it to be retrospective other than in the submission from the Alliance party. What has changed since that date is that there has been growing concern about the source of the £425,000 donation to the DUP, and about the lack of transparency around that source.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The figure is actually £435,000, not £425,000. Will my hon. Friend also note that the official Government consultation took place in January before this unprecedented donation came to light?
Owen Smith
That was the point I was making. I have seen both £425,000 and £435,000. I thought I would err on the side of caution and conservatism and plump for the lower number. I think that £435,000 might be the total donation, and £10,000 was spent in Northern Ireland specifically. However, the point that my right hon. Friend makes is precisely the point that I was making. Concern has emerged over the last year, and certainly over the last six months.
Owen Smith
I will give way in a moment; the hon. Gentleman has made his intervention.
Chloe Smith
The right hon. Member for Exeter is precisely on the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began this action in January. Can the hon. Member for Pontypridd explain why we have not received any further communication from the parties about changing their view, as he claims they have done? Did they not see that we were having a fully open process for the whole of 2017 in which they could have communicated that? They have not done that. I tell him that they have not. We have not received any such communication. There has been no change, and he is dancing on a pin.
Owen Smith
Let me read out to the Minister some of the responses that I have received from the political parties in Northern Ireland, and I will also read out the view of the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland. I will start with the commission, as it is the only statutory consultee that the Government are meant to consult as a result of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014. It is profoundly disappointed that the Government have chosen not to backdate the donations to 2014, it welcomes the transparency that is going to be introduced prospectively—
Owen Smith
Not unlike the hon. Gentleman because those were my opening words to the Committee today, so the Minister really ought to listen. But the Electoral Commission is profoundly disappointed that the provision will not be retrospective, which is also my view. Ann Watt, the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission, said:
“While all reportable donations and loans received from 1 July 2017 will now be published by the commission, we would also like to see the necessary legislation put in place, as soon as possible, to allow us to publish details of donations and loans received since January 2014.”
Her predecessor, Séamus Magee, who retired in 2014, said:
“The deal on party donations and loans must be part of the DUP/Conservative deal. No other explanation…Every party in Northern Ireland understood that the publication of political donations over £7,500 was to be retrospective to Jan 2014.”
I put it to the Minister that part of the reason that some of the political parties did not respond saying that they wanted it to be retrospective is that they naturally understood that that would be the case, given that that was what the legislation allowed for. When the Minister responds, I am sure she will tell us why she has arbitrarily picked the date of 1 July 2017. There is no reason that I can see, either in statute or in ministerial comments, for coming up with that date.
Let me read some of the views of the parties. Conor Murphy, a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Newry and Armagh, said on behalf of Sinn Féin:
“The British Government’s refusal to backdate new laws on political donations is aimed at covering-up so-called Brexit ‘dark money’ that was paid to the DUP”.
He also said:
“If the DUP and the British Government were serious about transparency in government then they would support the retrospective publication from January 2014 of all donations over the reportable threshold.”
Robin Swann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, has told me in writing today that his party would not oppose retrospective introduction of the legislation, and a similar view is now held by the Social Democratic and Labour party. In addition, the view of the Alliance party, which was clear back in January, was that it, too, wanted publication. The truth is that the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland and those of the Labour party have changed as a result of growing concern about the DUP donation.
Simon Hoare
For the hon. Gentleman’s interest and information, I am a Catholic Unionist who was on the remain side, so I am not necessarily particularly keen on what the money was spent on, but can I just take him back to his own words? He talks about January and about a donation in the referendum. That quote was in The Irish News in the middle of July this year. He was clearly behind the curve compared with all those people who were saying from January that it should all be backdated. Why is he flip-flopping?
Owen Smith
I will have to live with the terrible accusation that I was behind the curve—I freely confess that to the hon. Gentleman. However, we are now up with the curve. Our view is now very clear, which is why we will oppose the statutory instrument today.
The very simple question is this: why are people concerned about this DUP money? The reason is that the money came from something called the Constitutional Research Council—a little-known, recondite, Scottish-based Unionist think-tank of sorts—which is interesting because it had never before made a political donation of any sort. In the institution’s history, it has made one declarable donation. It does not have a website or accounts, and it seems pretty shady to me in lots of ways. It is one of those unincorporated associations that have been used to channel money to the Tory party in previous general elections.
There are significant doubts about the source of the money, and questions about what it was for and where it came from. Was it from overseas? Was it a legal donation? Of course, the DUP could clear all this up by telling us the exact source of the money.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am amazed at the allegations that have been made by the hon. Gentleman. First, the donation was declared. Secondly, the name of the organisation was given. Thirdly, the Electoral Commission accepted the bona fides of the group that was named. Finally, the uses to which the money was put were immediately transparent, because they were laid out to the Electoral Commission. All of that satisfied the rules of the Electoral Commission. For that reason, I find it difficult to see how he describes the money as shady. All the obligations required under the law were met.
Owen Smith
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I can very easily describe the money as shady. The Constitutional Research Council is not a body that has on its books access to the best part of half a million pounds’ worth of resources. It is not a body that has made political donations other than one other self-declared donation of £6,500 to an hon. Member who campaigned for Brexit. It is not a body about which we have transparency—the person who is responsible for running the CRC has not said where the money has come from, and it has refused to reveal who its donors are. That may be its right under the nature of its unincorporated association, but I think it is shady. Given the suspicion that the DUP was used as a vehicle to channel money that could not be deployed elsewhere during the Brexit campaign, these are the right sort of questions that anybody who is interested in transparency in this House ought to be asking.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, no matter what he proposes, the information that has already been made public voluntarily is no different to what the registered interest would be; that the transparency he seeks is already there; and that he could not ask for any more information than has already been revealed? Unless he is proposing a change—
Owen Smith
As my right hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, why not backdate it then? Why not accept the view that is now uniformly held by all other political parties in Northern Ireland save the DUP? The hon. Member for North Antrim is right that the DUP revealed—I think it was voluntary—that the Constitutional Research Council made the donation, which would be in line with the legislation. However, he does not want any more scrutiny on that money because there are serious questions about where the CRC got the money from. If it was not from Richard Cook, the man in charge of the organisation, who was it from? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?
Ian Paisley
Once again, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would change the law and get the Electoral Commission to do that with all donations to all parties? What has been put out voluntarily is more than the Electoral Commission likes to be revealed. The name of the donor and the amount of the donation are available, and the Electoral Commission has the address and other such details. The hon. Gentleman is making a specific difference between this donation and any other donation made to any other political party, including his own. He has accepted that nothing else would be revealed under the changes that he has suggested.
Owen Smith
In that case, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman or any DUP Member should object to this measure being backdated to 2014. If there is nothing to hide, everybody should simply get on with revealing it and he can agree on that point.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be impossible to backdate the details of one particular donation? All the donations to all the political parties would have to be backdated. He has already outlined why his party supported the non-revelation of where donations came from. People who donated money from 2014 in the anticipation that their name could not be revealed would find their names out in the public domain. It cannot be done for one particular donation—it would have to be done for every donation, which would remove the good faith that was there when people made donations before or since 2014.
Owen Smith
The hon. Gentleman is completely right that it would have to apply across the board for all political donations. Séamus Magee, formerly the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission, tweeted:
“Every party in Northern Ireland understood that the publication of political donations over £7,500 was to be retrospective to Jan 2014.”
I presume that anybody who made a donation in Northern Ireland after January 2014 did so in full knowledge of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, which made it clear that their donations would be revealed if the Secretary of State were to pass an order in this place, which he could have done in January 2014.
Ian Paisley
If that is the case, why did Labour members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee subsequently vote to block that? Why did they support not revealing that information?
Owen Smith
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but the Labour party’s view is that this measure should be retrospective and should be backdated to 2014. We agree with the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission that it is deeply disappointing that the Government are choosing not to do that. In truth, the issue is important beyond Northern Ireland, not least because the money was used to prosecute the Brexit campaign outwith Northern Ireland, and because it speaks to a broader issue of transparency and honesty in our politics.
Politics has come into malodorous disrepute in recent years, and all new generations of politicians bear the onus and have the responsibility to clean it up and bring us back into good repute. Unfortunately, this affair stinks. It stinks because the Government have chosen to come up with a date of July 2017 that deliberately excludes from publication the DUP donation—the largest donation and biggest item of political campaigning expenditure in the history of Northern Ireland politics. There must be a very simple reason for that if the Government are genuine about wanting further transparency and are honest about feeling that Northern Ireland needs to be brought into line with the rest of the UK. It will not have escaped the notice of people across the country that it is deeply ironic that the DUP, which only last week was protesting that Northern Ireland had to be absolutely in line with the rest of the UK, is unable to accept that Northern Ireland should be in line with the rest of the UK on this issue. The DUP wants special dispensation and special status for Northern Ireland on political donations.
That irony will not have escaped people. What must equally not escape people is that we need to move into a new era of openness and transparency. That is why Labour will be voting against the draft order and asking the Government to go away and think again or, if not, to justify why they have come up with the arbitrary date of July 2017, which precludes publication of important public information.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.
Of course one welcomes any attempt to increase democratic transparency, but I oppose the draft order. In all good conscience, I cannot support it. The principle is simple, that the cash given to parties in Northern Ireland should be laid out clearly so that any member of the public may examine it, and that should apply to the historical records as well.
I know that the position of the Secretary of State, the Minister and their Department is that it would not be fair to impose retrospective regulations, as we have heard. Those regulations, however, would not be retrospective, as the Minister said—they are in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
In 2007, when the Northern Ireland parties became subject to the same reporting regulations as parties in Scotland, Wales and England, donor confidentiality was applied with an end date of October 2010. During that period the legislation was clear that all donations would be made public when the donor anonymity period ended. There was a change of Government in Whitehall in 2010 and the donor confidentiality scheme, called the prescribed period in legislation, was extended until March 2011 to allow a consultation.
In that consultation the Northern Ireland Office made it clear that retrospective publication of donor names and of those providing loans was coming. Donors to parties in Northern Ireland should have been well aware, and the parties should have informed them, that their names and donations would become known in future. They should have been aware of it from 2010, if not before, and any failure on the part of any of the parties in Northern Ireland to inform their donors of that should not be remedied by secondary legislation in this place.
The 2010 consultation found, by the way, that the public in Northern Ireland thought that Northern Ireland had moved on enough to render donor intimidation a negligible concern. Just over three quarters of people and organisations who responded, or 77%, wanted the prescribed period to end and the retrospective publication of donors’ names to go ahead. Every single individual who responded who was not aligned with a political party favoured full transparency and retrospective publication.
The Government clearly disagreed, though, and sided with the 12% of respondents who had favoured continuing secrecy and no publication. That 12% included the DUP and the UUP. That information comes from the Government’s response to the consultation, which also pointed out that some supporters of continued secrecy favoured retrospective publication when the system changed. The Government frankly rode roughshod over the wishes of the people, and—it seems clear to me—extended the prescribed period until 2013.
Three of every four respondents to the consultation favoured openness. Four in every five favoured retrospective publication. Yet the Government went with the DUP’s suggestion of keeping it locked up tight. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I do wonder what needed to be kept secret in 2010 that still needs to be kept secret now.
The principle of retrospective publication was endorsed again in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, a shorter period perhaps, but that Act—which gained Royal Assent that March—had 1 January of that year as the date from which publication rules would have effect. In his statement in July, the Secretary of State said that changing that date
“is about compliance with the regulations and seeing that those making donations are able to make those determinations based on the law that is in existence”. —[Official Report, 3 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 907.]
But it is clear that the law that was in existence always envisaged retrospective publication, and the 2014 Act envisaged publication for the first day of that year. In his letter of 5 July 2017 to the hon. Member for Pontypridd, the Secretary of State said that he
“did not believe it right to impose retrospective regulations”.
I can assure him that he can publish back to 2007 and not impose retrospective regulations.
The Secretary of State can also take comfort from the knowledge that the Assembly’s website includes a register of interests for MLAs wherein they declare donations made to themselves and constituency organisations and other associated bodies, and that has not resulted in donor intimidation. Indeed, the leader of the DUP has an entry in it for the most recent election. I do not know whether that register has always been in the public domain but it was in 2010, and if that publication has proven to be unproblematic I see no reason why proper publication of donations to political parties has been so contentious. Nor do I see any problem at all with retrospective publication. It is simply not good enough for us to agree to yet another date for when publication would start, a date that I should point out means there will be some retrospective publication. There is already far too much that is hidden, and far too much that has a cloak of darkness pulled over it. The applicable date should be in November 2007 when reporting to the Electoral Commission started, but I will take 1 January 2014 as a good start. It is my belief that this order should not proceed to the House without a proper and substantive vote, so I will be voting against it.
Mr Bradshaw
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. As some Members may know, I have spent a lot of the past few months working on trying to expose dark money in British politics, and the role it may have played in the past and may be playing now. I am delighted that those on my own Front Bench and indeed those in the Scottish National party will vote against the order and I would like to explain why they have for my full support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has already given a comprehensive outline of some of the background to the main donation that is the subject of concern, I hope, to this Committee. What he omitted to mention is that as well as the £282,000 spent on adverts in the Metro newspapers on the mainland of the United Kingdom in the referendum, £32,000 was also spent with the Canadian data company AggregateIQ, which has been linked to Donald Trump’s billionaire backer Robert Mercer, and the data company Cambridge Analytica, which is being investigated by our Information Commissioner and which has been forced to hand over emails under subpoena from the special counsel investigation under Robert Mueller looking into Russian subversion in the United States. This is a very serious matter that I hope would concern all hon. Members present.
My hon. Friend also referred to the original source of this donation: the Constitutional Research Council and its one-man-band owner or runner, Mr Cook. The Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland fined Mr Cook and his organisation £6,000 in August this year for
“failing to comply with electoral law.”
It was one of the biggest fines ever imposed by the Electoral Commission but because of the current rules, which the Government is not backdating with today’s reform, the Electoral Commission is not allowed to say why that fine was imposed or which law was broken. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. The only conclusion that any reasonable person can draw is that the DUP was used, with its knowledge, by the CRC to funnel money to the leave campaign in a way that to this day keeps the source of that money secret. By refusing to make this provision retrospective, the Government are effectively complicit in covering that up. Whatever your views on Brexit, Mr Hosie, the people of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole deserve to have confidence in the transparency and integrity of our electoral and party funding system.
As we have already heard, the political parties in Northern Ireland—with the exception of the DUP—civil society in Northern Ireland, and the Electoral Commission all believe that transparency should be made retrospective to 2014, and that was their original understanding.
Ian Paisley
I am interested in right hon. Gentleman’s points. I wonder whether in his inquiry and examination today he will let us know whether he has done any investigation into the £13 million that Sinn Féin has deployed in elections in Northern Ireland.
Mr Bradshaw
My main concern in all of this is to try to uncover the dark money that played a role in the referendum campaign. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that he would like to send me in that respect, I would be grateful to receive it. If he wants that to be made public and transparent as well, let us backdate this to 2014. I do not understand why, if the DUP has nothing to hide, it is are being so defensive about this. If the Government have nothing to hide, why not have full transparency back to 2014?
Mr Bradshaw
The hon. Gentleman is not even a member of the Committee, so I will make progress if he does not mind. Naomi Long, the leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland and the politician who secured this change to the law, with the support at the time of all the Northern Ireland parties, has said:
“The successful amendment ensured that all donations dating back to the commencement date of the legislation (January 2014) can be published once the exemption is lifted.
All the parties have been advised by the Electoral Commission that this is the case and guidance was issued to ensure that all donors from that date would be advised that any anonymity would be merely temporary.”
Again, that was the understanding of the parties at the time, so why have the Government changed their mind? Why would the independent and highly respected Electoral Commission set its face so strongly against what the Government are trying to do today? The only conclusion I can reach is that the Commission knows something about that period between 2014 and 2017 that it believes to be strongly in the public interest to disclose but is prevented from doing so.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend refers to the amendment moved by Naomi Long. As I understand it, that amendment was subsequently supported by the Government and was adjoined by the then Secretary of State. The hon. Member for North Dorset accused my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd of having dared to change his mind and asked him why. I wonder if the Government can explain why they have changed theirs.
Mr Bradshaw
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government have changed their mind when she responds to the debate.
If the Government will not change their mind again, to their original position, and backdate transparency to 2014, I invite the Minister to publish the full details of this unprecedented £435,000 donation, regardless of the scope of the measure, so that the public interest and confidence in the referendum result can be protected. Will she also explain the reasons for the fine imposed by the Electoral Commission on the CRC, and exactly which law was broken? I would be amazed if she were not aware of that and did not know. It is her job as a Northern Ireland Minister to find out.
Chloe Smith
I am afraid I must stop the right hon. Gentleman on this line of argument now. I do not think he has been listening or has understood the gravity of the situation. There is a criminal offence prohibiting disclosure of details. I do not have those details; the Electoral Commission is not permitted to pass them to me. I cannot answer his question. He appears to be inciting me to do something very foolish that, even if it were not foolish, I cannot do. Perhaps he could improve the quality of his arguments.
Mr Bradshaw
The simple answer is to backdate this measure to 2014. The Minister would be able to do whatever she likes then and we would have full transparency, which she claims she wants.
Will the Minister also explain why she is ignoring the representations of the Electoral Commission, of civil society in Northern Ireland and of all the political parties except the DUP? Has she satisfied herself that the donation to the DUP for the Brexit campaign was from a permissible donor, and has she satisfied herself that it was legally sourced? I am not asking to her publish it without the order, but has she satisfied herself of that?
Mr Bradshaw
It is her job. If not, what is she doing about it? [Interruption.] The Minister should listen to me. Has she asked the relevant ministerial colleagues to satisfy themselves of that, and has she asked them to investigate the allegations of illegal collusion involving the DUP, Vote Leave, Leave.EU, BeLeave, Labour Leave and Veterans for Britain? [Interruption.]
Mr Bradshaw
It is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious issue about public political transparency, honesty and tackling corruption.
Chloe Smith
For the sake of the record, I repeat that I cannot do the things that the right hon. Gentleman is asking of me, and nor can other Ministers. We do not have access to that information by matter of law. It is a criminal offence to share the details he is asking for. It is not a matter for jollity in the Committee that he is asking frankly asinine questions about something that I cannot do.
Mr Bradshaw
The Minister is telling us that she is a helpless victim in this whole affair. There is nothing to prevent her from writing to the Electoral Commission, asking it to investigate the matters that I have just asked to have investigate. We have done it, and other people have done it too. What is stopping her? She is hiding behind secrecy to protect the true source of the donation, and it is totally unacceptable.
If she cannot answer these questions satisfactorily, the only conclusion that anyone can draw is that the Government’s sole priority is to protect their deal with the DUP, rather than honour the letter and the spirit of the legislation, and do what is right and in the public interest. I hope the Committee rejects this shabby little order.
Sammy Wilson
Thank you, Mr Hosie, for giving me the opportunity to speak, even though I know that some Committee members may object to the fact that I am not a member of the Committee. I do not know whether they are questioning my right to speak, but this issue relates to Northern Ireland. There have been queries as to whether an intervention should be accepted from both my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and myself, but thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I am surprised by the reaction of the Labour party to this measure, for a number of reasons. It has been accepted for a long time, and indeed was accepted by the last Labour Government, that there were very good reasons why political donations in Northern Ireland, and the source of those donations, were not made public. That was because of the security situation, and the fear people had that being identified with a particular political party would make them a target. Thankfully, that issue is not as strong today, but nevertheless there remain some reservations in people’s minds, because of the ongoing terrorist activity that takes place in Northern Ireland. However, the DUP, along with other parties, supported the original measures to introduce transparency in political donations.
All the political parties, apart from the Alliance party—even when the controversy about the money for Brexit was still going on—accepted the date which is in today’s legislation. That is the first point. I know that the shadow spokesman may have had quotes from other parties about this issue, but since the consultation took place and the terms of the legislation were known, no political party has made the case to the Government to have the date changed. There have been complaints, and strangely enough they have all been about one particular donation—not about the general principle of the start date when the information should be made public.
Owen Smith
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm—because the chronology is important—that the consultation to which he refers, and to which the parties gave their responses, was in January 2017, and the information divulged by his party, that it was the Constitutional Research Council that gave it the £425,000 or £435,000, came only in February after the consultation had closed?
Sammy Wilson
And since then there has been ample opportunity. Of course the information about the donation was known before January 2017.
Sammy Wilson
I will come to the source in a moment or two. I think there has been an intervention already highlighting the answer to that. Since then there have been no representations to the Government from political parties that the date should be changed, because of course the date that was set was agreed by all the parties except the Alliance party, on the understanding that people who made donations up until that date knew that the information would not be revealed.
Let us come to the particular issue. I take issue with the Labour party for a number of reasons. First, it seems there is a fixation on the money spent on the successful campaign to get the United Kingdom to leave the EU. Perhaps the reaction from the Labour party today is more a reflection of its animosity towards the decision made by the people of the UK to leave the EU than it is about the source of the donated money.
Margaret Beckett
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, of course, but given that, as I understand it, the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain, does he wish that some of the money had been spent there?
Sammy Wilson
We did spend money in Northern Ireland on the campaign and of course it was a UK-wide campaign, not a Northern Ireland one, as the right hon. Lady knows well. We took part in the UK-wide referendum and many of our members spoke on the issue at meetings across the United Kingdom, not just in Northern Ireland. We took our place in the UK-wide campaign.
Sammy Wilson
Let me just finish my point. I suspect that some of this is directed more at the views of those in the Labour party who wish the referendum result had not been as it was, who are doing their best to overturn that result, and who have taken umbrage at those parties that successfully campaigned to leave the EU.
Sammy Wilson
Only if I am not going to be led down a route that will get me in trouble with the Chairman.
Owen Smith
Thank you, Mr Hosie. The hon. Gentleman is very generous with his time—as I was, of course, in accepting interventions during my speech. I just want to place it on the record that our approach has nothing to do with the Labour party’s views about Brexit; it is entirely to do with our views about transparency or otherwise. In that context, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us who it was who asked the DUP to spend that money not in Northern Ireland but in GB.
Sammy Wilson
Let me come to the point on transparency. There are certain rules that are laid down by the Electoral Commission, and they were met entirely by the party. The first rule is about where the donation came from. That was declared. The second rule is about how much. That was fully declared. The third is about what it was spent on. As has been outlined in the debate, what it was spent on was completely transparent; so all the requirements for transparency were met. They satisfied the Electoral Commission and have been registered with it. Indeed, the reason we are having the debate is that the money, its source and the use to which it was put were revealed.
Sammy Wilson
With your instructions, Mr Hosie, I will move on to where we are with this debate. Despite the fact that everything was known—we have already had it outlined in the Committee today—the Opposition spokesman still supported, right up until the summer of this year, the publication date, despite the controversy that there was and despite the allegations that have been made by Sinn Féin regarding the money.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is coming to the crux of the argument as I see it, which is that there was full transparency. Given that there was and given that in January all political parties apart from the Alliance party and the Labour party agreed that it would be wrong to backdate by three years, to now transform that policy to say that things should be backdated by three years is to again put at risk some people in Northern Ireland who may have given donations in the years between 2014 and now. It is political point scoring and it is not taking account of the political—[Interruption.] It is not about protecting people in Northern Ireland who may be in danger if this delegated legislation does not go through. The Opposition will be culpable in anything that happens to those donors past this point.
Sammy Wilson
I made the point in an intervention that there was an expectation that some people who had made donations post-2014 would not be put into the public domain. There is a real issue around it.
Margaret Beckett
On the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, as I understand it the Electoral Commission wrote to every political party, when the Act that was the background to this was getting Royal Assent, informing them of the future intention to publish donations from January 2014, so how can this come as a shock and put people at risk? That is a totally spurious point.
Sammy Wilson
It was not a black and white issue because the Electoral Commission did not say that it would publish. It said that had it been given authority by the Secretary of State, it would have published. It was not as black and white as the right hon. Lady suggests.
I have one last point. We are talking about transparency here. There is one glaring omission in the legislation, which originated with the very party that is now complaining about lack of transparency, lack of accountability and the need to clean up political donations, and that is the fact that parties in Northern Ireland—there is only one party affected by this—can receive foreign donations without having to reveal them. Sinn Féin received millions of pounds. Not hundreds of pounds, not thousands of pounds, not hundreds of thousands of pounds, but millions of pounds through foreign donations brought through the Irish Republic—[Interruption.] It was given to them by the Labour Government when special pleading was made by Sinn Féin that they had brought in so much money from foreign sources. I do not know whether it was Libya, America or some other state, but it was brought in by the Irish Republic and made exempt.
If the Labour Members really were concerned about transparency, accountability and cleaning up political donations in Northern Ireland, at least some reference, even a line of reference, might have been made by the shadow spokesman. I suspect that the real reason is that they are still happy for Sinn Féin, which has a special association with the Labour party leader, to have that lack of transparency: that cloak behind which they can bring millions of pounds into Northern Ireland and avoid having accountability.
Mr Bradshaw
Does the hon. Gentleman have any concern at all that the CRC, who made the donation to his party, has been fined, and the fine was made public in August?
Sammy Wilson
Again, I do not know about the fine or the source or the reason for the fine. If they were fined, that shows that there was transparency about this. That is the point I have been trying to make very clearly. It was known how the money was spent. If the rules were broken, then sanctions were imposed on it. I would have thought that that undermines the right hon. Gentleman’s argument about some dark cloak here, dark money and lack of accountability and transparency. Otherwise the Electoral Commission would not have been in a position to impose a fine, because it would not have known, because it was under a cloak of darkness. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to make his mind up. The fine actually makes the point for me.
To close, I believe that the terms of the order reflect—I will give way in a moment, because I would like to hear whether the Labour party still supports the exemption for political donations from foreign sources exclusively. Do Labour Members regard it as only affecting Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, or would they like to see further legislation to stop that inflow of funds, which is totally hidden and used by Sinn Féin and is one of the reasons why they can spend so much on elections, because they do have sources of funding which other parties in the United Kingdom cannot obtain?
Owen Smith
We believe that there should be transparency and we believe that there should not be foreign moneys coming into our politics. That is very clear. In that context, I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can confirm whether he knows definitively whether this money from the CRC came from foreign sources or definitively came from within the UK, and if he does not know that, does he not think the DUP should have found that out?
Sammy Wilson
If it came from foreign sources, the Electoral Commission would have taken the requisite legal steps to fine the party and to fine other sources; otherwise, the Electoral Commission would have an interest in that.
In closing, this debate has been agreed by the parties. It was not contested by the Labour Party, right up until the very latest time. It is a debate which I believe safeguards those who give donations in good faith. It is a debate which, if moved, would not move this issue about the donation around the Brexit campaign one inch further, because no further information would be given. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support the order.
Simon Hoare
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. It was all going so well: my hon. Friend the Minister set out very clearly, with characteristic calm, the position around which all the parties in Northern Ireland had levitated and thought, based on common sense, was the right approach. Everyone in this place, whether we are speaking on the Floor of the House or in Committee, always need to remember—and it is a sadness that we have to remember—that when we are dealing with matters in Northern Ireland and about Northern Irish politics, the additional calls for sensitivity and diplomacy in our language are ever heightened.
It would be marvellous—I am sure the whole Committee would rejoice, as I would—if we could arrive at a time where we could deal with issues of politics in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as we deal with them in Dorset or in your part of Scotland, Mr Hosie, or in Norwich or any other constituency. As it is, we are not in that position yet.
It has always been understood by shadow Ministers, of whichever stripe, that they have a special responsibility to try, while making a political point, to straddle the divide and make sure that those sensitivities are respected. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Pontypridd, who usually fulfils that role with such gusto and class, has singularly failed to do so today. I asked him a direct question on two occasions, which he neglected to answer. It was either a flip-flop or politicisation, because the hon. Gentleman’s delineation of the chronology does not bear any scrutiny.
I took note of what the hon. Gentleman said. First, he referred to January, and then he moved to February, where the nature of the donation made to the Democratic Unionists became apparent. That is all frightfully interesting, save for the fact that, when he got to the middle of July, when all this brouhaha was supposedly at its height, the hon. Gentleman was still referring to the Secretary of State’s decision as the best decision. If only the hon. Gentleman had left it at that point, I think he would have commanded the support of the Committee.
As I said in my second interjection on the hon. Gentleman, I rise in this debate as a Catholic Unionist who was on the remain side. It would seem to me that this money, wherever it came from, was not particularly wisely spent. I do not want to go down that particular road, but if I heard correctly it was spent on a wraparound on a free newspaper handed out to commuters in metropolitan areas that predominantly voted to remain part of the European Union, so the mastering of the dark arts of persuasion to vote leave appears to have backfired.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about transparency. However, is it his understanding, as it is mine, that if the Labour party, along with the Scottish National party, votes against this instrument, it will vote against transparency and publication in some cases?
Jess Phillips
Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think it is in bad faith that the Labour party wishes to see transparency at a time when, in our politics, global powers trying to tinker with our democracy are rife across the world? Does he honestly think the Labour party sits here to try to do something other than see the facts and find the truth?
Simon Hoare
Self-praise is no recommendation, but I was going to say that she has impeccable credentials. Unfortunately—and I suggest that in a moment of private honesty the hon. Lady might concur with this—this country is faced with two Labour parties. As she will be aware, we face a democratically accountable, legally abiding Labour party, and a rather mysteriously funded, trade union, Momentum-inspired—
The Chair
Order. We are going rather wide. I am allowing Members to use examples to make their case, but I think we are going a little too wide, Mr Hoare.
Simon Hoare
I take your guidance, Mr Hosie, and I hope that the right hon. Lady, the former deputy leader of the Labour party—[Hon. Members: “Former leader.”] She must forgive me. I give way to the former leader of the Labour party.
Margaret Beckett
I was wondering, in the context of why there may be differences within political parties, whether the hon. Gentleman can explain why the present Secretary of State takes a different point of view on this matter from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers).
Simon Hoare
That, I suggest to the right hon. Lady, is for the Secretary of State to answer for himself, but I think my hon. Friend the Minister has set out very clearly a point on which we can all coalesce, which is that this was “the best decision”. Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Lady’s friend the shadow Secretary of State. He referred to it not as an okay decision or a reasonably good decision, or as one that in the round and on balance had something to merit consideration, but as “the best decision”. That assessment was made by the shadow Secretary of State and by the Secretary of State. I presume that they came to their views under separate imperatives, but they arrived at the same destination, as reported in The Irish News in the middle of July.
Alex Burghart
Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone at that time thought it was the best decision? They understood—notwithstanding the comments by the right hon. Member for Derby South, for whom I have genuine respect, and my respect for what her Government did to bring about peace in Northern Ireland when she served in the Cabinet—that there were individuals who might give money, unaware that the figures involved and their names might be disclosed at a later date and that that might put them in danger. Notwithstanding the fact that political parties had been informed, the individuals themselves might not know and might subsequently find themselves in danger, and that is what we are at risk of doing now.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The first duty of the Government, and I think the first duty of all of us within that sensitive arena of Northern Ireland, is that we cannot just default—as handy as it might be for us to do so—to the established views of political parties. We need to have a duty of care to those individuals who thought they were operating under a certain set of circumstances at a particular time, and I think it would be entirely unjust and deleterious to having confidence in our democratic processes to arbitrarily change the position from that which they believed they were working under. My hon. Friend makes that point entirely.
Margaret Beckett
I do not want to detain the Committee and I promise that this will be my last observation. Is not the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he has a rather low opinion of the parties in Northern Ireland if he thinks that they would happily take money from somebody, which would be publishable, and not point out to them that that might come into the public domain? It suggests a lack of care on their part, if that were the case, which I find it hard to believe.
Simon Hoare
If the right hon. Lady is 100% confident that that would take place in every circumstance, of course she has a point. However, I have to say to her that I think that we all have to admit—sometimes we find it quite hard to do so—that we are frail human beings, and I just do not believe that in every circumstance somebody would be provided with that guidance or with that little bit of, “Well, this may change in due course”.
I go back to the point that it would be absolutely splendid, would it not, if political discourse in Northern Ireland could be held as robustly as it is on the mainland—I think we can all agree on that—but we are not at that position yet? And the jiggery-pokery being promoted by Opposition parties moves us a little further from achieving that position.
I will conclude by addressing the right hon. Member for Exeter. He is a distinguished Member of this House, but he did no help at all to advancing his position or this debate by the “nudge nudge, wink wink, reds under the bed” approach to doing politics that he has deployed this afternoon. I say to the Committee, in all seriousness, that we should listen with enormous care to what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. We are all alert.
Mr Bradshaw
I did not mention reds under the bed; I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that idea from. Surely the best antidote to the concerns he has just expressed about people using “nudge nudge, wink wink” or innuendo to make allegations is transparency.
Simon Hoare
None of us will speak against the merits of transparency, but the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made is based on the falsest of foundations, because he is, in effect, deploying the “nudge nudge, wink wink, reds under the bed” approach to politics by suggesting, “I think there may be something here that is being hidden, because we are not in a hugely or wholly transparent system, and therefore let us make some assumptions”. We may be able to make some basic assumptions when it comes to parish-pump politics, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of respect given his seniority and standing in this place, that that approach to the politics in Northern Ireland will not be conducive to a sensible solution in which we can all have a certain degree of faith.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about transparency and the sensitivities of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, by looking to the future and taking key lessons from the past, the democracy of the whole of the UK would be best served by backdating the donations to January 2014 and by providing parity for everyone?
Simon Hoare
No, for exactly the same reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar set out, with which I concur.
I will not detain the Committee any further. We should listen to what the Minister has said. She and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are as closely engaged as possible with these issues and this process. I have no particular beef or card to carry about what the money was spent on, whatever that may have been. My hon. Friend the Minister has set out a clear course of action that is helpful and that had the support of the shadow Secretary of State and of all the major parties in Northern Ireland. That is good enough for me.
Chloe Smith
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset for his comments and support. I will deal with a few of the remarks made in the debate and then, in wrapping up, I will emphasise why the Committee should vote for this order.
In chronological order, I will begin with the arguments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd. Frankly, I find it amazing that he is opposing transparency. He will no doubt say that his first words were to support transparency, but his second words were to say that he would vote against it. That is a shabby state of affairs. Our words should echo our deeds. The Government are committed to transparency, which is why we have introduced this order; the parties are committed to transparency; the public are committed to transparency; and the Electoral Commission is committed to transparency. He cannot bring himself to vote for it. He is not committed to transparency.
Chloe Smith
Yes, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say that he is committed to transparency.
Owen Smith
I am, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. I hope the Minister will explain to the Committee why she is not in favour of transparency in line with the original legislation that her Government passed in 2014. That offered more transparency than is currently on offer—Labour wants more transparency, not less. All she needs to do is tell the Committee that she will take this measure away, rethink it in the light of changed views in Northern Ireland and in this House, and adopt what was originally intended by her Government, backdated to 2014.
Chloe Smith
That was a lovely long intervention, so that is the hon. Gentleman’s lot—I will not take another one from him. I will explain exactly those points.
I remind the House that the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 election in Northern Ireland pledged to increase transparency. We are delivering on that. The Labour party is choosing not to. That is amazing.
We wrote to the parties in January. This year, Northern Ireland parties have engaged in two elections and in sustained political talks, so to offer the position in January, to seek views and then to take action from July is a reasonable approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already explained that he thinks that it is not right or fair to impose retrospective regulations or conditions on people who donated in good faith with the rules as they were set at the time.
Ian Paisley
Will the Minister confirm that this vote is take it or leave it—that if the Government lose, there will be no publication?
Chloe Smith
Indeed, that is the case. If Members were to vote against tonight’s order, they would vote against transparency. It is as simple as that. That is what we are dealing with here. Let us not forget what we have been through to get here.
Jess Phillips
I would like to remind the Minister, when she uses words such as that we are “voting against transparency”, of how words matter. Actually, I ask the Minister to think about how people get treated because of the poor words used by people in this building, or used to represent people in this building, in newspapers. I ask to her to consider what seems like a total pantomime: saying that asking for more transparency is to vote against transparency. The Minister is probably a bit better than that.
Chloe Smith
I have great respect for the hon. Lady and I have great and serious respect for her tone of voice. However, she has deployed it unnecessarily twice in this Committee. She is trying to say something that her vote will not say. She needs to hear her own advice. She needs to take her own point: that words and actions matter. In fact, I think that actions probably matter the most, which is why Conservative Members will vote for the order.
Chloe Smith
I am afraid that I will not take an intervention from the Opposition Whip. I need to move on and respond to some of the arguments that have been made.
As I mentioned briefly, there has been a history of intimidation in this particular context. Confidentiality has been important up to this point. I find it astounding that the Opposition are playing fast and loose—words that have already been used in this Committee—perhaps with that delicate history, I do not know, but certainly fast and loose with the sensitivity of this time, when we need to get politicians back around the table. This is not about playing politics; this should be about getting on with something that has been important to Parliament. I am afraid to say that the party of the hon. Member for Pontypridd is inconsistent, rather incoherent and perhaps even incredible.
Mr Clarke
We are dancing on the head of a pin. I feel that the argument has been driven by motives other than those on the face of the order. The speech by the right hon. Member for Exeter goes to the point on that. It is about trying in some way to stop or to undermine Brexit rather than being about the real sensitivities and the political history of the most troubled part of our country. Does the Minister agree that the tone that has been struck is almost wholly unhelpful?
Chloe Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend and I think that it is rather a shame that we have had to have this discussion. Let us take the point of Brexit: in the time that we have been working hard to deliver transparency, since January 2014, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and his party have taken seven different positions on Brexit alone. We need to do a little better than that.
Chloe Smith
No, I will take no more interventions as I need to make progress.
Chloe Smith
I am just about to come to the hon. Lady’s comments—I thought she might like it if I did that. She said that the 2014 Act obliged us to publish from then, but I am afraid that it does not. It is an option and not a requirement under that 2014 legislation. She is also of the view that we should not leave anything in the dark, that we should not delay and that we should not set yet another date. Again, why is she is voting against today’s transparency? It is a very unwise thing to do. It would leave donations now in the dark. It would leave us without a date and with no transparency.
Deidre Brock
Will the Minister explain why MLAs currently declare their donations on their register of interests on the Northern Ireland Assembly website? She is attempting to block publication of donations, which all parties accept is likely to happen, as she has generally recognised since at least 1 January 2014.
Chloe Smith
I will put this quite bluntly: the Government propose transparency; those who vote against the order are reducing the amount of transparency that will stand on the statute. That is the fact.
Chloe Smith
No, I will not.
Let me deal with the point from the right hon. Member for Exeter. As I said when I intervened on him, I cannot confirm any of his questions; I explained why, and he should know why. He still seems to want me, for example, to have written to the Electoral Commission, and to have asked it to commit an offence by replying to such a letter. He says he has done so; I really hope he has not, because to do so before passing a draft order such as this is to incite the commission to commit a criminal offence. That would be very unwise indeed.
Mr Bradshaw
On a point of order, Mr Hosie. The Minister is specifically referring to something I said in my speech. Would it not be courteous of her, in your view, to give way on that specific point?
Chloe Smith
If the right hon. Gentleman can do better than he did the first time, I will be happy to hear it.
Mr Bradshaw
Why is the Minister ignoring the advice of the Electoral Commission on this matter?
Chloe Smith
The right hon. Gentleman allows me to move on to my next, rather important point.
Chloe Smith
The answer is that we are a responsible Government who are introducing the draft order on transparency, and while we have no intention of providing for the publication of pre-2017 donations, we intend to work with the Electoral Commission to review the operation of the broader framework for donations and loans in Northern Ireland when these transparency arrangements have bedded in. That is rather important, because it reminds us that what we have today is the beginning of obtaining an important amount of data; from today, we will be able to better see the full situation.
On that, I turn briefly to the comments from the hon. Member for East Antrim, although he is not a voting member of the Committee. I welcome his affirmation that parties wants to move to full transparency. He also reminded us that only one party proposed backdating, and I reiterate that we have not received any communications from parties indicating that their positions have changed since January.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand his argument regarding Irish donations. The draft order will provide transparency and will be the beginning of our having some valuable data. When that transparency has bedded in and there is a fuller understanding of how Northern Irish parties are funded, my officials and I intend to work with the Electoral Commission to look at other aspects of the operation of the donation and loan systems in Northern Ireland, to review whether there might be a case for further reforms.
The Government welcome the Electoral Commission’s support for the draft order. We think we should get on with it; to delay will lead to even greater secrecy. Those Members who vote against the draft order are voting to delay transparency and to avoid the normalisation of Northern Ireland’s politics, and they are voting against the ability of anybody to hold politicians to account. Funnily enough, we are talking today about the standards of politicians and the clarity of our conduct. Our votes should mirror our views. If we believe in having transparency henceforth, let us vote for it.
Question put.
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 4 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
Sector Deal for Steel
(6 years, 4 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 Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the steel sector deal.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, and I thank the House for granting the debate.
Hon. Members will recall that there was a period of time when we had debates about the future of the British steel industry almost weekly. Since then, the media circus has moved on, and with it the Government’s apparent concern, focus and attention. Let us be clear: Government engagement with steel evaporated once the crisis had dropped off the front page of the newspapers. Back then, the Prime Minister was a guy called David Cameron. As we know, he was first and foremost a PR man, so when the steel crisis hit his PR instincts went into overdrive. He needed to manage the story and get it off the front page as quickly as possible. Did he ever have any intention of tackling the underlying causes of the crisis—his Government’s abject failure to push through the policy reforms so desperately needed to create a level playing field for the steel industry? No, he did not. As the debate will show, David Cameron’s successor has simply picked up where he left off.
Just over two years ago, the closure of the Redcar steelworks had a truly devastating impact on the town and community; 3,000 people were put out of work, and of those who have since found work almost two thirds have had to take a pay cut. Many other businesses in the area have struggled, because every UK steel job supports at least three more elsewhere in the economy. Three months after the closure of Redcar, Tata Steel announced more than 1,000 job losses across Wales, three quarters of them at the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency. About a month later came the devastating news that Tata Steel planned to close or sell its entire UK business. While the then Business Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was enjoying a nice little Easter recess jolly to Australia, I was out in Mumbai with Community Union to present the turnaround plan to the board of the Tata group.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. Does he remember—he has missed it out of his chronology so far—the national steel summit held in Rotherham? It was not just the steel towns and their MPs that felt let down, but the leaders of Britain’s major steel companies and steel trade unions who were round the table that day as well. The promises of serious attention and action to follow, which were made two years ago at the national steel summit, have not been followed through.
Stephen Kinnock
My right hon. Friend is right. That was an important milestone, but there have been so many false dawns, and warm words matched by frozen actions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the great work that he has done over a significant period to stand up for the steel industry. On the subject of broken promises, does he agree that investment in research and development is another big issue? Across the UK generally it remains stubbornly below the OECD average. The whole sector is now asking for increased R and D investment in steel, and the Government should deliver that.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think that in the minds of some Ministers, and others in the House, steel is seen as metal bashing and an almost primitive industry, but in fact it is at the cutting edge of many innovations that we desperately need to drive our economy forward. If we are serious about getting a broad-based manufacturing renaissance, it must start with investment in the steel industry.
It was clear that Tata’s initial preference was to close the business down rather than sell it, but thankfully we managed to persuade the company to shift its position from closure to sale. Thanks to the magnificent professionalism and dedication of the workforce and steel unions, the turnaround plan began to kick in. The performance of the business dramatically improved, and from a fire sale we got the slow burn that eventually morphed into Tata’s decision to remain. However, that happened only after the workforce, facing the prospect of either the closure of the Port Talbot works or the closure of their pension scheme, voted for pension restructuring. They put the future of their industry, livelihoods and communities before all else. Steelworkers and steel communities are like no others. If my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) were well enough to be here today, she would have told us of the incredible strength and resilience of her community, which has stood firm, united and resilient, just as she has fought tooth and nail for it since the closure of the works.
There have been many ups and downs in the British steel industry in the past few years, but three things remain constant. The first is the relentless passion and commitment of steelworkers and their communities, exemplified by the delivery of the turnaround plan and the vote on the restructuring of their pension scheme. The second is the Government’s indifferent and incompetent attitude, and the third is the key policy asks of the industry—business and workforce—which have remained fundamentally unchanged for well over two years. We have discussed those policy asks many times, but it would be remiss not to take the Minister through them, as this is her first time attending such a debate.
To take trade defence first, we asked the Government to stop blocking reform of the lesser duty rule, which means tariffs that we can impose on illegally dumped steel are capped at 16%, while the Americans can impose far higher duties. The Trade Bill is set to transfer the lesser duty rule to UK legislation after Brexit. We asked for meaningful action against illegal Chinese dumping, with proper trade defence instruments. However, as steelworkers were being shown the back door, No. 10 was rolling out the red carpet for Beijing. What was the result? We can now add the challenge of illegally dumped Russian and Turkish steel to that of Chinese steel.
Secondly, on business rates, there have been five Budgets in the past two years, and not one has acknowledged the industry’s concerns about the way business rates inhibit investment and hold us back from investing in plant and machinery; so of course no remedy has been proposed.
Thirdly, on the question of procurement, which I have been working on extensively with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Government have utterly failed to translate their rhetoric into reality. The public interest test that they introduced proved inadequate. Our calls for a longer lead-in time for central Government contracts have fallen on deaf ears. The Government have resisted transparency, dumping the idea of mandatory reporting and refusing even to gather and hold the relevant data, let alone provide it to us whenever we have asked. Foreign steel has continued to be used on iconic projects such as the repair of Big Ben, the new Firth of Forth bridge, the new Type 26 frigates and all sorts of smaller refurbishment and development projects around the country.
On the most vital of issues, energy prices, there has been some tinkering at the edges but no attempt at all to tackle the root causes of our ludicrously uncompetitive energy costs. The Government found a chaotic resolution to the EU emissions trading threat—something that would have cost the steel companies tens of millions of pounds, owing to the mishandling of Brexit—but they have singularly failed to clear changes to the feed-in tariff and renewables obligation opt-out. On the central issue of energy pricing, which means that UK producers’ energy costs are more than 50% higher than those of our European competitors, nothing has been done, and it appears nothing will be done.
That brings me to the very matter that we are here to discuss: the sector deal for steel, which hinges on the issue of energy pricing. After publishing the industrial strategy White Paper, the Government asked all industries to present their sector deals—comprehensive packages about how their industry would work within a national industrial strategy. The steel industry did just that, by presenting a sector deal to Ministers that met all the requisite criteria back on 7 September.
That deal would see a 50% increase in investment, from £200 million to £300 million per year—an additional £1.5 billion of investment over the next five years. It would increase production capacity by 40%, from 10 million tonnes to 14 million tonnes a year. It would create 2,000 jobs, and would see 200 more apprentices trained every year. It would develop a low-carbon roadmap, and help to deliver a more efficient electrical system, almost doubling the industry’s demand-side response. It would see the industry pump an extra £30 million investment a year into R and D, which is an area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) pointed out, in which the UK is traditionally weaker than our rivals.
In return for all that value, all the steel industry asks is that the Government match the R and D funding, helping to establish the future steel challenge fund, which would bring together the steel value chain, from automotive to aerospace and from renewables to construction, to work in partnership towards a cohesive industrial strategy and a new kind of growth, unlocking exciting innovation and new opportunities. The deal asks for Government help in facilitating investment by providing access to commercially competitive loans, providing capital investment grants or innovative tax discounts linked to investment. Essentially, that would help the industry to unlock the monopoly on investment held by property speculators and quash the myth that investing in industry is risky.
Crucially, the linchpin on which all this untapped potential rests is energy prices. Our steel producers have to pay 55% more than their German competitors and 51% more than the French, which adds up to an additional cost of almost £50 million a year. As the sector deal makes clear, if the steel industry gets the help it needs, it will put every penny and more of that £50 million back into the industry, creating jobs, increasing capacity, innovating and creating new opportunities and value.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is wide support for the sector deal right across the steel sector? It makes sensible and innovative proposals. Why do the Government not simply adopt it?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with my hon. Friend. The sector deal has been submitted under the umbrella of UK Steel and EEF, but with the full participation and support of Tata Steel, British Steel, Liberty Steel, Celsa Steel and a number of other key players in the sector. The steel industry really speaks with one voice on this.
Without a cost-competitive energy environment, steel companies cannot invest in the future, and the industry can survive only when it has the potential to thrive. Steel is too important a product for our economy, our security, our communities and our standing as a nation for us to have to rely on others for it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The fact that the UK produced some 8 million tonnes of steel in 2016, while China produced 808 million tonnes shows a vast difference. Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think he is basically saying this—that it may now be time for the Government to enter into negotiations with the companies and also the unions to ensure that we have a manufacturing base for steel in future? We will not have one unless the Government act. It is time that they did.
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I will come on to explain, the sector proposal is the litmus test for the Government. We have had years and years of warm words, but this really is the moment to see whether the Government are serious about providing the support they say they want to provide.
Steel enables transport, construction, manufacturing, energy and consumer goods—you name it, Sir Henry, and if steel is not in it, it was almost certainly used to make, process or transport it. Steel is truly a foundation industry, and demand is growing. The report published last week, “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry”, showed that, by 2030, domestic demand for finished steel products will have grown by almost 2 million tonnes. That leaves almost 7 million tonnes of domestic demand to be met by the UK steel industry, which equates to a £3.8 billion opportunity per year.
That value is even greater if we consider all that steel goes into. Almost half the content of all cars built in the UK is British steel. In researching the “Steel 2020” report by the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal related industries last year—I have a copy with me; I am sure the Minister has already read it, but I would be happy to hand it over—we heard from leading figures in the car industry that the presence of a successful domestic steel industry is a key determinant of where steel is sourced.
Steel is vital to the future of UK car manufacturing and innovation. Take the much-vaunted electric and self-driving cars, which were championed by the Chancellor in last month’s Budget. Along with the normal steel content of any car, what do hon. Members think their batteries are cased in? Steel. If we are to invest billions in that new technology, why on earth would we not invest in the capacity to monetise those innovations? If we do not have the capacity to manufacture, or the capacity to produce the steel for the batteries and the machines that manufacture them, we will lose out. The steel will be Chinese. The manufacturing and machinery will be German, and we will have spent billions on an idea that sees profit not in Port Talbot, Sheffield or Redcar, but in IJmuiden, Tangshan or Duisburg.
Despite investment in R and D falling by 90% over the past 25 years, the UK steel industry is still at the cutting edge. More than two thirds of steel produced in the UK today did not even exist a decade ago, so we should not let anybody tell us that steel is a sunset industry. It is an industry that is building a Britain for the future, which is why a go-ahead for the sector deal is vital. It is also important because steel is the ultimate economic and social multiplier. For every £1 of public investment in steel R and D, the return averages between £6 and £16. That means the £60 million transformation fund in the sector deal could add up to £960 million for the UK economy. I do not know about you, Sir Henry, but investing £60 million for almost a £1 billion return feels like a pretty good investment to me.
On average, steel jobs pay 40% higher than the average in the steel heartlands of Wales and Yorkshire and the Humber. Every steel job supports at least three further jobs in the local community and the national economy. Losing the steel industry would devastate towns such as Port Talbot, but the knock-on effects would be equally catastrophic. If the Port Talbot steelworks were to close, it would cost 40,000 jobs across Wales and the UK, costing the Government a total of £4.6 billion in benefits and lost tax revenue and reducing household spending in the economy by £3 billion over 10 years.
If we were to reshape the energy market, as the steel sector deal calls for, the most it would cost would be the equivalent of 57p per household per year. That is 57p a year against almost £8 billion in lost spending, tax and benefit payments if things were to go wrong. Once again, Sir Henry, that looks like a pretty good return on investment to me. There is a golden opportunity, with huge potential for growth. We should all applaud the Government for crossing the Rubicon and accepting the need for an industrial strategy, but the fact of the matter is that, if the Government fail to support the sector deal, that strategy will not be worth the paper it is written on.
Speed is of the essence. Steel companies only have so much capital to invest. That capital is spread across their global businesses, and if they cannot invest it here and now, it will go elsewhere. That is the nature of the beast. We have already seen Liberty spend almost £1 billion in Australia, and there are reports that British Steel—formerly Tata Long Products—is looking at an Italian plant. The clock is ticking and time is running out.
With the uncertainties of Brexit, the Government should be biting the hand off of anyone willing to invest at this time. Instead, steel companies have been fobbed off with all sorts of excuses. They submitted the sector deal on 7 September, but were only granted a meeting with the Minister at the very end of November—hardly the behaviour of a Government serious about supporting this foundational domestic industry. The fact is that the Government’s failure to engage on the steel asks set the tone. The sad reality is that trust between the Government and the steel industry has been shot to pieces. Warm words are no good to anyone if they are matched only by frozen actions.
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)
I must correct the hon. Gentleman on a factual point: one of my very first acts as Minister was to visit the steelworks in his constituency and close by. I met the council formally to discuss the shape of the sector deal and subsequently three times after the presentation of the sector deal, and I have met and spoken to the companies on numerous occasions. He really must correct the record, because it is simply not true to say I only engaged with the sector after the sector deal was submitted.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for her intervention. Conversations, visits and meetings are excellent, but the fact remains that the sector deal was submitted on 7 September, and a meeting was not granted with the steel industry until the very end of November. As the clock is ticking, the decisions about investment next year are drying up. It would be great to see rhetoric matched with reality.
An industrial strategy is not built on good will. A business cannot be built on Whitehall bluster, and communities cannot be sustained on platitudes. We all understand that an industrial strategy cannot do everything for everyone, but if the Government are serious about rebalancing our dangerously skewed economy, they must surely start by investing in the steel industry. With the steel sector deal, all that is being asked for is a small amount of help to unlock tremendous potential, create thousands of jobs and add hundreds of millions of value to the economy. Instead, the Government seem to be more interested in investing in robotics, medicine, life sciences and driverless vehicles. I am sure that those emerging industries are vital, but they are all concentrated in the south-east of England. Is that really going to support the broad-based manufacturing renaissance that our country so desperately needs?
Steel workers the length and breadth of Britain have shown that they will make every sacrifice, and the industry has dug deep too. It is the Government who have been found sorely wanting. Steel communities are a hardy bunch, forged in the white heat of our industry and from parts of the country that are well used to being forgotten, neglected and ignored by successive Tory Governments. They know how to take bad news on the chin, and they certainly prefer to be treated like adults, with honesty and clarity as opposed to the obfuscation that has become the hallmark of this Government.
I urge the Minister to stop taking us for a ride. All the indications are that the Government really could not care less about the future of the British steel industry. If that is the case, they should just say so. Please stop stringing us along, and stop promising to do something about energy prices, dumping, procurement and business rates while in reality having no intention whatsoever to act. Please level with us today on the sector deal. Just tell us here and now whether or not the Government are minded to support it. If they are not, it is clearly better to know that now, so that no more of our time and energy is wasted. We know that the previous Prime Minister and Business Secretary only got involved when they realised they had a brewing PR disaster on their hands. We hoped that this Prime Minister and this Business Secretary would be different, but the sad reality is that the Government lost interest once the media circus moved on, so we are back to square one.
The toxic combination of complacency, indifference and incompetence is back with a vengeance. Eleven months ago, the steel APPG produced “Steel 2020”, which provides a road map for the industry’s future. Eleven months on, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State to give us a date for a meeting to discuss it. Over recent weeks, we have seen unscrupulous financial advisers swooping in like vultures to exploit steelworkers while the Government stand by and do nothing. Now we see a comprehensive, exciting offer from the steel industry, backed by the trade unions, sitting on the shelf and ignored for three months. I would say that that is shameful, but I wonder whether the Government are capable of feeling that emotion.
I implore the Minister again to level with us. If she will not help, she should just say so, and the Government should stop wasting our time and giving us false hope. Let us get on and fix what we can ourselves, because right now, the Government are only holding us back. I desperately hope that the Minister will stand up and prove all my suspicions wrong. In fact, I am praying for it, because it is my constituents’ lives and livelihoods that are at stake. I will finish by saying to the Government that they have a choice: they can either be part of the solution, or they can continue being part of the problem. Now is the time to choose, and this sector deal is the litmus test.
Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be of interest to Members to know that I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am sharp. By my calculation, that gives each person seven minutes if everyone is going to make a reasonable contribution. I call Mr Simon Clarke.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I was pleased to support the debate application from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), with whom I serve on the all-party group on steel and metal related industries. He is a great advocate of the steel industry and was absolutely right to call for this debate. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Steel is part of the DNA of Teesside, and I represent the hugely impressive British Steel special profiles business at Skinningrove in my constituency. I visited the plant in my first month as an MP to meet managing director Peter Gate and see the operations for myself. It transformed whatever preconceptions I held about what a modern steelworks looks like. Simultaneously combining vast power with infinite precision, the special profiles unit has the machining capability required to manufacture special profiles. Those include unique reserved profiles that have been designed for individual customer needs and open roll profiles, which are available to all customers. Key products include bulb flats, track shoe profiles, crane rail profiles and mining components. Perhaps the most significant profiles made by British Steel at Skinningrove are those produced for the manufacture of forklift trucks, which include mast profiles, carriage bar profiles and flats for manufacturing the fork arms themselves.
The special profiles unit is co-located on the same site as Caterpillar, which is its largest single customer and is also a major employer in my constituency. These companies are great sources of not just jobs, but skilled jobs, and jobs that pay well above the median salary for people on Teesside. They are valued highly in East Cleveland, and we should celebrate that achievement.
In 2016, Caterpillar at Skinningrove passed the amazing milestone of 20 million track shoes produced at its plant, all made using profiles made by British Steel. British Steel special profiles also supplies Caterpillar operations in Brazil, the United States and China. It is a great example of how the UK steel industry remains such an asset to our economy and to our country’s standing as an industrial power.
Since my election, I have pledged my support for whatever can be done to help with what is perhaps British Steel’s foremost challenge: the cost of energy. British Steel special profiles is seeking redesignation from a high-voltage status business to extra-high-voltage status, which it calculates would reduce its energy costs by some £265,000 a year, and I have held talks with Ofgem about how that might be secured. The problem is not so much the cost of redesignation, which is estimated to be around £1 million, but the fact that British Steel would likely have to take on responsibility for the ongoing upkeep of what is already considered an unreliable electricity connection and for maintaining the easements and wayleaves across properties owned by some potentially difficult third parties. Whatever support the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy can offer British Steel on that issue would be invaluable, and I hope the Minister and her officials will follow up on that.
The purpose of this debate is to discuss the wider outlook for the steel sector. I know that the Minister, with whom I am in regular contact regarding such diverse issues as carbon capture and storage and the case for onshore wind, is absolutely committed to making a success of our industrial strategy. We have a friend in her as we seek to deliver a framework within which UK steel can thrive.
This is a critical issue for Teesside. I want to emphasise that UK Steel, the body that represents the industry, wants to convey the positivity and the optimism that also characterises this moment. This is as much about future opportunities as it is about the consolidation of existing strengths. The Government’s study on the future of the industry projects a £3.8 billion opportunity in steel demand by 2030, as the hon. Member for Aberavon said, which will need to be met by imports if we do not get this opportunity right.
With the right strategy, UK Steel estimates that the gross value added of the industry can increase from £1.2 billion today to £3 billion. That goes to the heart of the issue. Steel is an enabling technology, underpinning so many other parts of our economy. The sector places a premium upon innovation, which is what will be required if we are to continue to offer high-end products that our rivals in the world cannot easily match. That means investing not only in physical facilities but in R and D and training and skills, particularly of the next generation.
I often hear from my local employers that a big challenge on Teesside is how we address the age profile of our skilled workers, many of whom were trained in the ’70s and ’80s by the big industrial conglomerates that have predominated and contracted throughout the course of my lifetime. Those workers are now approaching retirement age. It is vital that we ensure that our education and apprenticeship models are fit for purpose, to supply young people with the skills and inspiration they need to grasp the opportunities that we all hope will be created for them. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, the SSI Task Force in Redcar has had considerable success. I praise also the huge potential of the South Tees mayoral development corporation. We all know the consequences that were felt in Redcar and that obviously had massive impacts also in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but real, constructive action, money and hope are now flowing into our area. It is very important that we get that part of the equation on the record as well.
The key elements of the deal are clear. As the hon. Gentleman set out, that includes investment, boosting production capability, creating more jobs, employing and training more apprentices and working with the Government to create a future steel challenge fund, drawing together partners from the automotive, construction and renewables sectors. It is also vital that the Government play their part in ensuring that UK steel has the best possible chance to compete in relation to procurement options. I have already spoken to Defence Ministers about giving maximum notice when it comes to contracts for warships.
If the vision is to be realised, we need to ensure that maximum support is given regarding the cost of energy. We all know that the UK’s energy mix is undergoing a profound revolution. It is right that that is happening, so that we can not only future-proof our security of supply, but meet our carbon commitments. The market-led “test and learn” electricity strategy, set in motion under the coalition Government, has yielded startling and exciting advances in terms of moving renewable energy closer and closer to the point at which it will become competitive on a subsidy-free basis. That is great news, but our forward thinking on this issue has left the industry exposed to a competitiveness challenge. The simple fact is that it is difficult for our industry to compete when its energy costs are 55% higher than those of Germany and 51% higher than those of France. We are looking for bridging solutions that lower costs in the short to medium term while we wait for longer-term solutions to take effect. That is in effect the same principle as the Government have already accepted vis-à-vis renewable energy, so I hope that the Minister can consider it seriously, while acknowledging that this is in no way easy or straightforward.
I want to touch on the other levers within the Government’s grasp. They include supporting the proposed future challenges fund, looking at whether new plant and machinery can be exempted from business rates and ensuring that we get our post-Brexit trade framework spot on, because getting the right framework for trade remedies will be critical if we are to deal with the outrageous dumping of steel by the Chinese that has taken place recently. I urge every hon. Member present to join me after the Christmas recess in the debates on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which will be the vehicle for getting that right.
I thank the Minister for her time today and thank the hon. Member for Aberavon for calling the debate. Let us move forward together, as one, with a positive mindset towards delivering the right deal for our steel sector.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing the debate. I fully support the excellent case that he made for a steel sector deal. He rightly reiterated the policy asks and the fact that speed is of the essence. I wholeheartedly agree with that. My constituency is just down the M4 from his, and the social importance of steel is crucial to communities in my constituency too. Hundreds of people rely directly or indirectly—there are three or more jobs in the local economy for every steel job—on the steel industry. These are good jobs—skilled and relatively well paid jobs—in parts of the country, such as Wales, where that is not always the case. There is huge pride in producing steel. In areas such as mine, there is a real passion for and commitment to the steel industry, which is why all of us in the Chamber have spoken in many debates over the past few years calling on the UK Government to take more action to save our industry. However, on issues such as energy costs, those calls, as my hon. Friend said, have sadly gone unheeded up to now.
During these very hard times for steel, we should recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that the workforce, with their unions, have made huge sacrifices and done all they can to help our industry—most recently, through the painful changes to pensions. Let me also mention, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, the Welsh Government, who have done all they can with the powers and tools that they have in Wales to help. That includes the active work of Ministers such as Ken Skates, the Welsh Assembly Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, who has supported the industry through Welsh public sector infrastructure and construction projects.
However, we do need more UK Government action, and faster. It is true that we have had warm words, but we need more action. The steel sector deal proposal has been put together by the existing six steel companies in the UK, coming together with the unions to look at ways of addressing the challenges collectively. Those individual companies have made specific commitments on jobs, investment, expanded capacity and an increase in innovation activity within the sector.
Some of the companies are in my constituency. There are Tata’s plants at Llanwern and Orb and the relatively new entrant Liberty, which is expanding fast. Those two companies were among the six involved in drawing up the steel sector deal proposal. With Tata’s Llanwern Zodiac plant in Newport East, the investment by the company in the auto-finishing line, and Orb’s electrical steel capabilities, there is a real opportunity for the UK to establish itself as one of the foremost suppliers of steel to the automotive industry, especially for electric cars. We therefore welcome the Government’s automotive sector deal conversations and their ambition to increase domestic content to 50% in British-made vehicles, but we in Newport are acutely aware that we need a thriving, competitive steel industry to do that, which is why a sector deal for steel is needed.
The GFG Alliance, which owns Liberty Steel, which also has a base in Newport East, has announced plans to create a total of 5 million tonnes of low-carbon steelmaking capacity during the next five years as part of a drive to develop a green and competitive future for manufacturing in the UK. That would equate to half the steel made in Britain at present. Currently, the UK exports more of its scrap for processing abroad than any other developed country, so Liberty’s aim is to recycle a large proportion of the 7.2 million tonnes a year of scrap steel here in the UK. That low-carbon secondary steel production would displace much of the 7 million tonnes a year of raw steel currently imported and is a huge opportunity for the country to drive clean growth by making low-carbon steel at home.
There is great ambition in the steel industry in my constituency, despite all the difficulties faced by the steel sector in recent years. However, although demand for steel is up, production has fallen and many of the underlying causes of the recent crisis are still there. Tata and Liberty in my constituency show what ambition is out there, but we need Government interventions to ensure that our innovation can keep pace with our international competitors. That is why we repeat and repeat the policy asks. That means Government action on energy prices—the most important intervention that the Government could make. As my hon. Friend said, UK plants currently pay more than 50% more than their German and French counterparts. It means action on the business rate regime. These companies are investing and want to invest more. They want to work with the Government to unlock further investment. For the steel industry to flourish, they need a route to market that includes things such as UK steel for infrastructure projects, help with access to finance and a future steel challenge fund. Addressing the barriers through a sector deal will help to unlock investment. I mentioned this a moment ago, but we also need to continue to see more commitment on procurement, including in subsidised energy projects. As a south Walian Member, I point out that we are still awaiting a decision on the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.
Stephen Kinnock
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the Hendry review was completed almost a year ago, it is almost impossible to understand why we are still waiting for the Government’s answer on the recommendations in that review, which are vital to the south Wales economy, not least the steel industry?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. The project has huge potential, not only for Swansea bay but for other areas of Wales—there is the potential for tidal lagoons in places such as Newport—so we must keep pressing the Government. We do not understand why the decision has not been made yet.
There has obviously been disappointment in the steel sector that its own proposal for a sector deal was not among those being talked about, especially given that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, discussions have been ongoing since the crisis in 2015-16, when the Secretary of State invited the sector to work with him to come up with a vision for a modern, sustainable steel sector. We look forward to hearing from the Minister today about what she can do to work with the industry and all of us to ensure a sustainable future for steel.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this well-timed debate on the steel sector deal. It was good to hear the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) contributing so knowledgeably to the debate. He fills really big shoes on steel. Our former colleague, Tom Blenkinsop, was a tower of strength and had a real passion for this industry; I know that he continues to fight for it from outside this House and we all wish him well.
Two years ago local steelworkers and their families were worrying about their futures as Christmas approached. The same was true in steel communities across the UK. Horizons were short, confidence was low and, despite the marches, speeches and protests, Government seemed deaf to calls from the sector to level the playing field and stand up for steel. Jobs and livelihoods were at risk.
A lot has happened since the height of the steel crisis in October 2015, when the Government held the steel summit, which I had first called for in Prime Minister’s questions, in Rotherham on a day that saw yet more announcements of steel job losses nationwide, which were added to the nearly 2,000 in Redcar. The steel landscape now looks very different, with Tata no longer the dominant steelmaker in the market. Instead we have three major players: British Steel and Liberty, both with strong presences in Scunthorpe and elsewhere, and Tata with its main presence in south Wales. This change in ownership has brought new energy to the industry. Building on its proud heritage and today’s strong footprint, the foundation industry of steel is now well placed to become a strong strategic, innovative, entrepreneurial industry of the future. But to realise that ambition it needs to be allowed to compete on a level playing field, and that is where Government have a key role.
British Steel is an old name enjoying a new start. Headquartered in Scunthorpe, it celebrated its first year of successful trading in June. It is a leading European producer, making around 2.8 million tonnes per annum. The business faced challenging operational issues in the summer, including a blast furnace chill that impacted on results, but it expects to have a strong second half-year performance. The conclusion of a 4% pay deal with the workforce is both a strong vote of confidence in the fantastic men and women that make the business happen and an indication of growing business confidence. As well as achieving a significant turnaround of the business, British Steel continues to invest in future skills including, this year, the new starts of 70 apprentices, 43 graduates and 72 trainees. Next door, Liberty is breathing new life and new purpose into Caparo Merchant Bar. It is good news that the Scunthorpe site has been longlisted as a possible Heathrow logistics hub. That is a good example of proactive procurement by a major customer that others might learn from.
Indeed, while everything has changed in steel, nothing has changed, and the four asks of Government at the height of the crisis remain significant asks today. Procurement is a key ask. The Government need to do more to ensure that their December 2016 steel procurement guidelines are being actively pursued by all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence. When I asked for an update on delivering their ambition the Cabinet Office reply was: “We do not hold data currently on the quantity of UK steel procured.” Frankly, that is not good enough. While I very much welcome that published pipeline for future steel, it still begs the question of how the Government will ensure that their guidelines are delivered across all Departments. Perhaps the Minister—who I believe in, actually—will enlighten us in her reply.
Alongside better, fairer procurement, the other key asks were action on energy costs, business taxes and tackling steel dumping from China and elsewhere. Add to that the need to invest in research and development and workforce skills, and that is the context in which the sector deal is being wrought. We need a sector deal for steel sooner rather than later. I have been heartened by the consistently warm words of the Secretary of State and Minister responsible in response to these calls. They eventually managed to do a good job of putting something together on the EU emissions trading system, but things like that need to be done quickly and effectively so that confidence is not knocked. We need to learn from that so that things can be done well in the future, because the time for warm words will soon be over, and the time for action is nigh.
The Government recognise the value of the steel industry. Their recent study, “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry”, demonstrates the size of the prize in capturing more of our domestic steel market. UK Steel estimates that there is potential to boost sector GVA from £1.2 billion to over £3 billion. The study identifies the key role that supply chain engagement and R and D can play in enabling that boost to happen. Three core actions will unlock the sector’s potential: action to level the playing field on energy costs, investment in new research and development through a future steel challenge fund, and incentives to facilitate capital investment. The key commitments that the sector will make are outlined in the document. There are significant commitments from the sector, and the asks of Government are significant to match. The sector and the Government need to work together to deliver that.
To conclude, two years ago we felt as though we might be close to closing the book on steelmaking in the UK, but thanks to the wonderful men and women who work in the industry and the leadership shown by Community, Unite and the other steel unions, alongside steel communities and steelmakers, in the last two years this industry has navigated a difficult chapter, restructuring and repositioning itself. It is now time for Government to act with the industry to create the strong, innovative business that is needed to help to build Britain’s future as we move into a world outside the EU. The steel sector deal bid from the industry shows the necessary commitment to deliver for the future. The Government have welcomed this. Both sides must now forge a future together. All I want for Christmas is a steel sector deal!
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, but it is somewhat dispiriting to find myself rising to speak yet again about the importance of Government getting behind our steel industry.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for calling this debate. Time and again I, and many of my hon. Friends here today, have explained the importance of British steel and offered clear advice on practical measures the Government could take to champion this crucial strategic industry. Many of those requests remain unfulfilled. The Government respond with warm words but, to be honest, little practical support.
I am pleased, however, that despite this lack of commitment from Government, the future looks a little brighter for British steel, as my hon. Friends have said. In my own constituency, the takeover of Tata’s speciality steels division by Liberty House has been completed. Speciality Steels is a world-leading business with a global reputation, and its products are found in everything from airliners to Formula 1 cars. Far from the relic of caricature, this is a dynamic and growing business of which Britain should be rightly proud. Liberty has recognised this huge potential and we have received the welcome news that not only have existing jobs been secured, but investment will lead to a further 300 new jobs, the first of which are already being recruited. Liberty should be commended for its commitment to sustaining and growing British steel.
While the investment from Liberty is hugely positive, Tata’s main UK research and development centre, Swinden House in my constituency of Rotherham, faces uncertainty. Staff there have an uncertain future, with the facility scheduled to relocate to Warwick. Tata must make every effort to allow those who wish to relocate to do so, and to support those who do not.
The existential crisis that the industry has faced in recent years may have begun to subside, but many of the long-term issues that led the industry to the precipice remain. The steel sector’s proposals to the Government have their roots in that crisis, and discussions between the sector and Government have been ongoing for some time. With the huge uncertainty of Brexit looming, the Government must act now to safeguard steel’s long-term future. It was therefore hugely disappointing that the steel sector’s proposals to renew and support the industry have not been included in the group of frontrunners for individual sector deals.
That failure is just the latest in a long line of Government failures to safeguard the industry’s future. In particular, the continued lack of action on high energy costs leaves the steel industry with one hand tied behind its back. Despite British steel’s wealth of experience, skill and expertise, it simply cannot compete while it continues to face energy costs far in excess of those faced by its European and international competitors. British producers pay, on average, £17 more per megawatt-hour than competitors in France and Germany do. Over the course of a year, that means a massive £50 million. This colossal burden leaves British producers struggling to compete. We are not talking about handouts; all we want is a level playing field, which the Government have consistently failed to provide.
Energy intensive industries compensation was a start, but until the Government address and commit to reducing the vast burden on our industry these problems will continue to hold British steel back. The Government have claimed that state aid rules prevent them from taking action, yet they refuse to introduce measures already in place in the likes of France and Germany, such as allowing exemption from renewables costs up to the value of a company’s gross value added. Now is the time to take such steps and to support British steel’s recovery and growth as the cornerstone to a sector deal.
Business rates also continue to punish steel producers and penalise their investment in new facilities. Removing new plant and machinery from calculations would encourage much-needed inward investment. That problem, too, has been raised with the Government repeatedly, but they have consistently failed to act.
Requests to favour British steel in Government procurement continue to receive, at best, a lukewarm response from the Government. UK steel has the skills and capacity to deliver on large-scale infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2. Although it is welcome that the Government have stated that they expect 95% of HS2 to utilise British steel, they have stopped short of absolutely guaranteeing that figure. That commitment must be much clearer and stronger.
Britain’s exit from the European Union also leaves the industry vulnerable to further dumping of cheap Chinese-produced steel. The British Government have consistently opposed the introduction of stronger tariffs within the European Union. With the removal of that opposition post-Brexit, it is likely that the EU will pursue far stronger tariffs and domestic protections. The chief executive of UK Steel has expressed concern about the seemingly complacent attitude displayed by Government officials who have refused to commit to strengthening Britain’s own protections in line with those of our neighbours. Should the UK find itself bordering a European Union with far stronger protections than our own, the impact upon our industry could be catastrophic.
Furthermore, the Government’s failure to properly consider the impact of Brexit on the industry risks plunging steel into a new crisis. Not releasing an impact study on the effect of Brexit on steel was frustrating, but the revelation that they may not even have conducted an industry-specific study is simply staggering. It is the Government’s duty to ensure that the industry is as prepared as it can be to weather the inevitable turmoil that Brexit will bring, but they seem to be asleep at the wheel.
Although we must do everything that we can to secure the steel industry’s long-term future, we must also recognise that changes to the British Steel pension scheme have left many scheme members facing financial uncertainty and difficult choices. Disappointingly, my constituents tell me that they have not received sufficient advice and support. There are reports that in the absence of detailed, clear advice, scheme members have been targeted by unscrupulous advisers and might have been mis-sold unsuitable financial products. It is vital that we protect scheme members, provide appropriate guidance and support and ensure that they are not left behind as casualties of the crisis faced by the industry.
The UK steel industry can and should be central to a resurgence in British industry, but progress towards a comprehensive resolution to these problems has been painfully slow. The failure to progress towards an individual sector deal for steel is just the latest example of the Government offering warm words and little else. The industry’s proposals are clear and practical, and would lead to significant and sustained investment in British steel, with £1.5 billion invested over five years and a huge increase in production capacity from 10 million to more than 14 million tonnes. What the industry wants in return is for the Government to match its commitment and work with it to address the structural problems preventing UK steel from reaching its potential.
This is an opportunity for the Government to offer more than talk. They must engage positively with the industry and do everything they can to ensure that British steel once again leads the world.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this debate and on all the work that he has done on behalf of the industry. It is a superb demonstration of how effective a Back Bencher can be in shaping Government policy in key areas.
I rise as the representative of a constituency that is not a primary producer of steel but heavily dependent on steel. West Bromwich West has more foundries than any other constituency in the country, and those foundries depend heavily on supplying parts to the motor industry. It is interesting that each and every speaker who has contributed to this debate represents a steel-related industry that is vital to the core economy of some of the most deprived areas of the country. For that reason the issue should be considered, due to its impact on the wider regional policies of this Government.
Equally, we must consider the national contribution to the economy. Our £72 billion motor industry is recognised as a world leader, is vital to our exports and has a productivity level three times the national average at a time when the country is desperately seeking to improve its productivity. Any industry forming part of a chain that delivers that is worthy of special consideration, respect and a commitment that has hitherto not been afforded to the steel industry.
Other stated objectives in the Government’s industrial strategy, which I welcome, include a deal on autonomous and electric vehicles and construction, all of which are strategically dependent on a successful steel industry. The fact that an industry on which so many Government objectives and policies depend seems to have been neglected is a matter for concern and needs an urgent remedy.
In the short time available, I want to make two or three other points. First, the motor industry in my area and nationally has adopted a policy of reshoring. It makes sense, because it is cheaper to do so, it provides security of supply for the most part and, of course, it accords with low-carbon and energy-saving targets. Locally, Jaguar Land Rover has led the drive. I believe that there is a national target to improve the number of British-built cars for which British steel is sourced from 35% to 50%, and Jaguar Land Rover in particular is well on schedule to do so. However, the policy could be compromised without security of supply and an adequate supply of steel at a competitive price.
Secondly, I point out the Government’s objectives on electric vehicles, which we are currently world leaders in developing. We produce more than any other country with the exception of the US, which of course is a lot bigger. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon pointed out, all those electric vehicles are just as dependent on British steel components as our historic petrol and diesel-driven vehicles. The Government’s objectives could be blunted if we do not preserve the steel industry.
My last point, which I will not labour because my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) made it very well, is that we export more scrap than any other country, yet import raw steel. That seems crazy. Again, I join others in pointing out that Liberty Steel, which has a substantial presence in Oldbury in my constituency, is a potential game-changer. Liberty, seeing the implications of the current energy situation, has bought up renewable energy generators in Scotland and other parts of the country, with a view to getting a perfect combination and integrated supply of low-carbon energy to melt scrap cars and metal and reshape them into castings and hot stamping for the industry.
Steel is a core industry for so many of this Government’s wider economic and social objectives. It has come up with a series of solutions that would embed it in those policies and deliver on their objectives, and that are worthy of special consideration for adoption by the Government.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party in this debate. It is also a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Henry, and to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who made a very good speech.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing the debate via the Backbench Business Committee and on his speech. He has been determined for quite some time to see a sector deal for steel; his advocacy on behalf of the steel industry is to be noted and congratulated, and he continued that campaign with his usual fervour today. I hope that his efforts have brought the issue back to the attention of the media, and that we will get some answers from the Minister about what the Government will do for the industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked the Government to address matters such as steel dumping by Chinese, Russian and Turkish producers. He also spoke about procurement opportunities. However, I must correct one aspect of his speech, because what he said about the new Forth crossing, the Queensferry crossing, was not quite right. Of the £540 million of orders, 45% came from Scottish companies, and steel from the Dalzell plant is in the girders at either end of the bridge. Sadly, no bidder came forward from Scotland for the main contract, because the capacity to produce the required level of steel has been lost since Thatcher closed the Ravenscraig plant. Of course, we want to do more; we want that capacity to increase, which is why we are all here today. The hon. Gentleman also discussed energy issues, which I will address later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) made a very good speech. He was absolutely right to say that with the right opportunities and support, we can increase the GVA of the steel industry from £1.2 billion to £3 billion. We need to get this right. He also said, rightly, that the steel industry is an enabler for other sectors to grow. His speech was constructive but probing, and I hope the Minister was listening.
The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the importance of steel to other industries and Liberty’s exciting low-carbon proposals on green steel, which should reduce the need for imports and cut the industry’s carbon footprint. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) was absolutely right to pay tribute to Tom Blenkinsop, the former Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. In all the debates I have attended, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe has been a stout defender of the industry, and he was very good again today. He was also right to pay tribute to the workforce, who have been incredibly resilient, particularly in recent years.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly raised the potential Brexit challenges that the sector faces. We are particularly concerned about the impact on the industry of leaving the single market. It is essential that we see UK Government action now. As I said, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West made a very good speech; he focused on the needs of the foundries in his area and highlighted the supply chain that the steel industry feeds, including the £72 billion motor industry.
As the Minister will be aware, Liberty Steel operates at the Dalzell works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), which adjoins mine, and many of my constituents are employed there. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the efforts of the Scottish Government, the trade unions and the Scottish steel taskforce, which secured the future of the Dalzell and Clydebridge plants, the former Tata sites in Scotland. The SNP is clear that we would welcome a sector deal for the steel industry: we encourage the UK Government to get it done and we note with concern its absence from the industrial strategy. I have been in contact with Liberty’s management about developments and about the priorities that they and others have for future intervention and support from the UK Government.
Let me be clear. The steel industry is not some “nice to have” aspect of the manufacturing sector. It is crucial to all aspects of infrastructure projects in these isles: it supports huge numbers of jobs and feeds a supply chain that contributes even more to employment and economic prosperity. Further support for the sector could open significantly more opportunities for employment and growth, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland said.
What support could this Government offer? It has been well trailed by all hon. Members in this debate that help with energy prices would address the clear disparity with competitors in other countries, including France and Germany—a disparity that is estimated to cost UK steel producers an additional £43 million a year. The UK Government could look at helping to attract additional investment to the UK in a number of ways, such as by providing access to commercially competitive loans, a capital investment grant or innovative tax breaks or discounts linked to investment. They could also consider the proposal to establish a new innovation fund to boost research and development of steel products.
The executive chair of Liberty House, Sanjeev Gupta, said that he was “very impressed” with the efforts of the Scottish Government and the Scottish steel taskforce to save and support the industry in Scotland. It is now time for the UK Government to match the ambitions of the Government up the road and get on with the sector deal, delivering tangible support on energy, procurement and all the other asks from industry and from hon. Members across the House today. Let us hope that we will hear of such action from the Minister today.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship today, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this timely debate and on his continued commitment and passion in advocating for the steel industry. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), whose passion and commitment would definitely have given her a lot to say in the debate, but who cannot be with us today.
The steel industry has gone through a tumultuous few years, but the sector has successfully managed to navigate its way back to a more stable position as it heads into 2018, although it is by no means out of the woods. I join other hon. Members in highlighting the industry’s positive economic and social impact. The sector provides well-paid, skilled jobs in areas such as south Yorkshire, where the average steelworker is paid 40% more than the local average wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) set out, it is crucial to the social fabric of communities such as those in Wales or south Yorkshire. Indeed, the case for supporting and backing our steel sector in particular and manufacturing more broadly is more acute today than ever. A post-Brexit Britain will require rebalancing the economy, both by sector and by geography, if we are to embrace the opportunities of the future.
This is indeed a timely debate. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State issued an open-door challenge to industry to approach the Government with proposals to transform sectors through a series of sector deals. In September, the steel sector met that challenge when six chief executive officers of steel companies and all three relevant unions—Community, Unite and GMB—addressed key issues facing industry with a comprehensive plan and tangible solutions. Each company detailed the specific investment, jobs and research and development commitments that it could make. In turn, the sector made requests of the Government, notably to eliminate the electricity price disparity and establish a future steel fund with match funding of £30 million a year.
Unfortunately, the Government have failed at every opportunity to respond to the sector deal. On Friday, they finally published a report, “Future capacities and capabilities of the UK steel industry”, which revealed that the demand for finished steel products in the UK will increase from 9.4 million to 10.9 million tonnes by 2030, opening up an opportunity of £3.8 billion per annum. That is welcome news.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) made it clear that those opportunities can only be harnessed with full Government backing and support, which makes a steel sector deal more necessary than ever. However, for too long the UK steel industry has been neglected by the Government. Their industrial strategy merely paid lip service to the industry while failing to provide any tangible solutions and failing to respond to the steel sector deal proposal at all.
As I have mentioned, the industry is not out of the woods. There are fundamental issues hampering its competitiveness and innovation capability, and it is down to both Government and industry to work together to create a level playing field for steel. The UK steel sector faces excruciatingly high electricity costs compared with its EU counterparts, with an average electricity price disparity between the UK and Germany standing at £18 per megawatt-hour, which translates into a total additional cost for UK steel producers of around £43 million per year. The Helm review was published recently and it made some welcome recommendations, but the steel industry needs urgent action now if it is to be sustainable in the years ahead.
Furthermore, the industry is lagging behind in research and development spending, which is crucial to the growth and innovation of the sector. I am proud that the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is very familiar with, is a world-renowned R and D centre. It is located in south Yorkshire, near my constituency. However, despite such pockets of excellence, the number of people employed in R and D in the steel sector in the UK have declined from around 900 to around 95 today—a 90% reduction—with closure or divestment of UK technology centres at Port Talbot, Rotherham and Teesside. The loss of locally based expertise and knowledge limits productivity development and innovation in the UK industry.
If the Government’s rhetoric on productivity is to be believed, why are we in a dire position when it comes to R and D funding? Last month, the Government committed £2.3 billion for R and D in 2021-22, but they failed to respond to a parliamentary question when I asked, “What proportion of the funding will be allocated to the steel sector?” Can I get an answer from the Minister today?
Beyond electricity prices and R and D, it is clear that there needs to be more proactive engagement with the supply chain if the sector is to capture the opportunities I have outlined, particularly in the construction and automotive sectors, where the big opportunities lie. As the report notes, these opportunities can only be captured
“if a comprehensive strategy and policy to reshore supply chains back to the UK is pursued.”
Given the strategic importance of the sector, it is absolutely vital that the Government, the steel industries, the trade unions and the workforce continue to work to resolve some of these key issues. Disappointingly, we have seen very little action to alleviate these issues. First, in the autumn Budget there was no mention of energy prices or an energy efficiency fund for industry. Although there was some money for R and D, as I have pointed out, there has been no detail about whether the steel sector can expect to benefit.
The Government’s recently published industrial strategy set back many hopes of capitalising on the opportunities ahead. It did not include any detail or offer any tangible solutions to the steel sector. What detail there was focused on a handful of elite sectors, in which the UK already has a competitive advantage. It also provided very little to those who do not live in the golden triangle made up by London, Cambridge and Oxford. The absence of the sector is telling. Months after the steel sector deal had been proposed, it appears that the Government have made no effort to ensure that there is progress on it. In essence, the industrial strategy dashed any hope of the Government and industry ever delivering a deal.
In what little mention of the sector there was in the strategy, on page 239 the Government said that they would develop a “commercially sustainable proposition” for the steel sector, but there were no other details. Can the Minister explain what a “commercially sustainable proposition” means? What progress has she made on developing such a proposition, and what is the timetable to achieve that?
I accept that we are short of time today, so I will conclude. It is clear that our steel industry is at the cutting edge of UK manufacturing, producing some of the best-quality products. The future of the industry should see it playing a central role in the transition to a low-carbon economy; continuing to lead the world in quality and innovation; and capturing huge opportunities to the tune of £3.8 billion annually.
However, that is only deliverable if there is a strategic and comprehensive sector deal to deliver on issues such as dealing with electricity price disparities, reviewing business rates, increasing spending on R and D, and ensuring that we have a robust procurement strategy that works for the steel industry. A post-Brexit trade deal and strategy are absolutely essential if the future of the steel industry is to be secure and bright.
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)
As always, Sir Henry, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Members who are present today on securing an absolutely crucial and timely debate. I also echo the good wishes that have been expressed about the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who is an amazing champion for activity in this sector, and we all wish her extremely well.
Listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), I was reminded of the many debates that I had with her late husband, who, like her, was a doughty champion of the activities of the constituency. I am sure that her constituents are very proud of her and I like to think that her son will get a council seat soon, because it is clear that he has also done an amazing job in representing the communities in that area. Evidently, they are a great political family.
I welcome the comments that have been made today. Everyone here is standing up for a foundation industry, a vital industry and an industry about which we should be incredibly proud, not only for developing the technologies that underpin it but for continuing what has been a highly productive trajectory. Given that we are discussing such an important industry, I hope we might get beyond some of the party polemics and the Nye Bevan rhetoric that we have heard today. I will just point out a couple of facts and then I hope that we can park the politics of this debate.
In 1998, 68,000 people were employed in this vital industry. During the next 16 years, largely under a Labour Government, that number dropped to around 30,000. Since then, we have seen an increase in employment, despite going through some very tough economic times—[Interruption.] These are the facts, I am afraid.
I will also point out that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who called the first steel summit, who set up the steel council, who has paid for the report on the “Future Capacities and Capabilities of the UK Steel Industry” with taxpayers’ money, because we think it is a vital investment, and who has Ministers who are absolutely committed to working with this industry, domestically and internationally. I hope that we can get beyond the party politics, for the sake of the people depending on this industry and for the sake of the thousands of incredibly highly productive jobs in the industry. I think it is time to get to a different place, where we focus on the long-term potential. So can we have a little less politicking and a little more focus on the future of the industry, please?
On my visit this summer to the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), as I went round the steel plants and talked to the workforce, who have been there for generations, I was struck by the level of skill and pride of the workforce, as well as the impact that those plants have on the constituency and the innovation that they bring. I remember talking to a shift manager in the electric arc furnace nearby, who said, “My dad would never have thought I could do this job, but he’d be really proud of me today”, as he tapped out molten steel.
However, I was also shocked to see the conditions that we still expect people to work in. This is a very tough industry, and I know that people in the steel plants are incredibly proud of what they have done. I join all Members in paying tribute to the steel workforce, who have shown amazing foresight over the last few years. We are very keen to continue to engage with the unions, as we do with the managers and the investors, to drive this sector forward.
Let me just reiterate very quickly what the Government have done, because it is clear that in such a vital strategic industry Government involvement, both in the sector itself and in the other aspects of the demand and supply chain, is very important. Procurement has come up many times today. We are working very hard to ensure that, where possible, British steel is the steel of choice in public procurement. We have new procurement guidelines; we have published the steel pipeline, which looks out over the next five years; and we are setting out how we want to use more than 3 million tonnes of steel on infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, Hinkley and on the upgrade of the motorway network. That is a pipeline that has been widely welcomed by the sector.
Claire Perry
I will happily take away the hon. Gentleman’s point. Although we do not want to mandate supply, because we want the sectors to buy the best quality at the best price, we must ensure that, where we can, we pull forward and give certainty to the steel industry. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said, the work we do with other vital sectors, such as auto and construction, has a really important knock-on effect on supply for the steel sector. In the auto sector deal—I will talk about sector deals in more detail—we have set an ambition and the industry has committed to increase the share of UK content in the automotive supply chain to up to 50% by 2022—it has already gone up from 36% a few years ago to 41% now. That has to be important, given the reliance of the sector on our superb British steel industry. Also, through the construction sector deal, we see big improvements in productivity and in demand for British steel.
The point has also rightly been made about trade. We all know what global trading conditions are like. The Prime Minister has called on the G20 forum on steel excess capacity to agree concrete policy principles, and my Secretary of State was in Berlin just a few days ago pushing for agreement on them. The director of UK Steel said:
“The outcome of today’s meeting is enormously welcome, representing a significant step towards delivering concrete action”.
He also felt obliged to congratulate my Secretary of State on his personal efforts, which show that we are committed to solving the underlying challenges the industry faces. It is only a first step, and we must continue to engage, but it is an extremely important one.
On the post-Brexit trade arrangement, we are extremely focused on what that test looks like in a post-Brexit world and on how we can have a suitable trade protection system that enables us to respond based on the geographic impact of certain trading regimes in the UK. That is something on which we are working closely.
Energy prices have, of course, come up. I will say a little more about that, but I want to thank those hon. Members who have acknowledged that we have managed to head off any negative impacts of the so-called Brexit amendment. I laid the legislation before the House last week and I look forward to introducing it. We want there to be absolutely no negative impact. We have reimbursed the steel sector more than £200 million for its energy costs, and from 1 April 2018 we will introduce exemptions rather than compensation mechanisms, so that companies can have their bill reduced by up to 85% of their relevant costs rather than have to muck about submitting a claim. That is very important for cash flow.
The capacity and capabilities report, which the Government asked for and have paid for, with our taxpayers’ money, has really helped the sector, for the first time, to come together to understand what its challenges are. I chair the steel council, and a conversation we always have is about how we have never sat down as a sector and talked about our collective challenges. We have always competed; it has been a zero-sum game. But it is not a zero-sum game. If we want industries and Government to invest in research and development and think about how they might support other vital industries, collective activity is needed. The report has been warmly welcomed by, among others, Roy Rickhuss, who said:
“This will help us all better understand the opportunities and challenges facing the UK steel industries”.
The report points out the skill shortage. The average age of a steel worker is 45, and most of them are gentlemen. The sector has not invested in the skills of the future. Despite the employment losses, it is highly productive; we have asked workers to do more on a daily basis. The sector has invested, but we know we have to get the skills and the investment up.
There are challenges for the sector. The study sets out a welcome point, which is that there is a market opportunity of up to £4 billion by 2030 for our UK steel companies if they and the Government can align themselves for it. To capture that opportunity, the sector requires the kind of transformative investment that some of the companies have made in other parts of their European portfolio. On customer demand, the capability and capacities study shows that only 18% of that opportunity will be available if there is no investment, particularly investment in higher-grade and more speciality products, upgrades and additional facilities, and increases in research and investment. In fact, the industry itself acknowledges that it has not focused on customers. Many steel consumers in the UK continue to import because different product sources exist and sometimes, frankly, customer service is better. That is a problem that the Government and the sector must work on together.
Some countries such as Germany choose to up consumers’ energy bills and subsidise those of heavy industry. In this country, we have tried to hold down energy costs across the board, as we invest in the transition to cleaner energy, so we have some of the lowest consumer energy bills in Europe. However, as hon. Members have pointed out, although our gas bills are competitive for industry our electricity bills are among the highest in Europe. We have clearly set out the ambition to have the lowest electricity costs in Europe. We commissioned the review by Dieter Helm, which pulled no punches, the recommendations of which we are considering carefully. It is a welcome backdrop that renewables are getting to the point of subsidy-free generation, so the long-term investments we have made in that transition are starting to bear fruit. I am, however, very aware of the asks on energy costs and will continue to review them.
I want to turn finally to the sector deal. I reassure Members that the first draft of the industrial strategy had four sector deals in it, out of the 52 or so that had been submitted. That does not mean that they were the superior, priority or target ones. They were the deals that were closest to the line because they represented a joint industry and Government focus on driving up productivity in the industries in which we know we have to be successful to compete in the future. The steel sector deal, on which we have worked very closely with the sector, is one of the other deals we are actively engaging with and working on.
Claire Perry
I will just try to get through this point and then I will be happy to take an intervention.
I have every intention and every expectation of bringing forward an attractive sector deal. We have held many meetings, and when the deal is in a good enough place and we have commitments on both sides to drive the transformation, we will do that. The deals are not, “Give us some money”, they are, “What can we do together, Government and industry, unions, apprenticeships, education institutions and our brilliant academic institutions, to create the industry of the future, to capture those opportunities and drive them forward?”
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
What the Minister is detailing about the sector deals is incredibly positive. Can she confirm how the UK Government will work with the Scottish Government on the deals?
Claire Perry
We are working very closely with the devolved Administrations. In fact, the Administrations of Scotland and Wales have signed up to the industrial strategy and we are working cross-border with them because the industry is a vital national one.
To conclude, it is time to reject some of the tired political arguments we have had on the issue. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent steel-producing areas and many more who represent areas where the steel supply chain is absolutely vital. We will continue to work on the sector deal. We understand the ask of the industry and the strategic challenges it faces. If I could have one Christmas wish, it would be for an end to the outdated party politics around this vital foundation industry for the UK, that we build a cross-party partnership and that we work with the industry, which is being transformed, to protect and grow it, not for the next 12 months or two years but for the generations to come.
Stephen Kinnock
I congratulate all hon. Members present on an excellent debate. We should remind ourselves of the purpose of the industrial strategy. It is about rebalancing the British economy, from services to manufacturing, from consumption to production, from debt to surplus. None of those aims will be achieved unless we have a thriving and productive steel industry, and for that to happen we need a radical remodelling of the energy sector, and to develop a post-Brexit trade policy and deliver on the sector deal.
Since I entered Parliament in 2015, Labour MPs have raised the issue of steel almost 300 times, and every time we have heard the same set of platitudes in response: “We’re continuing to review”; “We’re having meetings”; “We’re going on visits”; “We’re having roundtables”. Nothing ever seems to change. I hope, therefore, that we can be forgiven for allowing our concern and frustration about the future of our communities to bubble to the surface. That has nothing to do with party politics. It has to do with the future of an industry that will enable the industrial strategy. We hope, therefore, that in 2018 we can turn the page and move from rhetoric to reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the steel sector deal.
Environmental and Food System Education
(6 years, 4 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
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered environmental and food system education in schools.
My reasons for calling this debate were twofold: to highlight some of the positive work already being done in schools and to call on the Government to go further and embed some of this work in the curriculum or support it across all schools. It is so important that our young people learn about the wonders of our natural environment and our wildlife, how we should respect them and how we should take care of them for future generations. Many are also calling for animal welfare to be taught in schools. If young people were taught respect for animals at an early stage, perhaps that would make a difference with some of the horrific crimes that we see carried out against animals.
Young people should also learn about climate change, the impact our behaviour is having on the planet and how we can address that. They should learn about where our food comes from and why what we grow and eat matters. It is not just about acquiring knowledge for the sake of it; it is about children’s mental and physical wellbeing and equipping them for life as adults, enjoying nature and living sustainably. The fact is that they love learning about these things, and I will come on to that later.
The last Labour Government took environmental education seriously. In 2000, education for sustainable development was introduced as a non-statutory element of the curriculum. That was followed in 2006 by the launch of the sustainable schools strategy, which encouraged schools to follow the recommendations in the eight doorways, which were: buildings and grounds; energy and water; travel and traffic; food and drink; purchasing and waste; local wellbeing; inclusion and participation; and the global dimension. Through that, they would have become completely sustainable schools by 2020. Unfortunately, the strategy was scrapped by the Government in 2010.
In 2006, the Government launched the “Learning Outside the Classroom” manifesto, which promoted outdoor learning as an essential part of education, whether that was in school grounds and the local area or visits further afield and residential trips. The manifesto highlighted the value of hands-on, experiential learning as a way of enhancing and supporting work back in the classroom. It is a shame that the current Government have not built on that. As I said, the sustainable schools strategy was scrapped in 2010.
The environmental science and environmental and land-based science GCSEs were recently discontinued. The Government told me that was due to a lack of confidence in new content being developed, but it leaves a vacuum. The environmental studies A-level is currently at the tail end of being phased out, with the final set of exams being sat in the next six months. It will be replaced by a new environmental science A-level that started teaching this year, but the shift to stripped-back, science-only learning will deter many pupils from taking it up. Pupils have told me that is the case.
The national curriculum references the environment and climate change only in science and geography, and even then mostly in relation to the technical causes and processes, rather than the impact of climate change on individuals and communities. Key stage 3 science only includes reference to
“the production of carbon dioxide by human activity and the impact on climate.”
Key stage 4 science only mentions the effects of increased greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate system and supposed “uncertainties” in the evidence for climate change. The geography syllabus has only passing reference to the changing climate from the ice age to the present day and how human and physical processes can change the environment. The parliamentary digital engagement service put something out on Facebook and Instagram over the weekend, and people came back to say that although there is the option to study climate change in geography, it is not always taken up. Geography GCSE is optional, so young people will not necessarily learn about that aspect of the curriculum unless they are studying that GCSE and the teacher decides to focus on climate change.
The situation is piecemeal and insufficient. We are failing to teach young people about the real-world impacts of climate change or the action that can be taken to mitigate it. The previous syllabus covered environmental issues much more comprehensively, but the then Education Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, tried to remove those things from geography altogether and have them in science only and not talk about the human role. I appreciate that he would dispute that that was his role in events. The former Energy and Climate Change Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who recently returned to the House, takes credit for forcing a U-turn on the then Education Secretary. I appreciate that there is some controversy, but there was a huge pushback against what were perceived to be the Education Secretary’s plans at the time, and there was a partial U-turn.
Academies and free schools are not obliged to follow the national curriculum, so they are not required to teach environmental or climate change issues at all. The London School of Economics aptly summarised this in its response to the Government’s consultation in 2013. It said that
“there can be no justification for omitting climate change from the National Curriculum, and the education of pupils would be deficient if they did not receive teaching about it…If core climate change teaching is not included as compulsory learning…there is a risk that some students would not acquire essential basic knowledge about climate change. As the UK Youth Climate Coalition points out, ‘climate change is too important to be left to individual teacher choice’.”
As the Government’s enthusiasm for environmental education has waned, many third-sector-run initiatives have risen to fill the gap. One great initiative is the Eco-Schools programme that has been run by Keep Britain Tidy for more than 25 years. It aims to help students embed sustainable development into their schools’ daily lives. In England alone, 17,000 schools are registered on the scheme. Eco-Schools is based on pupil-led, real-world learning, empowering children to create change and environmental improvements by forming eco-committees, conducting environmental reviews of the schools’ practices and drawing up environmental action plans. I have seen that in some of the schools in my constituency. The kids get really engaged in it.
Farming and Countryside Education has a countryside classroom online portal for teachers. It includes materials to allow children to discuss what they deem to be controversial issues, such as badgers, bee health, migrant labour, food waste and flooding.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the debate to the Chamber. There is a great deal of interaction through visits to farms by school pupils. I am sure she will agree that commercial farming is making a huge contribution to protecting the environment. It is important that young people understand that modern farming can play its part. Does she agree that it would be good if school pupils and university students could visit modern farms to understand that farms have moved on and are making a contribution?
Kerry McCarthy
I think that is important. It is something FACE encourages. There is also the “FaceTime a farmer” scheme, which was started by Tom Martin, a Cambridgeshire farmer. It teams farmers up with schools. They use FaceTime or Skype to make video calls to classrooms. That is obviously no substitute for getting out on the farms, but it is a good initiative.
The Woodland Trust has flagged up with me that it has the free trees programme and the Green Tree School Awards. It is taking those things into schools, and they are incredibly popular. Another great initiative is the Soil Association’s Food for Life catering award for food quality, which more than 10,000 UK schools currently possess. To become accredited, the school is required to use locally sourced and seasonal produce, maintain in-school gardens and develop students’ practical green skills. It also encourages schools to visit farms. It has Grandparent Gardening Week from 19 to 23 March. It gets local allotment holders, grandparents and so on into schools to help set up school gardens for the growing season. That is a great way of engaging the community in what goes on in schools.
In Bristol, where the Soil Association is based, I went along to Bristol Metropolitan Academy, which is a secondary school. It had the local primary schools come along to take part in something that showed the circle of life of food. The younger kids turned up having grown basil in their schools. They were then shown by a food waste chef, Shane Jordan, how to cook pasta and make a sauce with the basil. The leftovers were then fed into a wormery and they were shown how that worked, which was the bit they loved, of course, with all those squirming worms coming out of the bottom of it. They were then shown how the compost for the wormery helps to grow more basil. It was brilliant to see the kids so involved and learning things about food that they had never heard before.
A project in my constituency, Growing Futures, has a campfire where kids can sit around and talk. People with mental health issues go along as well. The project is also about growing food and it teaches young children about it in a fairly informal setting. We very much want to incorporate that into the Feeding Bristol project that we are running to tackle food poverty in the city.
The Food Growing in Schools Taskforce’s March 2012 report found that green activities in schools result in
“significant learning, skills, health and well-being outcomes for children”.
Surveys conducted by the Learning through Landscapes organisation found that 73% of teachers reported improved pupil behaviour, and 64% reported reduced bullying.
Another initiative that has enjoyed huge success in the UK recently is forest schools, where young children attend lessons in woodland environments. Forest schools have flourished in Bristol. We have had one since 2004 and it has its own woodland to use for sessions. Earthwise, an organisation focused on reconnecting young people with food, farming and the natural world, runs a forest school locally and works with the community farm in Chew Magna in Somerset to deliver educational visits, seasonal cookery days and holiday activities throughout the year. I do not have time today to go into the need to teach young children how to cook the food, but that is important, too.
A report by Forest Research, “A marvellous opportunity to learn”, found that children who regularly attend forest school sessions noticeably developed in confidence and independence, with social and team-working skills, better motivation and concentration and better physical skills and fine motor skills. It is a wonderful programme.
Even small physical changes can have a huge positive impact on children. The Carnegie Mellon school reported up to 26% higher test scores in classrooms with ample natural light, with the addition of plants leading to score improvements of 14%. That seems a strange connection to make, but that was the result of its survey. The 2005 report by the National Foundation for Educational Research, “The benefits of a forest school experience”, stated:
“While watching their children explore the woodland, the parents expressed their wonder at the level of independence and confidence their children were showing”,
and would in the future encourage more freedom outdoors,
“perhaps out of sight in a secure environment, leave the busy paths and let their children lead the way.”
So it is not just something that takes place in the classroom; it is outside the classroom as well. A great quote from one forest school leader summarises this:
“Children have fun during forest school, and so the place in which they have fun becomes important to them—keeping that environment cared for matters to them.”
It has also been shown to have a particularly remarkable impact on the development of students with special educational needs.
Sulivan Primary School in Fulham maintains a reading forest for its students, where children can find books “growing” on trees and in tents, as well as a wildlife garden, pond and vegetable plot. The school describes how children with special education needs, many of whom do not normally enjoy reading, benefit from the way that being in the outdoors relieves stress and anxiety, develops their social skills, motivates learning and allows them to be practical, responsible and productive members of the school’s community.
I am aware of the time, so I will skim over this quickly. The skills, knowledge and enjoyment benefit children when they become adults, too. In 2014, Lantra estimated that there were 230,000 businesses and 1.3 million employees working in the land and environmental industries, and that many more would be required by 2020. The horticultural and agricultural sectors are currently experiencing a skills shortage. The food sector is a huge part of the economy, and innovative, value-added products are the future of that industry. Innovation is going on at Harper Adams University. We need to engage young people and get them interested in careers in that field. There is the waste sector, energy sector, many high-tech engineering jobs, and renewable energy and eco-housing sectors. There are so many things that young people could be inspired to do.
It is almost obligatory in environmental debates these days to mention “Blue Planet”. The BBC natural history unit, based in Bristol, is behind amazing series such as “Planet Earth” and “Blue Planet”. In 2012, it teamed up with the University of the West of England to co-design a masters course in wildlife filmmaking, which is certainly something for young people to aspire to. Who knows? The makers of future “Blue Planets” could be in schools just waiting to have their imaginations fired.
In conclusion, we need to go further and not simply leave initiatives to the schools that have decided to run with them. We must embed them in the curriculum across the board. It could take the form of embedding the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals into lesson plans. It has been disappointing so far that when the Environmental Audit Committee has taken evidence from the Government, they still seem to see the SDGs as something that we do in developing countries rather than something that we are embedding into the way we do things here. School procurement decisions could be used to teach children about healthy eating.
I want to flag up a few countries that have gone further than the UK. I hope we can look at them as examples. The Dominican Republic, which is at great risk of climate change, established mandatory climate change education in schools in 1998. Australia introduced its national environmental education plan in 2000. Brazil’s educational guidelines required climate change to be taught in all subjects from 1998. The Philippines introduced climate change into the curriculum in 2009. Vietnam did it in 2008. Costa Rica has been doing it since the 1980s. If those countries can do it, we ought to do it in the UK, too.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her work. I know she feels passionately about this subject, as was clear in her speech. She is right that it is important that our children are taught about all the issues she mentioned. She mentioned animal welfare—she did not have time to expand—which is an important part of this. I want to stress that we are doing possibly more than she is aware of.
Let me look at primary education first. As part of the science curriculum, children are taught about the scientific concepts that relate to the environment from key stage 1. Under the national curriculum, five-year-olds will be taught to identify a variety of common and wild plants. They can do that by going out with their teachers. What better way to do it? Pupils at age 5 will also be taught to observe changes across the four seasons, including weather associated with the seasons. They start looking at the climate and how it is changing.
In the following year, pupils look at how seeds and plants grow, including the importance of water, light and the right temperature to keep them healthy. They are encouraged to ask questions about plants and animals in their local environment and observe how living things depend on each other, such as plants serving as a source of food. Such topics are built on at key stage 2, where pupils explore the requirements of plant life and growth. They will learn that environments can change and that that can pose dangers to living things. That includes exploring positive and negative impacts on environments, such as the negative effects of litter or urban development. Pupils are taught about the properties and changes of different materials such as metal, wood, paper and plastic, and that can provide an opportunity to consider how the materials are used, including their impact on their lives.
In key stage 1 geography, pupils are taught about seasonal and daily weather patterns in the UK, and the location of hot and cold areas of the world. In physical geography at key stage 2, pupils will learn about climate zones, biomes, vegetation belts and the water cycle. They will need to understand where food comes from as part of what they are taught in design and technology about cooking and nutrition. That will include seasonality and knowing where and how a variety of ingredients are grown, reared, caught and processed.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and to you, Sir Henry, for allowing me to intervene. On the point about the importance of observation in science and geography lessons, does the Minister agree with me that observation skills have made a great contribution to the development of science in this country? I think of the work of Charles Darwin and his observation of finches and evolution on the Beagle voyage, and of Sir Alexander Fleming and his work on the discovery of penicillin. Would she also agree with me about the importance of climate change education, specifically as part of the geography curriculum? She has dealt with that in part in her speech; I would love to hear more details and gain her support for the principle.
Anne Milton
I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman more detail. He is absolutely right: observation is critical. I do wonder whether we spend too much time on our mobile phones walking down the street; we observe very little these days about what is going on around us.
Much can also be done at home. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned David Attenborough. He is specifically mentioned in the key stage 2 curriculum—I am sure he has inspired many children with the breadth and wonder of his “Blue Planet II” series. Much can go on beyond the classroom.
In key stage 3 science, pupils cover the composition of the atmosphere, the carbon cycle and the importance of recycling. Ecosystems and biodiversity are covered again in more depth. Crucially, pupils will also be taught specifically about the production of carbon dioxide by human activity and the effect that that has on the Earth’s climate. Key stage 3 geography covers how human and physical processes interact to influence and change landscapes, environments and the climate, and the fact that human activity relies on effective functioning of natural systems.
I could mention the Government’s 25-year environment plan; I possibly do not have time to do that. It will be published shortly and will set out a vision for how we will improve the environment.
Our new citizenship curriculum can support people with that. For example, at key stage 4, pupils are taught the different ways in which a citizen can contribute to the improvement of their community, including having the opportunity to participate actively through volunteering as well as other forms of responsible activity. The hon. Lady mentioned a number of organisations doing good work, which can form part of that work.
As part of the new science GCSEs introduced in September 2016, pupils will need to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the evidence, and the uncertainties in evidence, for additional anthropogenic causes of climate change. The GCSE also includes the potential effects and mitigation of increased levels of carbon dioxide and ethane on the earth’s climate, and more about ecosystems, including positive and negative human interactions with ecosystems.
Geography GCSE enables students to become globally and environmentally informed. It includes, for example, the UK’s physical and human landscapes and environmental challenges, the characteristics of climate change and the evidence for different causes, including human activity.
As part of the new food preparation and nutrition GCSE, students are required to understand the economic, environmental, ethical and socio-cultural influences on food availability and production processes, as well as diet and healthy choices. Other GCSEs touch on environmental issues, including the new design and technology GCSE, which provides opportunities for students to consider the environmental issues of designing and making products, for instance by investigating factors such as environmental, social and economic challenges. Geology GCSE requires students to look at and consider evidence for climate change. Business GCSE requires students to know and understand the impact of ethical and environmental considerations on business, including sustainability.
It is important to say that teachers are free to teach beyond the curriculum content. For example, teachers can discuss the global development goal on climate action as part of lessons on climate change. They can also draw on the wealth of resources that are out there to support and enhance what they teach. Teachers are professionals and I know they will use every opportunity to do that.
There are many charities and organisations—the hon. Lady mentioned a few—that provide additional support, for example, the Eco-Schools programme run by Keep Britain Tidy. It is pupil-led and involves hands-on work; it gets the whole school and the wider community involved. I believe St Patrick’s primary school in Liverpool has received a green flag school award for doing that. Schools are also free to follow the forest school approach, where pupils can be taught in a woodland or natural environment with trees.
Of course, it is not just what is taught in the curriculum that matters; it is how it is taught. The quality of teaching is vital, and we are offering generous bursaries of up to £26,000 and scholarships worth up to £28,000 to attract science and geography graduates into teaching. We also fund the national network of 46 science learning partnerships to provide science teachers with access to high-quality continuing professional development that aims to improve how they deliver the science curriculum and qualifications. STEM Learning, which delivers that programme, has worked with the Royal Horticultural Society to develop a CPD programme on plant science for primary teachers, including practical sessions on outdoor teaching. STEM Learning also houses a considerable library of teaching resources that schools can access online, many of which will help support the teaching of environmental topics in the curriculum.
At post-16 there will be other opportunities for pupils to study all those issues. The new environmental science A-level replaces the old environmental studies—I think it is crucial that it is called environmental science. It was introduced in September 2017 and provides its students with the opportunity to develop their knowledge and understanding across a range of related topics. The content has been brought into alignment with content for other new science A-levels, to better prepare students for higher education, and that is reflected in the change of name from environmental studies to environmental science.
The new reformed geography A-level enables students to participate critically with real-world issues, grow as independent thinkers and understand the role and importance of geography as one of the key disciplines relevant to the understanding of the world’s changing peoples, places and environments. It includes recognising and being able to analyse the complexity of people-environment interactions and appreciating how they underpin an understanding of some of the key issues facing the world today.
I would add a word about T-levels. The Chancellor allocated additional funding of £500 million for their delivery, and the first teaching of T-levels by a small number of providers will start in September 2020. The agriculture T-level and the environment and animal care T-level will be rolled out in the second wave, to be launched in 2022. That will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark).
As with all routes, the content of T-levels will be determined by advisory groups of employers, professionals and practitioners, which will mean that T-level programmes have real market value. We recently launched a public consultation on the implementation of T-levels and want to hear from all stakeholders; the hon. Member for Bristol East might want to contribute to that.
The importance of observation and of embedding a true understanding of science within the curriculum was raised. This is not a subject that can be placed in one little box. What is really important is that the issues the hon. Lady raised are touched on in many different subject areas—one of the problems is that education has been very siloed—and we need good maths, English and digital skills as a foundation. I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that 49% of adults have the maths capability of an 11-year-old or less. It is important that we get the fundamentals right, so that young people grow up to understand exactly the impact that they have on the world around them, the environment in which they live and their local communities. When they drop a piece of litter, they should understand the impact that can have.
I am enormously grateful for the support that the hon. Lady has given to this crucial subject. She has raised some important issues and I know she has campaigned on this. I am sure that, with the Speaker’s leave, she may well secure another debate on this matter—perhaps even a Backbench Business debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Mobility (Wales)
(6 years, 4 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
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social mobility in Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, in my last debate in the House before the Christmas recess, as you are our constituency and county neighbour.
Social mobility should be at the forefront of political discourse, and in Wales that should be particularly the case. Given our industrial history and the fact that nearly a quarter of all individuals now live in poverty, we are in desperate need of a social mobility revolution to ensure that every child is afforded the same opportunities in life. The widening gulf between classes means that even the brightest and most talented children can struggle in life as a result of their background. It is of deep concern to many in our nation, and until removed it obstructs any pretence that we live in a fair and just society.
We should not forget the progress we have made on this issue. Under the Labour Government, absolute child poverty was cut in half and the fight to cut child poverty further was enshrined in law, only to be scrapped by the coalition Government, who went on to change the definition of child poverty altogether in 2015. It is high time that Ministers tackled the root causes of poverty, rather than moving the goalposts to improve their weak record.
The children who were lifted out of poverty by the Labour Government grew up having led a better childhood, and as a result are more likely to succeed in life. The Labour Government also introduced more than 3,600 Sure Start centres in England and set the ball rolling for Flying Start in Wales. The benefits of Flying Start can be seen in every constituency across Wales. It improves early-years education and helps parents and families in non-working or low-income households through parenting support groups. Across the UK, the Labour Government also increased the number of young people aged 18 to 24 in full-time education by 60%.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In June 2014, the then hon. Member for Torfaen—now Baron Murphy of Torfaen—produced an influential report showing that a student from the Welsh valleys is five times less likely to apply to Oxbridge than a student from Hertfordshire, and is 10 times less likely to receive an offer. Does my hon. Friend think that is a terrible indictment of the lack of social mobility in Wales? Since then, the situation has not improved.
Chris Elmore
I wholeheartedly agree. As the only one of three siblings to go to university, I think there is a real issue with social mobility—never mind going to Oxford or Cambridge—and the impact that child poverty has on young people’s opportunities to go on to higher education or even, in some cases, further education.
Education became the greatest tool for advancing social mobility, and the Government would do well to remember that. Labour also introduced the national minimum wage—a fantastic achievement for a number of reasons, not least for its impact on social mobility. Since the foundation of the Welsh Government, much effort has been put into ensuring we make strides to improve equality of opportunity across our nation.
As a result of various initiatives introduced by successive Administrations, unemployment in Wales is falling faster than it is in the UK as a whole, and it continues to be lower than the UK average. Last week, the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates, launched Wales’s economic action plan, which sets out to deliver a dynamic new relationship between the Government and business as partners for growth. It will ensure that public investment fulfils a social purpose. That new economic contract will require the Welsh Government to support the conditions for growth. In return, businesses seeking direct investment must demonstrate, as a minimum requirement, growth potential; fair work, as defined by the Fair Work Board; and the promotion of health—including a special emphasis on mental health—skills and learning in the workplace. Through such strategies, the Welsh Government are committed to working with business to provide skilled jobs for people across Wales. That is particularly welcome, given the impact of deindustrialisation across Wales.
The UK Government need to take note of that kind of innovative and progressive thinking when starting to take action on social mobility across the United Kingdom. The Government finally announced the start of discussions on a north Wales growth plan, which is a good opportunity for them, as part of their negotiations, to support the communities and industries across the region with a focus on skills and jobs.
There has been considerable investment to close the education attainment gap and improve skill levels, and the Welsh Government are making tremendous efforts to increase the number of apprentices to 100,000 before 2021. To do that, they will increase investment in apprenticeships from £96 million to £111.5 million for 2017-18 alone. On top of that, they are focusing on the early years of children’s lives—the stage when we can have the most impact on improving their health, education and other outcomes later in life. In 2015, the Welsh Government launched a child poverty strategy with five key objectives to tackle the underlying causes of child poverty and provide more equality of opportunity for low-income families across Wales. It includes strategies such as free school meals, the Healthy Child Wales programme, the Business Wales services, the Wales economic growth fund, support for the work of credit unions, the Skills Gateway service, the Lift programme and many more initiatives targeted at enabling individuals from less wealthy backgrounds to access opportunities from an early age.
Recently, it was announced that there will be a fresh approach to improving prosperity in the south Wales valleys, led by the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, Alun Davies, and driven by his ministerial taskforce. It will ensure that no communities are left behind. The “Our Valley, Our Future” plan will foster good- quality jobs, better public services and community cohesion in some of our poorest towns and villages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Welsh Government’s new policy, will he confirm that it will be a more effective use of public money than the £500 million that was wasted on Communities First?
Chris Elmore
I do not think for one second that Communities First funding was wasted. In fact, as a county councillor, I did work through some of the Communities First schemes in my county. Communities First has had positive outcomes across Wales. The Welsh Government have admitted that they now want to review how that funding will move forward, but the Minister cannot say that investing in our communities is a waste of money. It is nice to know what the Tories think of investing in communities up and down Wales.
We face real and deep challenges, but it is positive that Welsh Government Ministers are genuinely committed to addressing these complex societal issues. There are social mobility problems for us to reverse, but we should not forget that progress has been made. Unfortunately, that progress is grinding to a halt as a result of UK Government policy. The Welsh Government are working hard to increase prosperity and to help people out of poverty, but a continued agenda of cuts from Westminster and the severity of UK Government austerity is putting progress at risk. It is not simply that there is inaction on improving social mobility; there is an agenda that is taking us backwards.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 37% of children in the UK will be in relative poverty by 2022, which represents a reversal of all progress made in the past 20 years. On top of that, Shelter said that 128,000 children will wake up homeless in Britain on Christmas day. That fact alone should bring shame on the Government. If children grow up homeless or in poverty, their chances of success in life are greatly reduced, which puts a roadblock in the way of social mobility. Unfortunately, the Government in Westminster have shown no intention of focusing on social mobility and improving equality of opportunity.
Wales’s Children’s Commissioner and her three UK counterparts recently called on the Government to take action on the roll-out of universal credit, which is plunging the poorest children into poverty and will surely leave lasting marks on their life chances. Unfortunately, the rampant roll-out of universal credit is not the only Government policy that has led to children being plunged back into poverty. The bedroom tax, cuts to tax credits and the knock-on effects of cuts to Welsh Government block grants, which are leading to cuts in children’s services and youth services across the board, are having a detrimental impact on children’s life chances. If the Government carry on with their dogmatic cuts agenda, the impact on young people, and in turn social mobility, risks leaving a generation behind. Each of those policies is hitting children hard. As a result, one in three children in the UK is now growing up in poverty, and more than 1 million people are reliant on food banks.
The “Good Childhood” report published in August 2017 by the Children’s Society highlighted the fact that children and young people’s happiness is in decline, which has implications for attainment and social mobility. I am sure I do not need to remind Members that only a few weeks ago Alan Milburn and the entire board of the Government’s social mobility commission resigned in protest at the issue being “an afterthought”.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the resignation—I agree that it was hugely significant—included a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Gillian Shephard? Social mobility is not a partisan issue; it is something we all need to be worried about if we care about the future of our countries of Wales and Britain.
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The baroness in question is a former Secretary of State for Education and Employment. When a Conservative of that stature says, “This is not acceptable,” and that social mobility is now “an afterthought”, it is hugely concerning, so that mass resignation was worrying.
The commission’s “State of the nation” report and its focus on Wales are what I would like to draw to the attention of Members. The commission found that the percentage of individuals living in poverty in Wales is higher than in all regions of Great Britain except London and the west midlands, and that 26% of people earn an income below the living wage. Much of that seems to be due to the UK Government’s implementation of a public sector pay cap in Wales, which has denied our hard-working public sector employees a fair pay increase in seven years.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. Much of what he is saying about Wales applies to Scotland. With reference to the public sector pay cap, he will share my appetite to see it lifted throughout the UK so that the worst decade for wage growth in 210 years can finally come to an end.
Chris Elmore
I agree. The Royal College of Nursing, Unison, GMB and the trade unions across the public sector have all said that they expect the UK Government to raise the cap—or to scrap the cap, to borrow the hashtag on Twitter—because they do not see it as the responsibility of the Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to scrap it. I am aware that the Scottish Government have introduced some changes, but those should not be at the cost of other public services. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the emphasis is on the UK Government to step up and to give public sector workers a pay rise.
There is also reason to be concerned about higher education figures in Wales: the entry rate is 37.5%, compared with 42.5% in England. Such matters are being addressed by the Welsh Government, but with a UK Government reluctant to concede the scale of the problem and offer appropriate funding, the problems come as little surprise.
At Bridgend College in my constituency—and in yours, Mrs Moon—at the Pencoed campus in Ogmore, a huge amount of work has been done to encourage people into higher and further education. I have met truly inspiring students, many of whom are the first in their family to stay in education beyond the age of 16, and some of whom now have aspirations to study at university, including Oxford, Cambridge and beyond—to go back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Thanks to the Welsh Government, Wales will soon have the most generous student finance support package in the UK, helping more people from all backgrounds to reach their full potential.
Each week, as Members, we see the true lack of social mobility as we help vulnerable people through our surgeries and casework, and all the while there are more billionaires in the UK than ever before. I have no problem with success or business; I have a problem with the widening inequality between the poorest and the richest across this country. The situation could be addressed via an increase in the block grant and, if the Minister talks about the floor or whatever, the reality is that all those things can be implemented—but the Barnett formula needs to be reviewed and changed. In case he wishes to remind me, I am well aware that throughout the 13 years of Labour government the formula was not reviewed, but I make the point strongly that in every single year of a Labour Government the block grant was increased, only to be cut and cut by the current Government.
Chris Elmore
I have nearly finished my speech, but I am sure the Minister can come back on this in his response to the debate.
If the Government here in Westminster were to reassess their block grant to the Welsh Government, that could open up opportunities to create more targeted and direct support to tackle poverty and increase social mobility. In real terms, the Welsh Government budget will be 5% lower in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11. Cuts have consequences and we can see the impact of austerity in each and every one of our communities, no matter which party we represent in the House.
We should remember that progress has been made, and I have been fortunate enough to see the benefits in my community. Unfortunately, across Wales it is still overwhelmingly the case that a person’s opportunities in life are determined by their background. I sincerely hope that the UK Government will give consideration to the obstacles in the path of social mobility in Wales and act to make it easier for everyone in life to succeed, regardless of who they are and where they come from.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mrs Moon.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing the debate and on the very considered and thoughtful way in which he opened it. He covered a number of the issues, and I propose to focus my remarks on early years, vocational qualifications, and the academic sphere and our elite universities.
The early years are without doubt extraordinarily important. A lot of data suggest that by the age of seven people’s likely GCSE results can be predicted, which suggests that the biggest difference can be made in those very early years of life. In that regard, I praise the important work of the Welsh Government focusing on the early years. As the years go by, clearly that investment will feed through.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about Wales’s performance in the PISA—programme for international student assessment—tables? Endeavours to improve teaching and learning in Wales should be concentrated on releasing teachers to be trained, unlike some of the temporary initiatives we have seen in the past.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not for a moment underplay the wider challenges. I agree with the hon. Lady about a holistic approach that involves support for teaching, but at the moment I am merely remarking that all the data suggest that those early years are important to the results achieved later, in particular at age 16.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned the achievements of the previous Labour Government on child poverty, which are extremely important. It was the greatest of disappointments, to say the least, that in 2015 the UK Government chose to change the definition of child poverty, which seemed to me simply a way of escaping the problem, not facing it.
There seems to be a historical problem with vocational qualifications. Most people understand that in the post-war era the Butler Education Act 1944 created a system of grammar schools and secondary moderns, but it was never intended to be bipartite; it was meant to be tripartite and to include technical schools as well. In post-war Britain, we have not developed those technical schools as perhaps we should have done. That is not to neglect fine work on apprenticeships. In my constituency and elsewhere I have seen the work of the Welsh Government in that regard, but without doubt there is still more to do to promote apprenticeships as a career path and give them parity of esteem with academic qualifications.
Last summer I visited an ITV apprenticeship scheme. It was outside Wales, in Leeds, but none the less what I experienced there makes the point. I saw a very fine apprenticeship scheme in which people worked around television sets and so on, gaining skills that could be used in that environment or in a broader trade. The problem was that most of the apprentices told me that they had had to find the information about the opportunity themselves, on the internet; they did not hear about it from their career advisers. We need to promote the apprenticeships route at a far younger age throughout the United Kingdom.
University is not for everyone, but the fact remains that many of those in top public and private sector jobs around our country have attended Oxford, Cambridge or other universities in the Russell Group. A lot of recent statistics should alarm us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has produced a report showing a geographical domination of all those elite university places by students from the south-east of England. Freedom of information requests to local authorities paint a stark picture. From 2010 to 2015, eight students from the bottom eight local authorities, which includes Torfaen, received offers to go to Cambridge University. Contrast that with the top eight, which includes Surrey and Kent, where 4,800 offers were made in the same period. That division has to be dealt with. Frankly, it is not sustainable in the long term.
I worked as an Oxford University tutor and lecturer for 14 years from just after I graduated in 2001 until I was elected to Parliament in 2015. I had a great deal to do with the admissions process during that period, and I learned three clear lessons. Aspiration is of course vital. Whether we are talking about Oxford and Cambridge or about other elite universities, it is critical that people actually want to apply and are able to think, “This is something for me.” However, that is not enough in and of itself—there needs to be support around it. It always seemed to me that what marked out successful interviewees was their confidence and their ability to sell themselves. In the cases of Oxford and Cambridge, that applies to interviews, but it also applies more broadly across the university sector to personal statements and people’s ability to express what they have done.
The third lesson was about networking skills, which were always demonstrated in people’s personal statements by their extracurricular activities and work experience. People who existed in fine networks to begin with always had far more opportunities to use in the university admissions process than those who did not. We need to teach those skills right across our schools sector so that people have them at ages 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Susan Elan Jones
There are some chilling figures about that. I appreciate that it is quite a long time since I was at university, and I know that my old university, the University of Bristol, has improved considerably in this regard, but when I was there more than 70% of students in my faculty were independently educated. In one department in the faculty that figure was 91%, which is staggering.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. On average, around 7% of each cohort goes to fee-paying schools, but that percentage is far higher at our elite universities. Why might that be? My experience was that there were never enough applicants from the state sector in any cohort. As I indicated, we have to tackle that by demystification—by making things clear by saying to people: “There are no places that are not for you if you have the talent to get there.” That sounds easy, but I appreciate that it is a huge challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) mentioned the report of the Oxbridge ambassador for Wales, which I was pleased to play a small part in producing before I entered the House. Its author was my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Torfaen, Lord Murphy. The report, which, as my hon. Friend set out, was published in 2014, sought to address the scale of the problem and suggested a series of practical measures, which are being rolled out across Wales. We probably will not see the results of those measures immediately—we will have to see how they pan out in the years to come—but central to the report’s recommendations is the idea of having regional hubs in Wales. The skills that I have talked about—networking skills, and the ability to sell oneself in an interview and on paper—can be looked at on a regional basis. Schools can identify people who have the potential to go to our elite universities, and those people can go to hubs to be provided with that support. I firmly believe that that can make a difference. It has to, because the report highlighted that parts of Wales—incidentally, this applies not just to Wales but to other parts of the UK—are, frankly, deserts for Oxbridge applications.
We talk about university applications. Of course we want our universities to continue to be world leading. This is not about some sort of social engineering occurring at age 18; it is about the interests of our country. We must not lose some of our most talented people simply because they do not apply to universities because they think they are not for them.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on securing this debate and on the considered way that he introduced it.
As chair of the all-party group on social mobility and a Member who represents a constituency that has not only a border but many economic, cultural and political links with Wales, I have two reasons for participating in the debate. As we all know, it does not matter whether someone lives in Bangor, Buckley or Birkenhead; in too many parts of this country, their place of birth can override their ability and potential, and generation after generation struggles against entrenched disadvantage that should put us all to shame. We have mistakenly and unquestioningly accepted the myth that greater economic growth leads to increased opportunity for all, despite overwhelming evidence that tells us otherwise.
Earlier this year, my APPG published a report entitled “Increasing access to the leading professions”. It looked at opportunities in law, finance, the arts, media, medicine, the civil service and politics, and found that, whatever the profession, there is a similar lack of opportunity and similar reasons for that. Privilege and opportunity go hand in hand across the board. For example, Sutton Trust research shows that three quarters of senior judges, more than half the top 100 news journalists and more than two thirds of British Oscar winners attended private schools.
The APPG recommended that there should be a legal ban on unpaid internships lasting more than a month. We found that their unpaid nature was not the only barrier: many of those placements are in London, which means that unless someone is from that area and has parents who can support them for an extended period, there is no prospect of them being able even to consider such an internship.
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the excellent Speaker’s internship scheme should consider providing means for people to afford accommodation in London, so that we can reach out to people who could not otherwise gain from such paid experiences?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. We took evidence from several successful applicants to the Speaker’s internship scheme. The geographical challenges were certainly very apparent, and that ought to be fed back.
How can anyone from outside London—from the north-west of England, Wales or anywhere else in the UK—go and do unpaid placements in London for months on end? There also need to be fair, transparent and open recruitment processes for such placements, which we found are often determined by existing connections, be they family or business contacts. The same rigour needs to be applied to those placements as would be applied if they were permanent jobs, otherwise we may just ease the path for people who are already on it.
One simple change could make a big difference to improving social mobility. There is a private Member’s Bill in the other place that seeks to end unpaid work placements. However, given what we have seen so far in terms of Government action, that does not seem easy to deliver in practice. Although I understand that responsibility for social mobility rests primarily with the Department for Education, any action on unpaid internships must be taken by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There has of course been no action, which proves Alan Milburn’s recent point that commitment to social mobility does not spread out across the whole of the Government. It needs to. Yes, it is to do with early years, schools and universities, but it also involves the world of work, housing and health. The Social Mobility Commission provided us with a wholesale national analysis of all those issues, but the Government’s response is too often constrained by Departments’ silo mentality, which is sometimes exacerbated by devolved responsibilities getting in the way.
I am sure that if I asked a group of young people from many of the constituencies represented in the Chamber what they wanted to do when they are older, they would not say they wanted to be a doctor, a lawyer or an actor. For too many young people, the very notion that they should even consider such careers is almost universally absent. They need role models, mentors and inspirers—people from their communities who have been there and done it. We need to inspire young people from an early age to aim for wherever their abilities and interests take them. We should not accept that coming from the wrong part of town means low horizons. Getting a job should mean following dreams and forging a career, not simply working to survive.
In keeping with the Welsh theme, we were fortunate to have Michael Sheen give evidence to the APPG. There is no doubt that he is an inspirer and mentor for the kids of Port Talbot. We are not going to get a Michael Sheen in every constituency, but I hope there will be others in every other town who will provide similar inspiration.
Mentorship and inspiration are important, but without academic equality they will not be sufficient. The Sutton Trust report, “Global Gaps”, looks at attainment gaps across 38 OECD countries and as a result can pinpoint how each of the devolved Administrations is performing. Unfortunately, it showed Wales performing rather poorly compared with other industrialised nations, in particular in reading and mathematics, where the skills of the most able pupils are some way behind those of pupils in comparable nations. On a more positive note, it did say that the gap between the most able, advantaged and disadvantaged pupils in Wales was relatively small compared to other industrialised nations. However, sadly, the report concludes that the situation for high-achieving pupils across the whole of the UK is “stagnant at best”.
Stagnation is a good description of where we are now. I urge all Members, if they have not already done so, to read the Social Mobility Commission’s latest “State of the Nation” report, which paints a bleak picture of a deeply divided nation in which too many people are trapped in geographical areas or occupations with little hope of advancement or progression. It talks about an “us and them” society, in which millions feel left behind. Specifically, the report talks about major changes to the labour market in recent decades, which have imprisoned 5 million workers in a low-pay trap from which there appears to be no escape. The report highlights places that offer good prospects for income progression and those that do not, showing that real social mobility is in fact a postcode lottery, with the worst problems concentrated in remote rural or coastal areas and former industrial areas—that description will be familiar to Members in the Chamber today—not only in Wales but in England.
Encouragingly, the report finds that well-targeted local policies and initiatives adopted by local authorities and employers can buck the trend and positively influence outcomes for disadvantaged residents. In short, where there is a will and strong leadership, things can be done.
This country is too closed. It is a country where too often people’s life chances are defined by where they are born and who they are born to. We are now in a world where many parents believe their children will have less opportunity than they did, and I deeply regret that. Automation and artificial intelligence will only exacerbate the problem, and we are miles away from even beginning to understand the social impact that will have. The only way we will be able to meet those challenges in the future is by intensive, long-term Government intervention, not just at the ages of five or 15, but at 35 and 50 and so on. The world of work will change more rapidly than ever before, and we need to recognise that opportunity will need to be addressed not just in our younger years, vital though that is, but throughout our lives. We have to invest in ourselves through all of our working lives, but we cannot do that without Government support.
We have heard about the geographical divide, and the APPG is looking at that, but there is also a generational divide. I do not believe that the recent election was a ringing endorsement of the status quo. What we saw was that the more young people engaged with the question of what they want from their Government, the more they turned away from the existing set-up, and who can blame them? Do they want to better themselves and study at university? Yes, there are opportunities, but they come with eye-watering debt that may never be paid off. Want to own a home? Unless the bank of mum and dad is there to fall back on, there could be a very long wait. Want to build a career in a profession doing something rewarding financially and intellectually? Those opportunities exist for the few, not the many.
The more likely experience for our young people in the job market is casual work, low pay and chronic insecurity. It is time we offered them hope. Across the years, across the Government and across the nations, we need total commitment to delivering opportunity for all.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mrs Moon. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this important debate, and I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who made a considered and quite inspiring speech.
To speak plainly, responsibility for social mobility lies with the National Assembly. The Welsh Government have a crucial role to play in reducing inequality in Wales, but it is also true that every decision taken in Westminster has a very real impact on people’s prospects in Wales, whether it be on social security, digital connectivity or infrastructure, to name just those areas I intend to concentrate on today. I have to return to my expertise in a former life—I was a director in a large further education establishment—and I must reiterate the integral role that education plays in promoting social mobility.
In one of the earlier speeches, early years, vocational education and higher education were mentioned. Those, in terms of funding, targets, quality of achievement and the curriculum, are entirely within Labour’s remit in Wales. It is important to emphasise that in the role that we expect education to play. I have seen how the effects of the political choices made in different areas of Wales have played out, and it would be extremely disingenuous of me not to remind the Chamber of the role of Labour in that respect. However, today I intend to be “on location” and direct my arguments to the Minister.
One other thing I would like to question slightly is using Oxbridge as our measure of success. It is interesting that so many people here attended Oxford and Cambridge, but we should be building a society where someone can gain that capability and confidence without having public, or private, school education and Oxbridge university education behind them. We should be building that in Wales for our young people to achieve near to their own homes.
In the effort to champion social mobility, redistribute wealth and provide opportunity, every socioeconomic pillar must carry its load. The Government are failing to raise the people of Wales through the measures in their remit of social security, infrastructure and digital connectivity in particular. Changes to social security made by the Government will hit the poorest areas hardest. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has revealed that Westminster’s benefit cuts will trigger a rise of over 5% in child poverty in Wales, compared to 1.5% in London. Wales remains the only country in western Europe without an inch of electrified railway, and all the while Welsh taxpayers are contributing towards High Speed 2. We hear disingenuous arguments as to how HS2 will benefit us. Frankly, I have concerns about how it will affect services from Cardiff to Manchester via Crewe and services along the north Wales line as well.
Only yesterday, we read reports in the Financial Times that the Westminster Government are having cold feet over the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project—we already had that impression—which is an investment that would bring £316 million of gross value added in its construction alone. What about digital connectivity? Recently, the Westminster Government invested significant sums to improve broadband infrastructure in three of the four UK nations—but not in Wales. They found £20 million for ultrafast broadband in Northern Ireland and £10 million was found for full-fibre broadband in six trial areas across England and Scotland, yet nothing for Wales. According to Ministers, the decision on where to invest the money was based on how likely they believed it was that the investment would stimulate short-term economic growth, effectively to boost headline statistics. That is where the fundamental problem lies and where the link between social mobility in Wales and Westminster’s priority is at its weakest.
It is not the Government’s job to pick who wins and who loses in the British state; it is their job to provide equality of opportunity. There is of course a complex link between regional inequality and social mobility. Poverty in the UK is particularly concentrated in Wales, affecting nearly one in four people, while the UK poverty rate remains at 16.8%. Median weekly salaries stand at £393 in Wales, compared with £434 in England. When I hear about the employment rate, yes, I am delighted that people are in full-time worthwhile work, but I also know of people in my constituency who are holding down three or four jobs in order to make a living. There must be a question about salaries and regional inequality in the United Kingdom.
In the past 10 years, under successive Westminster Governments, productivity in my county of Gwynedd has fallen by 10% while productivity in central London has risen by more than 5%. Unlike the Westminster Government, the EU recognises wealth inequality as a problem to be addressed, and attempts have been made to make up for Westminster’s neglect and to strengthen Wales’s economy by redistributing wealth. I know we discussed the effects of European structural funds. Could we take a step back and consider where Wales would be if we had not received those funds? They were there for the noble principle of addressing inequality and poverty.
Guto Bebb
The hon. Lady is somewhat unreasonable in her comments. The European structural funds were provided to ensure that GDP levels in Wales were comparable with the average of the European Union. That measure failed significantly in the Welsh context, and I want to stress that that was not the fault of the European Union. It failed as a result of the way in which the projects were designed in a Welsh context. That has been the problem.
Liz Saville Roberts
Again, what would the position of Wales have been if we had not received those funds? We may not agree on the way they were used, but I am truly concerned that we are moving to a future in which there is no principle on addressing and raising those funds.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am coming to a close.
At a time when we are being pulled out of the European Union, the Westminster Government must stick to their promises at the time of the referendum and ensure that Wales will continue to receive every single penny that it received thanks to the EU’s redistributive wealth policies. I beg to ask the Minister to say what Wales’s fair share will be.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Moon. You are a former social worker of course, so nobody has to tell you about the problems of social mobility in Wales. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I must improve my Welsh pronunciation—who is quickly becoming, like her predecessor, a very well respected Member of this House.
I wish I could stand here and say that there is a magic bullet to bring about true social mobility in Wales. Sadly, there is not. For many people living outside Wales, this year’s findings in the State of the Nation report on Welsh poverty will come as a shock. For those of us who have lived and grown up in Wales and are proud to represent constituencies there, it comes as no surprise.
According to the State of the Nation report, 23% of people in Wales live in poverty. That is almost 700,000 people, and more than half are in working households. Further research has found that children born into working-class families are significantly less likely to move up the socio-economic ladder than their peers from middle-class, financially stable households. Children living in the poorest households are less likely to enter further education post-GCSEs, are less likely to go to university, and in turn are less likely to find skilled employment later on in life.
Quoting figures is all very well, but the reality is that many of our children have woken up this morning in damp, cold, sub-standard accommodation. Many have gone to school hungry and without the right equipment for school. To put it bluntly, those born into poor households are failed before they even start. Poverty is not just an abstract problem. It is not something we speak about to feel good about ourselves. It is something that affects our society. It is a drain on resources. It stretches our welfare state. It clogs up our health service. It is man-made and can therefore be changed. In all candour and in all honesty, what has gone before clearly has not worked. It is damning of every one of us in this place that nearly a quarter of people live in poverty in Wales. The decisions we make have clearly not worked. Tinkering around the edges is no longer any good. We have to have a fundamental change in the way we do things.
In my own constituency of Islwyn, which is based in the Caerphilly county borough, the attainment gap between key stage 2 and 3 pupils who are eligible for free meals and those who are not is significant. Only 28% of those pupils eligible for free school meals achieve the equivalent of A* to C GCSE in the core subject indicator. Caerphilly county borough is also middling in terms of its youth indicators for destinations for year 11 leavers, ranking 12th. Some 1.9% of students in the borough are not in education, employment or training, and it gets worse at a national level.
In Wales, 37.5% of people will apply for university compared with 42.5% in England. Added to that, in each and every one of our constituencies there is a poverty that has no measure and cannot be talked about. Mrs Moon, you know about it in your constituency of Bridgend. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) knows it as well. You walk up to the brightest child and say to their parents, “This child can go all the way to university,” and they say, “It’s not for us. You’re off your head. It does not happen to people round here.”
I can still remember—this is a true story—a careers teacher saying to me, “I have one piece of advice for you: have no ambition. Nobody from round here becomes anything, anyway.” That was the attitude then, and I fear that for so many people that is the attitude now.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I, too, have heard those absolutely tragic comments in my own constituency. However, it is clear that things can turn around if the right interventions are made. We have seen a remarkable turnaround in Eastern High in Cardiff and also with the fantastic investment in Cardiff and Vale College. We have seen a turnaround in results, in aspirations, in ambition. That is making a real difference in young people’s lives, thanks to the investment from the Welsh Labour Government.
Chris Evans
I absolutely agree. In some cases we have to intervene family by family, but it is a huge undertaking in terms of human resources and financial investment. As we saw under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, when we have the will we can reduce child poverty, and we did. I do not want to paint a picture of my constituency as all doom and gloom. I absolutely hate it when people talk us down. How can we attract high-quality jobs when we keep telling people we are dependent on soup kitchens? In Islwyn—Mrs Moon, you will know as a member of the Defence Committee—we have General Dynamics creating high-quality, high-skilled jobs. That is the future, but we have to do three things.
The one thing we have not talked about in this debate is entrepreneurship. Our future will not depend on the public sector. If we are to create high-quality jobs, they have to come from within Wales. But I will say this. How many people in this room—will the Minister accept this?—know how to go about setting up a business and how to deal with VAT and human resources? How many people spoke to anybody in school who said to them, “Business could be the way forward for you”? Think about it. We talk all the time about academics. The most famous entrepreneurs in this country—Lord Sugar of “The Apprentice”; Duncan Bannatyne of “Dragons’ Den”—share one thing in common. Not one of them has a single qualification between them, but they all managed to build companies that employ thousands of people, bringing wealth to this country.
I have talked to the Federation of Small Businesses. Business is vital. We have 250,100 active businesses in Wales with a combined turnover of £117 billion; 95% are micro-businesses employing no more than nine people. Large businesses make up only 0.7% but employ 38% of the workforce. We need to go into schools to encourage enterprise. We need entrepreneurs to talk to our schoolchildren. If we think that that cannot be done, just look at the viewing figures for “Dragons’ Den” or “The Apprentice”. One of the most viewed programmes at the weekend was the final of “The Apprentice”. People see business as something exciting that they can get involved in, but it cannot be on the other side of a television screen. Someone, whether it is Lord Sugar or a local entrepreneur or employer, needs to come to schools to tell people about their experiences.
We should ask ourselves about the way we teach children. It is no good saying we have a GCSE pass rate of 60%. What about the other 40%? I have to ask about the way we teach our children not only in Wales but all over the country. We know from academic studies that people learn in four different ways, yet we teach people only in one way: the teacher in front of the class teaching the kids. Some kids will flourish, but others will not. We therefore have to look at the way people learn. We have so many opportunities. In years to come, traditional exams will not be the measure.
I recently visited the Man Group, an investment company that is investing in artificial intelligence. It told me that it now wants graduates with degrees in machine learning. The graduate entry level salary for that is £60,000. Most of its graduates will have been to Oxford. We should teach kids coding and similar skills from an early age, because the future will be automation and artificial intelligence. My son Zachariah is 10 months old, and he will probably do a job that I have never heard of. We must start teaching kids the core skills in school. The issue goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said: we need mentors in schools, to teach people about those things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) talked about the 1944 Butler report and the tripartite system. We have neglected technical skills. I believe that people voted for Brexit because of fear of immigration. Those migrants will not now come in. We need to invest in technical education, and that needs to come from the Government, but we need to make sure that technical qualifications involve the same level of attainment as a degree. Not everyone is academic; some people are good with their hands.
Guto Bebb
I applaud the hon. Gentleman on a fantastic speech. The attainment levels in those General Dynamics apprenticeships, which are being supported by Y Coleg Merthyr Tudful, are really quite inspiring. Does he agree that the fact that those opportunities are available in valleys communities will make the difference and show that young people can have a future in those communities?
Chris Evans
I congratulate the Minister: I am quite shocked—I have been in the House seven years and he has never said anything nice about me before, so I can only think he must have been visited by the same Christmas spirits who haunted Ebenezer Scrooge all those years ago. The worst thing is that I agree with him. I should stop and move on.
If we are truly to tackle social mobility we need a change in our mindset. We need radical solutions. We cannot go on as we are. If one person fails, we all fail. Together, if we are radical and think outside the box, we can ensure that the next generation will have better opportunities than the present one.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who made a passionate speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this important debate.
Crippling austerity, welfare cuts, unfair and disorganised welfare reforms, plummeting productivity, stagnant wages and increased living costs will only increase under the Tory Government as a result of their shambolic Brexit negotiations. Is it any wonder that social mobility is suffering? Only two weeks ago, as we have heard, Alan Milburn, the chair of the Government’s Social Mobility Commission, and the entire team resigned, citing “lack of political leadership”. The findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that almost 400,000 more children and 300,000 more pensioners have been impoverished in the UK since 2013, are shocking. The Tory Government should be ashamed, despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, who promised when she was elected to heal social divisions and bridge the gap between the classes. Her Government have done nothing to improve social mobility. On the contrary, she and her predecessors have presided over the first sustained increase in child poverty in 20 years. They achieved that by adopting anti-welfare policies, cutting in-work benefits and freezing housing and children’s benefits in an economy that is already squeezing family incomes.
The latest figures show that 30% of children in this country live in poverty: that is 4 million children, 67% of whom come from working families. That means that children do not have enough food to eat. It means parents having to decide between putting their children to bed at night either cold or hungry. That is not because their parents do not love them, or are not working long and hard enough at many different jobs; it is because of the Government. Wages are getting lower while prices for everything else get higher.
How do those children have a chance of getting out of the poverty cycle? Only a generation ago, a Labour Government provided people from low-income backgrounds with full grants to go to university. Most of them went on to become teachers, nurses, social workers and doctors. They were given good-quality training and education to provide us all with high standards of public services and a reliable, respectable career with opportunities to progress. My father spent his life teaching children, many of whom were from disadvantaged backgrounds. As a leader in outdoor education he equipped them with the skills and knowledge to gain confidence, achieve and succeed. Many of them returned years later to tell him the difference that he made, and that education made, to their lives. Now, thanks to the Government, a young person must decide whether to take on up to £50,000 of debt to get a degree, knowing that there is no guarantee of a job at the end of it.
Guto Bebb
On the issue of tuition fees, is not the participation rate in England higher than in Wales and Scotland, even though until now there has been a reduced tuition rate in Wales? If the hon. Lady thinks the level of debt is a barrier to going into further education, has she made representations to the Welsh Government about their proposals to increase tuition fees for Welsh students?
Anna McMorrin
The Welsh Government are keeping tuition fees at a lower level than the UK Government; I have had conversations with the UK Government about it. The Welsh Government are keeping them at a much lower level and supporting our students in Wales.
Anna McMorrin
No, I will not give way; I am going to continue.
Perhaps the Prime Minister’s idea of social mobility is the Conservative ideal of a select, lucky few doing that much better than their parents while the rest fail to get on in life and are left behind. When I turn on the television or read a newspaper, I see a structured class system representing a specific, small part of society. I see all those with the same names, who went to the same schools and universities and who now hang out in the same private members’ clubs, representing perhaps 1% of our society. I see them speaking out and trying to represent us; they deign to represent us all. It is not that children in my constituency, or people anywhere who go to local schools and universities, are not good enough; they just were not born into the right background. We are lucky in Wales that we do not have such a rigid class structure, but the entrenched class system is pervasive and prevents many from succeeding. The barriers need to be broken down. How are we to do that if many UK civil servants are from those same privileged backgrounds? It is up to the UK Government to start breaking down those barriers.
Upward mobility involves an assumption that some jobs are better than others; and in fact many jobs, available only to those able to get on with their education, are more secure, and offer better conditions and benefits. Instead of continuing with their empty rhetoric, the Government should consider social equality. Our Government in Wales are pursuing that with investment in education, skills, growth and better jobs closer to home. To make a difference, I ask the Government to set change in motion.
Wayne David
Does my hon. Friend agree with the general point that the rigid class divisions that she accurately described are not just wrong in themselves but totally inappropriate for the modern, dynamic society that we in Wales and Britain have to create?
Anna McMorrin
Yes, absolutely. Those class divisions are damaging to society and they pervade every part of life. They do not represent us. As I said, when I turn on the television to watch the news and I see reporters representing broadcasters, or when I see Foreign Office statements—all these are people from privileged class backgrounds, and those systems must be broken down. To make any difference I ask the Government to set change in motion. We must break down those barriers, lift the public sector pay cap, reverse the welfare cuts, and end austerity in all sectors. Let us deliver real opportunity and equality.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this debate. He spoke about the positive impact of Labour policies such as Sure Start and the national minimum wage on social mobility. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) spoke about the importance of early years education, and about the Government changing the definition of childhood poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), which borders north Wales, spoke about cross-border issues that pertain to social mobility, and I pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party group on social mobility.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about infrastructure, railways, the digital divide and EU funding. I will touch on some of those issues in my short speech, although hopefully there will be no repetition. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke passionately about promoting ambition and enterprise across Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) spoke about child poverty, and about how we have a more equal society in Wales. I congratulate all my colleagues on their contributions.
In its report into social mobility, the London School of Economics highlighted 1958 as the golden year. I was fortunate to be born in that year, and I was one of only 8% of children who, 18 years later, went on to university. Many of my close friends did not manage to go to university, although they were still successful. Some pursued careers as businessmen, some worked in construction and recruitment, and some moved away from the town, and indeed the country—one of them lives in New York, one in Sydney, and one in Amsterdam. One of my friends went on to become vice-president of 21st Century Fox in Europe, Africa and the middle east, and two of the lads from my council estate went on to become multi-millionaires. All came from humble backgrounds. Our parents were labourers, dinner ladies, waitresses, plumbers, and cleaners, but they had a burning desire that their children would do better than themselves, and most of us did.
Sadly, and increasingly, that is not the case today, and prospects do not look good for the future. The Social Mobility Commission’s latest report is a scathing indictment of the lack of social mobility in the UK, and it predicts an even bleaker future. The full report is too big to address today in the eight minutes that are left for me to speak, so I will confine my comments to issues such as transport, digital connection, leaving the EU, and regional policy, over which the Minister and his colleagues have greater influence.
First, I want to consider the question of whether work pays in the UK in the 21st century. The quantity of jobs is not the issue; it is the quality of those jobs, because they simply do not pay enough to allow workers to bring up a family. In 1997, 43% of children living in poverty were in working households, but today that figure has shot up to 67%. Overall, 57% of people living in poverty are in households with a working adult. Work should be a pathway out of poverty; it should not lead to a worker being imprisoned by poverty.
As many of my colleagues mentioned, gains were made under Labour. The national minimum wage was brought in, despite vitriolic opposition from the Conservatives. In 1996, I conducted a survey of low pay in my constituency, and found a taxi driver earning £1 per hour. Women were working 12-hour shifts through the night in care homes on just £2.50 an hour. The Social Mobility Commission points out that since 2008, young people’s wages have fallen by 16%—they are now paid less than they were 20 years ago—and a national living wage could help overcome many of the defects in our current system.
I mentioned the digital divide in a recent speech on rural Wales in Westminster Hall, because only 43% of the country is connected by 4G. Rural areas of Wales are losing out, and the majority of my constituency—indeed, the majority of Wales—is in a rural area. If we do not address the digital divide, our children and young people will not have access to a modern means of accessing information and will not be able to work remotely in our rural communities.
If we cannot take the work to the people, we should at least make efforts to take people to the work. That should be the case in Wales, but we need to update our rail system. I feel that we in Wales are being left behind—electrification proposals for the line from Cardiff to Swansea have been withdrawn, and the electrification of the north Wales line has still not been clarified. I hope that the Minister will provide some clarification when he sums up the debate. Last weekend, The Times stated that at 51p per track mile, the UK has the highest rates in the whole of Europe. That compares with 33p in Austria, 31p in France, and just 5p in Latvia.
In north Wales, the majority of unemployment blackspots are on the coast—Holyhead, Bangor, Colwyn Bay, Rhyl, Flint, Shotton. If rail prices were more affordable that would make accessing job opportunities along the entire north Wales coast, and indeed in north-west England, far easier. Enabling young people to gain access to those jobs would also lead to greater social mobility, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), who has done so much to raise the issue of rail connectivity with the Mersey Dee Alliance across the Welsh-English border. London has already benefited from excellent infrastructure projects such as the Jubilee line and Crossrail. High Speed 2 will start from London. Will it suck in more jobs to London? Should it start from Manchester so that we can rebalance our national and regional economy? I call on the Minister to do his job and ensure that we in Wales secure parity with the rest of the UK on rail investment.
My next major concern is the impact of the loss of EU structural funds on social mobility in Wales. Wales has gained £9 billion in private and public sector funding over the past 17 years. It is the only area of the UK that is a net gainer from those structural funds, and we must ensure that an equivalent to those funds is kept in place in Wales. The Minister, and Conservative Members, gave reassurances that Wales would not lose out as a result of Brexit, but I think there is a real danger that we will, and those who will suffer the most are the poorest people and those who need that social mobility.
Wayne David
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just important that the same level of funding continues, but that it is allocated on the basis of need and not redefined for other purposes by the Government?
Chris Ruane
Absolutely. EU structural funds were allocated around Europe on the basis of need, and four of the six counties in north Wales—including the Minister’s own area of Conwy—are some of the poorest areas in Europe. As a north Walian and a Welsh MP, the Minister should be campaigning with us to ensure that Wales does not lose out.
Chris Ruane
I am afraid I have almost taken my 10 minutes, but I thank the Minister for the work that he has done on the growth deal.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, but he does in fact have 15 minutes, should he require them.
Guto Bebb
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because on this occasion I was going to make a constructive point. He makes the case for EU structural funds, which I will discuss in due course. However, a strategic approach for the whole of north Wales was precluded under European structural funding, because it was confined to the four counties in the west, rather than a strategic approach across the whole of north Wales. There will be some advantages to being able to hone our own response when putting funding into north Wales.
Chris Ruane
Those funds were allocated on the basis of need for the whole of Wales. I was very fortunate in managing to persuade the then junior Minister at the Wales Office, Peter Hain, to accept European structural funds for the Minister’s county of Conwy and the county of Denbighshire. Thirteen counties had been chosen, and those two had been left out, but as a result of representations made by myself, Elfyn Llwyd, Gareth Thomas and Betty Williams, along with council leaders, we were able to ensure that those counties were included.
As a result, there are many projects in the Minister’s own constituency and county—I think Venue Cymru is one of them—that have benefited massively from that investment. The Minister quite often intervenes on other Members and pooh-poohs that £9 billion, saying we do not need it. Maybe he wants to send it back. Perhaps he should go to Venue Cymru and say, “All of this is a waste of time; we don’t really need this.” Perhaps he should consult those workers and ask them if the jobs created in his own community are a waste of time. Perhaps he would like to put them back on the dole.
My wider point is that we have benefited from the structural funds. In my constituency, we have the OpTIC research and incubation project—a £40 million strategic project that looks at the opto-electronics industry in the whole of north Wales, which comprises about 35 companies and 2,000 workers. The projects builds on that strength, hothouses new companies on the back of that and creates excellent opportunities for local people to progress without leaving north Wales. Some will want to leave, and some will want to leave the country, but we should give those young people the opportunity to be socially mobile without being geographically mobile, so they can stay in their communities.
The OpTIC project in my constituency would not have taken place if it had not been for the additional money sent into the county from Brussels. The point that many of us have made today is that we want that additional money to carry on coming to our areas of Wales, not out of favouritism but because of need—need that was recognised and rewarded by Brussels. A big dollop of jam came to us, and we do not want it to be taken away and spread thinly over the UK. We want that money where it is needed, which is in west Wales and the valleys.
On the growth fund, which I mentioned before, I am grateful to the Minister for inviting us, on a cross-party basis, to meet him, his civil servants and north Wales council leaders in the Wales Office the other week. I hope that that additional funding, which we desperately need, will be allocated or reallocated through that north Wales growth fund. I also welcome the announcement of the mid-Wales growth fund, but I do not want to see the funds that were to be allocated to north Wales halved, with the other half being sent to mid-Wales. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but will he give us a categorical assurance that the funding that we get for those funds will be comparable to the best England has had? Areas such as Manchester received £238 per head. I tabled a parliamentary question on the amount of growth deal funding for each of the city deals in England, which was answered yesterday. That information was not given to me, but I want to make sure that the money that we get in Wales matches the best they have had in England.
The growth deal is a perfect vehicle to make sure that that additional investment that we had from Europe is maintained, and that we are able to improve the social mobility of our young people. On the growth deal funding, what percentage will be new money? What is the balance of funding between central Government, the Welsh Government, local government and other funders? What will the likely level of funding be?
Some progress has been made on social mobility over the past 20 years, and many of those gains were made as a result of the actions taken by the previous Labour Government. The Social Mobility Commission commends the centrality of early years services, which have been embedded in the UK. It was not there in 1996; it is there now because of Sure Start and other early years programmes across the whole of the United Kingdom. The commission calls early years services
“a new arm of the welfare state”,
so that has survived. However, it mentions a lack of progress on many other fronts; indeed, there has been a retrenchment in areas such as young people’s services, work and divisions in society.
The Minister is here, and he has heard representation from Members from across Wales, and even from across the border in England. I ask him to listen carefully to what has been said, to do his job and take that back to his Government, and to make sure that Wales gets the fair deal it deserves, to make sure that we have social mobility in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) is not only congratulated on securing the debate but also has a few minutes to respond at the end of the debate, so my contribution will be somewhat curtailed.
It has been an interesting debate, and I argue that it has been at its best, and the speeches have been at their best, when they have not been partisan. I know I am guilty of being one of the most partisan Members in this place when I want to be, but I will try to respond in a manner similar to most of the speeches we have heard, rather than those with a “Money, money, money” theme, which seemed to be the message from some hon. Members. However, on the whole, the debate has been thoughtful, useful and constructive. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Ogmore, as I have said, for securing the debate and for the majority of his speech, which looked at the core issues at stake. On the whole, it was a constructive speech, although it occasionally fell into supporting the Welsh Government come what may.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made an impassioned speech on the importance of people being aware of whether they can or cannot take their opportunities for further education. While I would describe the universities in Wales as the elite universities—not least Aberystwyth University, which I attended—the hon. Gentleman made an important point about aspiration. When looking at some of those giants of recent Welsh history, who came from valley communities, slate quarrying villages and farming stock, and who actually aspired to education, we have to ask why we have lost that in the Welsh context. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are well worth further consideration by those who actually take an interest in the goings-on of this place.
I also welcome the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) to the debate. I congratulate him on his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, and I appreciate his interest in the cross-border work of the Wales Office. He made some really important points about the London-centric nature of the UK economy, which I subscribe to. I believe that one problem we have, not only in the Welsh context but throughout the UK, is that we have a London-centric view of the world, which needs to be challenged. The hon. Gentleman is clearly doing excellent work as part of the all-party parliamentary group system here in Westminster. I would argue that most of my constructive contributions in this place between 2010 and 2015 were made through all-party parliamentary groups, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to carry on with his work and to keep on being involved with us in north Wales, in relation to the potential of the north Wales growth deal.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who highlighted that many of the issues we have talked about, including educational attainment and training and so on, are devolved to the Welsh Government. That point was worth making. However, at the same time, she was quite happy to challenge me, as the Wales Office Minister representing the UK Government.
At this point, I think I need to once again clarify my point about EU structural funds. I congratulate the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd and for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and all politicians who ensured that Wales received EU structural funds at the highest level, on their involvement at the time. I have said that on the record time and again. The point I have also made, which is still worth reiterating, is that the reason Wales achieved the highest level of EU funding intervention was to ensure that our GDP was comparable to the EU average.
That was not achieved, so before we ask for more money, we need to ask ourselves why that investment did not achieve the desired goals. It is simply not good enough for the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to claim that the situation would have been even worse without that intervention; we need to ensure that in the future, if we have intervention through a UK Government shared prosperity fund, that intervention improves the GDP of Wales and the life chances of all people in Wales. We should be willing to learn lessons from the fact that the whole purpose of EU structural funds in Wales did not deliver the growth we were hoping for.
Liz Saville Roberts
In the spirit of planning ahead, much mention has been made of apprenticeships today. I represent an extremely rural area, where we have a shortage of skills when we are looking at developing, say, the Wylfa site. We need workplaces in which people can undertake apprenticeships. We do not have those workplaces in north-west Wales in sufficient numbers. Will the Minister commit to looking at creative ways of finding workplaces that will enable young men and women to be trained for engineering and construction in the future?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Lady makes a point that I fully subscribe to. The Wales Office stands ready to support any initiative in a Welsh context that extends the number of apprenticeship places available. We are certainly of the view that the financial contribution made by the UK Government to the Welsh Government through the apprenticeship levy has been significant, and that money should be spent.
The opportunities that exist in north-west Wales include the development of a new nuclear power station in Wylfa and the work going on in Airbus, with the apprenticeship schemes available at RAF Valley. Those schemes are strong. They are making a difference and showing young people that there is an alternative to going to university. I have seen the success stories in north Wales of Coleg Cambria and Grŵp Llandrillo Menai replicated in south Wales with Coleg Merthyr and other colleges, as a result of my role as a Minister in the Wales Office.
I highlighted, for example, how impressed I was with the enthusiasm and commitment of apprentices when I visited the General Dynamics site in Merthyr Tydfil. That is the way to show young people that educational achievement does not necessarily mean aspiring to Oxbridge. There is no reason why anybody in Wales should not aspire to improve themselves from an educational perspective, but that improvement can happen in their local communities. Opportunities should be enhanced for people to get qualifications in the workplace, ensuring that they are earning while learning.
In Wales, we have some of the better further education institutions. They are doing great work, but they should be fully supported by the Welsh Government in delivering more for the people of Wales. I genuinely thought that the comments from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) were inspiring. Colleagues have said clearly that we need to sell the concept of going further in education. We need to sell the ability of young people to see themselves attending some of our finest institutions.
We need to be proud of the fact that we have a significant entrepreneurial spirit in Wales. How often is that sold in local schools? The biggest success in my constituency since I was elected has been Sean Taylor, a veteran who left the Army and decided to set up a high ropes training and outdoor pursuits centre. He subsequently created the Zip World business, which now employs 240 people in my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, 75% of whom are local Welsh speakers. Those people have had an opportunity to work, develop skills and gain qualifications while seeing that setting up a business in their community can make a real difference. I am proud to say that Sean Taylor is the type of entrepreneur who is willing to go out and explain to young people, “You can aspire to university and to a medical or legal profession, but you can also make a big difference in your community.”
I am proud to represent a constituency with one of the highest levels of self-employment. It has been said that in rural Wales, self-employment is often a case of doing anything to earn a living because of people’s pride in themselves and their community, and because no other opportunities are available. We need to make setting up a business and being entrepreneurial a key opportunity for young people to move forward in their communities. Nothing gives me greater pride than when, in my role as a Minister in the Wales Office, I meet young people who have set up businesses in my constituency and across the length and breadth of Wales.
While I thought the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) was somewhat partisan in her comments, I am happy to agree that we need to deal with the lack of social mobility. I want to allow the hon. Member for Ogmore a few minutes to respond, but before I finish my comments, I need to touch on some of the issues raised in the debate. Clearly social mobility is important for this Government. It was said in some of the most thoughtful comments by Opposition Members that nobody in the Chamber can be proud of our record on that issue. If, as the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd said, the highest point of social mobility in our history was achieved in 1958, that is a stain on all of us. If, 10 years before I was born, we reached the high point of social mobility in our communities, we genuinely need to ask ourselves what went wrong. No amount of finger pointing between Westminster, the UK Government and the Welsh Government will change anything unless we are willing to acknowledge where we have a weakness.
This debate is entitled “Social mobility in Wales”. We have agreed that education is crucial, and we need to acknowledge that in Wales we are not performing as we should. I am not going to say anything more than that, but we all acknowledge that we are not performing in Wales to the standard of the UK as a whole or the rest of our competitors in the European Union. We need to be very clear about that. When Germany found itself failing under the PISA regime, it acted, and in 10 years it managed to get itself from a very low level to once again leading. The report on PISA in Germany sent shockwaves through the German political system, and the question I ask is: why are those shockwaves not resonating through the corridors of the Welsh Government in Cardiff? We need to do a lot of work on education. It is not perfect in England, but it is certainly not as good as it should be in Wales, and Members should acknowledge that.
Members have highlighted the need to ensure that the concept of lifelong learning is understood. That is why investment in our further education colleges is crucial. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made the crucial point that education, and certainly education in the workplace, does not end at the age of 18 or 21. It is increasingly the case that 35 to 50-year-olds are looking to retrain. As we are all living longer and expected to work longer, we have to acknowledge that we need to adapt to the workplace. One of the key things I have seen at further education colleges that I have visited in Wales is their commitment to take on apprentices regardless of their age.
Another issue that we need to be aware of is the importance of making work pay. We have seen in Wales since 2010 a significant reduction in the number of children in workless households. That is very important. The Office for National Statistics has highlighted that families in which members are in work are, on the whole, in a position to make more of their lives and have better outcomes than those where that is not the case. Interestingly, the ONS statistics also highlight that, regardless of a household’s income level, where there is someone in employment, outcomes are better. I often hear complaints from the Labour party about the type of jobs being created, but we should always take pride in any jobs that are being created and in allowing people to take care of their own future.
One thing that has come out of the debate is that poverty can be measured in financial terms. I acknowledge that. The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Islwyn and others highlighted the importance of dealing with poverty of ambition. We need to be champions within our communities, highlighting to young people that there are financial difficulties in terms of ensuring equality of opportunity, but also challenging the poverty of ambition that blights too many of our communities in Wales and across the United Kingdom.
Chris Elmore
I want to start by thanking hon. Members for their contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for his passionate speech and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), as well as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
In the spirit of consensus in the room on the need to tackle social mobility in Wales, I thank the Minister for what he said. Although he made the odd political dig, which of course he is not famous for, he knows there is more to do at all levels of government, including local government, which must play a part in the Welsh and UK context.
I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward to UK Government Ministers trying to address the issues of social mobility under the functions that are still reserved to the UK Government, while we continue on all sides to try to improve and be aspirational for our young people in our constituencies up and down Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
That this House has considered social mobility in Wales.
Blue Belt Programme: Marine Protected Areas
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to an important debate on the Blue Belt programme. I should advise the Chamber that we expect a Division imminently, in which case I shall have to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Blue Belt programme for marine protection.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. You and I share a birthday, 7 November, although we were not born in the same year. Thank you for undertaking to chair this debate.
I am told that Sir David Attenborough’s one great regret in life is that he has not done enough to protect the world’s environment. Well, he does not need me or anyone else in this House to reassure him that he has probably done more than any other human being to protect the world’s environment, and I cannot think of a better way of marking that contribution than the very welcome decision to name the Natural Environment Research Council’s new polar research ship, to be launched next year, not Boaty McBoatface, as some people had predicted, but the RRS Sir David Attenborough. That is a fitting tribute to a very great man.
The BBC’s “Blue Planet II” and Sir David’s stark warnings about the threats posed to the world’s oceans from over-fishing, plastics and, of course, climate change will stand for a very long time as a beacon of all that is wrong in our oceans, but it is also a clarion call for “action this day”, as Churchill would have put it. It is a call to all of us in this House to do what we can to lead the world in a variety of environmental initiatives, including taking steps to protect the waters around Great Britain, Northern Ireland and our 14 overseas territories.
However, before dealing with that, it is worth noting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently reaffirmed our commitment to tackling climate change and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committed us to taking action on plastics in the oceans. Both those initiatives are very much to be welcomed. The Wildlife Trusts, among others, have called for the Government to develop a national marine strategy to safeguard the cleanliness and biodiversity of our own territorial waters after we leave the EU.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. I congratulate him on securing this debate and remind him that we recently had a long debate on marine conservation. I hope that he will join the all-party group that a number of us are setting up—it is a cross-party group—on marine conservation.
James Gray
I will be glad to do so. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the group to my notice, although I do have one caveat, which I will come to later.
The important point about Brexit is that it must not mean a lessening of any of the environmental standards in our oceans. Her Majesty’s Government must commit to ensuring that they are all higher than would have been the case had we remained a member of the EU.
A full commitment to marine protected areas and the Government’s Blue Belt programme is of course central to all that. The Conservative party manifesto for this year’s general election committed us to working with the overseas territories to create a network of MPAs covering more than 2 million square miles of the waters for which the UK is ultimately responsible. That is a fantastic opportunity for us to do what is right in our own waters, but also to lead the world by example across the whole spectrum of ocean conservation.
I salute the great many people who have called for the Blue Belt programme and are active in seeking its implementation, especially my right hon. Friend the Minister here today, my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation—together with his father and brother, if I may say so—and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), whom I am very glad to see here today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). They have worked incredibly hard in advocating the Blue Belt programme. As a result of it, we have already seen the UK designate new MPAs around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, St Helena and Pitcairn. We are further committed to designating MPAs around Ascension and Tristan da Cunha by 2020.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the polar regions, I take a particular interest in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which sit on the cusp of the Southern ocean and Antarctica. There, the UK has a real responsibility. After all, it was largely our whalers and sealers who wrought so much of the appalling environmental damage there in the 18th and 19th centuries. They left behind something of an environmental catastrophe, particularly on South Georgia. We also have a huge responsibility because South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is an area of such outstanding scientific importance, both for the study of marine ecosystems and for monitoring the effects of climate change, sitting as it does on the cusp of two great oceans.
I particularly look forward, therefore, to further news on the exciting project to be called, I think, Discovery 100, which would result in a huge investment of private funds in the further preservation of the heritage of South Georgia, as well as its biodiversity following the enormously successful rat eradication programme over the past few years. I hope that Discovery 100 might also make provision for international scientific research facilities on the island.
The establishment of an MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in 2012 and its strengthening in 2013 were important steps towards correcting the damage previously done and preventing anything similar from happening in the future. The Blue Belt programme is now driving forward efforts to establish MPAs around Antarctica, although quite rightly that has to be done through the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The CCAMLR agreement is incredibly important from a conservation standpoint and is a critical pillar of the Antarctic treaty system, so we must do nothing that risks undermining it. Because the Antarctic treaty suspends all territorial claims to Antarctica, including our own claim to the British Antarctic Territory, it is only through international consensus that MPAs can be established around Antarctica, including the British Antarctic Territory.
In 2009, the UK helped secure the consensus for the first Antarctic MPA, covering an area south of the South Orkney Islands. Last year, CCAMLR agreed an MPA for the Ross Sea region, and I am delighted that, despite a few setbacks this year, the Government remain committed to working towards securing international agreement on designating additional MPAs in East Antarctica, the Weddell sea and the Western Antarctic peninsula.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
As a Member who represents a coastal constituency, I well understand the importance of marine conservation, and I am very happy to support the Blue Belt programme. Is my hon. Friend aware of the Sky News Ocean Rescue campaign, which is today highlighting Antarctica and the challenges that it faces as a consequence of overuse of plastics and other pollution around the world?
James Gray
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my notice. In his short time in the House so far, he has been assiduous in championing the interests of the oceans off his own constituency and elsewhere around the world. I am most grateful to him for that. If I may, I will come back to the Sky television programme in a moment.
There is more to be done. For example, there are—I think that my hon. Friend referred to this briefly—current debates about whether the MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is sufficient and whether the protections already in place could or should be further enhanced. I think that the Sky TV programme is about that. A review of the MPA is under way at the moment, with recommendations due to be published next year.
An organisation known as the Great British Oceans coalition, which consists of six major environmental conservation organisations, has said that it wants to see protection of the area around the South Sandwich Islands in particular enhanced to the fullest degree. Doing that, it argues, would help the UK to reaffirm our ambition of becoming a global leader of efforts to protect the world’s oceans. It would also send a strong message to other CCAMLR members that the UK is committed to driving forward international efforts to establish MPAs around Antarctica in particular. Those are of course extremely laudable aims that broadly reflect the intent of the Blue Belt programme, and it is vital that we should not fail to capitalise on the momentum generated by “Blue Planet II”, so I am broadly supportive of the aims and efforts of the Great British Oceans coalition. We all want the UK to be a global leader in marine protection, but there is a debate to be had about how best to achieve that, particularly without disturbing the delicate CCAMLR discussions on MPAs around Antarctica.
Unlike with other overseas territories, for the past 35 years or so the UK has allowed South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to be covered by CCAMLR rules on fisheries management. The reason for that is simple. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands lie within the Southern ocean convergence and share the same wildlife as Antarctica. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are also, however, counterclaimed by Argentina—a matter that we are well aware of in this House. By allowing the islands to fall under CCAMLR, the UK is able to manage those waters effectively within the international consensus of CCAMLR. Working through CCAMLR therefore underpins British sovereignty of the waters, which seems to me to be extremely important. It also helps to foster greater international co-operation around Antarctica and the Southern ocean, and, as I mentioned a moment ago, that co-operation promotes conservation efforts across the entire white continent and its surrounding waters.
After all, since 2012 the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands MPA has managed the local fishery and protected globally significant wildlife very adequately indeed. There is just one small commercial fishery licensed by the UK, which amounts to no more than two vessels fishing for one month a year and taking around 60 to 80 tonnes of fish in the waters. Those two boats also supply scientific data to CCAMLR, which is no easy task. Were it not for the fact that we allow those two vessels to fish for profit in the highly regulated South Georgia fishery, it would be too expensive for them to go there and we would therefore lose the scientific data we currently provide to CCAMLR. In other words, were this fishery to be closed, as some are calling for and the coalition seems to be calling for, the UK would no longer be able to control fishing in the area as effectively.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about this issue, but the campaign that he refers to for the South Sandwich Islands has made it clear that a scientifically credible stock assessment is not incompatible with a fully protected reserve. Does he agree, therefore, that there is an opportunity to retain a small scientifically robust stock assessment alongside the full protection that the coalition is calling for?
James Gray
That is a matter that needs to be discussed, and it will be interesting to hear how the Minister responds to that point later in the debate. Of course it would be possible for the two fishery vessels to continue to do their scientific research there at the same time as there being full protection, but we have already got full protection of those waters under the long-standing MPA that is already there. I am not certain that what is proposed by the coalition would necessarily add anything to that. However, it might well undermine our ability to provide that scientific data and it might invite other CCAMLR members to say that it is not being done properly and therefore they—the other CCAMLR members—have some kind of right to do that scientific fishing research in the area. I therefore think there are downsides, as well as upsides, to what the coalition proposes. It is a delicate political decision, which the Minister might refer to in his response.
There could, therefore, be a perversity in what the coalition demand—namely, that more fish will be caught in the area as a result, rather than less. That is something that we have to be extremely careful about. There may be innovative solutions to the problem, particularly surrounding enforcement of the MPA, perhaps using the latest satellite technology, and further discussion may well be warranted about how the UK can best protect the waters around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and revitalise international efforts to increase protection around the world.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. As I understand, one of the Foreign Office’s concerns about the new larger reserve around the South Sandwich Islands is that it might result in a displaced krill fishery, but no krill have actually been caught around the South Sandwich Islands commercially for 25 years. I am concerned that those concerns have not been properly thought through, and that the opportunity to create a 500,000 sq km exclusion zone in this pristine water, with the conditions that my hon. Friend refers to, will be missed.
James Gray
My right hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these matters, makes two points. One is that there will be some interference with the krill fishing, which has not actually occurred for many years. That is not one of our concerns: there is no such fishing, therefore it is not something we would necessarily be concerned about. His second point is that we might somehow be sacrificing the opportunity for this fantastic protected area. That protected area already exists under the MPA. We already have that protection for the waters around the South Sandwich Islands, and therefore I am not certain that what is being proposed would necessarily add very much to it.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Foreign Office. I pay particular tribute to the department in the Foreign Office that runs these matters, in particular the outstandingly good Jane Rumble, who has done this work for many years and knows more about Antarctica than most of us know about anything else. I certainly do not want to be thought to be blocking efforts to enhance marine protection around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Antarctica or anywhere else in the world, but we do need to be aware of the law of unintended consequences. I think that what my right hon. Friend proposes may suffer from exactly that law—in other words, protection for the South Sandwich Islands may be the worse if what he proposes is allowed to occur.
The public reaction to “Blue Planet II” offers us one of those rare opportunities to make a real difference in the world, and that must now be seized. We must remind audiences at home and in the world of our utmost commitment to the Blue Belt programme. The Government must listen carefully to the latest proposals for the South Sandwich Islands, but they must never forget that those also form part of a bigger picture of environmental protection and marine conservation in Antarctica and the Southern ocean. The Blue Belt programme of marine protected areas around the 14 British overseas territories is world-leading. I hope that in his response the Minister will reassert our commitment to it and our determination to lead the world in the ocean protection so passionately demanded, most notably by Sir David Attenborough, and now by a fast-growing percentage of the British electorate as well.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
If we have the consent of the Member in charge, we are in receipt of an extraordinarily generous offer from Her Majesty’s Government. The Minister has agreed to confine his remarks to eight minutes, which means that we have five minutes of time if anyone else wants to make a contribution. If no one wishes to take your offer, Minister, the floor is yours.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) on securing this highly topical debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the polar regions, he brings a wealth of experience on the Arctic and Antarctic, and a close interest in the health of their marine environments, as do all the other right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has taken an acute interest in this issue.
I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to highlight once again the Government’s Blue Belt initiative. This is one of the most ambitious programmes of marine protection ever undertaken. Of the approximately 6.8 million sq km of ocean surrounding the UK and our 14 overseas territories, we have committed to developing measures to ensure the protection of 4 million sq km by 2020. I personally announced that commitment at the Our Ocean summit in Washington in September last year, and am delighted to confirm that the delivery of the commitment is on track.
Over the past few weeks much of the country, and audiences across the world, have been engrossed in the BBC’s brilliant “Blue Planet II”. Sir David Attenborough and his team have expertly shone a light on our incredible oceans and how diverse, important to the health of our planet and vulnerable they are.
Richard Benyon
If I may pray on some of the generous time that the Minister has offered, I just ask him to consider, as part of the very exciting Blue Belt policy, that certain problems exist not only for marine ecosystems and the species we want to see recover, but for the people who live on the islands and on whose support we depend. In particular, in Ascension Island there are very real difficulties with the prosperity of that community as a result of the failures to make the runway safe for use. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure us that investment is being made in Ascension Island? That will ensure that the people of that island can really support the marine protected area because they have a viable existence on the island.
Sir Alan Duncan
Air access to Ascension Island resumed on 18 November, and a monthly air service has begun to and from neighbouring St Helena. Most workers on Ascension are from St Helena; as a Minister for the Department for International Development, I was largely responsible for building the airport there, which I am pleased to say now works. Employers on Ascension confirm that the monthly air service meets their current needs.
To return to “Blue Planet”—I risk being pressed for time if I do not get through what I need to tell the House—the series highlighted the many pressures that we are putting on our oceans, including the scourge of plastic waste, the unpredictable effects of global warming and atmospheric pollution and the danger of overfishing. Many of those challenges—perhaps most of them—must be addressed at the global level, and the UK will play a full and active leadership role in that work. Yet there is also good evidence that establishing well designed, effectively managed and properly enforced marine protection measures can help parts of the ocean withstand some of those pressures.
Our Blue Belt initiative is committed to doing just that. We have already declared large-scale marine protected areas in five of our overseas territories—St Helena, Pitcairn, the British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory, representing a total of 2.9 million sq km, or more than 40% of British waters. Of this, 1.5 million sq km, or more than 20% of our waters, are now designated as highly protected and closed to all commercial fishing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
At this point I feel obliged, as I always do when “Blue Planet” is mentioned, to say that the BBC natural history unit is based in Bristol and does tremendous work. The Minister touched on the issue of plastic pollution. Is he aware of the recent study by the University of Hull and the British Antarctic Survey, which found that plastic pollution in the Antarctic was five times as bad as predicted? To deal with the problem, it is not enough to create marine protected areas; we must do much more to tackle the problem of microplastics at source.
Sir Alan Duncan
I fully accept what the hon. Lady says. We are focusing primarily on fishing in this debate, but the issue of plastics is of growing significance, and I hope that tackling it can be a cross-party endeavour. It is not a party political issue; we all want the same objectives, and the more that we work together across the party divide with one loud voice for the United Kingdom, the better we can make improvements for the world.
To return to what I was saying, we are not stopping with the efforts that I just described. Two further overseas territories, Tristan da Cunha and Ascension, have committed to declaring marine protection measures across their waters by 2020. Working with our two main Blue Belt delivery partners, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Marine Management Organisation, we have been supporting those territories to ensure that each marine protection regime is well designed, managed, monitored and enforced. Each territory has its own unique environment and particular needs, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution. Each territory must feel a sense of involvement and ownership if we want the Blue Belt to be a lasting legacy.
The Blue Belt is already delivering results: for example, real-time analysis of satellite data has helped build intelligence on illegal fishing and inform long-term enforcement solutions. Overseas territory Governments have received advice and support to strengthen fisheries legislation and licensing and enforcement regimes. Targeted scientific cruises have been undertaken or are planned to assess biodiversity and analyse fish stocks. Also, links between the territories and appropriate regional fisheries management organisations have been strengthened.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister has another five minutes so can I ask him, as he is an influential member of Government, to ensure that we have the right resources and investment in the research that is desperately needed to tackle the problems that he just mentioned?
Sir Alan Duncan
The hon. Gentleman has hit on an important point. It is not just about being in these areas; it is about what we do while we are there. The scientific effort that we make, in which we are a world leader, is important to preserve; I had a meeting about it this very morning.
Of course, as with any Government initiative, we are not immune to critics. While watching “Blue Planet”, many Members of this House will have received direct tweets and messages encouraging them to sign up to the Blue Belt charter, or “back the Blue Belt”. I am delighted that in this debate, we have demonstrated the broad cross-party consensus on the importance of protecting our marine environment.
Although the Blue Belt Charter mainly includes already-announced Government commitments, it also focuses on the designation of large-scale no fishing areas. That is not always the most appropriate or most effective approach. We are also not willing to sacrifice the livelihoods and wellbeing of those in our overseas territories who depend on a healthy fishery, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) mentioned a moment ago.
The charter includes a call for the South Sandwich Islands in the far south Atlantic to be designated a complete no-take marine reserve. Those waters are already part of a marine protected area declared in 2012, which includes some of the strictest fisheries management rules in the world. The UK is proud of its effective management of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; since the bleak outlook of the 1970s and 1980s, caused by significant over-fishing, the territory is now internationally recognised as having one of the best-managed fisheries in the world.
It might seem, as was said earlier, counter-intuitive to argue against a total ban on fishing when our objective is to protect the oceans. However, sometimes a small footprint of extremely well managed and controlled fishing can help safeguard waters against illegal incursions and provide valuable scientific information about the health of the wider ocean. Simply prohibiting fishing in one area, only to see vessels concentrate somewhere else, is not always the most appropriate conservation approach. Let me reassure the House that we are by no means complacent on this issue. We do not wish to see a return to illegal fishing in our waters.
Given the campaign for a complete closure of the South Sandwich Islands fishery, we are urgently considering it, including through consideration of the scientific advice prepared for the current five-year review of the existing MPA. We are also assessing what implications such action would have for the UK’s leadership role within the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, within whose remit the waters of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands lie.
Angela Smith
The information that we have on krill stocks is that the quota given is 130% above the scientifically advised level. Surely there is no real case to make for the displacement of fisheries.
Sir Alan Duncan
That is exactly the kind of expert advice that we are assessing at the moment. We want to ensure that any policy decision is founded on scientific advice of the highest possible quality and a sensible understanding of possible unforeseen consequences in the practical world, so that we can bring all the threads together to take the most responsible decision. As I said earlier, there are no party politics involved. We just want to do what is good for the world, the waters and the islanders, and what is good for conservation and the preservation of our planet.
I am proud that this Government have been in the vanguard of marine protection. We recognise our essential role as custodians of one of the largest marine areas on the planet, and we understand the importance of protecting our oceans, as well as the magnitude of the challenge. Our commitment to delivering on the promises that I made in Washington last year is absolutely steadfast and enduring. I am grateful for the support of those who have engaged in this debate, and I hope that we can all work together for a better planet in the years and decades ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Would those Members who are inexplicably not staying for the next debate please leave quickly and quietly?
Childcare for Fostered Children
(6 years, 4 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
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered childcare for fostered children.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Hollobone. In September, the Government extended free childcare for three and four-year-olds. The policy, which was widely welcomed, applies to all children whose parents work more than 16 hours a week and earn less than £100,000 a year—all, that is, except foster children, who are the only group of children excluded in this way.
When we ask any child what matters most to them, they tell us that it is their family and friends. A decade of working with children in care before I was elected to Parliament taught me that protecting and nurturing relationships is everything for them. The Fostering Network has already learned of children who have lost their nursery places as a result of the policy, because when they went into care they were no longer entitled to the additional funding. For so many children, their wider relationships with trusted adults and friends in a familiar setting are what sustains them most at the most difficult time in their lives. It is unthinkable that we should allow a policy that destroys those relationships to continue.
The Minister for Children and Families (Mr Robert Goodwill)
At the risk of being a spoiler, may I let the hon. Lady know that she will hear what she wants to hear when I make my speech?
Lisa Nandy
It is not very often that I am speechless, but I am extremely pleased to hear that. My hon. Friends and I will await the Minister’s speech with great interest.
The Government’s policy has created a terrible disparity. Under the scheme, foster carers have been able to claim for their birth children but not for the foster children in their care, meaning that of two children growing up in the same household, one can attend nursery and one cannot. A common thread running through the stories that children tell about the pain of growing up in care is the feeling of being marked out as different from other children. The exclusion of foster children from the scheme enshrines that difference and discrimination in Government policy. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has rightly said, that is indefensible.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. Does she agree that one of the serious problems with the exclusion of foster children from the scheme is the impact on relationships within a family, between the foster child and the other children? The foster child may get to spend more time with the parent, which can exacerbate tensions with the other children.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about the problem with treating foster children as different from other children in a family unit. I know she is very aware of the issue as a result of her previous experience and her constituency work.
For children who have experienced trauma and upheaval, the early years are critical. Some children’s best interests are served by being at home with their foster carer, but others—particularly those who have had limited social interaction—absolutely thrive around other children of the same age. The Children Act 1989 makes it very clear that a child’s best interests must be the primary consideration in all decisions affecting them. At the moment, the policy simply does not meet that test.
One foster carer from Norwich expressed it very well when he said that
“we currently foster the youngest two siblings from a large family. They came from a chaotic background where their only examples of behaviour and relationships with peers were those experienced in a very poor home environment. The youngest is now attending Pre-School, but anything over 15 hours has to be funded by ourselves, whereas a child from any other home would have 30 hours free. It is essential that he experience as much contact with his peers as he can comfortably manage, to enable him to learn how to behave appropriately before he starts school in September next year. To this end we are increasing his hours at our expense over the next few months which eats into the allowance we receive to feed, clothe and generally look after him.”
Such hardship is a common story among foster carers, as the GMB has highlighted. Foster carers are under immense financial pressure; barely 10% earn the equivalent of the national living wage.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Given that only 10% of foster carers earn the national living wage, does my hon. Friend agree that excluding them from the 30 hours of free childcare seems only to reinforce the spiral of poverty that many of them face?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) pointed out, we need to think about the impact not just on the foster child, but on the other children in the family. When the Earl of Listowel, a great champion for children, raised the issue in the other place, the then Minister Lord Nash said:
“The local authority must provide a fostering allowance which covers the full cost of caring for the child. For this reason, foster carers are not eligible for additional support through tax-free childcare or child tax credits for children who have been placed with them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2015; Vol. 762, c. 2124.]
The Government are right that foster carers are eligible for a national minimum fostering allowance that covers food, transport, clothing, toiletries and other items such as furniture. However, having been among those who lobbied the last Labour Government for the introduction of that allowance, I can tell the Government that it does not contain any element that covers childcare.
In any case, as The Fostering Network points out, around one council in seven pays a rate that is below the national minimum. Its report, “State of the Nation’s Foster Care 2016”, found that the proportion of foster carers who believe that their allowance is sufficient to cover the costs of fostering has halved in recent years. It told me that
“when we asked this question two years ago 80 per cent of respondents felt their allowances did cover the costs of fostering. In 2016 this figure has fallen sharply to only 42 per cent.”
That starkly illustrates the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker).
The situation for “family and friends” carers, particularly grandparents, is very stark. Hardship is a real issue for many families. One family in my constituency recently faced a heartbreaking choice when their sister died: they had to choose between experiencing real hardship or seeing their two children taken into care and probably placed quite far away from their school, losing all the relationships that matter.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend considered the effect of the policy on the nearly 9,000 children who are in kinship foster care of the kind that she has described? Kinship foster carers do not have the luxury of assessing their finances before they decide to foster; keeping the child in the family is not a choice, but a necessity. Childcare is really important to them. Does she agree that the policy is particularly unfair on the children?
Lisa Nandy
I could not agree more. The policy is particularly difficult for the family I have been supporting back in Wigan, because all the other siblings who might take care of the children face exactly the choice she describes.
As Edward Timpson—the former Conservative Minister for Children, Schools and Families, who I rated very highly—wrote recently, foster carers who need it should be
“offered flexibility and support to enable them to combine fostering with other work.”
There is a precedent for foster carers to receive additional support, although the Minister has previously suggested that they were not eligible for it. For example, foster carers in receipt of universal credit can claim free school meals for the children they foster, so it is wrong to suggest that there is no way round the problem. With record numbers of children in care—The Fostering Network estimates that we need to recruit more than 7,000 additional foster carers to meet children’s need—the Government are instead pursuing a policy that will make the situation worse, leaving more children stranded in unsuitable placements or forced to leave their siblings or grandparents behind because no local placements are available.
For some of the most vulnerable children in this country, the human cost of that oversight is beyond measure. What makes it even more difficult to accept is that the state is their corporate parent; we hold collective corporate responsibility for them because their parents cannot or will not be responsible. No parent would allow their children to become an afterthought in critical decisions that affect them or to remain unresponsive to their needs or best interests, and quite simply we should not do so either. For that reason I warmly welcome—
Lisa Nandy
As I was saying, for that reason I warmly welcome the Education Secretary’s statement that Ministers are “actively looking at” the issue, and I particularly welcome the Minister’s intriguing intervention during my opening remarks. In his response to my written questions, the Minister rightly reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to promoting the best interests of the child and told me that he will
“work with local councils, fostering service providers and others in the sector to ensure we get the balance right.”
When he responds, will he tell us whether he still intends to consult on the policy and, if he does, whether it will be a formal consultation that includes The Fostering Network and other fostering organisations?
If the Minister does intend to consult before making a further announcement, will he commit to beginning the process in January and to ensuring that it is not delayed by the foster care stocktake? Will he also give us a commitment that it will have concluded with a view to implementation at least by September, so that foster children do not have to face another year of exclusion from the policy? Does he intend to amend the legislation and, if not, will he commit to putting in additional funding now? Suggestions for how that might be achieved have been proposed by a number of different organisations and Members of Parliament, so will he commit to considering those? Given the problems that the overall scheme has faced, will he heed the concerns of the National Day Nurseries Association and ensure that the funding provided is sufficient to meet the true costs of the scheme?
Finally, the Minister in the other place said in a written answer in November:
“As of March 2017, there were 3,030 three and four year olds looked after in foster care and subsequently excluded from receiving the 15 additional hours of free childcare.”
Given the relatively small number of children and the fact that not all of them would take up the offer, does the Minister accept that the cost of righting this wrong is relatively low but that the cost of not doing so for foster children is far, far too high?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate and on enabling us all to make a contribution if we so wish—I clearly wish to do just that.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place and to have heard his early concession—if that is what it was—to the hon. Member for Wigan. We will wait to hear what he has to say at the end of the debate, but I am sure, as is always the case, that he will be most helpful to us, the Members of this House.
This is a worthy debate, and one to which I certainly wish to contribute. I am the proud grandparent of the most beautiful little girls in the world—Katie who is eight and Mia who is three. Thankfully, they do not look anything like me; they are lovely young girls and will have probably all the boys in my part of the country chasing them when the time comes. When I look at those feisty little girls, who take no nonsense from anyone and are so wise for their age, I am thankful for the home life they have, which sees them so well adjusted. That is something we are very thankful for; indeed, all of us, as parents, would be thankful for that. I am so very aware that not all children have that stability, and I believe it is our duty to do the best we can to intervene here, which is why the hon. Member for Wigan has introduced the debate.
I want to place on record, if I may, Mr Hollobone, some remarks about Northern Ireland. I understand very well that this is an England-based debate, but I want to have on the record where we are on foster care in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), sitting here on my left, made representations to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate on foster issues, and we look forward to contributing to that debate in the new year.
While I understand that this is clearly an England-based debate, as the childcare hours apply only in England, I want to set the scene in terms of need in our society. In Northern Ireland 2,212 children were living with foster families on 31 March 2016. That is nearly nine tenths—some 88%—of the 2,500 children looked after away from home. There are approximately 2,095 foster families in Northern Ireland. The Fostering Network estimates that fostering services need to recruit a further 200 foster families in the next 12 months. That could be dealt with in answer to the hon. Lady’s debate, and we look forward to that.
In England, 53,420 children were living with foster families on 31 March 2017. That is nearly four fifths of the 68,300 children looked after away from home. There are 44,625 foster families in England. The Fostering Network estimates that fostering services need to recruit a further 5,900 foster families in the next 12 months. The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned a figure of 7,000. The figures I looked at were slightly different, but whether it is 5,900 or 7,000, it clearly tells us one thing: there are not enough foster families.
You may wonder why I am raising the issue of foster care places and need, Mr Hollobone. If good, hard-working people who worked two jobs and had love in their hearts but not necessarily the time to be there straight after school and so on could access childcare places, we may well find more people were able to foster. They could do their day’s work like so many other families and offer support and help to children who need it. That is how I see it, and it is what my contribution will focus on. I hope it will support what the hon. Member for Wigan said, what every one of us will say in our contributions and what the Minister will say in his response.
Many of these children crave the routine that living in a busy functioning household entails. While some people may believe that their normal working hours may preclude them from providing a loving home for a child, that is not the case. When my two grandchildren come to our house—I am not there all the time to see them—it is great because at 7 o’clock we can give them back. It is fantastic. It is one of the wonders of being a grandparent. We get all the fun, but when they get a bit rowdy or tempestuous at night when it is time to go to bed we can return them to their mum and dad with great pleasure. When my wee girls come, they love the busyness of the house. They love the fact that their grandmother and perhaps their grandfather are busy around the place. Whatever we are doing, they want to help. If I am doing repairs in the workshop, they want the hammer. That is not a good thing, but sometimes they want to have a hammer in their hands. I am always very careful with what they are doing. It is that busyness that they want. I believe in my heart that young people want to be part of a busy functioning household.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) asked the Secretary of State for Education about the extension of additional child care hours to foster carers—I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand and told him I was going to mention this—and I was heartened to learn that the Department is minded to consider that extension. I hope that the Minister will tell us that, too. I add my voice to the calls of my colleagues and ask for consideration of the benefit that the extension could produce, with more people willing to add a foster child into their family while being able to work part-time and keep their career in place.
In 2015, only one in 10 mothers were able to be a stay-at-home mum and only one in 100 fathers were able to stay at home. The family has changed and more people need to work, but we need to ensure that those who have the ability and desire to foster children in a warm and loving home are not put off by worrying about needing to put the child into some form of day care. That does not mean they are unable to meet the needs of the child. As long as there is a routine for children, I believe that the scheme and change to childcare that the hon. Member for Wigan clearly outlined could encourage more people to realise that they can have it all.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The hon. Lady’s name is on my list, but she does not have to speak; it is not obligatory.
We now come to the Front Benchers. The guideline limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, but we are well ahead of time. As long as those guidelines are not hugely abused, I think the Front Benchers can speak for as long as they are comfortable speaking.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, especially when time limits have been removed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this important debate, but also on the tireless work she has done in this House in highlighting the need for foster parents and the needs of foster parents. We are now eagerly awaiting the Minister’s comments, because it appears that he may have an early Christmas present for her—that is something we would all enjoy.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about his role as a grandparent, but he also spoke about his grandchildren growing up in a nurtured and loving household, and that is what we would wish for every child, whether they are in the care system or live in their own home. Fostering makes up an important part of the care system. When families are in crisis, fostering can offer the stability needed to keep a child’s life on track. At present, the system puts very little investment into foster families and depends on people being willing to make financial sacrifices to take a child into their home. It can also require career sacrifices, as many children who go into care often have high needs that mean a foster parent must reduce their hours of employment to cater for them, but this form of care is far more cost-effective than other types of care. Foster parents in a loving foster home can provide many great benefits to the young person as they go through life, but they require some help to carry on with their vital duties.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this debate is about childcare in England. The situation is different in Scotland, but I will keep my comments to England. Many have concerns that foster children are exempt from the extra 15 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds. That childcare can make a vast difference to their life chances and in reducing educational inequalities. The CEOs and directors of 13 child welfare charities have written to the children’s Minister to ask for the policy to be reconsidered. The charities also say that grandparents and others who foster members of their own families would particularly benefit from access to the additional 15 hours a week of childcare, as would long-term carers.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) is no longer in her place, but she mentioned the importance of kinship carers. That is recognised, but it is often overlooked. We also have people fostering on extremely tight budgets, and they need all the help they can get. There is no reason for foster families not to receive the same level of support as any other family.
A survey by The Fostering Network this year found that the majority of foster carers across England are unpaid or underpaid. The hon. Member for Wigan has already mentioned that only one in 10 was reported to receive the equivalent of the national living wage for a 40-hour week, and we know that fostering takes far more time than those 40 hours. On top of that, fees charged by nurseries have risen in recent years. That makes it extremely difficult for people to consider fostering as an option. There are people who would make excellent foster parents who cannot take in children in need. That has a great impact on young people’s life chances.
I want to talk a little about the bedroom tax and its impact. In Scotland, all social housing tenants are exempt from the bedroom tax due to mitigation by the Scottish Government, but it must still be paid across England. It disproportionately affects foster carers because, by nature, those planning to foster a child must have a spare bedroom in which to house them.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that outstanding issue, which many foster families face. In my view, the problems with the bedroom tax were created because too often looked-after children are simply invisible when it comes to policymaking; they are an afterthought. Would the hon. Lady welcome hearing the Minister’s views on how we can make sure that when decisions are taken that may affect this group of children, by not just the Department for Education but other Government Departments, they are considered first, so that we do not have to constantly keep trying to put the situation right afterwards?
Carol Monaghan
The hon. Lady speaks with great experience and insight on this matter. We see here how a policy area can have a great impact, sometimes unintended, in another area. The issue for these young children is that potential foster carers—people who desperately want to play a part and certainly have the skills and experience that would make them ideal—simply are not able to consider it. It has put many eligible people off the idea of fostering, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that aspect.
The other area where this policy does not work in reality is where children requiring foster care have brothers and sisters in the same situation. Exemptions for single spare rooms mean that siblings are needlessly split up across the care system. That is in nobody’s interest, least of all the child’s.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to offer today. It is an opportunity to right something that was—I will be generous since it is Christmas—unintentionally written into policy. The Minister now has the opportunity to right that and do the best he possibly can for the children who need the best out of the care system.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George), for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), and thank them for their contributions. I wait with bated breath for the expansion of the Minister’s initial comments; without confirmation, I will proceed as planned.
The discriminatory exclusion of fostered children from 30-hours childcare is something I and colleagues have been working on for a number of months. I am very grateful that we have the chance to raise the issue with the Minister. The 30-hours childcare policy is a flagship one for this Government, proudly spoken about by Members from Back Benchers to Prime Minister. Although my concerns regarding funding and other elements of the policy are known, it has always been clear to me that excluding fostered children from a flagship policy is cruel and unfair.
Back in September, when I first brought this discrimination to the attention of the Minister, he was clear that 30 hours should not be made available to fostered children. In fact, he told me by way of a written answer that there were existing policies in place for foster parents that should cover the full cost of caring for a child.
I am pleased that through political pressure from colleagues, as well as from the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others, we have seen the Minister’s stance soften, and he has pledged to look into it—a commitment reaffirmed by the Secretary of State for Education only last week. We are looking forward to his upcoming statement.
We cannot bank on the promises of this Government. Let us take the long-awaited consultation into the future of children’s centres. Announced in July 2015, it has recently been revealed that work never started and it has been kicked into the long grass, probably cancelled for good. Mr Hollobone, I am aware that I have made a slight digression, but I use it to emphasise the point that a promise from this Government is not enough.
Recently, I held a roundtable to hear directly from foster parents how the situation affects them. Keith, a foster carer, puts it much better than I can. He said, “If I had a birth child and foster child of the same age, it would be like telling them they can both go to school, but the foster child can only go for half the day.” That eloquently sums up why the exclusion must be rectified.
More than 500 new child protection orders are being issued every day in England. We have more children in care since the 1980s. Some of them have experienced things we could not wish on anyone, let alone a child under the age of four. Fostered children often have complex needs and have all experienced some element of trauma in their lives. Good-quality childcare can be transformative. Sadly, of those children, 3,030 fostered three to four-year-olds are not eligible for the 30 hours of free childcare. Of course I am not saying that more hours will be the very best for every child; I am simply advocating putting the choice into the hands of those who know best and have the interests of the child at heart—the foster parents.
I have been shadowing the Minister for some months and he seems to be a great believer in decision making by others. If someone were to look through our exchanges, they would see him advocating and deferring to the decision-making powers of local authorities, nurseries and parents. Oddly, on this one, he thinks the Government know best, not our incredible foster parents. They are people who give so much: a stable home and the opportunity to thrive to children who might not otherwise have that chance. As we know, foster parents do not give so much for financial reward. Only one in 10 receive the equivalent of the minimum wage and, for many, paying for extra hours at nursery is simply not an option. Children, often the most vulnerable, being looked after by hard-working foster carers, should not be discriminated against.
My message to the Government is a simple one. This exclusion of fostered children is not fair on foster parents, it is not fair on children and it is not fair to delay any longer. I know the Minister is a proud, straight-talking Yorkshireman. As a proud, straight-talking Yorkshirewoman, I say to him to please think again. I really look forward to his closing remarks and ask him to end the exclusion today.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The moment we have all been waiting for. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Children and Families (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing this debate on the vital issue of ensuring that foster carers and families with small children have access to high-quality, affordable care. I expect there will be time for her to make some closing remarks when I conclude.
First, let me be clear that children in foster care should have access to the same support and opportunities that all children have. Our ambitions for children and young people during and after being looked after are the same as for any other child: that they have access to good health and wellbeing, fulfil their educational potential, build and maintain lasting relationships and participate positively in society. The role of the foster carer is central to achieving those high ambitions for the children in their care.
Around three quarters of looked-after children are in foster care. Fostering provides stability, a home and an alternative family. I have heard at first hand how children and young people in foster care want to feel part of a family and have a normal family life. We need to support foster carers and local authorities in a way that achieves that.
To meet the diverse needs of all looked-after children, we need to ensure that there is a wide pool of high-quality foster placements. Foster carers play a vital role in supporting some of our most vulnerable children, as we have heard, and this Conservative Government are committed to ensuring that foster carers get the appropriate recognition and support to ensure every looked-after child receives the high-quality care that they need. That includes foster carers being able to work outside their caring responsibilities if it has no impact on the child.
We have introduced the foster family-friendly employer policy, with the Department for Education leading by example in ensuring support and flexibility for its employees who foster. We have also commissioned the national fostering stocktake, a comprehensive review of the fostering system, which is now nearing completion. The stocktake is looking at a wide range of issues, including the recruitment and retention of foster carers and the support they receive, and the reviewers will report to me with recommendations this week.
Since the current exclusion from the 30-hours policy for children in foster care was brought to my attention, I have been looking at it carefully. I have instructed my officials to work up plans to allow children in foster care to take up the additional hours when it is right for the child to do so. We will work with local authorities, fostering service providers and others in the sector to ensure we implement this change in a way that promotes the best interests of the child. I will set out more detail about how we will deliver that shortly.
Many hon. Members referred to the 30 hours of free childcare, so it might be useful to give the House a short update about where we are on that. We are looking at January for the next intake.
Lisa Nandy
Before the Minister moves on to that very important issue, may I ask him about the timescales for this work? One of the great concerns that foster carers have is that if this is not begun immediately and implemented quickly, foster children may face another year of being excluded.
Mr Goodwill
We have already begun to engage with councils and The Fostering Network, and we will continue to do further work on the detail in January. We will involve fostering organisations and foster carers.
Tracy Brabin
Does the Minister have a date in mind for when all excluded fostered children will be able to use the 30 hours?
Mr Goodwill
I was just coming to that. We were planning to announce this in January, which would have given us a bit more time to do some of the preliminary work. The Secretary of State and I made the decision a couple of weeks ago that we should do this. We need to look at whether we need secondary legislation—I hope not. We also need to look very carefully at the role of social workers, because in some instances it may not be appropriate for the child to go to a nursery or a child minder. As we have heard, some children are deeply damaged, so it is important that we look at how we involve the social workers working with those children when we make that decision. There may be a small number of children for whom it is not the best possible way forward. September is a realistic opportunity. If there are no glitches along the way, I would like to think that we will have this in place by September.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the Minister for being forthcoming with that information and for giving way so generously. May I urge some caution in relation to the role of social workers? Foster carers are under great pressure at the moment because of the financial constraints on local authorities, and I am extremely worried that the Government will inadvertently create a system in which there is financial pressure on social workers and an incentive to ration access to a scheme to help foster children. I worked with social workers in my career before coming to Parliament, and I say that in the knowledge that the vast majority of social workers have the best interests of the child in mind. Obviously, when they have a limited pot of funding, they have to be mindful of all the children they are trying to help. It is really important that the funding for this scheme is allocated according to the best interests of the child, not on the basis of rationing at a time when resources are scarce.
Mr Goodwill
I hope what I said was not ambiguous. I was certainly not talking about rationing access to the 30 hours in any way. The way we fund it is to do a headcount of children in January, so social workers will not see it impact on their budgets. There may be—or there may not, depending on how the consultation and conversation turn out—some specific situations where it is not appropriate because of the child’s experiences. It is important that we involve everybody, including the foster carers and the social workers, to check that it is in the best interest of the child in every case. In a small number of cases it may not be appropriate, particularly if the children have disabilities, unless the fosterers have been upskilled.
I talked to staff at a children’s services department in south London last week, and they are talking about upskilling some of their foster carers to look after children with particular difficulties or disabilities. In those cases, it may be appropriate, given that those foster carers are paid over and above the allowance they are normally paid. It is a limited number of situations. This is not about excluding children from access to the 30 hours; it is about including as many children as possible and ensuring the best interests of the child are always respected.
As expected, 30 hours has been popular with parents across the country since being rolled out nationally in September. I am pleased to be able to update the House that we have published new statistics for 30 hours, which show that about 202,800 children are in a 30-hours place. That is great news, and means that tens of thousands of families are benefiting from the additional hours of childcare we have made available to them. Demand remains high as we approach the next school term. I can also update the House that, as of last week, more than 305,000 codes have been generated for the spring term, and that 74% of them have already been checked by a provider. As with the autumn term, I expect those figures to continue to rise over the next few weeks. I ask hon. Members to encourage their constituents to take their code to their provider as soon as possible to secure a 30-hours place in the spring term.
Tracy Brabin
I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way. I, too, have just seen the data that was released today. What has been put in place to encourage parents to register and get their code by 31 December in readiness for the spring term? One of the problems we encountered was that parents were missing the deadline. With Christmas and new year coming up, it is not always going to be the priority for parents, given that it is so far in advance. Will the Minister elucidate that situation?
Mr Goodwill
I am happy to. There are two situations here. There are the parents whose child is already in a nursery and who need to update and renew their code. We have engaged in communication, including by sending text messages to parents, to encourage them to do that. The nurseries themselves have been on the frontline of getting this to happen. Many of the children starting in January are already in paid-for places at the moment. It is very important that we continue to stress to parents that this is available to them. I am pleased that the uptake is in line with—and, indeed, exceeds—our expectations.
Hon. Members raised the issue of whether foster carers will fall foul of the spare room subsidy, as we like to call it on this side of the House. Foster carers are permitted to have a spare bedroom for the year following their approval or where they have a foster child within a year. That is not something that foster carers should worry about. I hope that allays the fears of anyone who has heard that.
Carol Monaghan
It is useful to hear that from the Minister, but I talked about when there are siblings involved. There are sometimes two, three or four children. How will that impact foster carers if they are allowed to have one spare room?
Mr Goodwill
Some foster carers specifically specialise in taking sibling groups. That is taken account of, in terms of the bedrooms that are available, to allow that person to take up their fostering places.
The hon. Member for Wigan, who instigated the debate, made a point about the cost of delivery and how many would benefit. I agree that the number of children who may be eligible is likely to be relatively small, given that we are talking about three-year-olds only. It would not be appropriate in every case and we want to ensure that our discussions with local authorities, The Fostering Network and others help us understand that further. We want to move as quickly as possible to delivery, which is why we will be continuing engagement in the new year.
A very important point was made about foster carer recruitment. It is right that foster carers get the support they need to meet the needs of the children they look after, including flexibility to work when that is right for the child. As I mentioned earlier, we have introduced a foster family-friendly employer policy, and the national fostering stocktake will look at recruitment and retention and will report at the end of the year. The message I get from social workers up and down the country is that when we look at the numbers of foster carers, we appear to be in a reasonably good position, but for certain specialisms—large sibling groups, children with particular needs or disabilities—we need to ensure that we have the foster carers in the right place with the right skills.
I will talk a little about the kinship care children, who were mentioned by one contributor to the debate. We want children in foster care to be able to take up the additional hours when it is in their best interests to do so. That may well be appropriate in kinship care arrangements with approved foster carers. However, it would not be appropriate in every case, which is why we have said that we need to do further work on how we deliver this, as in the other cases.
Tracy Brabin
Just to be clear, is the Minister saying that some children with kinship carers will not be eligible for the expansion from 15 to 30 hours?
Mr Goodwill
The point I am trying to make is that in some cases with kinship carers, as with children in foster care, it may not be appropriate for the place to be taken up. That might be as a result of particular needs or a trauma that the child has gone through, so it is important that we ensure that if the best interests of the child are served by not taking up the place, we can deal with that in different ways. Indeed, tremendous support is given to foster carers in cases where they have to deal with such specific problems—I pay tribute to the dedication of foster carers dealing with some of those very damaged and difficult-to-help children.
I am pleased to see the real impact that 30 hours is having on families’ lives. For example, a parent from Bolton who is starting 30 hours from January told us:
“I applied through the online system to get my code, it was really easy to apply…I got my code straightaway. If I wasn’t getting 30 hours, it wouldn’t be worth me going back to work—most of my wage would’ve been spent on childcare.”
Building on the positive findings from the early delivery area evaluations, published in July and August, I am looking forward to next summer, when the evaluation of the first year of delivery will be published to understand further the impact of 30 hours across the country.
In conclusion, as can be seen, the Government are investing in the early years to ensure that our country’s children are given every opportunity to fulfil their whole potential. I am proud of how the 30 hours is transforming families’ lives. Parents up and down the country are enjoying more time with their children, more money in their pockets and less stress because the 30-hours programme is cutting the cost of their childcare. I am also delighted with our ongoing work to improve the support available to foster carers. As I have said, my officials are actively working with local authorities, fostering service providers and others to ensure that children in foster care are able to take up the additional hours where it is in their best interests to do so.
Lisa Nandy
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has just said and, in particular, for the child-centred nature of his approach, which will reassure many people outside this place that he has the best interests of the child at heart. In particular, I welcome the commitment to get the matter resolved by September, the willingness to engage with The Fostering Network, social workers, local authorities and others, and his very strong statement about the intention not to ration the care, but to include as many children as possible. I was also interested in what he said about kinship care.
We will of course watch what happens next with interest. My hon. Friends and I will hold the Minister to his promises today, as I am sure he knows. Finally, I place on the record my sincere thanks for his constructive and thoroughly decent approach to this issue and to today’s debate, which shows clearly that there are many of us in this House who are capable of working across party lines in the best interests of children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered childcare for fostered children.
Written Statements
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union Opt-in Decision: Cash Controls Regulation
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The UK’s justice and home affairs (JHA) opt-in was triggered by three articles in a proposed regulation amending EU regulation 1889/2005 on controls on cash entering or leaving the union. In the proposed regulation, provisions in article 6 oblige member states to collect information, and those in articles 8 and 9 oblige member states to share information. The Government considered that the competence for the EU to act in these areas stems from article 87 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
The Government decided that it is in the UK’s interest to opt in to the justice and home affairs obligations within this regulation as the provisions strengthen the existing regulations, and will enhance border security without imposing disproportionate burdens on business. The proposed new regulation will reinforce the existing controls of cash moving across EU borders, bringing these controls in line with international norms and best practices for addressing evolving forms of criminality. Until the UK leaves the EU it remains a full and participating member. We will continue to work with the EU institutions, with the aim of ensuring that UK objectives are preserved as the negotiations progress on any compromise text.
[HCWS371]
School Revenue Funding Settlement: 2018-19
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today I am confirming the school and early years funding allocations for 2018-19. This announcement covers the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), the Education Services Grant (ESG) protections for academies, and the pupil premium. This is supported by the additional £1.3 billion for schools and high needs over the next two years that the Secretary of State for Education announced in July. Pupils Per Pupil Rate Disadvantaged pupils: Primary £1,320 Disadvantaged pupils: Secondary £935 Pupil Premium Plus: Looked After Children (LAC) and those adopted from care or who leave care under a Special Guardianship Order or Child Arrangements Order (formally known as a residence order). £2,300 Service children £300
As previously announced, the distribution of the DSG to local authorities will be set out in four blocks for each authority: a schools block, a high needs block, an early years block, and the new central school services block.
On 14 September, the Secretary of State for Education announced a new national funding formula for schools and high needs from April 2018. This follows the introduction of a national funding formula for early years in April 2017. This is an historic reform. The new national funding formulae will direct resources where they are most needed, helping to ensure that every child has the high quality education that they deserve, wherever they live.
The schools block has been allocated between local authorities on the basis of the primary and secondary units of funding published in September 2017.
The allocations for the high needs block have been updated with the latest pupil numbers, following the publication of provisional allocations in September indicating how much each local authority was likely to receive. The high needs block supports provision for pupils and students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), up to the age of 25, and alternative provision for pupils who cannot receive their education in schools.
The new central school services block which funds local authorities for their ongoing responsibilities for both academies and maintained schools has also been allocated on the basis of the latest pupil numbers, in line with September’s announcement.
The early years block comprises funding for: the free early education entitlements for 3 and 4-year-olds and disadvantaged 2-year-olds, supplementary funding for maintained nursery schools; the early years pupil premium, and the disability access fund. The early years national funding formula rates for 3 and 4-year-olds for 2018-19 were published on 17 November, and today we have announced initial allocations for this block.
We will maintain the ESG protections in 2018-19 at their current rates, to protect academies from excessive changes in funding as a result of the ending of the ESG.
The pupil premium per pupil amounts will be protected at the current rates, with the exception of the pupil premium plus, which will increase from £1,900 per pupil to £2,300, as previously announced. The amounts for 2018-19 will be:
A looked after child is defined in the Children Act 1989 as one who is in the care of, or provided with accommodation by, an English or Welsh local authority.
Pupil premium allocations for financial year 2018-19 will be published in June 2018 following the receipt of pupil number data from the spring 2018 schools and alternative provision censuses. Details of these arrangements will be published on www.gov.uk.
Relationships, and Sex, Education
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
Through the Children and Social Work Act 2017 we legislated to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to make regulations requiring:
All schools providing primary education in England to teach age-appropriate “relationships education” to pupils receiving primary education; and
All schools providing secondary education in England to teach age-appropriate “relationships and sex education” to pupils receiving secondary education.
The Act also created a power for the Government to make regulations requiring personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) to be taught in all schools. It is already compulsory in all independent schools.
I am today launching a call for evidence to gather the views of teachers, parents, and most importantly, young people to help us shape relationships education in primary school and relationships and sex education in secondary school. Our aim is to help our young people to stay safe and be better prepared to face the challenges of the modern world.
The current statutory guidance for teaching relationships and sex education was last set in 2000. It needs updating to reflect today’s world as it does not address risks to children that have emerged over the last 17 years, including cyber-bullying, “sexting” and staying safe online. The call for evidence will invite views on age-appropriate content that builds young people’s knowledge and understanding over time, including:
how to recognise, understand and build healthy relationships, including self-respect and respect for others, commitment, boundaries and consent, tolerance, and how to manage conflict, and also how to recognise unhealthy relationships, addressing issues such as bullying, coercion and exploitation;
understanding different types of relationships, including friendships, family relationships, dealing with strangers and, at secondary school, intimate relationships;
safety online, including use of social media, cyber-bullying, sexting; and,
how relationships may affect health and wellbeing, including the importance of good mental health and resilience.
Schools will continue to have flexibility over how they teach these subjects so that they can ensure their approach is sensitive to the needs of their pupils and, in the case of faith schools, in accordance with the tenets of their faith. Schools will ensure that parents are fully consulted on their approach. As now, primary schools do not have to teach sex education and the Government have no proposal to change this, but if primary schools do choose to teach sex education, parents will be able to withdraw their children from these lessons.
We are also seeking views on the future of PSHE. The call for evidence will close on 12 February 2018. It forms part of the wider engagement process we are conducting with the education sector and other experts to inform the development of these subjects. The engagement process, supported by our education adviser, executive headteacher Ian Bauckham CBE, will be followed by a formal consultation on draft regulations and guidance before regulations are laid in the House for debate.
[HCWS373]
Surface Water Management
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I would like to update the House on the work the Government are doing to consider the long-term arrangements for surface water management.
Following the national flood resilience review we are better prepared this winter for flooding from all sources: the Environment Agency now has 25 miles of mobile flood barriers, 250 mobile pumps and 500,000 sandbags. These flood barriers and mobile pumps are ready to go anywhere in the country. This allows us to respond rapidly and flexibly to help protect communities, homes and businesses.
The Budget announced an additional £76 million to be spent on flood and coastal defence schemes over the next three years. This boosts flood defence investment to over £2.6 billion by 2021. Our flood defence programme is protecting more and more homes across the country, and we have 100,000 homes better protected by the 350 new schemes completed in the last two years.
As well as being prepared for this winter, it is right that we look ahead to future challenges, including in relation to surface water management. Surface water flooding occurs when excessive rainfall from storms overwhelms local drainage capacities. Changing weather patterns and population growth will have impacts on the risk of surface water flooding going forward.
Local councils have clear statutory responsibilities as lead local flood authorities to manage surface water flood risks and work in partnership with other risk management authorities, including highways authorities and water companies—who have a duty to effectively drain their area. Power and communications companies also have roles in managing the risks of disruption to essential services.
In response to the commitment in the national flood resilience review to look at issues affecting surface water in 2017, we have been working across Government to consider ways in which surface water management may need to be strengthened.
We have analysed information from a wide range of sources to inform this work. For example, looking at current flooding and drainage plans, undertaking local case studies, holding discussions at national stakeholder events and working with Water UK’s 21st-century drainage programme.
We also need to take account of ongoing work by the National Infrastructure Commission and the adaptation sub-committee as well as the soon-to-be published report of DCLG’s review of sustainable drainage systems in planning policy. As well as reducing the risk of surface water flooding, sustainable drainage can deliver water quality, biodiversity and amenity benefits, helping to make great places to live.
Using this evidence we have identified five key actions—set out below. Proposals to support these areas will be considered by the inter-ministerial group on flooding early next year with a report outlining actions and an implementation timetable published in spring 2018.
In January 2018 my Department will co-host an event with Water UK to present our findings so far. Stakeholders will be able to contribute in shaping future actions. One of the main themes will be the collaboration of local authorities and other risk management authorities in delivering their statutory responsibilities and achieving the best outcomes for surface water management.
Five action areas
National position: This year Government added the risk of surface water flooding to the national risk register within the “high risk” banding. We will develop a clear national planning scenario for surface water flood risk based on plausible extreme rainfall events. This will be tested by a panel of experts who will give an independent assessment of its suitability and its application to existing surface water risk maps and national objectives.
Effective collaborative working: Our local case studies identified some very effective partnership working by risk management authorities. We will use the findings to work with others to build on this, including using the review of the national flood and coastal erosion strategy to ensure best practice is shared and priorities are aligned. The work of Water UK’s 21st-century drainage programme is a great start in this respect as they begin to develop over the coming months the framework for drainage and wastewater management plans. The content of these long-term plans will require exactly the kind of engagement and consultation with a range of organisations that will help foster greater partnership working and common goals and aims.
Skills: Our research has shown that it is important to maintain the right balance of surface water flood and drainage skills at the local level. This project has identified some particular concerns, for example in relation to drainage engineering skills as well as staff retention and succession planning. We will work with others on actions to address skills and capacity issues.
Maps and data: The Environment Agency is reviewing the current and future data needs for the mapping and modelling of surface water flooding. They aim to improve the availability, consistency and accuracy of data across the range of bodies involved.
Forecasting: The Met Office and Environment Agency are carrying out a review on how improvements in surface water forecasting and communication can be made to make the best use of the information produced across the Met Office, Flood Forecasting Centre and Environment Agency.
[HCWS368]
General Affairs Council: December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting in Brussels on 12 December. The main items on the agenda were: preparations for the December European Council on 14 and 15 December; a follow-up to the October European Council; legislative programming, covering the joint declaration on legislative priorities for 2018-19; and the European semester, focusing on the annual growth survey.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2017/12/12/
Preparation of the European Council, 14 to 15 December 2017
The presidency introduced the agenda for the December European Council, which included: defence; social, culture and education; migration; and external relations. I intervened to welcome the draft December conclusions as short and well balanced.
On the defence agenda item, the Council were informed that NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg would attend the DEC to discuss EU-NATO co-operation. I intervened to emphasise the importance of EU-NATO co-operation. I also welcomed swift progress on the permanent structured co-operation (PESCO) and the attention given to the European defence industrial development programme (EDIDP).
Ministers exchanged views on the conclusions for the social, education and culture agenda item. I stressed the importance of subsidiarity in this area and noted that economic strength and the creation of jobs are the best way to deliver social protection.
Under the migration agenda item, Ministers discussed the common European asylum system (CEAS).
October European Council follow-up
Commission Vice-President Timmermans updated Ministers on the successful replenishment of the EU Africa trust fund (EUTF), which had exceeded the €110 million target set by leaders in October. Vice-President Timmermans also updated that cuts to Turkey’s pre-accession funding were a reflection of political developments in the country.
Legislative programming—joint declaration on interinstitutional programming
The Council approved the joint declaration on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2018-19. The wpriorities, which include views on annual interinstitutional programming, are due to be signed by the Presidents of the European Council, Commission and Parliament.
European semester 2018—annual growth survey
The Commission introduced the annual growth survey, which set out its priorities for action at national and EU-level over the next 12 months to support economic growth and employment.
[HCWS370]
Policing
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I have today placed in the Library my proposals for the aggregate amount of grant to local policing bodies in England and Wales for 2018-19, for the approval of the House. Copies are also available in the Vote Office. The Welsh Government are also setting out today its proposals for the allocation of funding in 2018-19 for local policing bodies in Wales.
The Government are committed to protecting the public and providing the resources necessary for the police to do their critical work. That is why I have visited or spoken with every police force in England and Wales to better understand the demands they face and how these can best be managed. I have met with many rank and file officers, as well as Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). I pay tribute to the hard work of police officers up and down the country who put the safety of others before their own and help make our communities more secure.
We in Government and the police leadership must support frontline police officers and staff to ensure they have the resources, modern equipment and skills they need to deliver their responsibility to the public. To achieve this, the police funding settlement has four objectives:
Greater public investment in both local and CT, to help the police respond to shifts in both crime and the terrorist threat.
Empowering locally accountable PCCs to have greater flexibility to set their own local funding.
Challenging and supporting police leaders to be more efficient, more productive with officers’ time and transparent in their use of public money.
Maintaining substantial Government investment in national programmes that will upgrade police capabilities and help them be more effective in managing extra demand.
The background to this settlement is one of a shift in the pattern of demand on police time and resources. It remains true that crime as traditionally measured by the independent crime survey for England and Wales—widely regarded as the best long-term measure of the crime people experience—is down by more than a third since 2010 and 70% since its peak in 1995.
However, we need to recognise that there have been material changes in the demands on policing since the 2015 spending review. Demand on the police from crimes reported to them has grown and shifted to more complex and resource intensive work such as investigating child sexual exploitation and modern slavery. At the same time the terrorist threat has changed. The 24% growth in recorded crime since 2014-15 comes from more victims having the confidence to come forward and report previously hidden crimes, better recording practices by the police—both of which are to be welcomed—but also includes some concerning increases in violent crime.
The Government have listened to the police and recognised the demands they face. Between 2015-16 and 2017-18, total police funding has increased by over half a billion pounds including increased investment in transformation and technology. In this settlement, we propose to increase total investment in the police system by up to £450 million year on year in 2018-19.
In 2018-19, we will provide each PCC with the same amount of core Government grant funding as in 2017-18. Protecting police grant means PCCs retain the full benefit from any additional local council tax income. Alongside this, we are providing further flexibility to PCCs in England to increase their band D precept by up to £12 in 2018-19 without the need to call a local referendum. This is equivalent to up to £1 per month for a typical band D household.
These changes to referendum principles give PCCs the flexibility to make the right choices for their local area, and will enable an increase in funding to PCCs of up to around £270 million next year. It means that each PCC who uses this flexibility will be able to increase their direct resource funding by at least an estimated 1.6% (which maintains funding in real terms). The overall force level impact is set out at the accompanying table 1, and Home Office grant levels are set out at table 3.
The Chancellor and the Home Secretary have agreed additional Government funding for counter-terrorism policing with a £50 million (7%) increase in like-for-like funding when compared to 2017-18. This will enable the counter-terrorism budget to increase to at least £757 million, including £29 million for an uplift in armed policing from the police transformation fund. This is a significant additional investment in the vital work of counter-terrorism police officers across the country. PCCs will be notified of force level allocations separately. These will not be made public for security reasons.
We will also increase investment in national policing priorities such as police technology and special grant by around £130 million compared to 2017-18.
The funding the Government provide for national police priorities, known as reallocations, supports crucial police reform. For example, since the launch of the transformation fund last year over £200 million of funding has been awarded for modernising policing and building capability, in addition to over £200 million awarded between 2013 and 2016 for the innovation fund. For example, we are investing over £40 million in regional organised crime unit capacity to uplift serious organised crime capability including undercover online capability to tackle child sexual abuse, and £8.5 million for tackling modern slavery, to drive nationally co-ordinated action, training and assessment.
We will continue to work in partnership with the police to help build the capabilities and skills they need to meet new challenges. To support these objectives, we are providing reallocations for the following national priorities in 2018-19 (as set out at table 2):
We will maintain the size of the police transformation fund at £175 million, which we expect to support an improvement in the leadership and culture of policing, the diversity of its workforce, protection of vulnerable people, cross-force specialist capabilities, exploitation of new technology and how we respond to changing threats.
We are also increasing funding for police technology to £495 million to support the new emergency services network (ESN), Home Office biometrics, the national law enforcement data service and the new national automatic number plate recognition service. These technology programmes will provide the national infrastructure that the police need for the modern communications and data requirements, and will deliver substantial financial savings and productivity gains in future.
We are providing £93 million for the discretionary police special grant contingency fund, which supports forces facing significant and exceptional events which might otherwise place them at significant financial risk (for example, helping forces respond to terrorist attacks). We are increasing funding in 2018-19 to reflect both an assessment of potential need after heavy demand for special grant this year, and the specific costs likely to be incurred for the policing operation at the Commonwealth summit.
Existing arm’s length bodies (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, the College of Policing, the Independent Police Complaints Commission as it becomes the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority) will receive broadly the same level of funding as in 2017-18. Additional arm’s length body funding reflects the need to set up a new office for communications data authorisations following clarification by the courts of the legal requirements for independent scrutiny of requests for communications intercepts.
We will also continue to pay our private finance initiative obligations, support police bail reforms, and top up national crime agency funding and regional organised crime unit grants to ensure these are maintained at flat cash, in line with police grant.
As part of the settlement for police and crime commissioners and in addition to core Government funding, we will fund the following:
PCCs in England will continue to receive grants relating to the 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 council tax freeze schemes. We will also provide local council tax support grant funding to PCCs in England. These will total £507 million in 2018-19. The Common Council of the City of London (on behalf of the City of London Police) and the Greater London Authority (on behalf of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) will also receive equivalent funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
The Metropolitan Police Service, through the Greater London Authority, will continue to receive national and international capital city (NICC) grant funding worth £173.6 million, and the City of London Police will also continue to receive NICC grant funding worth £4.5 million. This is in recognition of the unique and additional demands of policing the capital city. An additional grant of £0.9 million will be made to the Common Council of the City of London (on behalf of the City of London Police) to protect their direct resource funding in real terms as they do not raise a police precept.
PCCs will also receive capital grant of £45.9 million, which is the same amount as in 2017-18. Tables 4 and 5 set out the capital settlement.
The increase in 2018-19 funding to PCCs must be matched by a serious commitment from PCCs and chief constables to reform by improving productivity and efficiency to deliver a better, more transparent service to the public. Following my discussions with forces and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) efficiency findings, I have three clear priorities:
Seek and deliver further cost efficiencies. I welcome the progress forces have made against the £350 million procurement savings target set at spending review 2015. However, there is a lot more to do. We have helped to identify £100 million of potential savings in areas such as fleet, professional services and construction. Forces will need to make greater use of national procurement through lead forces to make these savings. We are providing support through the police transformation fund and we will also help establish a force-led national centre of excellence to drive down back-office costs, and make best use of estates.
A modern digitally enabled workforce that allows frontline officers to spend less time dealing with bureaucracy and more time preventing and fighting crime and protecting the public. If all forces could deliver the same one hour per officer per day of productivity benefits from mobile working as the best in a recent sample with eight forces, this has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers nationally to provide the proactive policing that committed police officers want to deliver. We will work with policing to set up a specialist team to make sure all police forces have access to, and make use of, the best mobile working apps to enable forces to free up extra hours to spend at the frontline.
Greater transparency in how public money is used locally. It is necessary for police to hold financial reserves, including primarily for contingencies, emergencies and major change costs. As at March 2017 police forces held usable resource reserves of over £1.6 billion. This compares to £1.4 billion in 2011. Current reserves held represent 15% of annual police funding to PCCs. There are wide variations between forces with Gwent for example holding 42% and Northumbria holding 6%. This is public money and the public are entitled to more information around police plans for reserves and how those plans will support more effective policing. So we will be improving transparency around reserves in the new year through enhanced guidance and through national publication of comparable reserves data. HMICFRS are also consulting on plans for force management statements, which could make more information on police forces available to the public.
We will be entering into discussions with police leadership to agree milestones against these priorities that need to be achieved over 2018.
I have listened to the views of PCCs and Chief Constables, who have requested greater certainty about future funding to help more efficient financial planning. If the police deliver clear and substantial progress against the agreed milestones on productivity and efficiency in 2018, then the Government intend to maintain the protection of a broadly flat police grant in 2019-20 and repeat the same flexibility of the precept, i.e. allowing PCCs to increase their band D precept up to a further £12 in 2019-20.
I am grateful for the work of the core grant distribution review, earlier this year, which considered potential changes to the police funding formula. In the context of changing demand and following my engagement with police leaders, providing funding certainty for 2019-20 is my immediate priority. It is intended that the funding formula will be revisited at the next spending review.
Not only are we supporting the police by making sure they have enough resources but in other ways too, such as ensuring police have the full protection of the law when carrying out their duties. That is why we are supporting the Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill which will increase penalties available to those who attack emergency service workers. We are also helping frontline officers to tackle crime by making sure that officers feel able to pursue suspected criminals where it is appropriate to do so by reviewing the legislation, guidance and practice around police pursuits.
The Communities Secretary is announcing the council tax referendum principles for all local authorities in England in 2018-19, including those applicable to PCCs. After considering any representations, he will set out the final principles in a report to the House and seek approval for these in parallel with the Final Local Government Finance Report. Council tax in Wales is the responsibility of Welsh Ministers.
I have set out in a separate document the tables illustrating how we propose to allocate the police funding settlement between the different funding streams and between PCCs for 2018-19. These documents are intended to be read together.
Police grant tables can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statemwent/Commons/2017-12-19/HCWS372/ .
[HCWS372]
Criminal Justice System: BAME Individuals
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lidington)
In 2016 the Prime Minister asked the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to chair “An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, BAME individuals in the CJS”. The review made 35 recommendations for the Government to implement, and today the Government publish their response.
The Government welcome the impetus that the Lammy review brings to the debate about ethnicity and race, and would like to thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham for his thorough and incisive research on the topic. We welcome the core principles detailed in the review—transparency, fairness, and responsibility—as a framework on which policy and practice should stand.
In the response, we have clearly outlined the actions we have taken or will take in relation to each recommendation. We have also examined the review to find ideas that, while not being explicit recommendations, nevertheless warrant greater attention and action.
There are already a number of steps the Government have taken in line with the review recommendations, announced at the publication of the race disparity audit. We are already moving to publish more and better data, and will adopt a co-ordinated approach to improving data quality to determine where disparities occur and why. In addition, the Government have adopted the principle of “explain or change” to identify and objectively assess disparities, and then decide whether and how changes need to be applied. We feel this principle is particularly valuable in relation to smaller groups in the criminal justice system, such as Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, and BAME women.
On a small number of the recommendations we have indicated that we need to proceed with caution, if significant barriers exist that prevent us from implementing a recommendation as it stands. Where this is the case, we aim to be transparent about the reasons and open to change, as circumstances alter.
Beyond the review’s recommendations, we will set up governance procedures to monitor our progress driven by a Race and Ethnicity Board of senior officials, chaired at the level of director general within the MoJ. It will update the Criminal Justice Board, of which I am chair. The Race and Ethnicity Board will consider and agree the scope and timelines for the work needed to reduce race disparities. This will include timings for the actions set out in the Government’s response.
These governance structures will cover the agenda articulated by he right hon. Member for Tottenham and will contribute to the Government’s wider work around tackling race disparities, and direct sustained effort to give this agenda the longevity it deserves.
[HCWS367]
House of Lords
House of Lords: Lord Speaker’s Committee Report
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Burns
That this House takes note of the Report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and all those who have made today’s debate possible so soon after the publication of our report. I also recognise the contribution of my fellow committee members. It has been a great pleasure to work with them. We produced a unanimous report and the contributions of all members were very important. We were fortunate in having the support of the talented Tom Wilson as clerk, together with his team, and some experienced external advisers, who are listed in the report.
The committee has been greatly encouraged by the response of noble Lords to our proposals, and indeed from those outside the House. For their part, the Government have made it clear that they are interested in finding out whether the committee’s conclusions command widespread support in the House. I hope that today’s debate, involving almost 100 noble Lords, will serve that purpose and demonstrate that the proposals have strong backing.
Today, I will not repeat the details of the report. Many noble Lords have already heard me go through them—some more than once, I am afraid to say. Rather, first I will make a few general comments about key aspects of the committee’s approach and proposals. Then I will tackle some of the questions and issues raised with us since publication. Later today—if it is today—I will try to answer queries and concerns raised in the debate.
From the outset, the committee recognised that most people were understandably focusing on how to reduce the current number of Members of this House. By contrast, little thought had been given to how to stop the historic tendency of the House to increase in size. Whatever your views on the current or future size of the House, such a trend is simply not sustainable. Accordingly, while looking at how to get numbers down, we also focused on designing a system which would cap the membership of the House for as long as it remains an appointed Chamber—we called this the “steady state”.
Throughout our discussions, the committee’s overriding priority was pragmatism. We all know how difficult it is to achieve any legislative reform of this House. We set out to design a system which could be implemented without legislation, but which could be formalised in statute in due course if the political will was there. I stress that the purpose is not to exempt our proposals from the spotlight of legislative scrutiny in both Houses. Rather, it is to make progress in the areas where widespread agreement can be reached, as quickly as possible.
The first step was to analyse the options for ensuring a turnover of Members sufficient to allow the membership to be rebalanced and refreshed within a cap. It is clear to us—the reasons are set out in the report—that fixed terms are the only solution which will provide a steady stream of vacancies in a way which is fair to all groups. Therefore a key pillar of our recommendations is that all new Members should serve a single, non-renewable fixed term of 15 years. They would be offered the peerage on that basis and would make an undertaking to retire after 15 years when joining the House. We do not envisage any Members going back on their word, but we have robust legal advice that the House has the powers to enforce the undertaking to retire.
A second pillar is that appointments which became available would be allocated between the parties on the basis of the most recent general election results. This would be calculated as a combination of each party’s share of Commons seats and of the national vote. Along with 15-year terms, this would mean that the composition of the House at any point once we reach a steady state would give a 15-year picture of the political views of the country, as expressed in elections. Our calculations in the report show how the relative strength of the parties would have developed historically under our proposals. For recent years, they generally mirror what happened in real life in broad terms—with the single crucial difference that it would have been within a cap of 600 Members. Election results would of course not affect the Cross-Benchers. They would, as proposed by the great majority of your Lordships and others, make up a constant proportion of at least 20% of the House.
I now turn to the more immediate question of reducing the current membership to a reasonable level in a way that is fair to all, which is what the committee called the transition. The weight of opinion supported a membership of about 600, although our proposals would work just as well with a higher or lower number, within reason. In reducing the current membership of 824 to 600, there are two important but conflicting priorities. The first is to make the reduction within a reasonable period. The second is to enable a continuing flow of new appointments, so that the membership can be refreshed and rebalanced rather than stagnating.
The committee came to the view that, until we were down to a membership of 600, the best compromise would be a system with half of the departures contributing towards a reduction in the overall membership and the other half being allocated to new appointees. Once the target had been reached, each departure would lead to one appointment. I emphasise that these figures apply in aggregate across the House, not within each party group. I will touch on this later because there has been some confusion.
Appointments would be made in line with election results as I described earlier, so replacement rates would vary between parties. The speed by which the target of 600 is reached depends on how rapidly existing Members leave the House. We understand that no current Members can be forced to leave without legislation, so it will be for the House as a whole to decide how quickly to proceed and for individual Members to retire when the time comes.
The committee’s report sets out a proposed profile of departures, which would enable the House to come down to 600 over about 11 years. The departure rate starts off gently but increases over time; the committee came to this view because it reflected the increasing age and length of service of current Members, and the fact that they will have longer to make retirement plans. Each party group would contribute the same number of retirements as a proportion of its pre-2018 membership each year, but of course the number of new appointments would vary according to how well that party had performed in the most recent election. As for which individuals should leave and when, the committee felt it was right to leave this decision in the hands of the party groups, but we have made some suggestions. For example, age or a combination of age and service might be useful yardsticks.
These are the key elements of the scheme. If we are to make progress, we will need agreement from the Prime Minister that she will make new appointments in line with the suggested formula for total numbers and for the allocation of appointments by party. She has the power to give this scheme the momentum it needs. If subsequently we can show progress it is difficult to imagine that her successors would revert to the current unsustainable position. But to get to this position we require the support of the party groups, which will be responsible for meeting the retirement targets agreed by the House—and a willingness from all of us to take a constructive approach to our own retirement plans.
I now turn to some of the main comments and queries we have received since the report was published. First, many people have asked why the reduction to 600 cannot take place more quickly. It certainly could, but increasing the ratio of departures to new appointments would slow down the flow of appointments, with a knock-on effect on refreshment and rebalancing. The only desirable way of speeding up the reduction is for people to retire at a faster rate. This is in the hands of your Lordships. The committee put forward what it thought was a reasonable pace.
Secondly, others have suggested that the “equal contribution” process is unfair—why should each party be required to achieve the same rate of departures regardless of whether they are currently overrepresented or underrepresented in the House? But departures are only half the story. It is necessary to take into account both departures and appointments. Because new appointments will be allocated on the basis of the most recent election the party breakdown will adjust accordingly from day one. If a party’s electoral performance is better than its initial share of seats, its overall share of the House will gradually increase—and if its electoral performance is worse than its initial share of seats its overall share of the House will fall.
The third common query has been about what happens to groups that miss or exceed their departure targets. The answer is straightforward: for each departure below or above target the party gets one less or one more appointment. We are satisfied that there is no realistic way of gaming this arrangement. A party that overdelivers on retirements will have more appointments but this will not affect its total strength in the House. Similarly, a party that underdelivers on retirements will have fewer appointments but will not gain in its overall party strength.
Fourthly, some Members have expressed their dissatisfaction that the hereditary by-election system is left intact under our proposals and that the number of Bishops will remain at 26. We have stressed that this does not reflect our personal preferences, but the reality is that legislation would be needed to make any changes in these areas. We suggest that this is not an issue for today.
Fifthly, a number of people have stressed that a Prime Minister needs to be able to appoint Ministers directly to the House. The committee agrees. Our proposals make specific provision for Prime Ministers to bring forward one of their appointments when they are due, enabling them to appoint Ministers at short notice.
Sixthly, there was some concern about effective Ministers being forced to leave office when their Lords terms expire. We propose that serving Ministers within the statutory cap, as well as certain Lords officeholders, should be allowed to remain in the House until the end of their period of office, even if this takes them beyond the 15 years.
Seventhly, some Members have asked what would happen in certain unusual circumstances, such as the swift emergence of a new party or a party refusing to use its allocation of appointments. I refer noble Lords to appendix 5, which deals with these issues.
Finally, we are aware that our proposals in respect of non-affiliated Members need further work. We hope that they will sign up to the principles of the scheme and take a responsible decision about when to retire, but we accept that the House may need to exert pressure in some instances. It is particularly important to get this right so that there are no incentives for Members of the main groups to join the list of non-affiliated Members to avoid the tap on the shoulder from their group.
We have also received representations on a number of issues which, while we have sympathy with the points raised, were not within our remit. These include the regional, gender, age and ethnic balance of the House, which lies in the hands of the party leaders and HOLAC, who are responsible for selecting new Members. We have also had questions about the system of financial support for Members, which is a matter for the House of Lords Commission and the party leaders.
These are important issues for the future. The only question now is whether implementing our proposals would make it more or less likely that we would be in a position to make progress with these issues. For myself, I cannot see why the position would be worse and in the longer term I hope we would see an improvement.
In concluding, I say to your Lordships that this may well be the last opportunity for the House to tackle its size on its own terms. Our proposals would end the anomaly of it being the only Chamber in a western democracy which has no cap on its size and no limits on length of service. Resolution of this issue would comprise the third and final key step in the development of a sustainable appointed House, without prejudice to any future introduction of elections.
The first step was the introduction of life peerages in 1958, which enabled Prime Ministers to rebalance the composition of the House without creating permanent titles to be handed down the generations. The second step was the House of Lords Act 1999, which largely dealt with the outmoded phenomenon of membership by birthright. The problem is that neither reform dealt with the inflationary pressures which stem from combining political rebalancing with lifelong membership. I regard the committee’s proposals as this third step.
If we can create a system which enables rebalancing and refreshing of the membership within a fixed cap we will have cracked a problem inherent in granting peerages that entitle the recipient to a lifelong seat in this House. I greatly look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords throughout the day. I beg to move.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thought that it would be helpful to the House to say at the outset that I will keep my remarks brief, as my main purpose today is to listen to what the House has to say about the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the other members of the committee. This report is a serious piece of work that provides much food for thought about how we might address the size of this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords contributing today. This is a debate in which views from across the House are important, as this is a report by the House for the House.
During today’s debate, I hope that noble Lords will give their views on the report and ask any questions they have about the analysis and recommendations. It will be for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and not for me, to respond to those questions. It may be that, arising from this debate, the committee wishes to reconvene to consider additional points, which I understand it has offered to do if necessary.
What has been clear to me through discussions with noble Lords over the past few months is that there is a desire, across all Benches, to ensure that, whatever reforms might be implemented in the future, this House continues to draw on the invaluable breadth of expertise and experience of Peers as we do today so that we can continue to perform our important role of scrutinising and revising.
The Government have been clear that comprehensive reform of this House which requires legislation is not a priority for the current Parliament. The House we have today is not the product of any deliberate design but draws legitimacy from the value it adds to the legislative process, complementing the work of the elected House.
Noble Lords who have been in this House much longer than I have will have lived through both significant reforms and stalled attempts. Those attempts which failed did so because they were unable to achieve the necessary consensus, and in many cases this also meant consensus in the other place. House of Lords reform is a complex, difficult and constitutionally significant area into which anyone must be advised to tread with caution and having learned the lessons of history and unintended consequences. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee have understood this and reflected it in the way they have approached their deliberations. As such, they have focused on developing proposals that they believe will not require legislation.
For the Prime Minister and the other party leaders, the committee has recommended a cap on the number of appointments made each year and a set formula when allocating those numbers to political groupings. This recommendation requires detailed consideration of the constitutional and political issues it raises. I know that the Prime Minister will consider carefully her response, as I am sure will the other party leaders.
The context of the Burns report is a widespread concern among noble Lords at the size of the House and what has been perceived as a never-ending increase in numbers, with attendant fears over the reputation and effectiveness of this House as a second Chamber. I am sure that today’s debate will reiterate this concern. In light of this, it is worth highlighting the fact that the Prime Minister has taken a restrained approach to appointments. Total membership has decreased since July 2016 when she took office.
A key first challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee have set the House is to take advantage of the means which already exist to help achieve this end: that is, to encourage sufficient retirements. Seventy-eight Peers have chosen to retire since 2014, when this option became available. The Conservative group in this House takes our responsibility in this regard seriously, which is reflected in the number of those retirements which have come from the Conservative Benches.
As in all things, this House works at its best when it exercises self-regulation. If we are to meet the targets that the committee has set out, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is incumbent on all groupings in this House to consider what they can do to further promote the culture of retirement among their members at the appropriate point.
Noble Lords will note that achieving sufficient retirements forms the basis and to a significant degree dictates the success of the report’s proposed approach to reaching the goal of a smaller House. We must show our commitment as a House to reducing our size if we are to expect party leaders now or in future to agree to the restrictions that the report seeks to place on them. There are indeed two sides to achieving the outcome that the report seeks to achieve.
As I made clear, I believe that if we are to make progress, we have to do this together as a House. Indeed, the recommendations set out by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee depend on this. The way forward will not be for the Government to lead on and deliver alone.
I end simply by reiterating my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the other members of the Lord Speaker’s committee for their hard work. They have produced a valuable report which I am sure will lead to a thought-provoking debate.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, as Ella Fitzgerald once sang:
“We can’t go on this way”.
A year ago this month, this House arrived at the same conclusion and agreed that reduction in our numbers into a sustained future was the way forward for our credibility and that methods be explored by which this could be achieved. The significant move did not come out of the blue. It came from the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, and thanks must go to its officers and members for their perseverance over many years. Thanks must also go to our Lord Speaker, who was determined there and then that a committee be set up urgently to explore the means by which we move forward. I was privileged to be a member of that committee, and I thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his leadership and his astonishing ability to resolve multiple complex issues before our very eyes. His membership of the Magic Circle must surely be imminent. Of course I thank my fellow committee members for their wisdom, patience and good humour. After lengthy and robust debate, the final report was approved unanimously.
Not everyone in this Chamber will agree with every paragraph—some may not agree with any—but I sincerely hope that a majority of your Lordships will agree that we have a fair and sensible plan of action in front of us, within our limited terms of reference. Our challenge was to ensure respect for existing Members while laying sound foundations for a sustainable future for new Members. I believe that this is our best shot at reform for a generation, and we need to grasp this opportunity, despite it not being everyone’s perfect vision. Until we do that, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, the Prime Minister, No. 10, the Government and the leadership of the political parties in the country will not hear their prompt to step on to the stage with us and be part of our reformed future. We should be proud of the detailed scrutiny we do in this House, yet that is often not as the public and the media see us. To put it mildly, we are not loved, and our willingness to embrace this report today may go some way to healing that disconnect.
In a nutshell, after listening to evidence from noble Lords and others, we recommend a future House of 600 Peers, its numbers capped, with 15-year terms for new Members, with the possibility of a five-year pause. New Members would be subject to a code of conduct undertaking to leave the House after that period. No party would have an absolute majority and a minimum of 20% of seats would be reserved for the Cross-Benchers. Parties would share political appointments in line with the results of the previous general election, based on an average of the parties’ share of the national vote and of the seats won in the House of Commons. The combination of this formula and the 15-year term limit would ensure that the future make-up of this House reflected the political views of the country over the medium term. This would be an historic first for us. To reach this point it is suggested that there be an accelerated “two out, one in” programme of departures. On page 3 of our report there is a chart showing how this would look until 2042, with a very gentle start in the first five years for existing Members.
That is what our report proposes. It does not propose new legislation. Our terms of reference were to identify practical and politically viable options that might lead to progress on this issue. Waiting for successful legislation to come along, as we know, is neither practical nor politically viable. The report does not propose a specific retirement age as society is moving away from that and, anyway, so many of our older active Members make a significant contribution to the work of Parliament. It does not propose an allocation of Peers via the nations and regions, as some noble Lords wish. We believe that it is the responsibility of the political parties to ensure that membership is not London-centric. The report does not alter the situation regarding hereditary Peers’ by-elections, despite the negative effect that has in terms of gender and background in a capped House, because that would require legislation; similarly, with the Bishops’ Bench. However, many of us believe that government support for a Private Member’s Bill, such as that of my noble friend Lord Grocott, may follow hard on the heels of this reform package being accepted. We can live in hope.
Christmas is coming and our best Christmas present to ourselves this year would be—no, not BB-8 from “The Last Jedi”—overwhelming support for the document in front of us.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, when it was announced that the Lord Speaker was to establish a committee to look at ways of reducing the size of your Lordships’ House, I do not think many of your Lordships thought that it would achieve anything. Indeed, there were some cynics who suggested that that was its very purpose. However the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee have proved the doubters wrong. They have produced an elegant set of proposals that fulfil their remit and have done so by proposing a very British way forward—constitutional reform by informal agreement. They deserve our thanks.
From these Benches we have no objection to the principal features of the proposals. They would, if enacted, lead to a considerable diminution of Liberal Democrat ranks—for the foreseeable future at least—but we cannot complain about that. If we had had our way during the coalition and if the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill had been enacted our numbers would already be smaller, as we would have had our first set of elections under the new system. Noble Lords know that we were prevented from getting the Bill through by a coalition of Labour and Conservative MPs, who by rejecting reform gave a vote of confidence to the current arrangements. It is rather amusing therefore to see members of those parties now grumbling that there are too many Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House. They had the chance to do something about it and they flunked it.
The proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, offer an alternative way forward. From these Benches, as I say, we support their principal features: a significantly reduced size of your Lordships’ House, party membership based on electoral performance, and a gradual phasing in of the new arrangements. We do not of course resile from our policy of having elections for the political Members of your Lordships’ House, but we are realistic enough to know that this is not going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, it is highly desirable that something is done to reduce our size.
A problem about any proposal for reforming your Lordships’ House is that there are many possible models and, if past experience is anything to go by, absolutely no agreement on what a perfect arrangement would be. If we are serious about reform, I suspect that every single Member of this House will have to accept at least some features of the new system with which they disagree. If we are to have reform, therefore, we must not, individually and collectively, let the best become the enemy of the good.
There are certainly some features of the proposals before us today which we believe are not ideal. The argument for having membership based on the mean of votes cast and seats won has in our view no rationale. It is a fix. It benefits the two largest parties at the expense of everyone else and yet again reflects the steadfast determination of Labour and Conservatives alike to prevent Parliament, even your Lordships’ House, reflecting the will of the people, to their own permanent advantage.
The inability to do anything about the remaining hereditary places is also a problem. This is one element of the proposals about which we on these Benches can afford to take a relatively relaxed position, as we are barely affected, but, at this point, to have a reform which increases the proportion of hereditary Peers, however personally distinguished, is perverse. If the main thrust of the reforms are accepted by the Government, we hope that they might also relent in standing out against the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, or a Bill of their own which would deal with this problem. The same consideration applies to the number of Bishops but, again, a short, free-standing Bill could deal with the issue.
Our main concern with the proposals, however, is not their content but the attitude of the Government towards them. If we and the other parties and groups are to agree voluntarily to reduce our numbers, we need a cast-iron assurance from the Government that they will also accept them. There is no point increasing the flow of Members out of your Lordships’ House if the Government at the same time are not reducing the flow of people in. In this respect, it is concerning to read reports that, any day now, the Government plan to create another tranche of Peers. If, as seems likely, they follow the plea of St Augustine—namely, “Lord, make me pure, but not yet”—and follow this up over Christmas with another list of Peers, the proposals before us today are on the life-support system. The Government are already by far the largest bloc in the House. If this advantage is significantly increased, and if the other parties were to accept and stick to these proposals, the Conservatives would entrench their advantage for many years, even if they were to do less well in future general elections. I am sure that even noble Lords opposite who support these proposals would see this as unacceptable.
So we are prepared to give these proposals a cautious welcome today. We would greatly prefer the politicians in the House to be elected. We do not think constitutional reform by informal agreement is the ideal way of entrenching things, but the key thing now is the attitude of the Government. If in today’s debate there is a large majority of support for the proposals before us, as I expect there to be, will the Prime Minister constrain her current unfettered powers to create Peers in order to make the proposals viable, and will she act in good faith by not putting more Conservatives in your Lordships’ House before the new system kicks in? To coin two phrases, the ball is in the Government’s court and the clock is ticking.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for the very helpful way in which he introduced this debate, and all members of his committee for the work they have done in the preparation of the report. How very fortunate we are that the Lord Speaker was able to capture the noble Lord, if capture is the right word, during his brief period of rest between two very demanding appointments, to perform this task for us.
As so often happens in life, the problem is easy to identify. Finding a solution to it is much more time consuming and difficult. The problem, of course, is that the House is too large and, if nothing is done about it, the House will without doubt grow still larger. The comparisons so often made with the Chinese People’s National Congress in Beijing are rather unfair. We have all seen the pictures—the serried ranks, everyone there, every seat filled, everyone anchored to their seats, no sign of any dissent from the party line. Of course we are not like that. For one thing, so much of what we do is done outside the Chamber, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, pointed out yesterday. For another, in our case, attendance is not compulsory. The daily average at present is only about 490. In the case of the Cross-Bench group, for example, on any given day, no more than about half of our number are present. To a not insignificant extent, therefore, we are a part-time House. We draw strength from that. Many of our Members have outside interests, their engagement with which adds to the quality of our debates and the work of our committees. Nevertheless, our increasing size is an embarrassment to say the least, and if nothing is done, it risks being even more than that. We are running out of space. We cannot give everyone the desks and office space that they need. That, in short, is the problem.
What, then, of the solution that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues have come up with? In answering that question I must make it clear that, although I am their Convenor, it is not open to me to express a view on the issue on behalf of the Cross-Bench group. It was suggested that I should seek to gather signatures from our membership in support of the report. But that is not the way that the group works. It is not for me to tell them what to do or to canvass support for either side. What I can say, however, is that it is my impression—1 can put it no higher than that— that the group is in favour of the report’s conclusions. I base that impression on the complete absence of complaints or representations given to me against it, and on the many indications that I have received of support for it.
I am sure that if any of the 31 Cross-Benchers who will speak after me disagree, they will make their position clear. My own position, for what it may be worth, is that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has taken our search for a solution a very long way. This is an excellent report, which deserves to be supported. But I must leave it to those who will speak after me from the Cross Benches to express their own views.
Time is short, and this is not an occasion to go into detail, but, speaking for myself, I am content with the recommendation that we should seek to limit our numbers to 600. A system of fixed-term appointments is far preferable to a system based on age or length of service, and I am of course happy with the recommendation that the Cross-Bench group should be fixed at 20% of the House’s membership. But I must face the fact that reducing the number of Peers on the Cross Benches in the way recommended by the report will not be an easy task. The Convenor can advise or try to persuade, but cannot direct or give orders to anybody. Of course, everything will depend on whether the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, will support the scheme. I very much echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in searching for a cast-iron guarantee in that respect. I hope that they will be able to give that. The scheme cannot operate without their agreement.
I should like, however, to mention one matter that, although not within the remit of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will require careful attention if the scheme goes ahead—here I echo some words of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. We must try to ensure that all regions are properly represented so that the House does not become even more centred on London and the south-east than it already is. Members who attend less frequently, and would thus be among those more likely to be asked to leave as we reduce our numbers, tend to be those who live further afield. We must not be too ready to ask them to go. We must also bear in mind that the daily allowances have not been increased to keep pace with inflation since they were introduced seven years ago. Left as they are, they risk leaving Members who have to find accommodation in London out of pocket day after day after their hotel bills or other costs have been paid. Those who live in London do not face those costs and they do not have to travel long distances to get here.
This is a serious issue for people like myself who do. If, as seems likely, a smaller House will require more frequent attendance, steps will have to be taken to ensure that those who live further away are not so penalised by lack of support that they will stop coming, as some perhaps already do. I am sure that other factors will require attention as we reduce our numbers, but the need for proper representation by Members from all parts of the country and ensuring that they are not out of pocket when they come here—that at least they are entitled to expect—should be high in the order of priority.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, as convener of the Lords spiritual, I welcome warmly the report of the Speaker’s Committee and pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his fellow committee members for their thoughtful and thorough attention to the question of the size of the House, which we all agree is in need of urgent resolution. I notice that the word “magic” has already been used in the debate, but the desire for love has also been added at Christmas time. To hear the leader of the Lib Dems imploring the work of the Lord in becoming pure is a most encouraging start to this debate.
The main recommendations of the committee are ones that I hope most of us in this House can rally behind. They offer a set of suggestions which, with good will and a spirit of co-operation, not least from the party leaderships, will provide us with a route map for reducing the membership of this House to a more acceptable level. That is something that my predecessors as convener and many others on these Benches have supported consistently. Rather than comment on the detail of the proposals, I thought that it would be helpful to focus my remarks on what the report did or did not say about the Lords spiritual.
A central feature of the recommendations of the report, as we have heard, is their non-statutory approach. In my own submission to the committee I suggested that a statutory solution was one that was most likely to stick. But these are finely balanced judgments and I can certainly see the case for moving quickly if there is a broad consensus behind achieving these changes without legislation. As the committee noted, a side-effect of the non-statutory approach is that there can be no change under this method to the number of Lords spiritual. As many noble Lords will know, as well as a retirement age of 70, these Benches operate under a cap fixed by legislation dating back 170 years, which would require further legislation to amend.
At the time that cap was placed on these Benches, Bishops made up around 5.7% of a much smaller House. To put that into some context, had the Victorians decided to fix Bishop numbers by proportion instead of a number, there would currently be 45 of us squeezing on to these Benches. As it is, while the number on these Benches has remained fixed and static at 26 for the best part of two centuries, our proportion in relation to the rest of the House has fluctuated as the number of Peers has risen, fallen, and risen again. It currently stands, as noble Lords have already calculated, being mathematically accurate like the chairman of the committee, at 3.3%.
In my submission to the committee, I made it clear that there is a variety of views on these Benches about reform of this House, numbers and proportions. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who said in a recent newspaper article that the most important thing was to get the major structure in place and not to be distracted from that by more complicated details such as legislation for Bishop numbers. We have no wish to be a distraction to the House on this urgent work. Having canvassed opinion on these Benches, I will briefly say something about the general consensus that I believe there is.
The proposals of the committee would see this House reduced to three-quarters of its current size. One has to go back over 30 years to when this House debated a government proposal on Sunday trading to find an occasion when more than three-quarters of the Lords spiritual took part in a single Division. That is partly a natural result of the Bishops’ Benches not operating in a bloc or as a party. The Bishops are 26 independent Members and, though I am a convenor, I am neither their leader nor their Whip, as we have heard with a similar group in the House this morning. Perhaps, like the Convenor of the Cross Benches, I may have some influence; that is no reference to our origin in Scotland, but to a possibility for making things work under the arrangements that we have.
Unlike other Benches in this House, 100% of the membership of these Benches have significant—some would say full-time—external responsibilities covering the regions of the country. It is fair to say that any problems of overcrowding experienced in the House are not generally caused by too many Bishops filling the Lobbies, blocking the gangways or occupying any other part of the House where people may gather. I cannot envisage another situation, certainly while the process of achieving a reduction is ongoing, where a similarly high proportion on these Benches would attend for a debate or vote. When legislation for reform looks set to come before the House that has the backing of the Government and commands the support of a wide constituency we will of course engage closely on the issue of Bishops’ numbers and proportions. Until then, we will continue to be as committed and active servants of the House and the country as we can, all the while operating fully within the spirit of the committee’s proposals.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, I cannot pretend that I come to this subject entirely with a fresh mind. I have been at it for years. When I chaired the royal commission some 17 years ago—a number of very good friends were on the commission with me at that time—the House then had around 600 Members. It now has around 800 and some people have forecast that if we go on as we are, it will not be long before we are at 1,000. I remember talking to the Bishops at that time and, if I may say so, the right reverend Prelate’s contribution to our debate today reminded me of those discussions. The Bishops have a view and put it very eloquently, but they are also extremely co-operative on finding a practical and sensible way forward. His speech fitted exactly into that role.
The House decided that we ought to do something about our size. However, the essential point, which has been made several times already, is that getting the numbers down is pretty useless unless we have a plan to keep them down. The Lord Speaker took the initiative and set up a committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I have served on a good many Select Committees over the years and chaired a fair number of them; I do not think I have ever had a chairman as good as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was of our committee. He was absolutely first-class and we are extremely grateful to him for what he did.
We decided early on that there was absolutely no chance of legislation and that we had to explore the self-regulatory methods. I say at the outset that self-regulation puts a great responsibility on each of us and unless we are prepared to go along with it, nothing will be achieved. We looked first at the question of the numbers and our first task was to see how we could get them down, but we had to have a system for keeping them down in a way that was fair for all and broadly reflected public opinion over the medium term. There was no attempt at all in our committee to alter the conventions of the House or the way we operate. Establishing that in our minds enabled us to consider ways of reducing the total membership, bearing in mind that we are appointed for life and cannot be forced to retire, but that a voluntary system of retirement is essential if we do not have legislation.
That is the nutshell of our proposals. We looked in our proposals at the different components that make up the House and we hope we will all consider these proposals very seriously. Those who serve currently in the House of Lords—existing Members—cannot be forced out without legislation. There is some flexibility in our conclusions—how quick and so on—but I explained it to people like this: “If you have been in the House for 20 years and are over 80, maybe in the next five years you ought to think about retiring”. That did not seem a terribly harsh view; a great many of your Lordships will think that a reasonable and responsible way to go.
The opposition parties get a guarantee of replacements, but cannot be expected to agree to our proposals unless they can be sure that the House does and—as has already been said—that the Government do. For the Government the decision is more finely balanced, but I come down on the side of giving the proposals a fair go. The number of peerages that the Prime Minister can recommend will not be very different under our proposals from the average number that Prime Ministers have recommended since the passing of the Life Peerages Act. Indeed, I see some advantages for the Government. They will be able to get a firmer commitment from potential Peers that they will attend and work, particularly as it is possible to grant a peerage without a seat in the House of Lords, as we pointed out in our report.
The Government are entitled to be assured that the House will accept self-regulation in the way we propose, however. There will need to be another debate to confirm that and the way the House wishes to go. The Government must have confidence that the House will not seek to use its majority in a way more assertive than it has historically done. If the Government could be satisfied on those matters I would say to the House, “Let’s give it a go”. That would not in all circumstances be a long-term commitment, but if the House agreed to the scheme of self-regulation so should the Government. However, if there is no such commitment, the Government clearly cannot go along with it. If self-regulation were agreed and then broke down, the Government would be able to revert to the existing system without any legislation, but I hope very much that that is never the way things go.
I would not think it wise for a Government who were assured that their business would be sustained to seek to prevent a House reforming itself by a self-regulatory agreement, to reduce excess numbers and make itself more efficient and more acceptable in the eyes of public opinion.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to make just two broad arguments: about the imperative for reform now, and the legitimacy of the committee whose recommendations we are invited to endorse by taking note of its report today.
I will deal first with the legitimacy of the committee and its report. With the commendably active support of the Lord Speaker, your Lordships’ House established a fully representative Committee to look at reforms to deal with our increasingly embarrassing, ballooning size. Collectively, each major party and Cross-Benchers determined who should sit on it and who chaired it; it is our committee. Some colleagues have questioned details or specifics in the report and, yes, there are arguments for special pleading on this or that detail. Of course Members will find reason—I trust not excuse—in each bit to criticise the whole, but surely we all have to accept that the whole package hangs together or falls together. It is most ingeniously interconnected. Surely the point is that reducing the size has always been fiendishly complex, and that the committee has done an amazing job in solving the hitherto seemingly insoluble.
Secondly, I will talk about the imperative to act now. Weight watchers have shown that the best way to tackle a problem of excess is to combine personal responsibility with collective resolve and mutual support. The alternative—drastic surgery—involves unnecessary risk, no guarantee of success and an unpredictable outcome. A Commons Select Committee, having already begun considering the matter, stands ready to report but awaits the conclusion of your Lordships’ House. The media are also waiting to pounce. Newspapers, MPs and Ministers have already made threats over Brexit, which will doubtless increase to a crescendo when the withdrawal Bill reaches us early next year.
Yet we all know that things cannot continue as they are. We number over 800 and rising. Commercial properties are commandeered in the vicinity at great expense to provide us with additional offices. Through no fault of our own, we have become not so much an embarrassment but, many say, a scandal. At a time of austerity, when everything else is cut, our numbers rise inexorably through no fault of our own—until now.
Until we set up this committee to recommend reform some among your Lordships could argue we were more sinned against than sinners. We did not fill this House to bursting; Prime Ministers did. We did not put ourselves here, others did—although we all agreed with their immense wisdom in choosing each one of us. But all that changed when we, absolutely correctly, decided to establish the committee to solve the problem. That decision—our decision—means the buck stops right here with us in this Chamber today. Find excuses and we will be rightly pilloried. I therefore urge that the recommendations of this report are endorsed and implemented as soon as practicable early in the new year. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in replying will confirm this and I hope the Lord Speaker, with the party leaders, will also make sure that this happens.
When the committee was first established, I asked one venerable sage on our Benches for a view on the likely outcome. “It will be shelved as reform always has been shelved,” he said with a weary, knowing smile. I trust your Lordships’ House will prove him wrong. Things have reached a point where change is unavoidable. The question is therefore not whether there is change, but who makes it. Either this House takes responsibility or it will pass to the Commons and the Government. Either we reform ourselves or others will reform us.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it was a privilege and a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to work with such a wise group of Members as composed the committee. Among us there were differing views about the future of the House and many more differing views have been expressed today and will be before the day is over. These are on a range of issues: what to do about hereditary by-elections, how many bishops there should be, the methods of selection, the allowance system and the way—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out—it works against those distant from London. There are also the other respects in which the system tends to make it difficult for people to undertake work here if they are not London-based.
But we need to act and we do so at a time when major legislation is frankly out of the question, particularly when we see what other legislation is heading down the track as a result of Brexit. We need to control the size of the House in order to protect its reputation and, indeed, to avoid raising question marks over all new appointments to the House, however meritorious, that will result from people saying, “It is too big already. Why is this or that person being appointed?”. We need to enable the refreshment of the membership of the House. We cannot simply lock the doors and put up a “House full” sign and preserve the present House. Attractive though that might be to noble Lords, we have to enable the groups to bring in new people and we need to reflect shifting public opinion over time.
It is time to bury the now fanciful notion of Prime Ministers packing the Lords with hundreds of Peers as a response to government defeats in this House. We say in paragraph 3 of our report that Governments over the years have learned how to get their legislation through, with concessions, arguments and the eventual deference of the House to the primacy of the Commons. Prime Ministers will remain under pressure from many directions to appoint Peers, as any former Prime Minister or former Chief Whip will in all honesty admit. In the absence of an orderly process it is more difficult to resist that pressure. If we can put in place the kind of process that the committee has recommended, so that Governments and other parties are all working within a clear and understood system, strong pressures can be resisted.
I hope to see not merely firm government commitment to go ahead with these proposals but that kind of commitment as part of the advice given to future Governments, featuring in the Cabinet Office manual and becoming a settled part of how we organise things for so long as this is an appointed House. As my noble friend has pointed out, we on these Benches wanted to see a predominantly elected House, but that is for another day and for the kind of legislative opportunities which clearly are not coming our way at the moment.
We have set out a scheme which is fair to parties and groups, fair to existing Peers, imposes no fixed term or formula on them, fair to new Peers—who will come in on an understanding that they will serve for 15 years—and does not challenge the role of this House or the primacy of the Commons. But for it to happen, we need a clear expression of wide support in the House—which can be achieved today—and a clear indication that the Government are willing to accept and operate the system. Once it is in place, any Government failing to observe the cap would bring retirements on all sides to a sudden halt. Just as opposition parties can pull out of the scheme so, as has been explained, can the Government. It is a voluntary scheme based on mutual respect and understanding.
On House of Lords reform, support for our proposals may not be unanimous, but I believe that it is very widespread indeed, quite widespread enough for the Government to accept that it should go forward. This is the only show in town, so let us go for it.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
My Lords, this report opens up yet another phase in the long struggle to defend the integrity of this House and maintain the authority of our bicameral Parliament. It is a cause to which I have devoted the past 25 years of my life and, decrepit as I may be, I am not giving it up yet. Parliament is and must remain the chief forum of the nation, never more so than at a time when the country’s future in Europe and the world is at a critical stage.
I support the thrust of the report very much, although I have reservations about some of its proposals, as many of us have. For example, I would prefer the age of retirement to be clear cut, as outlined in the Labour Peers’ report of 2014, rather than the 15-year sentence of Burns—but those reservations will have to wait for another day.
What matters now is that we seize the opportunity that the Government’s election manifesto gave us to put our own House in order without legislation. Of course, that does not give us carte blanche. Our principal aim should be to encourage a faster rate of retirement and promote the recruitment of new Members whose abilities, experience and suitability are examined and endorsed by a more authoritative Lords Appointments Commission. The independent guarantee of a candidate’s suitability will be even more important in a much smaller House—here, I confess that I would like a cap on this House’s membership of about 400.
I shall be content to go when the time comes, but I shall not go alone; I intend to take others with me. Neither shall I go to make way for another tranche of prime ministerial appointments for services rendered to No. 10 or payments to party funds—that is out.
If I may pose a question, I would like to do so as they do in the other place. It goes something like this: will the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, accept the need to curtail her powers of patronage and, by so doing, reduce the size of the House of Lords and make possible the reforms we urgently need? Let us not hold our breath on that one.
The Burns report is complex in many respects. Some of its proposals are far reaching and, of course, much depends on the Prime Minister’s co-operation. Much also depends on strengthening the authority of the Lords Appointments Commission—I am very keen that it should have greater authority in statute— to examine appointees not only for acceptability but, more importantly, for suitability.
Alas, I do not share the optimism of the distinguished academic adviser to the Burns Committee that the report is,
“focused on what can be implemented straightaway”.
Aligning future appointments to reflect the votes cast in general elections is a daunting long-term proposition. So is the suggestion of draconian financial pressure to unseat stubborn Peers. I must also question the opinion of the committee’s legal adviser that, on balance, we are the sole judges of the lawfulness of our own proceedings. To my mind, there should be no doubt about the balance: we need to keep the courts out of our business.
This may be our last chance for many years to reform this House. Our inflated size fosters our laughing-stock image. Its burial, I say, is long overdue.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to be able to follow one of the great Speakers of the other place. She has certainly not lost her vim or vigour, nor her questioning powers. I begin by declaring an interest as the chairman of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, of which the noble Baroness is a regular attender and participant. I also have to apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who, with me, began this group in 2001. Sadly, he has to be at the funeral in Hull of a very close friend and mentor today. Another founder member of the group, the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, is also at a funeral today of his oldest and closest friend.
In extending sympathy to them and giving an apology to the House, I am also warning noble Lords that we will not have the benefit of their wisdom and experience. Another person has asked me to mention his absence, about which he is very sorry—my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He asked me to stress, particularly to colleagues on this side of the House, that he stands 100% in support of the Burns report. That does not mean that he agrees with every jot and tittle; nobody possibly could. But we owe the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues a real debt of gratitude for the rigour and vigour with which they conducted their investigations, the elegance—a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—of their conclusions, and for producing something that is entirely practical.
As I am in the business of giving thanks, I would like to say how much we owe to our Lord Speaker. I had the honour of introducing a debate on 5 December last year that addressed this problem, in which more than 60 Members of your Lordships’ House took part. Within two weeks of that debate—a year ago tomorrow—the Lord Speaker announced from the Woolsack that he was setting up a committee under the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and gave the names of the committee’s members. That committee got down to work immediately and would have produced its report much earlier, had it not been for the somewhat unexpected general election with which we were confronted earlier this year.
We owe the noble Lord, Lord Burns, a real thank you for what he has done. At recent, well-attended meetings of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, we have had unanimous support for the general principle of the Burns report. I hope that, after today’s long day, we will be able to convince my noble friend the Leader of the House, whose suggestion it was when she wound up the debate last year that the Lord Speaker might convene a committee, that there is—not unanimous; that is impossible—widespread support for the Burns proposals. I hope that she will then respond by doing all she can to facilitate progress towards implementation of these very sensible proposals. As a number of colleagues in all parts of the House have said, if we get the Government to respond, they will have to recognise that successful Burns implementation depends on the Government accepting constraints and limitations on their power, particularly the prime ministerial power of appointment.
We have no written constitution in our country; we operate through evolution. If we are to accept this report and all its implications we have to recognise that there will be new conventions within our system. Of course, this is nothing new. As it has evolved our constitution has required recognition of the acceptable, rather than assertion of the theoretically possible. That is why no monarch has declined to give assent to an Act of Parliament since the reign of good Queen Anne. If we are to build a new Chamber capped at 600 Members, those constraints must be accepted.
I conclude by echoing what has already been said by a number of colleagues. There will be no change unless your Lordships’ House wills it. We will not have this chance again this Parliament and who knows what will happen after that? One of the fundamental principles of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and I founded in 2001, is that the supremacy ultimately lies with the elected Chamber. We believe in an appointed House because we do not wish to confound the position of the elected Chamber by having an ambiguous mandate at this end of the Corridor.
I urgently request that everyone here considers very carefully indeed that this is a chance that may not come again and certainly will not come again in the near future. Let us show the Leader of the House that we are very much behind these proposals and, having done that, let us hope that we can proceed to seeing them implemented during the rest of this Parliament.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who, as he said, chairs the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, a group of which I am very proud to be a member. I was also a member of the Labour Party’s working group to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, alluded earlier, which looked at these issues a couple of years ago. Therefore, I am in a reasonably good position to say that the task that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team undertook was fiendishly difficult and that they have have done an extraordinarily good job in resolving what some people have already referred to as apparently irresolvable issues.
They have presented us with a report which, of course, it is easy to pick holes in if one is minded so to do. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did it very effectively himself. However, in my view it is not helpful at this point not to take a broader overall view of what the report offers, precisely for the reason the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, identified, which is that this opportunity to help ourselves will not come again, probably in this Parliament or, possibly, ever. So we had better take the opportunity before us.
Many of your Lordships will be familiar with William Shakespeare’s great tragedy, “Othello” and will therefore recall the painful cry of despair from young Cassio when he finds himself fallen from grace through, to quote my noble friend Lord Hain, “no fault of his own”. He says:
“Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation, I have lost the immortal part of myself—and what remains is bestial”.
Those are strong words, but that is, and has been for some time, the danger in which we now stand.
It was not Cassio’s fault that he lost his reputation. He, like the House of Lords, was misunderstood, misrepresented and traduced, as we frequently are. But that does not alter the fact that reputation once lost is extremely hard to regain. We have an opportunity now to stop our reputation from becoming irrecoverable. The virtue of this report is that it is constructed to deliver benefits over a reasonably long period, but which, if we take them, will last. And they would do so without impeding or preventing wholesale reform of a different kind should any Government suddenly find themselves with the time and energy to undertake it—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, suggested, it would be unwise to hold our breath on that either.
Our job in this matter and in others is to take the long view, thinking not just of ourselves and what will immediately impact on us, but on those who come after. Let us give these proposals fair wind. Let us send the Leader of the House, who gracefully contributed to the debate earlier, a strong message that she can take back to the Prime Minister that there is consensus in this House for this kind of reform, and let us get on with it.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
First, my Lords, I send many congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee on their report, which is at once wise and ingenious. Some have argued in the past that reform of the Lords, although it may be desirable, is not a matter of great urgency. I respectfully disagree. I believe that our present size of 824 absolute membership and 798 actual membership, second in size only to the legislature of the Chinese People’s Republic and significantly larger than the House of Commons, brings us into disrepute. I feel embarrassed when someone enquires about our size, even when I stress that the average daily attendance is only about 484.
The other reason is expense. We live at a time of austerity for a great many and, if the House of Commons is coming down in size, we have a duty to consider our own position from that point of view. Apart from our present size, as so many noble Lords have emphasised, if we do not accept the proposals in this report, the House would continue to grow larger, as it has done in recent years—82 new life Peers having been created since 1 January 2015 alone.
I had the good fortune to be a member of the royal commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and I find it encouraging, therefore, that some of our key proposals have emerged in the Burns report. Fundamental of course is the proposal that no one party should have an overall majority and that the proportion of seats in the Lords should in some way reflect the voting figures at the previous election. No less crucial is the proposal for terms of 15 years rather than life. That seems to be the right length. The average age of the 82 new Peers appointed since January 2015 on the announcement of their appointment was 57—15 years would take them up to the age of 72.
One difference from Wakeham is that it recommended a size of 450 as opposed to the 600 of the Burns report, but I fully accept that in order to reduce on a voluntary basis over a period of years, 600 is a realistic target. When that has been reached it will be possible to see whether that is the right number of active Peers for the work that has to be done or whether it could be done with fewer. That would also be the point at which those who believe in a fully elected House could press their case again. I very much hope that those who believe in a fully elected House will at least accept the proposals as an urgently needed interim step to give this House more credibility. It was particularly good in that respect to hear the noble Lord, Lord Newby, state his support for these proposals, at least as an interim measure.
The question of hereditary Peers may of course solve itself, if the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, goes through. But if it does not, more work will be needed on this issue, because at the moment Cross-Benchers and the Conservatives have by far the largest number of hereditaries.
The Bishops are not part of the present proposal because any change to them would require legislation. The Wakeham commission recommended that there should be a reduction from 26 Bishops to 16 in a House of 450. I cannot speak for the Church of England—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has helpfully given us the historical picture—but I would be surprised if it did not consider its position and at least look at the idea of reducing the number of Bishops by a quarter, commensurate with the House as a whole.
I wholeheartedly support the report. I had the good fortune to be here for many years as a Bishop of Oxford; if its recommendations are accepted and implemented I will feel an obligation to retire when I have served 15 years as a life Peer—that is, if the good Lord does not take me before or I am otherwise hindered or let from contributing to the work of the House.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I am the 14th speaker, so I have great sympathy for those who will be 84th or even further back. We are greatly indebted, as others have said, not only to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues but to the Lord Speaker for taking the initiative. Credit must be given to my noble friend Lord Cormack and our absent colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who have ploughed a consistent and persistent furrow in this House over many years to achieve reform consistent with our constitution.
Obviously one can take a report of this size and nitpick here or there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said. I represent one of the small parties, and there is of course a non-affiliated group and individuals outwith the party apparatus generally who speak in the House. The report is perfectly clear in referring to the fact that more work needs to be done on how that particular segment of the House is dealt with. But that is fine; I have no issues with that.
As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, when the newspapers comment on the House and its size they ignore participation on a daily rate and the fact that not that long ago it was 50% bigger than it is now. The reality is that it is not the House that is determining the flow but the occupant of No. 10 Downing Street, whoever that happens to be at any point. The truth of the matter is that the general public out there have an idea in their heads. It will not be shifted unless we shift it. The only thing we can do is to go for a cap. We can argue about the figure, but let us not get into that. If you have a cap that has at least sufficient flexibility to allow the Government to conduct their business properly, that is the only way ahead.
We will look at the details. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out the Londoncentric nature of the House. We know that 70% of the House is based in London or the south-east generally. For those of us who come from the regions and further afield it is more complicated. It takes longer to get here. We have many obstacles in our path, whether it is the weather, strikes or whatever. Knowing this country, the only thing that I do not have problems with is leaves on the line, because we do not have a bridge over the Irish Sea. There are costs to being in London. I have been here for six years and they have risen by about a third since I came here. Okay, it is a privilege to be here and people want to be here, but they are certainly not going to grow wealthy on their allowance after they have had to pay their London costs.
It is a privilege to be here and we have to recognise that, but in their appointments—I think it is a good idea for there to be an increased role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission here—the Government have to bear in mind that to be representative of a nation means that people will have to come from different locations. Because there is a flow of people from particular backgrounds, if they have statutory positions in the courts or something, they tend to be based in the London area. That needs to be borne in mind. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, we can argue about all these details. The message has to go out today that, both regionally and from different groups and parties in this House, we have to get on with it. I would like to see it move quicker, and I look forward to discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues how we handle the unaffiliated segment, or “the others” as they are sometimes called. We will sit down and work on those details.
The fundamental message has to go out today that this House is going to do this; it is going to get behind the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues; we will work on the details, but we appeal to the Prime Minister to join in this, because, without her support, nothing will happen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to go away today saying that there is consistent and persistent support for this report. Let us get on with it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and all members of his committee on the work that they have done in grappling with this difficult issue. They have produced a good report which makes a series of compelling recommendations in addressing the symptoms of the size of your Lordships’ House, which I broadly support.
However, I want us to be tough not just on the size of the House but on the causes of it. Defining the problem we need to fix only as the size of the House means that we miss the bigger point. It risks us shifting responsibility away from ourselves to successive Prime Ministers, whether those of the past or those in future. In the volatile world that we are in right now, where institutions must respond correctly to society’s need for change if they are to survive, we do not have the luxury of misdiagnosing the causes of some of the problems we are grappling with.
I do not have a principled objection to a membership of your Lordships’ House capped at 600, but if we want it to happen and future Prime Ministers to respect that objective, we need to be clearer about what kind of House of Lords we want to be in the 21st century. I think that there is a real need for this House. In an era when people want and need more honest, frank debate that is not motivated by party politics, your Lordships’ House has an opportunity to be a shining beacon.
But for us to be effective, we have to define our purpose; we have all to sign up to it and address our behaviours and conduct where they get in the way of meeting that purpose. I was struck particularly by paragraph 82 of the report, which states:
“We suggest that the Prime Minister may wish to task HOLAC with ensuring that all nominees are aware, before they accept a peerage, of what being an active member of the House of Lords entails”.
I endorse that. I do not endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about HoLAC having a role in suitability, but I endorse the idea of it being clear about what is expected of new Members of this House. But what about those of us who are already Members? Are we all able to say to each other, quite honestly and right now, that we know what we should expect from each other as Members of this House? I am not entirely sure that we do.
I want increasing our accountability and serving the public better to be the driving force behind change in this House. So if we are to introduce term limits or a retirement age, which I would also support, surely we have to apply that to ourselves as well. I do not think we can wait until new Members come into the House in future. We made significant progress before 2015 by introducing permanent retirement, automatic expulsion for Peers sentenced to more than a year in prison and the power for this House to expel on the grounds of gross misconduct. Yet we sweep under the carpet the fact that some Peers remain Members of this House, even though they received prison sentences of more than a year, and we have yet to introduce a disrepute clause, even though the Privileges and Conduct Committee agreed on a recommendation for one in the spring of 2016. These are some of the things that have to change.
I believe in this House. I think that its Members are some of the most talented and accomplished people in our country. We do some great work, but if we are to remain relevant and serve the people of this country well, we have to address all the things that matter—and that is not just our size. More than anything, I want us to define our purpose for the 21st century and for us all to be united in meeting that purpose.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I add my immense thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for their impressive energy in producing this report. If I strike a discordant note in my analysis, it is not to belittle their commitment. I fear that this is yet another piecemeal effort to tackle the fundamental issue of Lords reform, as by following strictly their remit they have reported on the size of the House while ignoring its functions as a legislative assembly for the whole of the United Kingdom and the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
The House is of course much too large with 798 Peers. How did this come about? It is substantially through the political incontinence of Prime Ministers Blair and Cameron in their exercise of patronage. Mr Blair recommended 374 Peers and Mr Cameron 245—a total of 619, which puts the reasons for our present membership in the right perspective. We read that more are on the way. If that is true this debate should not ignore that grim reality. I remember my struggle in primary school to calculate the end result of filling a tank with water while emptying it at the same time.
The report acknowledges that its success depends on undertakings by Prime Ministers, whoever they might be—even future ones, I suppose—agreeing to appoint no more new Members than there are vacancies. As no legislation is proposed this undertaking would be no more, at its very best, than some sort of emerging convention. But a convention is hallowed only by many years of acceptance. In the most unlikely event that I might be asked, as a law officer, to advise an incoming Labour Prime Minister I would advise him that this commitment is not worth the candle. His aim, in a House dominated by non-Labour Members, would be to get his legislation through and ease the task of his Chief Whip. While the House does not oppose legislation on manifesto commitments at Second Reading, I remind your Lordships that the implementation of devolution was delayed for 20 years through the passing of mere amendments in both the Commons and the Lords.
The basic difficulty for the committee was that there was neither the will nor the time to introduce legislation at present, hence the existence of hereditary Peers would be untouched. I hope I will be forgiven for saying that there is no place for hereditary membership in today’s legislative process. Paragraph 21 of the report concedes that,
“the hereditary peers will make up a larger proportion of a smaller House”.
We would be going backwards. I note that there are 81 hereditary Conservative and Cross-Bench Peers, but only four Labour ones. The report also concedes that in its proposals only the party share of new appointments will vary. The reduction proposals are expected to result in Labour losing 38 Peers by 2022; the Liberal Democrats will lose only 18. That is the proposed immediate future of this House, following Mr Cameron’s appointment of 51 Liberal Democrat Peers under the coalition agreement to reflect,
“the share of the vote … in the last general election”.
Surely, in 2017, that is crying out to be revisited for our present membership.
As only new Members would be affected by the proposals, it cannot be said that the proposals will,
“affect all parties and Members equally”,
for the present. The reports avers that the only way to reduce our membership is on an equal contribution basis. The guiding principles are treating Members fairly and no compulsory retirement of existing Members. I expect that the House would welcome this. How this will be done is not spelled out in the main proposals; the only guidance is the rejection of some of the ideas of the past—based on age, tenure or attendance—as they have the disadvantage of changing the balance of parties arbitrarily. It is helpful to know how the reduction will not be achieved, but it would be even more helpful to affirm proposals on how it will. Although reducing the size of this House is absolutely necessary, I regret that I cannot support the proposals, for all these reasons. They need further and long consideration by this House.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for the thoughtful way in which he introduced his important report. In doing so, I declare my interests as chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The task taken on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues—looking at the size of this House—was inevitably going to be a very difficult, complicated and fraught matter. Yet it was vital for them to come to a practical solution that would deliver what was required: achieving a size for your Lordships’ House that would meet the important challenge of public perception—an issue touched on by many of those who have already contributed. Having initiated this process in a debate last year and having supported the establishment of the Lord Speaker’s committee to look at these matters, the reality is that there would be tremendous harm to the standing of your Lordships’ House if your Lordships were not able to reach a conclusion in supporting an essentially irrefutable argument: this House is too large and does not enjoy the respect of the public more generally. Whether or not that is fair, it is the held perception.
I will deal with issues in the report that touch on the work of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I remind noble Lords that the commission was established in 2000 as an advisory body to the Prime Minister. As a non-departmental advisory body, it has continued its work since then with two principal remits: to make nominations to your Lordships’ House for independent Cross-Bench Peers—undertaking both an assessment of candidates’ suitability for service in your Lordships’ House and vetting checks—and to undertake vetting responsibility for all other nominations. In that regard, some 10% of party-political nominations made to the commission since 2015 failed to meet the vetting test and have not proceeded.
The Burns report suggests that we enhance the responsibilities of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in a number of respects. The first is that, beyond continuing our current nomination function for independent Cross-Bench Peers, the commission should facilitate the extended leave of absence that will be available to Peers nominated under the new scheme. The second is that it should, for want of a better description, keep the spreadsheet generated after every election, looking at the size of the House of Commons and the proportion of votes, and therefore the size of the political Benches for the forthcoming Parliament.
The third, as we have heard, is to provide a clear understanding for all those nominated to serve in the House of Lords of the commitment that would be required and the obligations that attend membership of your Lordships’ House. This is something that the commission pays special attention to with regard to Cross-Bench nominations. An analysis undertaken between October 2016 and January 2017 identified that of the 67 nominations by HOLAC since 2000, 90% participated in some way in that period, either through voting, contributions in the Chamber or work in committees.
Clearly, the commission would be happy to assist as requested in providing the narrative of the expectation of contribution and service once appointed to the House of Lords, but it would be vital that the political parties heard the response of each candidate to that description because, ultimately, so as not to fetter the Prime Minister or party-political leaders’ opportunity to make political nominations, they would have to be clear that the response received was suitable to those political parties.
Ultimately, under the scheme, beyond hereditary elections, there will be three routes to the Cross Benches: the independent nomination rate through the House Of Lords Appointments Commission, the appointment of Prime Minister’s exceptions—10 in any given five-year period—and a new judicial appointments route for Supreme Court justices on appointment to the Supreme Court. It would be essential to understand how the balance between those three routes will be achieved over any given Parliament.
One of the important duties of the House of Lords Appointments Commission has been to try to achieve greater diversity in this House. Of the 67 nominations made since 2000, 37% have been of female candidates and 19% of members of ethnic minorities. It is essential that that ability to look more broadly at the membership of the House is not lost as we look at the different routes to contribute to Cross-Bench membership in future.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the acumen of the Lord Speaker, who has focused on the vexed question of reducing the size of the membership of the Chamber and set the wheels in motion to create the all-party committee whose most relevant report we are considering today. The Lord Speaker is surely right when he says that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues give this House an important opportunity for reform. With a membership of more than 800, compared to the 650 MPs in the other place, we are perceived to be far too large and unwieldy. It cannot sit altogether comfortably that when legislatures around the world are listed by size, we come second only to the National People’s Congress of China.
Achieving the proposed reduction to 600 and keeping the total capped at that level will take time, but to reach these goals, I support the idea of limiting new Peers to a total of 15 years in the House and the adoption of an accelerated “two out, one in” programme.
It is also correct to propose that appointments should be shared between the different parties on the basis of the results of the most recent general election. With attempts at wider reform not currently on the political agenda, these are sensible suggestions and crucially can be undertaken by ourselves, without the need for legislation. However, the public might like to see the extent of the participation of each Member having a direct effect on their continuing membership of this House.
I should at this stage mention a former interest when I was an MP. I had been warned that I was in line to inherit a hereditary peerage if I outlived my uncle, the Earl of Selkirk. When he died, I was told that I was now barred from the House of Commons Chamber. I went to see the clerks in both Houses. Their advice was totally different. The clerk in the Commons said that if there was any possibility of me being a hereditary Peer, I could disclaim straightaway in order to vote on the looming Motion of no confidence in the then Prime Minister. But the clerk in the House of Lords, quite differently, said, “I have only one question to ask. Is this something you really want to do?” It was, and I remained an Earl for merely four days.
It was an honour and a great surprise of course to be asked to return as a life Peer in 1997. I recall that I was introduced by Lord Renton, the former MP for Huntingdonshire, who at that point was nearly 90. A few years later, when I became a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I asked a senior parliamentarian from this Chamber how my friend Lord Renton was getting on, as by this time he was heading for a century. The senior Member was full of compliments about Lord Renton and added what was clearly meant as a final accolade. He said, “Old age is just beginning to creep up on him”. The report before us does not advocate a compulsory retirement age. Happily, however, many noble Lords appear to be living very much longer, so if we do contemplate such an ageist move, we could possibly settle for a cut-off date of 100. However, having listened to the debate, I believe that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, capture a great deal more merit and would be much easier to implement.
This Chamber is a great national asset whose Members have a fund of expertise and acquired wisdom. That should not be lost or even squandered. However, we cannot be complacent. To borrow a quote from Benjamin Disraeli:
“I am a conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad”.
I sincerely hope that this report will receive the backing of the Prime Minister and the party leaders. As the Lord Speaker said so appropriately, these proposals not only present us with a challenge but with an opportunity. While there is yet time, let us take that opportunity.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, the more astute among you will recognise that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. With the agreement of the Clerk and the Whips, he and I have swapped places. I hope that not too many noble Lords will be disappointed. However, it allows me to follow my very old friend the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk—I must get his recently updated title right—and his witty and erudite speech.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord in his wholehearted support for this report. That is in no way a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee. They were asked to ask the wrong question. Like my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris, the right question is, what is the function and purpose of this Chamber? In a bicameral legislature, the second Chamber has a particular role—to scrutinise legislation, challenge the House of Commons from time to time, to debate issues and question and challenge the Executive.
My ideal second Chamber—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the Liberal Democrats’ ideal of a directly elected House, which I think would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons and create tremendous problems—is a senate of the nations and regions, an indirectly elected Chamber that represents all parts of the United Kingdom properly in this House. We will not get that until we have a Labour Government—and that may be sooner rather than later—but until then we have to carry out our function as best we can.
I do not think we can do that with such an imbalance in representation from the parts of the United Kingdom—as has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Scotland and Northern Ireland are not too badly represented but the regions of England are grossly underrepresented in this Chamber. I do not think that we are a properly representative Chamber, part of a legislature, when we have such poor representation from so many parts of the United Kingdom.
Of course, we have had a few recent appointments to this Chamber. That has made it worse because they have all been from London or the south-east of England, which already has well over half the representation. The problem is that many people do not consider a peerage as an appointment to the legislature but as an honour, as one up from a knighthood in the whole pecking order of honours. A lot of people are keen to get a peerage because it is an honour or a passport to some other appointments, not because they want to work as part of a legislature. The solution is to split it up and have two types of peerages—one that you might call an honorary peerage and the other a legislative peerage, with honours for those who want the title and deserve the title and the legislative peerage for those who want to work and carry out a legislative function. A very helpful Library briefing says that this can be done. It states that,
“the Monarch is empowered to appoint life Peers outside of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and that Peers appointed in this way would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. Accordingly, the committee encouraged the Government to pursue this option in tandem with their main proposals”.
I do not see why it cannot be the main proposal because it seems to me to be right. The problem is that some people consider the peerage an honour rather than an appointment.
Sadly, I think the report does not measure up to what I would like to see it do, which is to produce a representative—not just a smaller—Chamber that can carry out the appropriate function of the second Chamber of a legislature. I hope that when the Lord Speaker, the Government and others consider the outcome of this debate they will look at this as an alternative to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, most of us here are delighted that so far there is significant consensus on the Burns report. It clearly has not been an easy task and I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the committee for their elegant compromise.
Reform of the House of Lords has been an ongoing process for the last 800 years or more. Restricting our view to the last 100 years or so, the Parliament Act 1911 was a significant milestone, as was the creation of life peerages in 1958. More recently, there was the House of Lords Act 1999, followed by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Nor should we dismiss the many other changes since, notably the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 that enabled retirement and, under certain conditions, expulsion. As we know, that was preceded by a succession of Private Member’s Bills, including those from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and my noble friend Lady Hayman. We have learnt that incremental change is more likely to succeed than attempts to introduce change by means of primary legislation. The coalition’s 2012 Bill for a largely elected House fell due to technicalities, but had there been the political will in the other place, those could surely have been overcome.
How does such consensus come about? Reviewing the last 10 years, and more, there has been a slow but inexorable build-up towards a critical mass of opinion. Of course, some of that has been driven by critical media, but efforts in this House—especially by the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber and the many public statements, articles and views expressed by Members—have all contributed greatly to the majority consensus expressed in the debate almost exactly a year ago.
There is still some way to go. We trust that the scheme proposed by the committee will be agreed— and indeed maintained—by the current Government and future ones. By accepting the Burns report’s recommendations, it is hoped to establish a new convention that will become as embedded and respected as the other conventions that guide this House. Perhaps the widespread consensus will encourage some of us to do the decent thing and step down with dignity, after cumulative long years of public service. That may speed up the rate at which we reach the magic number of 600. As we all acknowledge, the House needs refreshing from time to time; an intake of Peers with differing sets of experience and expertise is always welcome. However, unless some of us are prepared to stand down as we approach our 80s, I fear that we will remain an oversubscribed House for some time to come.
Reform is by no means complete. As the House becomes more manageable and professional, it is to be hoped that other reforms—on the hereditary principle, the retirement age and limiting the appointment of new Peers to those who fulfil a clear gap in relevant expertise—will come about. That is what makes this House so valuable.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, the Leader of the House was commendably frank in her speech in saying that the Government have no stomach for fundamental reform of this place. That is a pity. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I hope that one day we will have a Government who will grapple with the need to cement our devolution settlements in this country and create a new upper Chamber, which could be a federal Chamber for the devolved Administrations. Bearing in mind the commission report of Mr Asquith’s Government and the committee report of Mr Attlee’s Government, the House of Commons does not wish to see another directly elected Chamber in the land. Nevertheless, a Chamber that is indirectly elected by the House of Commons and the other devolved institutions is surely long overdue. I would welcome that.
In the meantime, I warmly welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is of course predicated entirely on the 2014 Act, whose provisions I introduced three times in this House over three Sessions on behalf of the Cormack-Norton committee, as noble Lords will remember. Thanks to Dan Byles MP in the House of Commons, that Act eventually became law and enabled Peers to leave this House, either voluntarily or through the House removing them. The minute the law was changed, I took the view that changes could be made thereafter by resolution of the House, which is why I welcome the general thrust of the Burns report. I congratulate the noble Lord and his committee on its excellence.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Newby is wrong when he postulates the possibility of the Prime Minister introducing a swathe of new Members in the new year; if that happened, I am afraid that it would drive a coach and horses through the committee’s recommendations. I very much hope that it will not happen. I have only one criticism to make of the report, which is that it will take too long to get the numbers down to 600. Need it take 11 years? I do not believe so. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, about older Members retiring. I see no reason why we could not have an automatic clear-out of Members aged over 80 at the end of every Parliament. I see no difficulty in that. The House of Commons has a clear-out at a general election—why should this House not do the same? The age of 80 seems reasonable to me.
There are two objections to that proposal. One is that it is ageist. Is it ageist? In other public services, people retire at 60 or 70; the oldest age I could find was 75 for lord-lieutenants and deputy lord-lieutenants. An age of 80 and above, which is what my proposal suggests, seems generous and reasonable. The other objection to what I propose is the ad hominem objection. There is nothing to stop retired Members from going on the airwaves, giving lectures or writing to the newspapers. All they would do is stop being legislators, which seems utterly reasonable. The argument might be, “Oh, you can’t do that because you would lose Nigel Lawson”, to which I say, “Well, so what?”. You would also, as of next time round, lose David Steel—and that might be a very good thing.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. The first sentence of the summary of the report lays out the challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee faced:
“exploring methods for reducing the size of the House”.
I do not know who the genius on the committee was who came up with the proposal, but he must have been creative with the use of figures, because the document is quite clear about how it can be done. The proposals themselves are clear, incremental and achievable. This further movement does without the need for legislation and, importantly, without any perceived threat to existing Members—although that might change when it comes to implementation. In so far as the proposals will reduce the size of the House, they will work; but how they may affect the functionality of the House will depend on the working practices of the new Peers.
I found the back-testing of the Burns proposals in a bar-chart construct most interesting. Going back to 1959 and working forward to 2017, it shows what the party composition would look like reflecting public opinion at general elections and that the proposal would work in a fair way, as stated in the report. The challenge of the report is mainly at the point of implementation, as many noble Lords have mentioned, but it is doable and a House of 600 can be achieved.
I turn to say a few words about the Cross-Bench component. The report says that the new Cross-Bench Members would number 134. This is not 20% of 600, which would be 120, but 23.3%, as it is now. Who are the Cross-Benchers? They may be appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission or from the judiciary; there are also 30 hereditaries. They may also be appointed by the Prime Minister at various times. But not insignificant are the numbers of those who leave their political party for whatever reasons—mostly because they do not agree with its principles—and join the Cross Benches. Initially, they sit on the Cross Benches; subsequently, they become Cross-Benchers. As this number is not insignificant, particularly in the recent past, whose numbers would they be counted among? If it is to be the number allocated to the Cross Benches, the Appointments Commission will have that many fewer to appoint. If they are to be non-affiliates, then the problem of how to deal with non-affiliates and those who move from their political party needs to be addressed. In my view, if you leave your political party and were appointed by that party then you must leave the House. That would be the obvious solution but it may hold problems.
I support the solution proposed and the House’s membership becoming 600. I note that by 2022 the Cross Benches will have to lose about 35 Peers, either through retirement or death. Looking at the past figure, that number is achievable and I shall do my bit to contribute.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I was not referring to death but more to longevity and retiring. I support the proposals.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in thinking about our future, it might be wise to remind ourselves of the words of another Burns:
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion”
I have said many times before that I love this place. I find that if you are not sure what you think about something, listening to a debate in this place will straighten you out. The debate the other day in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on universal credit was extremely moving as well as being informative, as was the debate moved by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on education. What do they have in common? They were almost entirely ignored by people outside this House, which is portrayed as a load of people in pyjamas or strange outfits every time we appear in the newspapers. If we are to change the perception—because perception is everything in politics—we have to change ourselves. Along with everyone else, I pay tribute to the fantastic work that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee have done.
As some noble Lords may recall, in her latter years, Baroness Thatcher used to come to this House. Because she was a little frail, she needed someone to look after her. Her office would ring me up and she would say, “I am coming to the House this afternoon, would you like to look after me?” And I would drop everything and come. One day I said to her, “Margaret, you’ve done your bit for the country. People love to see you, but you don’t need to come here so often”. Whereupon she prodded me in the chest and said, “Michael, when we accepted appointment to this place it became our duty to attend. Now how often are you here when I am not here?”. I have never forgotten that. The size of the House is a problem, but so, also, are people who accept appointment to this place and do not take it seriously. To take it seriously, I am afraid that you have to come quite a lot. It is quite a complicated place to understand, which is why, down at the other end of the corridor, they have not a clue what we are about.
On the Burns report itself, I thought that it was almost impossible for that committee to produce a report that would carry support throughout the Benches, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and to the Liberal Party—this may be a first. I thought that his speech was statesmanlike and the behaviour of his party entirely constructive, even though it is not to its advantage, and we should take a lead from that. By the way, if noble Lords ever want to solve a polynomial simultaneous equation, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is clearly the man. He can take a whole load of complex variables and put them together in what is a brilliant report. Believe me, this is as good as it gets. As my noble friend Lord Cormack indicated, it is probably our last and only chance to reform ourselves.
Of course, as many noble Lords have already said, none of this will fly unless the Prime Minister actually gives an undertaking. Some have said that we cannot rely on convention, but this whole place has existed on that for 500 years—even where we sit is determined by convention. We are not a rules-based House. Yes, we can depend on convention, but it does require the Prime Minister to give a clear undertaking.
I notice that the Leader of the House spoke at the beginning of this debate and is not speaking at the end, and the Leader of the Opposition is speaking at the end of the debate and will no doubt respond to it. I say to my noble friend the Leader of the House, if I may borrow a phrase from a former Prime Minister, that the hand of history is upon her shoulder. She spoke at the beginning of this debate for the Government. I hope at the end of this debate, she will speak in her role as Leader of the House for the whole House and go to the Prime Minister and explain to her how important it is that she embraces the clear consensus that we are seeing across every corner of the House. Her moment has come, just as happened with a previous Leader, now the Marquess of Salisbury, then Lord Cranborne. The leader of our party in opposition wanted to have an elected House. He informed all of us of this notion by writing an article in the Daily Telegraph. Lord Cranborne, as he then was, defied him and ensured that we ended up with a compromise of the 92 hereditary Peers and the reform that was brought in by a Labour Government. So there is a precedent for leaders—even in opposition—of this House.
I look forward to the speech by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who, I understand, made it a condition of his continuing in succession to Lord Cranbourne, who was sacked for his pains—in earlier times his head would have been cut off—that those proposals were taken forward. That is why we are sitting here today with the opportunity to produce a reformed House that will be respected and held in high regard by the public who have sent us here.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is always a hard act to follow. I come to this debate somewhat from the outside but I have had a little to do—to a greater or lesser extent—with the structure of bodies in the public sector. I have set some up and dismantled some. Your Lordships’ House has always seemed to be effective, very often in spite of, rather than because of, its structure.
In contemplating an ideal second Chamber I would rather not have started from here, but we are not in the realms of Utopia and are strictly confined by the art of the possible. Within the art of the possible it is so desirable to limit our numbers that a very pragmatic solution must be worked out. We have agreed this. Even the reform of numbers is not at all an easy task and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on his elegant proposals. Not only do they fit the bill, they achieve the objective without transgressing other boundaries by leaving much to the discretion of party and other groups.
As we are in the realm of the practical, reasonable and feasible, on all these tests it seems to me that the noble Lord’s proposals pass muster. They are practical: they inexorably reduce numbers over time and maintain that reduction. They are reasonable: they leave to the parties who must go, but also reflect electoral decisions without destroying balance. This is particularly ingenious. They are feasible: all we need do is agree; no legislation is needed. They would serve our country better for the time being, which is what we must do. We have the privilege, among other privileges, of serving the public. It is to serve our country better that matters. I commend the proposals.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, this report has my wholehearted support. It is a most thoughtful and imaginative piece of work. I am not one of those who appear able to contemplate with equanimity the ever-growing expansion of this House. Doubtless many of us would have preferred, to a greater or lesser degree, some difference in one or other of the several particular measures that together go to make the intricate overall solution proposed. Some might have preferred to end up with a House smaller than 600, some to have achieved a cap in a shorter time, some to have provided for longer than 15-year fixed-term appointments and so on.
I will make two comments on this. First, any such detailed considerations are surely for a future debate. Today is for determining the House’s support for or rejection of the report in principle. In any event, we need to bear in mind that any change to the proposed scheme has knock-on effects and that this has been unanimously hammered out by a most expert and experienced group—I have the highest regard for each one of them—after months of hard work. The plain fact is that unless a very substantial consensus in favour of this scheme is arrived at today by the House as a whole, none of this will happen and we will instead continue—probably indeed worsen—our present unsustainable position.
A substantial consensus is required, but, above all, this proposal will then require the support of 10 Downing Street. If we can get that now, it will not be easy for any of the Prime Minister’s successors to collapse the scheme later—certainly everybody would then know where the blame lay. To my mind, this is the best possible scheme for winning the Prime Minister’s support. It provides for much the same number, rate and nature of future appointments as in years past—certainly, if one puts aside the perhaps over-fecund years of Mr Blair and Mr Cameron. It allows both for refreshment of the House, including new Front-Bench appointments, and for its rebalancing by reference to the latest general election results. If there are to be significant changes to any of the pieces which go to make up this intricate jigsaw solution, I respectfully suggest that they be only changes suggested by No. 10 itself. If that is the price for winning the necessary consent to the constraints on the Prime Minister’s future prerogative powers of appointment that we now propose, so be it.
I know that one or two Members of your Lordships’ House are concerned at the 15-year fixed-term proposal on the basis that it may discourage youthful appointments of people who would then be left high and dry in their 50s or 60s. This is an overstated objection. Essentially, this is a House of elders, of people whose real value is their acquired expertise and lifetime experience. Generally, they should only rarely be appointed before they are around 50 or so. In that case, given that the scheme expressly provides for them to take a five-year sabbatical during their fixed term without it counting towards the 15 years, they would be upwards of 70 when their term ended. Surely if what they seek is essentially a political career, it is election to the Commons that they should be after and not appointment here.
Really, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce and cap the size of this House. I respectfully urge your Lordships to seize it.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I played a small part when we last reduced the size of this House, then far more ambitiously than is proposed in this report and with surgical precision. As with all attempts to do anything surgically, it was pretty painful, but we got there in the end and remarkably quickly. I am sorry that the report has not taken up that precedent and suggested that all groups reduce their number by 20%. We could probably do it by the Summer Recess and then continue on our own way.
I have three reasons why I am concerned that the report will trigger a series of unintended consequences. The first is on the 15 years; the second is on the cap on the numbers; and the third is on the reduction of prime ministerial patronage. However, I want first to join all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team on creating a short and very readable report that genuinely tries to be imaginative.
I disagree that the problem is overcrowding in this House. At some key moments, particularly at Question Time, it feels overcrowded, but that has been true for most of the past 40 years. Our daily attendance is about 480. There have been only three Divisions in the entire history of the Lords where more than 600 Members have voted. The average vote is less than 400, all within this new limit of 600. If noble Lords cannot find a seat at Question Time, why not change it to 5.30 pm? That might reduce attendance. So, I do not believe that the case for overcrowding has been made.
Having been Conservative Chief Whip and Leader of the House, or the Opposition, for a total of 19 years, I know that many former Members of another place came here as Peers. I encourage them not to believe that the Lords is just like the House of Commons, only 20 years older. It is a very different House; it operates very differently and, apart from anything else, we are here for life. Yet the proposal for 15-year terms runs the danger of us becoming exactly that—an older version of the House of Commons. It will discourage Members aged under 50, perhaps even under 60, thus making us even older. Why would someone in their 40s join the House, only to leave 15 years later? Fewer Members would volunteer to join the Front Bench; both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition are considerably younger than the modal age of 75. Would they have joined if they could be here for only 15 years? If by chance a younger Member joined your Lordships’ House, might they then not use this House as a stepping stone to election to the House of Commons? We have always set our face against that in the past.
Take a Labour Peer, appointed in 1985, slogging away on the Opposition Front Bench. Just as the new dawn arose in 1997, they would start to pack their bags to leave two and a half years later. The 15-year terms of both my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, would have run out while they were Lord Chancellor. Although the noble Lord, Lord Burns, says that this can be extended, it would have meant that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern would have gone in 1997. Just think of the wisdom and good sense that we would have missed.
On the cap and the limiting of prime ministerial patronage, this report is not just a simple method of reduction; it strikes at the very heart of constitutional powers. It may happen only rarely, but to remove the ability of the Prime Minister to threaten to increase the number of Peers could lead to an even more assertive House than we have today. We sit in a large and inexpensive House. A new, time-limited House would demand staff and salaries, and we have already heard that cry starting today. Most people know the Lords as a repository of good sense and wisdom—“elders”, the previous speaker called us. With our limited time here, we could concede that reputation to the House of Commons.
Of course, we need restraint and responsibility. Prime Ministers Blair and Cameron showed too little but Prime Ministers Brown and May have, so far, presided over a declining House. In the last year for which figures are available, eight Peers were created and 31 left. If I extrapolate that over five years, we would drop by 115 and get to 650 in seven years. It is that responsibility and restraint that we should encourage, and we should do that starting today.
Energy: Domestic Tariffs
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review their policy on capping domestic energy prices in the light of measures taken by the energy industry to change tariffs to help those most at risk, and to increase competition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to legislate, and a draft Bill is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee. The Government will consider the committee’s report before making the final decision on introducing the Bill. The Competition and Markets Authority found a very significant detriment to consumers, and it will take meaningful and long-lasting reform to be assured that there is effective competition across the whole of the market.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I find that a very interesting Answer. When will Her Majesty’s Government look at what Ofwat has done for water consumers, to their benefit, and decide that Ofgem can do an equally good job? Surely Her Majesty’s Government can see that there may not be perfect competition, but there is certainly a lot of competition, with new entrants coming in all the time, and there is an extensive number of schemes to help the disadvantaged. How can a totally uncosted subsidy help when all it will do is disrupt the market even further, above and beyond what is already happening through the Government’s green taxes?
Lord Henley
My Lords, Ofgem does a very good job, just as my noble friend has made it clear that Ofwat does a very good job. We agree with Ofgem that the energy market is not working for all consumers, and we are determined to address the detriment suffered by those overpaying for their energy. Because the market is not working, we feel that it is necessary to consider introducing a Bill, which is why we have introduced the draft Bill and sent it to the appropriate Select Committee. When the committee has produced its report, we will consider the appropriate way forward and introduce legislation if necessary. That legislation will be temporary, and we hope that afterwards the market can work slightly better.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, poor housing standards are the main cause of high energy bills. Could the Minister explain the thinking behind getting rid of the zero carbon homes standard?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to say that bad insulation is not good for heating bills, so we would like to do better on that front. I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness in greater detail on the point she raised, but we are doing what we can to help all more vulnerable consumers with their heating bills. She will be aware of the warm home discount and the cold weather payments; and there is the winter fuel payment, which quite a number of noble Lords probably benefit from and which is worth up to £300 for a couple and £200 for an individual.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord says that Ofgem is doing a good job, but over the last few years we have seen evidence that the industry raises prices as quickly as possible and reduces them—when the international market shows a reduction in prices—as slowly as they can. Has Ofgem not used all the powers it has to intervene in the market?
Lord Henley
My Lords, what I made clear in response to my noble friend’s supplementary was that I believe Ofwat has done a very good job. Ofgem can do a very good job, but we agree with it that the energy market is not working as it should, possibly for the reasons the noble Lord has pointed out. That is why we have brought forward a draft Bill and are looking at what it might do. We will respond after the BEIS Select Committee has produced its report on that Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, the Church of England has partnered with several organisations in an initiative called the Big Church Switch, which seeks to provide consumers with better prices from the UK’s cleanest energy suppliers, to make switching simpler and to protect the environment. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government and Ofgem taking to learn from such initiatives as this to enable consumers to make informed choices, both financially and environmentally?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing to the attention of the House the Big Church Switch. Other people offer advice on how to switch, and there is a great deal that individual consumers can do about switching their energy and getting reductions. The simple fact is that most people do not know about this, which is why we are working through the government-funded Big Energy Saving Network to try to get more information across. We are very grateful for the work the Church is doing as well.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, would not one obvious way of achieving cheaper energy prices be to produce in this country rather cheaper electricity and to make less costly the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere? Would that not require cheaper nuclear power and cleaner methods of coal-burning, which can be very cheap if it is clean? Is our present energy policy not going in exactly the opposite direction?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are seeing reductions in the price of renewable energy and we are working to bring the price of nuclear energy down. My noble friend is quite right: the crucial issue is the price of energy that consumers have to pay, which is why we are helping them to shop around to get the best deal.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not simple to switch energy suppliers, particularly for older people? In fact, it is easier to switch churches.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I know a little about switching energy supplier. I do not know much about switching churches but perhaps the noble Lord can offer some advice to the right reverend Prelates—not that I think they will want to be switching churches at this stage. More seriously, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the fact that not enough people know how to set about switching energy. Sophisticated people like him know that they can go online and do it, but that is much harder for older people—people even older than the noble Lord himself—who are possibly less technically sophisticated than he is. This is why we are offering help and funding the Big Energy Saving Network, which we hope will provide assistance to vulnerable consumers.
Smoking: Vaping
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of Public Health England’s decision to include vaping within its stop smoking campaign for 2017, they will review vaping regulations in line with the commitment in the Tobacco Control Plan for England; and if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to a review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 by May 2021. There is limited scope for amending the regulations in advance of the UK exiting the EU, so the Government envisage a review taking place after 29 March 2019. Protecting the public’s health will be the priority in any review.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer but I am a little disappointed. Given the strong evidence that vaping is much safer than smoking, that it is very effective at getting people off smoking and that the strength of the vaping industry in this country is one of the main reasons why we are now the second-lowest smoking country in Europe, and given that the Government promised some sensible deregulation in the tobacco control plan, does the Minister share my regret that the EU’s tobacco products directive restricts advertising in particular, making it very hard for vaping companies in this country to bring to smokers the news of the health benefits that can come from it? Will he consider a public information campaign to bring the country’s attention to what vaping can do? Will he perhaps also consider giving clear advice to businesses and councils that they should not be treating vapers as smokers?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Viscount is right to highlight the benefits of vaping: it is considerably safer than smoking and is a very effective quitting aid. There is no particular evidence that it encourages people to take up smoking or to transition into smoking. Government policy has, obviously, been made under the EU regulatory framework—and we think that it is pragmatic and evidence based. Direct advertising is, as he will know, banned, but the department, Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority are looking at the current guidelines in this area. I should point out that Public Health England includes in its public health campaigns positive messages about the relative benefits of vaping, so that message is getting out. In the end we must beware of renormalising the act of smoking, even if with a different device, particularly for children, so there is a balance to be struck.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, lest Brexiteer noble Lords get too excited, will the Minister confirm that it was the British Government who pressed the EU for draconian regulations, and the EU modified what Britain wanted? We should beware repatriation of those regulations.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I will only talk about what I know, and what I know to be coming up, which is that we want to take a pragmatic and evidence-based approach. Other countries are looking at the balance we strike in this country with allowing smoking and vaping to take place—and indeed, positively encouraging vaping. I think our approach is sensible.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, the noble Viscount made a good point, because the same European legislation also brought in a ban on all small tobacco packs, which had a devastating impact, particularly on small local shops. Will the Minister therefore commit to reversing the ban on small packs once we have left the European Union? I declare my interest as set out in the register.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am afraid I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord there. Our broad approach on restricting the advertising and sale of tobacco has been incredibly successful: we have very low smoking rates in this country, and they are falling all the time. We have ambitious goals to reduce smoking prevalence, including a long-term goal of reducing it to less than 5% of adults, and I am not convinced that what he describes would help.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
Can my noble friend explain the advertising point to me, as one who has given up smoking through vaping? I have not had a cigarette for three and a half years. I tried patches, I tried chewing gum, and I even went to a hypnotist. None of those worked. Can my noble friend tell me why those three things are allowed to be advertised, although they do not work, whereas vaping, which does work, is not?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is right; we are looking at the guidelines at the moment, with Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority. There are limits on what we can do on vaping under the current regulations, but we will have the opportunity to look again at this issue as we leave the European Union, and reconsider our domestic legislation.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, vaping has proved an effective way for many people to give up smoking tobacco—but there are, of course, no inherent health benefits in taking up vaping if one is not already addicted to nicotine. Does the Minister agree that we should seek regulations that allow the promotion of vaping solely as an alternative to smoking tobacco, and not something that people not already addicted to nicotine should be encouraged to take up? Can he tell us when Public Health England will publish its report on e-cigarettes, which was due in 2017?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I think that the noble Lord is making the point that we need a balanced approach. We want to emphasise the relative health benefits, but we must also recognise that harmful effects can come from nicotine in itself. Obviously, we want to get to a position in which people are not smoking and not taking nicotine at all, and the relative benefits of the different ways people can go about that are taken into account. I think that the UK has a sensible approach. I am afraid that I do not have the date when the Public Health England report will be published, but I will write to the noble Lord with that information.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ridley said, vaping has been hugely successful in getting 2.8 million Brits—myself included—off smoking tobacco. Snus, however, has been even more successful in reducing tobacco use in Sweden: 5% of Swedes still smoke tobacco, compared with 16% of Britons and 24% across the EU states. Given the success and safety of snus, why can we not use it in this country?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend is quite right to point out that vaping is a British success story as an anti-smoking aid, and it has made a huge contribution not just to noble Lords but to around 2.5 million e-cigarette users, half of whom used to smoke. There is, of course, as he will no doubt be aware, a court challenge going on at the moment. It is under consideration by the CJEU, and we expect a judgment in the summer of 2018, so I am unfortunately not in a position to comment until we have that judgment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Could the Minister possibly encourage his colleagues to consider publishing a list of EU regulations which are there primarily because British lobbies with the support of British Ministers have pushed them on to the EU? I am thinking in particular of animal welfare, as well as a lot of health and smoking regulations. It would help to educate opinion in this country as to what sort of regulations might be likely to diverge after we leave, and which will not.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Anyone who really wants to find out how many regulations there are provided by the EU can find that online, and I am sure that it would be a wonderful way to spend a weekend. I am just going to bother myself with the ones that have been dedicated to the health area. We are, of course, looking at everything within that realm to make sure that, when we leave the European Union, we end up with the best possible health regime.
Sexual Harassment
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support women to use the legal system to challenge sexual harassment in the workplace.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that unwanted conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace that violates a person’s dignity or creates a hostile or degrading atmosphere is unlawful. Any employee placed in that situation can seek impartial advice or conciliation from ACAS or contact the Government’s Equality Advisory and Support Service or contact a citizens advice bureau before deciding whether to pursue a claim in an employment tribunal.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I thank the Minister, but I am really concerned. In the campaign that took place after the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke, many women went online under the heading of the “#MeToo” signature to say that they had experienced serious sexual abuse in the workplace. I am concerned about women in low-paid jobs, who do not have human resource departments, who are on the shop floor doing zero-hours contracts, for whom getting work—overtime, for example—depends on the will of or whim of supervisors who make sexual demands on them. Those are women whose lives are made really difficult. Have cuts to legal aid made a huge difference to whether women can have the reality of legal recourse? Does the overworking of the CAB also limit the opportunities of women to find out what their rights really are?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Obviously, I am well aware of the “#MeToo” campaign, which was very effective. The high-profile cases that led to the campaign have resulted in a much greater understanding of the scope and scale of the problem, and we must use all available means to tackle it. If there is one positive thing that came out of that campaign, it is that people are far more aware of sexual harassment, whether it be low-paid workers on the shop floor right up to the Prime Minister. On the issue of legal aid, legal aid subject to the statutory merits test continues to be available for legal advice and representation for cases alleging unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation under the Equality Act.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)
Does the Minister agree that it is axiomatic that women or men subject to sexual harassment in the workplace should be able to obtain a proportionate and, if appropriate, serious remedy for what has occurred? Does she agree that it is equally axiomatic that those accused of such conduct should be able to enjoy due process before they are condemned?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Of course, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The routes to resolution are many, and they do not necessarily have to end up at an employment tribunal. Many of the grievances that victims may bring forward to those accused of this can go through an employer’s formal guidance procedure, and there is obviously the early conciliation service from ACAS. There are many different routes, and one hopes that they can be resolved early on and not result in an employment tribunal.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, sexual harassment is often an abuse of power, an imbalance of power. Can my noble friend say what the Prime Minister is doing? What leadership is she showing to ensure that this issue is tackled, particularly in Parliament? What remedies are available to people who make such complaints?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend is quite right that it is often where there is a disproportionality of power that abuse occurs. The Prime Minister took immediate action when these allegations surfaced. She set up a cross-party working group, chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons, which aims to set up, as quickly as possible, an independent complaints and guidance system for everyone working in Parliament. The group is making good progress and will report back to Parliament before the Christmas Recess.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, sexual harassment in the workplace is covered under the Equality Act, but outside the workplace it is not a criminal offence in its own right. Prosecutors have to use different pieces of legislation, depending on the nature of the offence. Two-thirds of UK women report having been sexually harassed. In light of this, does the Minister think it is time for the Government to look at this and conduct a review of whether sexual harassment should be a specific criminal offence in its own right? Everyone would then be clear on what it is and where the boundaries should be.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness is quite right that sexual harassment and other more serious sexual offences are addressed in a number of pieces of legislation, for example the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In these cases, the first port of call for a victim is obviously the police. The police have received a significant increase in training about sexual offences. We are not currently planning to review the legislation, as we feel that it is working.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that sexual harassment and sexual violence is a culture not limited to any one industry, workplace or institution? It is an issue rooted in unequal power relationships that treat women in a subordinate manner to men. Is she aware of reports which show that more than two-thirds of girls reported being sexually harassed at school last year? What are the Government doing to tackle this worrying problem so that girls at school can be as protected as possible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is quite right; we must do whatever we can in education to ensure that everyone, young and old, understands that sexual harassment—or, indeed, any harassment—is not acceptable. Schools and parents must take responsibility for educating young people. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Department for Education is currently consulting on the new relationship and sex education curriculum, which will be brought into schools as soon as it is ready.
Homelessness: Temporary Accommodation
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take to address increasing homelessness and demand for temporary accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, we are embarking on an ambitious programme in relation to homelessness which places prevention right at its heart. We are implementing the most ambitious legislative reform in decades—the Homelessness Reduction Act—and we have allocated over £1 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, through to 2020. This includes a flexible homelessness support grant, which local authorities can use strategically to tackle homelessness in their areas, including for the provision of temporary accommodation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Night shelters and homelessness charities in my diocese are speaking about the huge pressure they are currently under. National Audit Office statistics suggest that the problem has increased nationally from 1,800 rough sleepers in 2010 to 4,000 this year. Given that rise, do Her Majesty’s Government consider that local authorities will have sufficient funding to meet their legal obligations under the Homelessness Reduction Act, which the Minister just spoke of, when it comes into force next year?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate for all that he does in his diocese. I know that the St Albans Sleepout on Friday 1 December—which was not actually at the cathedral this year because of building work—does much to publicise and tackle this problem in St Albans. He is absolutely right that this has become a more serious problem. It is now affecting rural as well as urban areas of England. That is why we have put this very much at the centre of the Government’s and department’s thinking, with the aim of reducing homelessness by 50% by 2022 and eliminating it totally by 2027. We have put resources into this: £50 million was announced very recently.
Lord Bird (CB)
Can Her Majesty’s Government look at the human rights abuse that allows people to sleep on the streets? Maybe we need to revisit the old legislation whereby we do not allow people to sleep on the streets but provide places for them off the streets, rather than putting them in prison as we used to. We have an emergency on our hands; we need to remove people from the streets and put them in a place of safety. That should be at the top of the Minister’s list.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his contribution in this area—not just in the House but very much outside it. I take his comments seriously. As he rightly says, prevention is at the heart of this complex issue. It is clearly not a simple issue: this country has faced this problem over a period of time. As I say, it is very much at the centre of the Government’s thinking and all agencies contribute to it. We have trailblazer areas looking at this, and Crisis and Shelter, for example, are on our advisory committee. Rough sleeping is something that the Government are very much committed to ending.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recognise that some of us are deeply underwhelmed by the ambition to reduce homelessness by only half by 2022. We were able to reduce rough sleeping by two-thirds between 1998 and 2000, and we know what needs to be done. There needs to be proper accommodation for rough sleepers, and he should know every night what is available and how many more rough sleepers there are than beds available. There also needs to be mental health and detox support. This is not unknown territory or a secret. We know how to sort it. Why do the Government not just get on and do it so that people are safer?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as the noble Baroness went on, she began to exhibit just how complex an issue this is. It is not simple. It is an issue partly to do with addiction and with mental health, and partly about people coming out of secure environments such as the forces and prisons. We are working with the Ministries of Defence and Justice, which are central to this. It is not a small ambition to halve homelessness by 2022 and eliminate it totally by 2027. I look forward to seeing support and ideas from around the House on how we can tackle a very complex issue.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the UK Statistics Authority that a complete picture on homelessness must include prevention and relief in addition to statutory homelessness? Will he commit to include in any future change in data people who are in work but sleeping rough or in temporary accommodation—as astonishing as those the figures are, as shown on Channel 4 last night?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I very much regret that I did not have the privilege of seeing that programme last night but I will try to catch up on it. It is a complex issue, as the noble Baroness rightly says. It is not just about looking at the statistics, as she will know, but at what is happening in communities up and down the country. Last Friday, I was in Chesterfield seeing what is happening there, a town that is not a metropolitan area, and finding that agencies are engaged in tackling it, as is the faith community. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will be pleased to know that the vicar of Chesterfield was formerly a Catholic and has become a Protestant. The noble Lord might like to engage with him to find out some of what he has been doing. It is important to engage all the institutions. I will certainly go back and have a look at the point that the noble Baroness made about the statistics.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant local government interests in the register. On entering this Palace from Westminster tube station, you will see homeless people. When walking from Victoria and Waterloo stations, you will see homeless people sitting in doorways. Every evening, opposite Charing Cross station, you will see hundreds of homeless people being fed soup and bread. Homelessness has risen by 50% in the last two years. Does the noble Lord not accept some responsibility for this tragedy which is occurring in one of the richest countries in the world? It rests with this Government and the policies they have pursued.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, the noble Lord is absolutely right: this has been a problem in the centre of the capital for some time, as he will appreciate. I am not minimising that but it is not new; what is new is the spread of this problem throughout the country, as I have indicated. It now affects many rural communities and smaller towns up and down the country. I certainly acknowledge that this problem needs to be tackled, as I have indicated. It needs to be tackled at local authority and governmental level and demands all of our attention, including the noble Lord’s. Certainly I take my share of the blame but I think this is something to which we can all contribute. Faith communities and the voluntary sector are helping, the Government have a role, and so do local authorities. It is something with which we all need to engage rather than finger-point.
Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 19th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 View all Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 19th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 View all Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, before we resume our debate, I thank all noble Lords who spoke before lunch for showing how well self-regulation works. If, from now on, we show similar restraint in sticking to the advisory time of five minutes, we will finish today’s business by 10 o’clock. I remind noble Lords that when the indicator shows five—it is not showing anything at the moment—their time is up.
House of Lords: Lord Speaker’s Committee Report
Lord Burns
That this House takes note of the Report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, it was a great privilege and pleasure to serve on the Burns committee. Like others, I pay tribute not just to my fellow committee members but particularly to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who must take a lot of credit for the report before your Lordships today.
I was asked to comment on our report in Red Benches, but my comments suffered a little from editorial adjustment so I take this opportunity to say what I actually wrote. I think that would be the honest thing to do. Obviously, reducing the size of the House was never going to be easy, and was always going to be contingent on a formula to maintain the numbers rather than a quick fix. That formula, to which many speakers have paid tribute during the course of today’s debate, must fall to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Not only did he put in the time and expertise to make sure that even in the annexes people could understand exactly what the committee’s intentions were on a very complex issue, taking into account such issues as the size of the House, the refreshment of the House and the way in which the individual parties and the Prime Minister would play a role, but it was very clear that he seemed to enjoy this exercise. We sat in admiration of the work that he did; it was a very important part of the committee’s report.
I said in Red Benches:
“As a self-regulating House”—
that has been mentioned many times today—“it seems right” and proper,
“that the House should take this initiative”.
This is where the editing came in because I said, “rather than be subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune whenever a Government chooses to turn its attention to the Upper House”. However, the words, “the slings and arrows of outrageous” were taken out. I am not quite sure why. However, I think many noble Lords will understand as so often one hears, “The Government are too busy with Brexit or something else; nobody’s going to get round to doing it. They talk about it so often but nobody does anything”. Actually, I do not agree with that. There are times when quite a momentum for change in the upper House builds up at the other end of this building. Who are we to try to second-guess what the motivation of that momentum—I do not mean anything at all by that word, or perhaps I do—is? Who can second-guess when that would happen? Almost certainly, the general public have a perception— rightly or wrongly—not just about the numbers, but about the work that we do. That work is undervalued, not just by the public but often by the other end of this building. It was this House, of course, that got off the starting block very quickly on Brexit, with some very sensible and well-researched studies and papers, so we have a big contribution to make, not just in this Chamber.
I want to pick up on something mentioned by my noble friend Lady Stowell in her contribution this morning. That is, what are we actually about in this House? What are we here for? We all know why we are here, but there needs to be some consolidation if we are to reduce the numbers to 600. What exactly will the work be? This is not a paid job. It does not carry a pension or any of the usual restraints of paid employment. It is public service. While there are some concerns about the age of people coming in—whether they are younger or older— people understand that, in accepting appointment to this House, they are not being offered a paid job in the normal sense of the word. They are being offered a privilege and an opportunity to carry out public service. Therefore, the decision of individuals as to whether the 15-year period recommended in the report is not long enough for them will be considered in the same way as any other option that one takes in life. One looks at one’s own circumstances and decides whether one has the time or ability to give that amount of time and dedication to public service. If this House is about anything, it is about public service.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and commend both the committee and those who have campaigned for a more effective second Chamber for many years. The irony of some of us who have been in this House for only a relatively short time—I am thinking this morning of my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, as well as myself—advocating that the House should be reduced now that we are in here will not have passed notice. My defence is that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is making a positive contribution to what is, after all, built into the DNA of this House: gradualism. Even the most tentative step forward in the right direction has to be applauded.
My other defence is that, back in 2014 in the other place, I was the only Labour Back-Bencher who bothered to turn up on a Friday morning for the Bill that achieved what has been paraded this morning as 78 fewer Members: those who have taken the dignified route—not the Dignitas route—of standing down from this House. Those who pressed that case and did the work on it did everyone great credit, because we would be debating this in a much less favourable atmosphere if we had not had that facility available.
I want to pick up two or three points from this morning’s debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris seemed to be advocating a kind of Lloyd George view of the world: that incoming Prime Ministers will want to cram this House and we should not get in the way. David Cameron had a go at that, and look where it got him: nowhere at all. Cramming this House, by any Prime Minister, will not work and we all know it.
I ought to be gentle about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, because I have been in the position where I had to try and carry through Parliament something that I was only just persuaded of. As Leader of this House, he had the daunting task of trying to carry the Clegg proposals through, which included a 15-year time-bound period for a senator, non-renewable and non-accountable. It is just worth reflecting that, if that is the main argument—15 years is too short because there would be some excellent people who would have to leave before they had fulfilled their full potential—then we have to apply it to those who want an elected second Chamber. I do not; I would like it to be reformed still further and to be less London-centric. However, if you are faced with the tortoise and the hare and you know that someone in the undergrowth is going to shoot the hare, you are best off backing the tortoise. In any case, tortoises have a shell, which we all build up over many years in politics. This time, we might just achieve that modest change.
I hope that this prolonged debate—I am finishing now because other noble Lords have already been patient today—is a chance, to demonstrate not to ourselves or even to our colleagues down the Corridor, but to demonstrate to the public that we mean business, we understand how people see politics and politicians, and we will do something about it.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and to agree with absolutely everything he said.
The British constitution has a genius for taking things in bite-sized chunks and making them come together to an extraordinary extent to change things over a period of time. When I was a schoolgirl taking my 11-plus in Wolverhampton, there was not a single female Member of your Lordships’ House. Over time, what was seen as a small reform—the Life Peerages Act—has absolutely transformed this House. With each small measure we can make progress.
I will not use my time today to echo what so many others have said about the ingenuity and the elegance of the solution that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has found. We all owe him and his fellow committee members a debt of gratitude. Now the responsibility lies with us in not trying to gild the lily or to change any detail of what has been said but to put our wholehearted support behind those proposals. I was encouraged by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I hope that the other party leaders will do exactly the same.
There is an extraordinarily heavy burden on the shoulders of the Leader of the House in this respect, because, as we all know, the Prime Minister needs to be persuaded and needs to take action. I, like others, believe that that is possible and that we could create a convention that was powerful in this respect and which achieved what we wanted to achieve. However, it will be difficult; it will need us to back her and her to speak on our behalf. I hope that she will take note of paragraph 25 of the report, which deals with the issue of creating a non-parliamentary peerage. Again, this is an elegant solution to some of the patronage issues that a Prime Minister is faced with.
I will not go on talking about things with which I agree but will try to deal with one or two of the criticisms we have heard this morning. Some of them were marginally unfair in that they criticised the committee for not finding solutions to a question that was not posed to it—that is, what should be the long-term and radical change to the form and purpose of this House. However, it is a great shame that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not in his place at the moment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I was expecting a reprise of that speech we all loved so much, which argued passionately for an elected House, regardless of the stony faces on the Benches behind him, during all those hours of debate on the coalition Government’s proposals in the Clegg Bill for an elected House. Sadly, however, he was not able to give us that performance again today.
What the noble Lord did do was give a skilful elision on the issue of the size of the House to the fact that it was only that everyone was complaining about overcrowding, which was not an issue. In fact, I could not find any mention of overcrowding in the report—nor have I heard it mentioned by those who advocate reducing the size of the House. Overcrowding is not the issue—although I would not advocate a public body supporting and paying for more personnel than are necessary for carrying out the tasks with which it is charged.
Putting that to one side, the issue of size is one of reputation. For five years, I had the responsibility and honour of acting as an advocate and ambassador for this House. Through speaking in many public fora during those five years, I became absolutely convinced that there was a barrier to explaining and advocating the virtues and quality of the work done in this House because of the criticism that rightly came over its ever-expanding size.
We live in very difficult parliamentary times. Representative democracy is challenged in a way that it has not been before by our foray into plebiscitary democracy. Parliament’s reputation is important and there will be difficult times ahead. We need to do something to improve our trustworthiness with the public—and this is one of the things we can do.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, whose contributions to our debates always command attention. It is also a pleasure to congratulate the present Lord Speaker on initiating the inquiry into the size of our House. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee also deserve great praise for bringing forward such a carefully considered and well-thought-through report.
It is surely right to consider our numbers in isolation, because the solution can be achieved without legislation and because it does not compromise any wider reform proposals that may one day emerge.
I will address, first, the question of numbers. This is a problem created by successive Governments—or Prime Ministers—for which we in this House receive the blame. We have a right to expect their co-operation now as it is in their interests, as well as ours, that it should be solved. I believe that a reduction to 600 is sensible and realistic. It should meet the criticism we have received while, at the same time, still enabling us to fulfil all our varied obligations as the second pillar of our parliamentary democracy, continuing to complement and assist the work of the other place.
A cap of fewer than 600—at any rate initially—might reduce our capacity to fulfil all our responsibilities. We should also bear in mind that the fewer the Members of this House, the greater, proportionately, would become the government payroll. I feel sure that the House would not wish to see our capacity to hold the Government to account undermined.
I particularly welcome the evolutionary process and its sustainability, embraced by the committee, to carry us from our ever-expanding present state to one of gradual reduction while avoiding the painful issues of specific terms or age limits for present Members of the House. Getting the reduction pattern right is as much an art as a science. Just as 600 Members seems right as a target cap—at any rate at this stage—so too does the two-out, one-in formula have a rigorous fairness about it, spreading the pain, if such it be, across each of the major groupings.
A 15-year implementation cycle is probably the maximum time that the urgency of this matter would allow. It could also be the minimum length of time needed to achieve the gradualism that constitutional change should always seek and to sustain an important sense of continuity. Similarly, the 15-year term proposed for new Peers, referred to by my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, feels right. It affords fairness and balance both to the operation of the business of the House and to the new Peers. As my noble friend said, it offers career fulfilment in public service to them and the benefits of a regular injection of new talent to the House.
Since the last reduction in our numbers 20 years ago, the average daily attendance rate of Members has risen by 50%, and it is possible that a further rise could result in due course from the changes now proposed. If so, the cap of 600 Peers might eventually be further reduced.
One matter that concerned me before I had had a chance to read the report was the mention in early media coverage that the changes proposed would reflect the post-election political balance in the other place. However, having now read the way in which this would happen, and to what extent, I am reassured—indeed, supportive. The strength of this House lies in its differences from the other place. We should never be an echo Chamber. Clearly, from what is proposed, that will not happen. From a starting-point of the political diversity of the present House, the averaging effect of the 15-year term on the five-year electoral cycle should keep any threat of dominance under manageable control, and the important principle of no party having an overall majority will be preserved.
This report seems to avoid the pitfalls that have beset other proposals in recent times for the reform of your Lordships’ House. It seems to me to provide a long-term, sustainable way forward, while protecting our continuing ability to fulfil all our duties and functions and play a full role within our parliamentary democracy. I hope that it will be widely welcomed by all who have a part to play and that it will be implemented rapidly, while it can still be done.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Luce wanted to speak in this debate but has been prevented from doing so by a family commitment. However, he asked me to associate him with my remarks, so your Lordships are getting two expressions of support for the Burns proposals for the price of one.
In her speech in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, a year ago, the Leader of the House reminded us of the Government’s position that, while comprehensive reform is not a priority for this Parliament—it was the last Parliament then—the size of the House is an issue to be addressed. Indeed, the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2017 election repeated that position. It said:
“We … will continue to ensure the … House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size”.
Despite the notorious ambiguity of election manifestos, I do not think that the Government intended to increase the effectiveness of the House by increasing its size.
The committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Burns, containing very senior members of the main parties in this House, has agreed on a way of addressing the size of the House. Indeed, if legislation is not available—today the Leader confirmed that that is the case for the duration of this Parliament—it is, in my view, the only practicable way forward, and it is now for the Government to fulfil the words in their policy and manifesto.
As has been pointed out, that requires restraint on the part of the Prime Minister in making appointments. It is blindingly obvious that, in the absence of legislation to reduce large swathes of the present House, restraint in appointments is necessary if the size of the House is not to grow inexorably.
We are told that a further list of appointments is about to be published but I do not share the apocalyptic view expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I believe that this can be regarded as a legacy issue arising from the May general election that does not inhibit the adoption of the approach in the Burns report.
In the debate a year ago, the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition agreed that, for any proposals for reform to have a chance of success, they will have to command a broad consensus around the House. I believe that, had there been a vote today, there would have been overwhelming support for the Burns proposals.
It is the Government’s policy to address the size of the House, and the Burns report gives them a practical means of doing so with the ardent support of a majority of this House. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, very fairly said, the Prime Minister has shown restraint in exercising patronage since she took up office. So there are grounds for optimism. Let us hope that we are pushing at an open door. It would be a relief if the Government were to say so.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, following the most informative, positive and engaging course of the debate so far, I start with two simple questions. First, is there a problem? Secondly, if there is, does the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee provide a solution to that problem? My answer to both is yes.
There is clearly a problem with the size of the House. The number of Members is such that it creates a problem of resources, both in terms of space and cost. We have problems fitting everybody in, not just physically in the Chamber but it is also difficult when there are too many who wish to speak. It is difficult to have a debate if speakers are confined to two or three minutes each. There is no real engagement between those taking part and no opportunity to develop a sustained line of argument.
Today’s special debate has been a joy to follow and I thank the Lord Speaker for making all this possible. However, there is an ever-bigger problem: public perception. Those who argue that there is not a problem ignore the fact that size is not an abstract concern but something that will be used by critics whenever they take issue with what we have done. We will always be open to attack by those who wish to get rid of the existing House, but also when we take controversial decisions. It will not just be a case of saying, “The Lords got it wrong on the merits”, but rather, “Look at that bloated House—a drain on public resources”. If we are to be criticised, let us at least be criticised for what we do rather than for matters unrelated to the quality of debate and decisions. As long as there is a perception that we are too big, and as long as it appears that we are unalert to the issue and not doing something about it, we will be criticised by the media and others.
It is true that the size of the House is not something that keeps most citizens awake at night—we should remember that—but to say that is to miss the point about our vulnerability to media criticism. We remain vulnerable so long as we are so big and, equally important, as long as we are seen not to be tackling the issue. We have to address it. Tackling size is necessary, but it is not sufficient to address how we are seen. We need to do other things, not least on standards. However, doing something about size is a good and necessary start.
Does the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee provide a solution? Yes. It may not be the ideal, but I doubt if we will achieve that. As has been said already, it is important that the best is not the enemy of the good. The report before us provides a sensible and ingenious way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues are to be truly congratulated on devising a scheme that is within our gift. It is not dependent on legislation and therefore not dependent on Government support and time, or indeed the support of the other place. We can make progress; we should make progress; and it is important that we are seen to make progress.
I appreciate that it will take time to reach the goal set in the report, but it is important to begin the steps necessary to get there. If we say no, there is nothing realistic to be achieved. In this Parliament, it is this report or it is nothing. I remind your Lordships that in the Parliament of 2010-15, the Government came up with a major scheme of reform. It never made it out of the other place. More incremental reform was pushed by Members of this House, especially the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber—I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cormack and, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. This was achieved in the form of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 and the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015. We cannot expect to get legislation during this Parliament to tackle the size of the House, but we can again achieve incremental reform, this time by our own efforts. We should grasp the opportunity; we must grasp the opportunity. We cannot wait for another Parliament or the one after that.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee on producing an excellent report which I welcome with great enthusiasm. When I was a teenager, a long time ago, I used to think that all the problems of the world could be dealt with at one fell swoop—the big bang theory, let us just get on with it. I have learned wisdom since then and I much prefer a piecemeal approach. This report is a good reflection of what I think is a piecemeal approach. Many of us, in the fullness of time, would like reforms to go further, but for the moment it is as good as we can get: for heaven’s sake, let us get on with it. If I give voice to one or two reservations, it is only to say that I have those reservations but I am prepared to drop them in the interests of getting this report accepted. For example, we might, one day, think that 600 is too large and 450 might be a more effective number, but getting there would be too difficult and I think the committee was right to say 600.
I appreciate that an elected Chamber, which is what I believe in although I think I am in a minority, was not in the committee’s terms of reference. I simply mention it in passing so that those outside groups that are lobbying hard will not think I have sold the pass, except for many years. There are, of course, other ways of getting the numbers down which have not, perhaps, been fully mentioned. I was not here for all of the debate this morning but when we eventually get on with making the decision of what to do about this building and we move out, maybe that will be a good excuse, or pretext; a lot of people, I believe, will want to retire then. In a way, some of the work of this committee will be done for it if we can only get on and make a decision about the future of this building. I have talked to lots of colleagues from all parties and they all say, “Yes, when our day comes we will probably want to retire from the House”. It will happen that way.
In 1999, when we reduced the number of hereditaries, I was in Northern Ireland for much of that time so I did not follow it all, but I think the decision was for the hereditaries in each party group to vote for the retention of some of their members. That is how we got it done and I suppose one way of naming that would be “a circular firing squad”, which has its merits—it is rather quick, but it can also be rather painful, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did not suggest that.
I think my noble friend Lord Foulkes said this morning that there was a confusion between the titles we get as working Peers and the titles that are given as honours. The report actually takes note of that and suggests a way forward. I have found it very difficult, over the years I have been here, to explain to people that I did not get an honour to be here, I am simply a Labour Party hack who became a working Peer. People say, “Oh, it must be an honour”. I say, “No, it is not”. It is a silly argument to have but it is a confusion we ought to get rid of and I think we can do it without detracting from support. At one point I made a suggestion that colleagues thought was a joke, but I made it quite seriously. At that time, in one of the many debates we had on the subject, I suggested that if people wished to retain their title they should leave the House, and if they wanted to stay in the House they should drop their titles. I think it would work. I am not suggesting we weaken the report by going down that path; I just threw it in because we want a debate about all these issues.
I have just one or two quick comments. I notice that the report, very sensibly, says that Cross-Benchers will retain a certain, fixed percentage of the total membership of what will then be a smaller House. I was told this morning by the right reverend Prelate that the Bishops are here under obligation because of statute. I wonder, however, whether they would not be able to voluntarily reduce their numbers in the same way that the Cross-Benchers do. I seek in support of that Appendix 5, which talks about “Unusual circumstances”:
“Second, parties may for whatever reason refuse to take up their allocation of appointments”.
I am not saying the Bishops’ Bench is a party, but maybe it could do it voluntarily to keep in line with what is happening.
Finally, as regards the remaining hereditaries, we have a wonderful Bill put forward by my noble friend Lord Grocott. We should accept that Bill—it would not detract from this report. There are lots of things that we can do ever so quickly—please let us get on with it.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, I will not rise to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on the hereditary Peers, but like so many others here this afternoon, I would like to welcome this debate on the report that the excellent committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has produced. I congratulate it on finding a way around many of the apparent problems.
In our debate just over a year ago, there was much agreement that the size of the House should be reduced. This was accompanied by many suggestions, some good and some less helpful, as to the means. Anyway, now the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has told us how. One of the main clever aspects of his work is that no primary legislation is needed to effect meaningful change. No one here today will lose the rights to attend, participate or vote.
The other great beauty, as I see it, is that under these proposals the reduction in numbers will be kept at a target of, say, 600 Members and not allowed to regrow. Other speakers have and will, I am sure, go into the details of the report’s proposals and comment on some aspects. I do not wish to dwell on these today. Surely our main aim now is to show our agreement to the thrust of the plan and to welcome it.
We who work here know what our role is and we know what this Chamber does. So it is important that this is kept firmly in mind as any changes evolve as a result of this report. Equally to my mind, the general public must appreciate and acknowledge, through media commentators and observation, the work that we do—the scrutinising, the revising and the reports that we make to government. To achieve this positive shift in attitude, we must demonstrate our willingness to change, even if change brings small, less welcome individual disbenefits. That we are willing to suggest positive change of our own volition surely demonstrates this ethos: an outlook of spirit which we can be proud to broadcast outside this Palace.
I expect some may criticise the timeframe envisaged—some have already—but to achieve a lasting result, this is surely of little importance, even in the fast-moving world we live in. The demonstrable resulting size will be a practical solution to our current embarrassment.
Many speakers have gone out of their way to recognise the supremacy of the other place. It is vital to state this, and not to challenge that by having an elected second Chamber which is bound to flex its democratic muscles. So, along with others, I do hope the Government’s willingness to enter into the spirit of this report will not be tested by any short-term difficulties that may arise with imminent controversial Bills, nor indeed that the Prime Minister will be tempted to pre-empt the position by a new list of Peers. Indeed, I look forward to further exploration of a Prime Minister’s power to appoint non-working Peers to lifetime titles that do not involve a seat in this Chamber. This was a point that was touched on only briefly in the report.
In my short time here I have often noticed the splendid co-operation between the usual channels, the parties, and the groups. It is this spirit that will be needed to drive this on, together with government thinking in the long term, not just party advantage.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who remarked that there is no Minister to wind up. I am uncertain as to how the Government’s opinion will be demonstrated. But I hope that we will learn this quickly to enable a swift adoption of these proposals. This is an unusual chance to make important and worthwhile changes to an ancient system, and I hope the Government and the House will grasp the opportunity.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it was very tempting, as one of the newest Members of your Lordships’ House, to let those more experienced in the ways of this place get on with it. However, the pace of change suggested in the report is so seductively slow that there will not be many of us left to bear witness to the effect of those changes.
Many believe both that the House has become too large and that it does not reflect the voting preferences of the electorate over the past decade or two. In the debate last December, the overwhelming majority of your Lordships agreed that something needed to be done—but what? I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that ditching the title and the building would reduce the numbers substantially and quickly. However, I acknowledge the hard work and the depth of thought that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee have given to the production of the report, and I pay tribute to the Lord Speaker for initiating their work.
I admit I find it hard to accept the suggestion of a 15-year tenure as appropriate, when in that time many of us will not have reached even the average age of the committee. I observe that with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and one MEP, all the members of the committee have come here from the other place and may therefore be looking at this issue from a particular perspective. The average age of our Lords Ministers is now 58; five are under 50. Some may go on to commercial life and then return, bringing back valuable expertise—as, indeed, may others. We should not be prepared to cast aside the knowledge acquired from whatever field—public service, academia, commerce or defence—so lightly.
I agree that we need to achieve a steady state, reducing the rise in numbers while allowing the membership to be refreshed, but why not introduce a notional upper age limit of, say, 80, beyond which you could be voted back on to your relevant party’s Bench in five-year terms, should you and your Bench wish to retain your contribution? Can we also not agree to adjust the proportional representation of each party in line with, say, the averages of the last four general elections, again keeping the Cross-Benchers and Bishops but simultaneously reducing the numbers on the other Benches within a much shorter timeframe? Your Lordships found a modus operandi that worked, although not without considerable pain, in 1999. Can we not employ a similar method now? Unless we do something soon, the reputation of the House as one of the finest second Chambers in the world in terms of its membership, output, committees and ability to persuade Governments to think again will be overshadowed by the truly false impression of a bloated and self-interested inflexibility.
Lord Radice (Lab)
My Lords, I start with a confession: I was not altogether enthusiastic about coming to this House. I had much enjoyed my time in the House of Commons and I thought the Lords might be a bit of a comedown. I know that is a terrible thing to say to a number of Peers here but that was what I thought. My wife, like many spouses of Members of Parliament, had borne much of the strain of her husband’s career and thought that enough was really enough. It was only the persuasive powers of the then Prime Minister, who said that there ought to be more pro-Europeans in the upper House, which convinced me that I ought to accept a peerage.
However, 16 years in this House have made me understand the importance of the House of Lords in the parliamentary system—above all, its role as a revising Chamber. There are often extremely good debates in this House. Of course, we are having one today. The Select Committees, as I know from experience, do excellent work. But it is the contribution that the Lords makes to the legislative process which is of most value to our parliamentary democracy. All too often Bills come to the Lords in a very rough and ready state and our efforts ensure that they go back to the Commons usually much improved.
As the elected Chamber, the Commons has the last word—I agree with the previous speaker—but it always needs the revising eye of the Lords, and long may that exist. However, going from that to arguing that for the Lords to carry out its job it also needs nearly 800 Members is clearly absurd. As noble Lords have pointed out, it exposes us to constant ridicule, so much so that when people talk about the House of Lords they immediately show a picture of a meeting of the Chinese Communist Party, and I think I have had enough of that.
The question, which I think we have answered today, is about how we reduce the Lords to a more sensible size. I share the view of most noble Lords who have spoken that the Burns committee—I congratulate the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee—has come up with an ingenious and elegant set of interlocking proposals which give us a real chance of effective reform. Of course, there are formidable hurdles in the way and we should not underestimate them. They include the prime ministerial power of patronage, and Prime Ministers do not like giving up that sort of thing, the temptation to pursue party advantage when speaking as a member of a party, and I know that that will continue to exist, and the self-interest of individual Peers. All these are factors that will come into play. However, I agree with the conclusion of the report. The Burns proposals have the great merit of reducing the size of the Lords while maintaining a cap of 600 Members in future and providing a sufficient turnover of Members to refresh the House and rebalance it in line with general elections. They will also guarantee a fixed proportion of independent Cross-Bench Peers. These proposals should have our support. They will certainly make the Lords more effective and considerably enhance our reputation. The House should now unite behind the principles contained in the Burns report.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of a vote on a Motion, speaking in a debate is the only way we can express a view, even though it makes for a degree of repetition. Nevertheless, I register my strong support for all three main propositions in this report: a reduction in the size of House to around 600 Members by two out, one in; once that is reached, terms limited to 15 years; and allocation of places to fill vacancies to reflect the general election results.
The beauty of this approach is that it is consistent with a House that complements the Commons rather than duplicates it and scrutinises legislation while accepting the primacy of the Commons. For this role, I believe an appointed House is more appropriate than an elected one, better still if, as this scheme proposes, a mechanism is built in to incorporate over time the changing balance of power at the ballot box. However, for those who still hanker after an elected House, no options are closed off, so that argument for delay fails.
There are several loose ends, particularly around those groups whose numbers are set by legislation. First there are the Lords Spiritual. In the new arrangement, they would become even more overrepresented, but they bring one vital element: they have the best geographical coverage, in England at least—a domain in which this House is weak. Eventually, as they recognise, a permanent solution is needed which reduces the number of Bishops while providing for other faiths. In the meantime a solution which retains their ability to speak for their region and to operate their duty rota would be an understanding that they would exercise restraint in voting in their full numbers.
Next, there is the position of the hereditary Peers, which will become even more anomalous. Some may argue that we should not do anything until we can legislate for this. I take the opposite view. We should make progress where we can. In the meantime the position of the hereditaries will become so indefensible that the wise among them—and there are many—will come to accept legislation to end by-elections. Some may argue that this would violate the 1999 agreement, but that agreement was recognised as an interim agreement pending major reform. This is major reform and 20 years is a decent time for an interim solution to run.
Next, there is a loophole. Someone who has been urged to retire by their party group should not be allowed to dodge the bullet by becoming non-affiliated or, worse, eating into the Cross-Bench quota.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I believe we also need to make a much clearer distinction between the honours system, which recognises people’s past service, and membership of the Lords, which should be a commitment to future service. Former Ministers and MPs bring vital experience to this House, but long-serving MPs should not be rewarded with an honour unless they commit to serving in this House in the same way as other people. In my view, the suggestion of honorary peerages perpetuates the confusion. What is the logic, in the 21st century, of giving someone a life title in return for a fixed-term appointment? I personally look forward to a world in which honours and offices are recognised only by letters after one’s name rather than by name changes
Finally, we need to recognise that just as we would be acting voluntarily, so too would the Prime Minister. Some may advise her not to surrender any degree of patronage, on the grounds that she might need it if the Government were having difficulties securing their business. However, although swamping the House is never going to solve that problem, it would do damage to the reputation of the House. There will be a great deal of detail to sort out, but I believe this debate has demonstrated a clear message to the Government and a clear mandate to take things forward.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to join many noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee on their report. It is very difficult to disagree with any of the facts in the noble Lord’s report, and the conclusions would appear to anybody to be both reasonable and balanced—which is an unusual thing in a modern parliamentary report. It is in fact an extremely clever answer to the question posed by the Lord Speaker following your Lordships’ debate last year. I take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, about the ridiculous comparison between your Lordships’ House and the second Chamber in China, but I remain to be convinced that the size of this House is the key question we need to be addressing.
I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House—entirely coincidentally, standing almost in the same spot I am standing in today—about 30 years ago on the Second Reading of the poll tax Bill. As your Lordships can imagine, the House was quite full on that day. In fact, looking around it this evening—it was probably about the same time of day—I think that the House on that occasion was rather fuller. The speakers list, however, was not quite so long. The issue was, in case your Lordships have forgotten, slightly controversial at the time—but, extraordinarily, nobody speaking in that debate or commenting afterwards mentioned anything about the House being too big. I ask myself: too big for what? Too big for its vital role as a revising Chamber, perhaps?
In the last two or three debates that your Lordships have had on reform, which your Lordships enjoy debating from time to time, I have not heard one speaker say anything except what a good job this House does in revising. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain referred only a few moments ago to the high quality of the debates. So if the debates are good, we revise very well and our Select Committees are so respected, presumably we are not too big for the job we are doing. Or is it perhaps that we are too big for the convenience of Members?
My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that perception is important—and he is right, it is important. So maybe it is the perception rather than the reality. The perception undoubtedly is that from time to time we are too full. Occasionally when you come into your Lordships’ House at Question Time, it does seem to resemble rather more closely a bar-room brawl than a serious debating Chamber. That, I suspect, has less to do with the quantity of Members and more to do with the quality of conduct. This problem could easily be solved if new Members coming down the Corridor did not bring the more excitable excesses of that House with them—amusing though they may be—but rather chose to leave them behind. That is, after all, what most people dislike most about politics and what causes the reputation of the other place to fall—which, therefore, obviously affects the reputation of this House.
To my way of thinking—your Lordships will correct me if I am wrong—in the frequent debates that we have on Lords reform there is only one area of consensus: only one thing on which everyone agrees. It is that is that it would be ridiculous to have a second Chamber that emulated the first. It would be absurd to repeat in one Chamber the others. However, that is not my primary concern. My primary concern is that, over time, with 15-year terms, this House would slowly turn into a House that crept closer in its manner and its composition to the other place—which, I believe, and I think the House will agree, would be pointless and universally opposed.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that a 15-year term would be extremely unattractive to those who are early or in the middle of successful and varied careers. Rather, it would be attractive to those in the autumn of their careers looking for something to do in the last 15 years of their working life. If we were to go down that route, we would be in danger of turning into reality what this House has frequently been accused of being: a retirement home—and in this case a retirement home mainly for Members of another place.
I do not expect that everybody will agree with my views. In fact, I have no doubt that most people will disagree with them, and that they are out of step with the views of many in this House. However, it is my understanding that my role in this House is not to say what is easy or comfortable, and that this House’s role is not to be easy and comfortable with itself. What we are here to do is to face the difficult choice of saying the things that we believe ought to be said, even if we believe them to be unpopular.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have rightly done, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the members of his committee on the imaginative and thoughtful way in which they undertook their sensitive task. Their report proposes an evolutionary development of your Lordships’ House that addresses some key concerns, and in my view it does so in a way that strikes a good balance between a number of conflicting tensions. It will not satisfy everyone, but no proposal ever could. It clearly leaves some people feeling dissatisfied on certain points, but that is the nature of a successful compromise—and I suspect that a compromise is what most people seek.
However, we should start by reminding ourselves that we are addressing changes to an institution that by and large has worked very well over the past few years. The most important measure of success in an organisation is to be found not in its internal structure and processes but in its output, and the output of your Lordships’ House—most obviously its scrutiny of draft legislation and the detailed investigations of its committees—has been workmanlike and valuable. Some would argue for a second Chamber with other tasks and wider powers, some for a more biddable House, but these are deeper constitutional issues than we are meant to consider today. Within its present remit, your Lordships’ House has, I believe, performed its tasks well. Some might ask why, if it works so well, we should seek to change things. The question, and it is a very important question, is whether the House could continue to be successful under arrangements that were more efficient and more acceptable to the citizens whom it serves and who, rightly, sit in judgment on it.
When one examines any successful constitutional arrangement, one can never be quite sure why it works. It is an accumulation of intellectual theory, historical accident, social development and, above all, a nation’s sense of itself—of its internal mythology, if you will. That is why experiments that have sought to transplant the precise constitutional system of one nation to another have so seldom been successful. Uprooted from the soil in which it has grown, any given system seldom flourishes elsewhere. We should therefore be cautious in changing our own arrangements, odd though they might seem to an outsider. Our constitutional system has grown and evolved in our national soil, and evolution is not about what is best but about what works.
However, evolution, while gradual, is also a continual process. Just as with organisms, organisations that do not adapt and evolve usually die out. I believe that what is proposed in the report before us today is a sensible evolutionary step. In my view, the key problem that it addresses is not the present size of the House as such. Under the committee’s proposals, the numbers active in this place at any one time may even become greater than they are now. The problem is, rather, the potential of an unbounded system eventually to reach proportions that are deemed absurd by anybody’s measure. The report therefore introduces boundaries, and sets out ways in which these could be achieved and maintained.
In doing so, the report draws a number of lines—for example, the idea of a 15-year term. Whenever lines are drawn, one can always find unfortunate cases that fall just the wrong side of the line. Moving the line does not alter this; it simply changes the identity of the unfortunate cases. If we are to move to a bounded system—and I believe that we should—we will introduce some consequences that are unwelcome. This is inevitable.
I believe that the report before us strikes a sensible balance in this regard. Of course one could argue with the quanta that it sets—but similar arguments would be made even if a different set of numbers were chosen. It is not comprehensive, and it leaves unanswered several difficult questions, many of which have been touched on today. We shall need to return to these in time. But as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, learned at an early age, if we seek to solve all problems at once, we end by solving none. We should remember that evolution is a continuing process, not an end state in itself. The proposals in the report represent in their own right a significant step forward, and I support them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the pressure, passion and intent of the report, but I am afraid that I must start from a different premise from most. I do not agree that there is much logic—I emphasise that word—in seeking to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. I would rather have seen time and effort spent explaining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said she does, to the public and the relatively small number of people interested in this issue, that there are huge distinctions between this House and the House of Commons—and, indeed, every other legislative chamber around the world.
Members of the House of Commons are paid to represent their constituents, some to undertake ministerial business, but all to focus their efforts on their primary role in life, which is in their respective Chamber. Unlike what happens anywhere else in the world, your Lordships’ Chamber comprises individuals many, if not most, of whom are active in other areas of life. They bring to this House extraordinary levels of expertise and knowledge, which can only be current if the custom is maintained whereby they are not expected to be full-time here but are allowed to fulfil their other responsibilities.
According to a recent YouGov poll, people are “overwhelmingly against” MPs having second jobs. Only 26% suggested that they should have second jobs, and in February Labour tabled a motion banning second jobs in the Commons, but not in your Lordships’ House—with good reason. I for one would not like to see an upper House full of professional parliamentarians, and to achieve that objective we need a large pool of talent, from which we can draw, of people with current awareness of many issues. Our attendance rates will therefore always be lower than the Commons, as we carry out our other roles, so we should be much more positive and persuasive about why there is every logical justification for having a sufficient number. I do not know whether that would be 650. I would be interested to know what would happen if, as I suspect will happen, the Commons vote for their numbers to stay at 650.
I am also uncomfortable with the slightly “I’m all right, Jack” approach of this report for incumbents, and I believe it is up to us to create a system whereby those in your Lordships’ House who do not attend sufficiently, do not participate sufficiently in this Chamber, or abuse their position in any way, are no longer offered this privilege of public service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, hinted, HOLAC might be expanded, or a new commission created, to review this much more carefully. It has to be clear to the public that this is not a sinecure for those who have left active work or service. For those who say that a larger House is too expensive, the answer is not difficult. We have an arbitrary fixed sum of £300 per day, plus out-of-town expenses. Let us consider reviewing this, possibly imaginatively, for those beyond working age.
Finally the report does not address the mix in this House, other than the political mix.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I stand corrected, if that is the case.
It would be good if an analysis of this House’s composition—ex-MPs, ex-civil servants, lawyers, academics and, in particular, business and union executives—were used for the selection of future Peers to gauge its real representative make-up, so that we can do our main work of improving legislation, holding government to account and debating important issues.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I am proud to be a Member of the House of Lords, but we needed this important debate about the House and the UK system of government, following the excellent report from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It was interesting that the committee had outside experts, including my colleague Professor Meg Russell of University College. I hope that the debates about this report will be widely publicised and may well even affect intelligently the views of the public about the House of Lords.
The report does not include any surveys of the views of the public and outside bodies that have considered the future of the House of Lords. I am sure that other noble Lords have had critical views expressed to them, as I often have, about how Members of the Lords have been selected, and other critical remarks. Surveys in fact show that a majority of people think that the UK’s second Chamber should be elected in one way or another so as to reflect the views of the whole British electorate. But even if Members of the Chamber continue to be appointed, as in the new scheme proposed in the Burns report, there are still significant criticisms that the public want to make.
First, I do not think that the continuation of hereditary Peers has popular support; nor is there much support for how Members are selected. The report suggests, in a very reasonable way, how to reduce the numbers, but we cannot exclude the possibility that a single party might dominate the Commons and the Lords. As others have said, too many Members in this Chamber will continue to come from the south-east of the UK. Dare I say it, following the previous speaker—there may be too many financiers, especially when the Conservatives dominate? There are too few women and too few on the political Benches with important specialised knowledge and experience. The Cross Benches are full of experienced and knowledgeable people; we need more of the same on the political Benches. For example, scientists are well represented on the Cross Benches, but less than a handful of scientists and medical doctors have been appointed to the political Benches since I came here in 2000. Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin were great scientists but they were also in Parliament and members of a political party. They showed that scientists can be all three at the same time—this is regarded generally by the public as an extraordinary idea—as is quite common among political and scientific people who are councillors in local government. The point has also been made about the shortage of appointments of engineers, industrial managers, practical entrepreneurs and others. I look forward, when I resign, to my position being taken up by a Labour scientist and engineer.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, it is my habit when looking at questions of this kind to look across what is done in other countries. I am afraid that in this particular case it was rather chastening. In Italy, for example, the second Chamber numbers 325 members, while in France it is 321 and in Germany it is 69. In Canada, the second Chamber numbers 104; in the USA it is, of course, 100—and in Australia, rather a large country, it is 76. Admittedly, some of those people are elected under their systems, but some are also appointed and have the same kind of arrangements for remuneration that we do. Even worse, we are of course larger than the primary Chamber. We are one of only three countries in the world where the second Chamber is larger than the primary Chamber, the other two being Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso—not countries that we should be comfortable to be compared with.
As the Leader of the House pointed out, the question of size does affect our reputation. It is damaging and will continue to be so. The noble Lord, Lord Radice, summed it up rather well when he said that he was fed up with the picture of the Chinese Communist Party at play—or at work—which we see every time. I am afraid that that is there and will continue while we are at our present size and nothing is done about it. That is the outstanding issue. All the other points that have been made are secondary to this major one, which we have to address.
It is important that we are seen to address it ourselves, and this is the right report to do that. As has been said, it has the magic touch of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I was beginning to think he should take charge of our European Union trade negotiations after he completed his stint on this. I am not sure he would welcome that, but his ability to get a consensus in an agreeable and skilful way is widely admired. We would certainly get a better tone than Mr Barnier has injected.
This is a serious, balanced and practical report. The Prime Minister is a serious, balanced and practical woman, and I hope she will respond positively.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, in general I lend my full support to the Burns report, having been a member of the Norton group since its inception. However, it is not going so far as some of us would like, through primary legislation. Many noble Lords signed up to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which, in its original form, wanted to make the IAC statutory. This report is a not-too-subtle reminder of the excessive power of patronage in this House and presents a straight challenge to Downing Street not to appoint too many more Peers in the new year, just as we are contemplating genuine reform. Burns presents a firm step forward, and I am sure we can find ways of taking that step quickly.
But it is hardly a revolutionary report: we are only going back, at 600, to the number that we were at before. It is an irony that so many of us should have to attend today, when we could be discussing homelessness at Christmas, or Cyril Ramaphosa’s future, or anything else. Why can we not all sign a letter and just proceed with it? We had the debate a year ago.
My main concern about this report is that it may strengthen the case for more regular attendance. As a Cross-Bencher this worries me, because we do not want to lose able people of considerable experience simply by requiring them to attend regularly. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope made this point more fluently. The report admits it, but somewhat reluctantly. It needs to be repeated that the strength of this House, and its distinction from another place, is rooted in the expertise and special knowledge of many Members who only attend when they have to. I refer predominantly, but of course not exclusively, to non-political Members.
By the way, I warm to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the regions, but I know this cannot be done except through an elected House. His point about splitting the peerage has been made before, many times, but it does not lose its validity for all that.
Beyond this, I would like to see more attention paid to the age of retirement. Here I share doubts about the 15 years: I cannot see that we should go in the opposite direction to existing legislation. I cannot see a two-tier House being acceptable or workable. I would not recommend a fixed age, but agree with the broad principle of retiring, say, after 80. I would be the last to ask any elderly, articulate Peer to step down—the magical names Avebury and Walton come to mind—but those of us now passing their mid-70s should be aware that most of us do not perform as well at 80 as at 70. Here I find myself only a little more radical than the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, but not half as revolutionary as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who calls for a clear-out at 80.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, the House of Lords Library assured me that if we did that next time, 204 would be able to leave at a stroke.
The Earl of Sandwich
That would be a splendid result. Peers in that age group should at least be talking to someone in the House—possibly a human resource desk or, better still, someone in every group and party who will already have that expertise. The Whips will of course have ulterior motives for removing some of their more independent colleagues, so it would be better to choose someone else, respected and preferably in the same generation—with, one hopes, the support of their party leader.
As a further incentive, I should like to revive discussion of the paper written by the former Clerk of the Parliaments, which shows that the House could afford, say, an average year’s expenses to tide over Members who are genuinely in difficulty—those without pensions or other resources. This would be a net saving.
On hereditary Peers, I will say only, along with most of the Norton group, that the time may be approaching when we review by-elections, but this report is not a platform for that conversation.
Finally, I am genuinely sorry to hear that the Bishops are seriously contemplating a cut in their own numbers. They rarely appear in large numbers and, in that sense, they are well balanced by those of other faiths whom we warmly welcome. I hope that the Bishops will reconsider their position.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, this proposal is based on the assumption that the number of Peers in this House should be reduced to 600. The report comments that,
“there is widespread agreement on the urgency of addressing its size”.
If the word “widespread” refers to a narrow Westminster village, it is correct. But outside of that tiny constituency, and possibly one or two academics, there is zero interest in the country in the size of this House. People are not that interested in us. With the greatest respect, there is no general desire or need to reduce the number of Peers.
If I did not know better, I would think that the proposal was made by Peers who so rarely go into the Chamber that they have not seen that for more than 90% of the time, the Chamber is 90% empty. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose original suggestion it was, should certainly know that, given that there are many occasions on which he has given his views on a wide variety of subjects to the great benefit of what is so often a virtually empty House.
The report centres strongly on the number of Peers, but minimal attention is given to the work that Peers carry out, which is surely an essential ingredient when reviewing the size of the House. As the report recognises, Bills in the other place are time limited in Committee, which makes the House of Lords’ role as a revising Chamber of huge importance. That requires a decent-sized pool of Peers in order to have a sufficient number with knowledge of the subject matter of the Bill who are prepared to spend the time in Committee going through the legislation. As your Lordships know, more often than not, this requires spending six or seven hours a day for a number of days, and not always with the respite of a dinner hour.
In practice, this House already operates with 600 Peers rather than the total of 800-plus. This makes a reduction to 600 either pointless or possibly an impediment to the future working of the House. There have been, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out, only three Divisions in the history of the House in which more than 600 Members have voted. The average daily attendance last Session was 484. The average vote in Divisions is 396.
In terms of costs, 98 Peers—12% of the House—do not claim any allowance at all, and in all, 20% of your Lordships claim less than £5,000 per annum. Reducing the number of Peers is unlikely to have any impact on the cost.
Comments have been made that there is insufficient room in the House for the present number of Peers, but I would remind your Lordships that there are 650 Members of the other place, and the generally accepted maximum number of MPs who can sit in that Chamber at any one time is 427.
Your Lordships should carefully consider whether, under the proposal, there is a risk, albeit in the future, that those putting in the time and effort are the ones pushed out after 15 years, leaving only those Peers who do not frequently attend the House to carry on the valuable work. This House works well as it is and any reduction might prejudice this with no discernible benefit.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, I put down my name to speak in this debate for one reason only: to put on record my enthusiastic support for this report. It is, if I may say so, a masterpiece of skill, wisdom and tact.
The desirability of a reduction in our numbers is, I would suggest, obvious; indeed, it is more than desirable—it is imperative if this is to be a sensible institution. I hope that the response of the vast majority of those taking part in this debate will carry the weight that it deserves with the Prime Minister.
I would like to add one footnote. I believe that those who were involved in the discussions that led to the Constitutional Reform Act shared what lawyers describe as a legitimate expectation. This was that, on retirement, any member of the Supreme Court who so wished would be made a Member of this House. That legitimate expectation has not been met. It is in these circumstances that I am prepared to support, despite some reservations, the proposal made in paragraph 77 of the report, that members of the Supreme Court should receive life peerages on appointment.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s great novel, Il Gattopardo—the leopard—was published posthumously in 1958. It became the biggest seller in the history of Italian publishing. Visconti even made a film of the novel. It is a chronicle of an aristocratic prince in Sicily at a time of civil war and revolution. There is one line in the novel which to this day captures the imagination of scholars, academics, students, writers and readers alike. They struggle with one sentence in the book, a sentence which I believe has some relevance for your Lordships’ debate today. Tancredi, a young nobleman, remarks to his uncle, the prince:
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”.
This central contradiction continues to baffle the literati, but clearly they have not had the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee, who seem to me in their report to achieve a perfect resolution of the Tancredi contradiction. The Burns report recommendations undoubtedly ensure continuity for this House’s assets and values and its subservient role in our democratic governance, while introducing some practical and much needed, and much talked about, reforms.
Those gripped by the Netflix series “The Crown” can see how carefully the monarchy has adapted and changed in order to preserve its essential value to the UK. Even the BBC, for goodness’ sake, has adapted and changed without losing sight of its mission and importance. It is time that your Lordships’ House evolved. The Burns report offers the best chance for it to reform itself. We should embrace it because we may not get another chance for years to come.
I have one small criticism, of course—being from the media, I have to find some criticism. While I am in total support of the Burns recommendations, I have only one small regret. The noble Lord might have taken the opportunity to propose the introduction of Radio 4’s “Just a Minute” rules into the Chamber, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Leigh. You get gonged out for hesitation, deviation or repetition.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, that is a daunting finale to follow, but I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. This morning when I left my Select Committee meeting to come to the Chamber, the special adviser said, “Are you off, then, to save the House of Lords?”. To be honest, I had not thought about it in that way, but that might actually be where we are.
In the public’s eye, as far as the House of Lords goes, size matters. There is clear evidence both from polling and from the media that when Prime Ministers of the past—I shall not name any names—stuffed the House with Members and it grew, public confidence in the House immediately dropped markedly. Today we have a real chance to do something productive to help ensure that that vital public support for the House continues. As the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, it might be one of our last chances. Not only do I wholly support the excellent and cunning report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns—he is, and has been for many years, very cunning—but I believe that failing to implement it would be a further nail in our reputational coffin.
I confess that I would have liked the target size of the House to be smaller: 400 seems to me to be plenty, especially if all Peers are involved, committed and here. I would like to see the end of the charade that is the hereditary Peers’ elections, so I will put forward a proposition. I know that it is enshrined in legislation, but if we are in the spirit of committing to voluntary reduction and change, why cannot the hereditary Peers—or the wider electorate, if that is the case—simply take the law into their own hands? If the electorate for the hereditary Peers’ elections simply refused to vote, we could get a system of two out before one in very rapidly in that field as well.
In common with many Members of the House, I believe that we have to get started. The Burns report is an excellent start, and we should simply get on with it. Much depends on the honour of the Prime Minister and successive Prime Ministers, which is a rather uncertain ask. We need to have some sort of orchestrated precision system, a bit like—for noble Lords who have seen it—the system for exchanging spies in the movie “Bridge of Spies”. We will march out our outgoing Peers only when we see that the Government, and other parties, are marching out theirs and that the PM is not flooding the House with new appointments. I can see Westminster Bridge as the site for re-enacting that process. Noble Lords who have not seen this movie really ought to; it is an extremely good one, almost as good as the movie of Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s The Leopard, which is one of my favourite movies of all time. Let us get on with this: there is no time to lose.
Before I finish, I will talk about age. I am really old: I am 69. A woman should never lie about her age and that is the real one. That is the average age of noble Lords. The biggest age band in this House is 71 to 80 year-olds; 108 of us are over 80 and only four are under 40. There are 39 between 41 and 50. The average age of leaving is 83. When I first came to this House, I used to think that the bishops looked a bit old—but now, with their admirable retirement age of 70, the bishops are the youngest group in this House. More than half of this House is over 70, so I am now going to fall into the trap that I fell into in the first year when I came here. My noble friend Lady Jay, were she here, would remember that at that stage she was Leader of the House. We had a small soirée in her apartments here, and I raised the question of whether we should have a retirement age of 70.
It has taken me 16 years to get over that. Again, when the hustings were afoot before we elected the last Lord Speaker, I tentatively expressed the view that it was a shame that all three candidates were over 70 and that two of them, although wise and noble, were considerably over 70. So I know that I will not win many friends by what I say, but if we are risking the reputation of the House by being “large and bloated”, we can also be represented as being “very old”.
I know about wisdom. We all hugely value—and I feel privileged to be in the presence of—the wisdom that is demonstrated by many of the older Members of our House. But wisdom and age do not universally go hand in hand. We need to be able to reflect and understand the needs of the population right across the age groups and not be out of touch—so we need more younger Members. To say that younger Members will not have the requisite experience, gravity and understanding is belied by the current Leader of the House, who was a mere babe in arms when she arrived. Indeed, she still is, but none of us would not recognise the wisdom and the contribution that she makes to the House.
So I hope that those who will finagle the retirements in this House will make sure that we start to address this issue of age, and I hope also that those who finagle the appointment of new Members to the House will bear in mind that we need younger Members.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, it is a truth universally acknowledged that there are too many of us. It is good that your Lordships should be, and should be seen to be, addressing this problem for yourselves, without waiting for a Government to introduce legislation. Given the pressures on the legislative programme, that might be a very long wait.
The Lord Speaker’s committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Burns, has produced an admirable set of proposals for a system that will over time, and without legislation, reduce the size of the House from over 800 to a steady state of 600 Members. The proposals are skilfully designed, well balanced and well articulated. The debate today shows that they have the positive and, as nearly as possible, unanimous support of the House. My noble friend Lord Burns deserves signal recognition for his services—not punishment, such as being in charge of the EU negotiations, but some real honour, like a portrait in the dining room or perhaps the renaming of a Committee Room.
This House is rather like a water tank. If you want to control the level of water in the tank, you have to balance the inflow and the outflow. The Lord Speaker’s committee makes proposals which would enable the House to control the outflow, but the inflow is altogether outside our control. It is entirely dependent upon the exercise of the Prime Minister’s prerogative to recommend the creation of peerages. Not all Prime Ministers, especially one or two recent Prime Ministers, have had sufficient regard to the effects of their recommendations upon the size of the House. The efficacy of the committee’s recommendations will depend on the willingness of the Prime Minister and her eventual successors to comply with the committee’s suggestions for limiting the numbers of new peerages created. I dare say that in this regard the present Prime Minister will be readier to set an example to her successors than to try to create a binding precedent. But I have no doubt that her response will depend at least partly on the strength of your Lordships’ commitment, as demonstrated in this debate and in the subsequent passage of changes to standing orders and other changes which will be required to put them into effect.
In this connection, I have one small suggestion to offer. As the committee recognises, one of the purposes for which the Prime Minister may need or wish to create peerages is to ensure that the Government have representatives on the Front Bench in this House in sufficient quantity and, if I may respectfully say so, of sufficient quality to speak effectively for the Government over the whole range of government business. This is of importance and value not only to the Government but also to the proper discharge of the House’s responsibilities for the scrutiny of legislation.
It might help the Prime Minister to accept the proposed limits on the numbers of new peerages she is able to recommend if she were free to appoint new Peers outside these limits when they were needed to serve as Ministers or Front-Bench spokesmen. This would be on the understanding that, when they came to stand down as Ministers or Front-Bench spokesmen, they would be required to take voluntary retirement from membership of the House—while retaining their titles—unless the Prime Minister confirmed their continuing membership within the limits of the numbers of new peerages to be recommended.
I hope that by this debate, your Lordships are demonstrating your strong support for the Burns committee’s proposals. For my part, when the time comes, this turkey will vote for Christmas, if with a twinge of regret. None the less, it will be senza rancor—without rancour—and with gratitude for having been given the opportunity of enjoying the privileges of membership and sharing the pleasures of sodality in your Lordships’ House.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the interest in your Lordships’ House in this debate and in this subject is enormous—we have a list of 95 speakers. The interest outside is zero. When the noble Lord, Lord Burns, got up to introduce his committee’s report, there were two members of the public in the Press Gallery and none in the Public Gallery. It swelled to 13 by the time he had finished, but we are now down to three in the Public Gallery.
Size is not the only problem facing this House at the moment and, to my mind, it is by no means the most important. It has been said many times—and there are plenty of examples—that the House of Commons has no idea about, and very little interest in, how this House works. This was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Radice, a moment or two ago. He admitted that he had had no idea how this House worked but, now that he is here, he sees the benefits of it.
The Burns report recommends a membership of 600. I am firmly in the Boothroyd camp and have been saying consistently for many years that this number is far too big. There is no justification for 600. In 2014, the Labour Peers’ Working Group produced a report recommending 450. I wonder why so many Labour Peers are now happy to increase that by 33% to 600. We need to consider what the right number should be.
The Labour Party report of 2014 based its figure of 450 on the concept of a working Peer. This is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, does and says in his report. If we are going to base our figures on working Peers, the nature and character of this House has to change. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said that the 600 figure would possibly increase the average attendance. I totally agree; I think it would increase. The average attendance at the moment is 484. If the Prime Minister accepts the proposal and ups her allocation to 600, this House will have an average daily attendance of well over 500. Members will be here for a 15-year term; they will be encouraged to come and there will be many more Peers in the Chamber on a more regular basis, taking part more often.
The report also highlights a problem identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that those who are further away would be penalised. However, the current system penalises those who are further away. When I lived in Caithness, I had a major difficulty in getting down here. If the Chief Whip wanted me to be here on a Monday afternoon, I had to leave home on the Sunday night to guarantee being here in time for the vote. That problem will be exacerbated in the future.
Rightly, there has been mention of the credibility and expertise of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, was the first to mention scientists, but there will be fewer and fewer spaces for such people coming from outside Parliament. It is worth noting that, much as I like some of the former MPs, there are far too many here. Since the 2015 election, 35% of appointments to this House have been of former MPs. That means that we will not have the scientists and professional people who should be here to broaden the base. This House depends on a broad base and the terms of the report will limit that.
I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee said in the report about receiving a peerage but not having the right to sit in the House of Lords. I mentioned that in the debate on the report of the Labour Peers’ Working Group in 2014 and I thoroughly endorse it.
I shall move on quickly to the timetable. Eleven years is far too long. In 1999, most of the hereditary Peers were removed at a stroke. It was painful but it worked. In effect, it removed 90 working hereditary Peers, leaving 90 working hereditary Peers behind. I believe that if the House wants to limit the number to 600, we should do it straightaway. It is the best way to tie in the Prime Minister. We could do it virtually before we return on 8 January next year. I end with a quotation. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, quoted “Othello”; perhaps I may quote “Macbeth”:
“If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well
It were done quickly”.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I thoroughly agree with and welcome this report. It is an excellent piece of work. It has been called “ingenious” in this House and it thoroughly deserves that term. However, I have two reservations or concerns about it which I want to mention to your Lordships—and, as I always try to do on such occasions, I will try to suggest some possible remedies if the House were to agree that they were potential problems.
The first relates to the election of hereditary Peers. The report is uncharacteristically abdicatory when it comes to that subject. It mentions that, as a result of its proposed model, the one group of Peers that will increase in size in this House is the hereditary Peers. I think that that would be seen by the outside world as absurd, ridiculous and crazy. It would be a gift to anybody who wanted to rubbish either the reform of this House or the existence of the House at all—so I do not think that we can leave that aside.
It is much easier to deal with the problem of the potential election of people who have not yet been selected or identified and the problem of too many people sitting in this House at any one time. It ought to be possible for us to take action on the election of hereditary Peers without causing any distress or sense of injustice to any individual. So I hope that we can be very robust. Personally, I think it should be possible for us simply to refuse to introduce any more hereditary Peers who are elected in that fashion, and certainly to deny them allowances or offices if it comes to that. However, the most effective way would be simply to say, “I’m afraid we’re not prepared to arrange any introduction ceremony”. Surely that is within our scope and does not require legislation. Of course, on this and every other matter, it would be far better if we could have legislation; I am just assuming, as the report does, that we will not have legislation.
The second problem that I foresee is the manner of selection of those who in the future will be asked or encouraged to leave the House. The suggestion in the report is that it is a matter for the convenor of the individual parties, or at least for the parties themselves. Two possible ways of doing this have been mooted. One is that the Chief Whip in each party draws up a list of his own Members and speaks to the ones whom he wants to get rid of, using some kind of moral pressure to get them to resign. This is not a criticism of any Whip, because inevitably all Whips have behaved like this since the beginning of time. The agenda of any Whip would be to try to get rid of people who are more difficult and unpredictable—I may possibly be speaking in my own interests here—and to keep people who are malleable, amenable and do what is asked of them without creating too many problems. I do not think it is right to try to make the character of the House evolve in that way.
The alternative proposal is that there should be elections in each party group, in which we would all decide ourselves who to throw out of the balloon. That might also have some very damaging unintended consequences. It would change the spirit of the House. For months on end there would be a sense of everybody fighting an election for survival. An awful lot of conversations—
Lord Elton (Con)
I merely wish to say that we hereditaries have been through that and it was not like that at all.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Well, when one is looking at a new model or proposal, inevitably some of the dangers that one envisages are theoretical—one does not know whether they would eventuate or not—but I want to share with the House my concern on that. As somebody was saying, there are too many MPs here, and certainly anybody from a political background knows immediately how people respond when there is some suggestion of an election. So I think it is asking too much to expect Members of the House not to be concerned with their own survival and not to allow that to influence conversations with colleagues, or even their political and public acts, comments and so forth. It would be extremely undesirable, so that is not the right way forward.
I said that I would try to make a suggestion as to how that might be dealt with. It would be much better if we adopted more objective criteria. There is one easy trick: in recent times there have been quite a lot of people who have not appeared in the House for at least half the number of days on which the House was sitting. I have the figures from the Library. In 2015, 391 Peers participated or came to the House for less than half the time when the House was sitting. In 2016, it was 356. People who do not come to the House on even half the days on which it sits are not displaying the commitment that it is reasonable to expect of anybody who is a member of a legislature anywhere in the world. He or she would not be up to speed with what is going on and what people are thinking in the House.
There would be much merit in adopting a rule in future—we cannot do it retrospectively—that people who do not appear on at least half the occasions when the House is sitting should be asked to resign. People will say that that may have a disproportionate effect on one political group or another, but the report suggests a way of coping with that problem: the number of new Peers allocated could be modulated so as to restore any imbalance that had occurred following the application of the rule.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I am happy to support the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of this House because it is a practical way of making progress on the numbers in your Lordships’ House. It is not perfect and does have some holes, but it is a pragmatic response to a problem that I hope can be solved.
I came into this Chamber for the first time 10 years ago this year. On being invited in, I was unsure what I was getting myself into. Was the House of Lords now out of date, an anachronism no longer suited to serving the modern world? Did those arguing for a representative Chamber have a point? Ten years on, while the House is not perfect—nothing is—I am now more sure than ever that this appointed House has an important contribution still to make in a haphazard world that is in danger of losing its roots. Of course, I am now no longer of independent mind, as a member of the club. But it is my view, based on observation and practice, that this is a pearl of great price worth protecting.
It is a privilege sometimes to sit here and listen to impressive speeches of experienced and wise people. Where else in our society would you be able to listen to the amazing speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, as we did recently during the most reverend Primate the Archbishop’s debate on education? Where else would you hear, in the same debate, the contribution of a former Bishop of London,
“the noble, reincarnated and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres”,—[Official Report, 8/12/17; col. 1284.]
as the Archbishop referred to him, now on the Cross Benches, worrying away about a society in danger, in this technological age, of losing its moral compass and shared narrative—about the real danger, as technology invades our lives, of society becoming a crowd of atomised individuals?
These two speeches did not happen by chance; they reach back into several thousand years of human history and experience. Where else would you hear, in the same debate, the sense of urgency of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, chastising us all and himself about our lack of focus on schools in the north of England? I am working with schools in the north of England at the moment, and the noble Lord is right to worry away and disturb us all with his questions. Where else would you hear the emotional debate last Wednesday, on day 2 of Report on the Data Protection Bill, between those arguing for the freedom of the press, post Leveson, and those worrying about how little has actually changed since that inquiry, and the effects still of the behaviour of some of the press on the lives of ordinary people who are not in positions of power and who sometimes have to live with a made-up story about their lives broadcast across our national media for the rest of their life, when of course the press and lawyers have moved inexorably on to the next story and the next case? On the amendment I listened to, it came down to an excellent and emotional debate about one word: “necessary”.
The report before us today seeks a practical way to protect this Chamber and our important work from ridicule and misunderstanding. It is right to do so. Size does matter, but size and structure are one thing; what we must all focus on and protect is the calibre and experience of those people who are called to sit in this Chamber going forward. Six hundred is a sensible number, but at the end of the day your Lordships’ House is not centrally about numbers but about people. The modern world is all about people and relationships: this Chamber is all about ensuring that the right people with great practical experience and wisdom can contribute to our detailed debates and this country’s democratic process. How do we ensure that our systems and processes—and, indeed, Prime Ministers—understand and respect the functions of this House, and ensure that only the best and most experienced in their particular field sit here? I would have liked to have seen more in this report about the people question, because it is this question, I suggest, that will both define our future and our relevance going forward. It is all about people, and the future of this House is all about ensuring that we have the right people with the right balance of wisdom and practical experience over time.
I turn to a couple of practical matters. I am not sure how this report will help protect the independence and numbers on the Cross Benches, when party political Peers seem to be joining our Benches in increasing numbers. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has an answer. If this is a trend, how does it impact on our numbers? Those of us who are genuine independents cherish the clarity of our position and our appointments process. Our independence really matters. How will this work in practice and be perceived on television by the outside world? Have I missed something? Quite possibly.
Secondly, post Brexit this country will have to stand on its own feet and make its way in the world. This is a time when we will need to embrace those of an entrepreneurial spirit, with sound business acumen. I sometimes worry, if I am honest, that the Cross Benches at present have a large contingent of excellent people whose experience has been in the public and charitable sectors rather than the business and entrepreneurial world. Business experience and practice will now become crucial as our country moves forward. I may be wrong, but this should be tested. The Victorians understood the significance of these entrepreneurial people and their place in the institutions of this country. A younger generation understands it, too.
It seems that we are going to give the Prime Minister an opportunity this afternoon; the future of this House and of our constitution will then sit with her. I wish her well as she deliberates and I hope that she takes it: it may never come again.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is gratifying to see how many Members of the House of Lords are participating in this debate—approximately one in eight, I suggest. I suspect that it is not just because of the important nature of the debate, but possibly because some of us feel an element of self-interest. Perhaps I should confess to that. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to survival.
I would broadly welcome the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee. He has done very well. I congratulate him and his committee. I have two small caveats. First, 15 is an unfortunate number, because one wants to get away from a multiple of five, given the Fixed-term Parliament Act. It is a small matter—noble Lords may think it is one of perception—but I think it is of concern. Secondly, 600 is still pretty large. I would be aiming lower, for a target of 400 or 450.
While I welcome this report, it begs a very important question. If most people believe that there should be a time-limited term for future Peers, what about current Peers? What about all of us? It sounds a bit like the drawbridge being pulled up behind. The debate last September was about reducing the size of the House, and most people agreed that it was far too big. I expected to hear all those speeches ending in, “And therefore I volunteer to be the first to leave”. I was disappointed.
I would draw attention to the so-called Nolan principles of public life. Many Members here will remember when they were drawn up some 20 years ago. The first is selflessness. The last is leadership. Should we not all be prepared to show both on this issue and lead the way selflessly, if of course we accept the principle of a time limit?
My own view is that a time limit is probably right. I will indeed volunteer if everybody else does to leave, just for the benefit of doubt. I would put a time limit of say 13, 17, even 22 years, if it engendered more support. But it should be retrospective on us all, not just people in future. There could be a totally independent mechanism for those that are concerned. An arm’s-length committee that is not political might allow an extension, of five or perhaps 10 years, for people who really add value to this place—not necessarily superannuated MPs like myself and one or two others sitting around here, but people who have exceptional value in their contributions to this place.
To build on the report, I would say that we should also be looking at a self-denying ordinance amongst hereditaries and among the Bishops to reduce their numbers as well, perhaps to 14 Bishops and perhaps to 50 hereditaries. I am sure that this is possible. It is not beyond the wit of man for everyone to sit down without legislation and reduce these numbers.
I return to my main point. If we accept the logic and the principle of a time limit, it should surely apply to us all. I was very struck by the argument of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who speaks with great experience and knowledge. His call for prime ministerial restraint is very sensible. Nevertheless, I still cling to the idea that we should have a time limit. I shall tell you for why. Of course, we are all exceptional here. That is why we are here, is it not? We are outstanding public servants; we have great experience; and we make magnificent contributions to public debate et cetera. But perhaps there are others who are just as capable. Perhaps if we went, other capable people could contribute just as well. We should give them a chance.
I have little expectation of overwhelming support for retrospection for those of us sitting here—I know, by the way, how to make friends in this place by suggesting it—but it is the logical and principled way forward in which we would show both leadership and selflessness.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Burns and his colleagues wholeheartedly on their report. They have shown consummate skill in navigating the perilous course between the fatal Scylla of proposals which would require legislation and the equally disastrous Charybdis of an approach which could not command support in the House itself. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has outdone even Odysseus in achieving this feat without losing a single member of his crew.
I also pay tribute to the Lord Speaker for initiating the work of the committee and to the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Norton, for the work of their campaign, of which I am delighted to be a member. In my view, the report is as balanced, reasonable and fair as it would be possible to expect. Other adjectives we have heard today, all of which I agree with, include “wise”, “ingenious”, “elegant”, “imaginative”, “pragmatic” and “cunning”.
I strongly believe in establishing a fixed term for membership of this House. I myself have no intention to stay for more than 15 years, and look forward to being followed to the exit by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. I do not propose to address other specifics of the report. Any quibbles I may have about details—and they are very few—are outweighed by my belief that the package as a whole represents the most practical approach to tackling our excessive numbers and by my hope that it will lead to action. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, this is the only show in town and we should sign up for it.
There seem to be two critical challenges in implementing the report. The first is persuading the Prime Minister to give the required undertaking to appoint no more new Members than there are vacancies under the proposed two-out, one-in system. I recognise that this calls for a laudable and brave self-denying ordinance on her part. If that commitment is made, I for one would be more than content to see an end to hereditary elections as a subsequent step. I am encouraged by the relatively few new peerages created since Mrs May took office but somewhat concerned by reports that more are planned in the near future.
The second challenge is whether enough of us in this House are prepared to back the report’s proposals, despite any qualms we may have, and whether the parties and other groups can deliver on the need to reduce their numbers in line with the proposed targets. I hope this debate will demonstrate a willingness on our part to accept the challenge and will create the impetus and momentum to drive the process forward at some speed.
One thing I would urge is that the implementation process should be supported by a strong communications plan designed to ensure that Peers, MPs, civil society, the press and the public understand our determination to tackle the issue, how we are seeking to do so, and the constraints within which we are working. We need to make it quite clear that we recognise the problem and are doing all that is in our power to fix it. Those of us, like me, who believe in the constitutional importance and value of the role performed by this House must surely be concerned that its effectiveness is undermined in the eyes of the public by some of its features, one of which is its sheer size.
Unlike others, this is one issue which we ourselves can do something about, and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has shown us clearly how. If we fail to grasp this opportunity now, I fear that we may eventually find a solution imposed upon us that could be much less satisfactory, less balanced, less reasonable and less fair than the approach of the Burns report, and one that could leave this House much less effective in providing scrutiny, advice and insight to government and a valuable service to the nation.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the members of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the report, and support its recommendations. In the absence of a written constitution, this House and the other place are reliant for our effectiveness on broadly shared values, trust and conventions. Hitherto, this reliance has nearly always served us well and, for the proposals in this excellent report to be effectual, respect for convention in the future will be essential. I have every hope and confidence that that respect will be forthcoming.
I have no quibble over points of detail in the report. I think 600 is an appropriate number of Peers for us to discharge our duties. The formula for reflecting the political views of the country over a period of time is by far the best suggested hitherto, based as it is on the work of my noble friend Lord Jopling, who is in his place. A fixed term of 15 years for new Peers is about right; it may be a little short. The proposals for the Cross Benches and retired Supreme Court justices are, in my view, unimpeachable. Consideration of the composition and statutory basis or otherwise of the House of Lords Appointments Commission is important but is a matter for another day because unreviewable discretion is an extremely controversial subject.
This House discharges its functions, I think by universal acknowledgement, effectively. The committee’s proposals, if implemented, will maintain that effectiveness and perhaps enhance what I have noted from a number of perspectives over several decades to be broad public support for our constitutional role, despite the occasional passing cloud in opinion polls. The objective of this debate is to establish whether there is widespread support for the committee’s proposals. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the committee well in the forthcoming process of reaching agreement on the way forward with the main parties and others involved, and I look forward to our implementing the proposals which emanate from that process.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I have known the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for some 30 years as a friend and I have always admired his ability to win people over by the power of persuasion. That quality he and his fellow committee members have shown in abundance with this brilliant report, and I, like other speakers in this debate, congratulate them.
My most earnest hope is that this report will not go the same way as an earlier Burns report on another British institution, which in that case was oversized, outdated, unrepresentative and predominantly white, male and middle-class. I am referring, of course, to the English Football Association. Despite early indications in 2006 that the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, were to be accepted in full, so little progress was made that the noble Lord appeared in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee five years on, and the report in the Guardian of that session carried the headline:
“Lord Burns accuses FA of losing plot over regulation.”
As numerous speakers in this debate have already said, this may be the last opportunity we have to address the challenges facing this place, and I urge us not to lose the plot.
We have to work hard to win appreciation outside this place of the value of what we do and of our ability to hold the Government to account and to give the elected House the opportunity to think again on aspects of legislation that it may not have had the time to consider in depth by drawing on the expertise of individuals with a lifetime’s knowledge and achievement in examining complex subjects and policy areas. These are the attributes of this place which give the House legitimacy. I frequently make the point, particularly when I am talking to school groups in the outreach programme, that while democratic elections are one means of conferring legitimacy on an assembly, they are not the only one.
However, as the Burns report and today’s debate demonstrate, there is one aspect of our existence which has to change. There are simply too many of us. With almost 100 speakers in today’s debate, there are inevitably many points of view, but very little disagreement on that essential principle. In view of that, I was depressed to read in Friday’s Times, and to see repeated in the Daily Express yesterday, a story with the headline, “New peers to be appointed ‘in weeks’”, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to this morning. The report said:
“Theresa May is expected to appoint new peers ‘within weeks’ as she seeks to shore up support in a House of Lords emboldened by her Brexit defeat”.
There followed a list of former MPs who retired or lost their seats at the election, and the comment:
“The move will improve Mrs May’s position in the Lords before the EU withdrawal bill moves across”.
It is hard to think of anything that would do more to undermine the credibility of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, than such a move on the Government’s part. I hope that in due course we will get a categorical denial from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that anything of the sort is being planned. She and particularly her Chief Whip know that in a balanced House, as we are, with no party majority, you do not win votes by packing in more of your own Members, but by making a real effort to win the argument. I am sure she appreciates, as everyone else here does, that if we are to reduce the size of this House, the party leaders have to exercise self-restraint in the appointment of new Peers. Otherwise, not only would we never get near a total membership of 600, we could see our numbers ballooning northwards beyond 1,000, as the Lord Speaker has wisely reminded us.
Like many noble Lords, I have my own ideas for reducing the size of this House. I will not delay the House by talking about them now, but I am particularly attracted by the idea of ministerial Peers: colleagues who come in to do a ministerial job, but then disappear when they cease to have that job. This point was made very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminister. If some of these Ministers decide they want little to do with this place after they leave office, they should be encouraged to resign at the same time as they step down as Ministers.
What is abundantly clear is that there is overwhelming support for reducing the size of this House and that the very best of the many solutions put forward to how to achieve that are in the Burns report. I support it unreservedly.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, when I saw so many noble Lords had put their names down to speak in this debate—almost an embarrassingly large number—I wondered whether I should add mine. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Scone, give the statistics on the age of the House, I learned that I am also a giddy youth in this place, which was described as a gathering of elders by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, earlier in the debate.
I thought I would speak because last time we debated this issue, I expressed the view that the number of Peers was a distraction from the real issue, which is that very few people outside this House know what we do, how we do it or why we do it—a point the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made quite powerfully earlier, as did other noble Lords. At that time, I sought out the loudest advocates of reducing our number and asked them for the practical or principled reasons why it should be reduced, but even they told me that the problem was essentially cosmetic. But that was before we had this excellent report. I have now studied, considered and discussed it at length with fellow Members of this House, and my view is that we should wholeheartedly support it. Discussions across the House, and with very few exceptions the speeches in this debate today, make it evident that many others also support that point of view. I will just make three points in the time available to me.
The first in a way harks back to my earlier position. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, wants us to be loved; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to protect our reputation, as did a number of other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I very much doubt that culling 200 Members from this place will make us loved, nor do I think it would probably cool the blood lust of those who would go far further than that. I use the next phrase metaphorically, with no reference to the right reverend Prelates, but throwing a bunch of Christians to the lions did not typically, in the Romans’ experience, cause the crowd to call for less of the same. My real point there is the lack of understanding, and whether we are 200, 600, 400 or 800 makes very little difference. It is simply that nobody knows, and fewer care, what we do. That is something we should be addressing.
My second point is something that many have already spoken about. The wide support for this report among pretty much everyone I have spoken to and among most who have spoken today is predicated on what happens at the other end. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made this point, and many others echoed it. I think his phrase was that we need a “cast-iron” guarantee that the Prime Minister will resist the temptation, as we pull the plug at this end and 200 of our Members are flushed away, to simply turn on the taps at the other end. I sincerely hope this is something the Leader will take back to the Prime Minister as a very firm message from this House. I believe that without that message being taken back, the support in this House would be a good deal more muted than it has been today.
I have been tempted into dangerous waters here: I want to say a word on the hereditaries, being one myself and a beneficiary of the hereditary by-elections. Yes, the hereditaries took a huge cull in the past and no other group has had to do that, but I think it would be wrong for the hereditaries and the bishops to stand aside at this time and not bring our experience more into line with what other groups in this House are experiencing. Whether that is to do with the by-elections or a more general haircut and the continuation of the elections is not for today, but it would not be right for the hereditaries or the bishops to just stand aside because we are, if you like, protected by the need for legislative change.
I agree with those who have said that having a top honour that is not a public service job—which being in this Chamber is—is a good idea. I would only appeal for us not to call it a peerage. That would lead to confusion or even abuse. Let us have a top honour—a reward—and public service in this House, but let us not give them the same name. The point may seem petty, but I fear that it would be very open to abuse.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult when you rise at this stage in the debate to know how to cover things that are new, and I do not want to repeat many of the comments that have been made by many other people in the Chamber today during the debate. I would merely say at this stage that I agree very much with what has just been said by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Mawson.
I look back 34 years ago plus one month when, as a new Member of Parliament for Bristol, I stood up at Business Questions for the first time in the other Chamber and asked if we could have a debate on reducing the number of Members in the House of Commons. Thirty-four years on, there has been no reduction. As I say, I was MP for Bristol. Rather than going back a mere 50 years to Visconti, as my noble friend Lord Grade referred to earlier, if one goes back 230 years there was another much greater MP for Bristol, one Edmund Burke, who advocated that in terms of the British constitution we should adapt to change while affirming traditional values. That is what I think the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, achieves so admirably. I could therefore describe the report as positively Burkean.
The only comment that I want to make goes back to what I said just now about the number of MPs. By any measure—the noble Lord, Lord Horam, referred to this in part earlier—this country is overgoverned. We have too many Members of this and the other House, and too many Ministers. I hope that by the rapid implementation of the Burns report this House can lead the way.
Lord Elder (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that we are far into this debate. I intend to try to make two brief preliminary points and one more substantive point. The preliminary points arise from things that have already been said. The first is about the idea of a 15-year membership. One of the consequences of that is that effectively people are not going to come in until they are pretty well retired and have reached the point where they have sufficient pension put away to look after themselves, so I think that would inevitably make it an older grouping; indeed, that fits in well with some of the things that have been said about retired MPs. The second preliminary point is about the London allowance. We are going to get a system whereby people are really going to have to have retired and are going to have to stay in London. Whatever else is said about the composition of the Lords, that does not seem to make for a satisfactory House covering the whole country.
My more substantive point arises from the submission that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I put in. We said that, “to change the composition of the House more in line with the elected House would, after all, give the House a degree of electoral authority, albeit indirectly, and would perhaps increase the willingness of the second Chamber to challenge the first. That would be a fundamental constitutional change and hardly something that should be done by a change in Standing Orders of the upper House”. When you look at the electoral arithmetic of past elections—I am grateful for Appendix 3 of the report, on historical modelling, because it produces some very revealing insights—it turns out that on historic modelling the highest number of seats that Labour would ever have had in this House would have been after the electoral triumph of October 1959. The second highest would be after another electoral triumph—May 2010. When Labour actually won, in May 1997, we would have been more than 150 seats behind the combined total of the Conservatives and Liberals.
My contention is that if we are to be able to describe what happens as giving a degree of elective authority to the House, albeit over three elections, this House will be representative in a countercyclical way. On a number of occasions there will be a big majority for the people who have just lost the election. I do not see how we can safely do that and stick to the current constitutional understanding that this House does not directly challenge the directly elected House—so my nervousness about this is very considerable. It is compounded by the fact that—mea culpa—our submission said that we should do that by changing the Standing Orders of this House. But if we are to change the effective balance between this Chamber and the other place, I do not believe we should be entitled to do that by changing our own Standing Orders. I think it has to be done with the agreement of the other place. I have changed my view on that—but our proposal was not such a fundamental change. If we are going to change the balance of power between this House and the other place, as I believe these proposals would, that is a matter for both Houses to consider.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I support the Burns report. With respect to those who take a different view, the case for reducing the size of the House of Lords is overwhelming and unanswerable. Many different reasons have been advanced this morning and this afternoon, and I share them—but there is this to be added. We are virtually facing a constitutional absurdity. This House has its responsibilities—its constitutional responsibilities—but the other place has the ultimate power. The House with no ultimate power—this one—has significantly more Members than the House down there, with powers, has.
You can argue as long as you like about all the justification for that situation, but in the end, I respectfully regret, you cannot avoid concluding: how can this be? What kind of situation has allowed this to develop? It does not matter how it has developed—I shall come to that in a moment—but we have to do something about it, or to put it the other way, something has to be done, to address what I would say is very close to an absurd constitutional situation.
How has that come about? My favourite quotation has been pinched by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and my second favourite has been pinched by—forgive me, I cannot remember which Conservative Peer quoted it, but it comes from Macbeth. Now I have dredged up another one. John Dunning, in 1780—a bit of history lightens the mood, does it not?—when we were making a complete Horlicks of the American war of independence, led a resolution in the House of Commons, to the effect that,
“the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished”.
That is precisely why I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
The influence of the Crown has increased in so many ways relating to our constitution as a whole. If I had time I would set off for a long journey, but I do not. Let me relate it to this issue. Mr Blair and Mr Cameron as Prime Ministers exercised the royal prerogative. I respectfully suggest that their exercise of it was so wide, so deep and so numerous as to come very close to an abuse of our constitution. If the monarch had exercised her prerogative—in medieval times it would have been his prerogative—in that way, he would have suffered the fate of Edward II or Richard II. They did not do with it. We now face a situation in which we have come close to a constitutional absurdity, and there is no measure except prime ministerial self-denial that can interfere with this exercise—an abusive exercise, in two cases—of prime ministerial power. We do not have the power; the Commons could, on an Act of Parliament—but who is going to introduce that? So we have to persuade, encourage, cajole and ask the Prime Minister to address this constitutional absurdity.
In 1719, a proposal was put forward from this House by the Duke of Somerset that there should be a cap on the number of Members of the House of Lords. The suggestion was 235; in those days, there were 345 constituencies in England, Wales and Scotland. Everybody agreed except the Commons. Here we are again, 300 years on; in our ancient constitution, 300 years is but the blink of an eye. And what we are really proposing—or what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is proposing—is that there should be a cap on the number of Members of the House of Lords. There are 54 weeks to 2019. Why do not we celebrate the 300th anniversary of the issue first being proposed by implementing it?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I cheer the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that we are close to a constitutional absurdity. I am also fairly certain that I sent the longest submission to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee. It was 30 pages long and more than 11,000 words. It had dozens of detailed Excel spreadsheets attached and took me many weeks—indeed, months—to write. I produced what I thought were impeccable arguments for a retirement age of 80 and removal of Peers who had failed to attend fewer of 20% of the sittings of the last Parliament. That would have removed 220 Peers at a stroke. I considered the 15-year term option and creating Peers based on a combination of MPs’ seats won and share of the vote, and I rejected it. I was rather pleased with my magnum opus.
Now we are faced with the committee’s report, and I have no hesitation in saying that I completely endorse it—it is a masterful piece of work. The report highlights the biggest flaws in my fixed retirement age recommendation, namely that political parties would send us younger people, under 50, so they would serve at least 30 years. I have to admit that after 15 years the expertise that we formerly had begins to get a bit rusty, so that term limit may be about right. I also completely endorse the committee’s views on hereditary and new Minister Peers. I think that it cleverly takes the issue out of the question. If a political party replaces an hereditary, it simply comes out of the overall quota, and there is one less life peerage available. In my opinion, the system of electing replacement hereditaries in this House has given us some of the most hardworking and able Peers in this House, on all sides. I would also say that the hereditary problem is one for the Conservative Party to address internally, and come up with possible solutions.
I turn to a part of the report that I consider very important, and the key to ensuring that numbers do not inexorably rise once again. In my submission, I made a very strong point about creating what I called non-legislative Peers. I said:
“We should accept that Prime Ministers need to grant peerages not just because they want bodies in the Lords but because they need to reward achievement in the same way as others receive other honours. Being granted the title ‘Lord’ or ‘Baroness’ is a great reward in itself and I can see merit in Prime Ministers being able to grant a peerage and the title Lord or Baroness to some who would not be entitled to sit in the Lords.
I cannot define a category of these people but it may be those in business, or retired from the civil service or over a certain age who deserve the glory of the title but do not want to participate for 70% of more of Lords’ sittings. I believe we can all look round this House and see colleagues on all sides who have wanted the great honour of being a Peer of The Realm but do not want to participate much or at all in the legislative process. I am certain that this suggestion would give Prime Ministers the flexibility they need to create peerages without flooding the House of Lords with new peers”
That is what I said in my submission, and I am therefore delighted to see that the committee endorses that point and states in paragraphs 24 and 25 that the Life Peerages Act can already permit it. That is excellent news, but it has not received nearly enough attention in the debate so far, nor enough prominence in the report. I urge the Lord Speaker, the political parties, and the leaders of all groups to really make sure that Prime Ministers understand this point. They can dish out the gongs in future but they do not have to flood this House.
I am glad that there is no greatly increased role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, except doing the statistical calculations after an election, assisted, I assume, by our excellent clerks. The report suggests a sensible timetable to bring about change but we need the flexibility to move more quickly if circumstances permit. I have in mind the possibility of decanting out of Parliament to the QEII in 2023 or 2024. As one or two other noble Lords have mentioned, I suspect that there may be a big rush of Peers wishing to retire then. HOLAC therefore needs the flexibility to adjust the process to reduce numbers to 550 or even 500 if there is a rush of Peers retiring under any circumstances.
Finally, this report is not what I argued for but it is better than the case I put up. I am willing to give the committee’s solution a go since I cannot see any better one on the horizon, now or in the future, although at one point I thought my noble friend Lord Robathan was going to argue for some celebrity TV show—“I’m a Peer, Get Me Out of Here!”. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues on the committee. This is the blueprint for a far better Chamber, which will earn respect from most sensible critics, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken, I too warmly congratulate the Lord Speaker’s committee on its report. Under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, this committee has at last produced a practical way for your Lordships’ House to begin the process of reducing its numbers to the suggested target of 600, and above all, so long as this is fully backed by this House and ultimately by Parliament itself, without the need for any form of legislation. Given the sanity of the proposals, and the fact that most of those who have already spoken are supportive, I would be very surprised indeed if the Government are not already onside, meaning that your Lordships could indeed begin their short Christmas Recess in cheerful spirits, knowing that those entering via the Burns method will have already agreed to serve no more than 15 years before retiring from your Lordship’s House.
As others have suggested, with that example, it will be open to all noble Lords, right across the House, who have already reached that 15-year milestone to look for a moment, which is convenient both for themselves and for the group to which they belong, to retire and in so doing contribute actively to the House achieving its 600 refreshment target at the earliest possible moment.
Finally I again congratulate the Lord Speaker’s committee, and especially its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for its invaluable report, which so admirably points your Lordships’ House in a sane and sensible direction for self-reform. The Lord Speaker is on the Woolsack: with him in that role we will not in future be in a position where the rest of the world has no idea what goes on in this House. We could not have a better advocate than him.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, almost exactly a year ago, your Lordships expressed the very clear view that the House of Lords was too big and ought to be reduced in size. At that point, there was clearly a danger of the whole thing being kicked into the long grass. We are therefore deeply grateful to the Lord Speaker for having taken the initiative and set up the Burns committee. Its report has almost universally been said to be extremely fine.
The report builds on the basic idea of a 15-year term, which had not been enormously advocated previously. It is very positive, although almost all the bases it is founded on are negative. There is to be no government majority, no length-of-service limits, no compulsory retirement and so on. There has been very wide support in the House this afternoon. We will need to check Hansard to see exactly how wide, but my impression is that support is at a level to which the Government should pay due attention in deciding where we should go next. I very much hope we can make rapid progress on implementing the report.
I was worried that there might be some opposition to the report from those who are still much preoccupied with having a wholly elected House. I was therefore heartened by the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who expressed a clear view that that should not take precedence over what is obviously a very important reform. The fact that it will make your Lordships more acceptable to the wider community does not mean that one cannot go ahead with the reforms simply because one would rather have a more radical reform. I am glad that that is so.
The Lords is concerned at its size. We need to ask why it should be cut. There are arguments about resources; the difficulty of getting in at Question Time; the fact that a larger House means stricter time limits on speeches; and so on. The Whips are able to cope with those problems but, at the same time, we need to recognise that the Lords can make progress only if it has the co-operation of the Government. It emerges clearly from the Burns report that there has to be a balance between the number of people who volunteer to retire, on the one hand, and the creation of Peers by the Prime Minister, on the other. It is important to stress that, if one is fit and still able to take part in your Lordships’ proceedings, making the decision to retire is very difficult. You seek to make a marginal reduction in the number of Peers by retiring, but even on the basis of two-out, one-in it is not a very significant change. It is difficult to give up the great privileges that one has as a Member of your Lordships’ House if one’s action is not effective because it is countervailed by action taken by the Prime Minister.
It is therefore very important indeed that we should have, without too much delay, a clear statement by the Prime Minister—it is, in a sense, her area of responsibility primarily—and the Government that they will clearly curtail new appointments, and impose a cap of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I hope the Government can make progress on that without too much delay.
The timescale envisaged by the report is that we will get some way to a steady state within 11 years. I think that is a reasonable objective and shows that we are determined to have a more effective chamber, as the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber has consistently said, and that we can bring about a reform which will establish this House on a far firmer basis than it has at present.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I join the many people who have placed on record their appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his fellow committee members—and indeed to our Lord Speaker for his initiative. The result is practical and sensible in the predicament in which we find ourselves.
However, I must confess that there are parts of me that are very traditional, and I look back to earlier stages in my political life when I had the highest regard for the concept of royal commissions. I am quite concerned that this is another pragmatic, specific change to our constitutional way of operating, but we have no road map. We have no overview of where we are going with our constitution, what its challenges are and how far as a whole it meets the challenges of the 21st century. That is quite a serious issue.
I have believed for much of my life that structures are inanimate. In some archaic structures, excellent things happen because first-rate people operate within them. In other perfected structures, nothing much of significance happens because there is an absence of values, drive and imagination on the part of the people within those structures. We should not believe that we will find a solution on the future role of the Lords simply in the structural dimension. It is by our commitment, vision, drive and indeed challenge to the other place and society as a whole that we bring our contribution to the future. It is by that I am convinced that we will be judged—not just by how we tidy up the way in which we operate.
Four specific points arise from the debate to which I want to refer. I am a committed and active member of the Church of England, but I do not see how in 21st century Britain one can have one denomination of one faith represented by right in this Chamber, whereas others are not. Indeed, what about the humanists, the non-believers who are an increasingly significant part of our society? If we are talking about our credibility and acceptance in society, this matter cannot be dodged. We have to face up to the issues.
The second point is on the hereditary principle. I have the highest regard for some of the hereditaries. They do a first-class job in this place, but there is no way in the 21st century we can go on saying that people are here by hereditary right. That does not wash or help our credibility at all.
Then there is the point about how representative we are of society as a whole in the United Kingdom. We are south and south-east dominated in this Chamber. I am glad that my wife and I decided, for all sorts of reasons, to move from the south to the extreme north-west for this last chapter of our lives. I am seeing this increasingly powerfully. This place does not represent or carry weight with much of society away from the sophisticated south-east. If we are to talk about that and then talk about age credibility in this place, we must look at our terms of service. There is a question over how any able, committed person from whatever part of society can come here. We talk about expertise and experience but let us remember the expertise that lies in our trade union movement and working-class sections of our community. That is expertise and has tremendous validity for this place. How will we be able to make that change here in the House of Lords or change our terms of reference?
Lastly, I stress the point that my noble friend Lord Faulkner strongly made. Ringing around in the back of my mind are the words, “turkeys” and “Christmas”. We have been a bit loose in our language about the guarantees that will be required from the Government to make this proposed arrangement work. If they do not play their part, we will have damaged ourselves badly and shot ourselves in the foot. Therefore, we cannot concentrate enough on the specific questions: have we got guarantees or have we not? What do those guarantees really amount to?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I join those who have spoken in expressing my personal gratitude for the outstanding report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee, and for the initiative and farsightedness of the Lord Speaker in establishing it. I wholeheartedly—indeed, to use my noble friend Lord Butler’s expression, ardently—support it. I felt that that was all I should say but, having been brought up to give reasons for a view, perhaps I may, even at this late stage in the debate, give three.
First, this House cannot any longer afford to lay itself open to criticism because of its size. The British constitution needs this House, and its power and effectiveness should not be open to question. It is needed to revise legislation, as I have often found. In particular, the House is needed as a protector of the constitution and of the other weaker branches of the state, including the judiciary, when needed.
Secondly, it would be desirable to consider more far-reaching reform, but that requires legislation. It is unfortunate that for one reason or another, whether it be lack of time or of priority, legislation is not, on occasions, an option. Therefore, one has to cast around for an ingenious way in which to reform without legislation. In my experience, that has not impeded reform but furthered it, because it has shown the willingness of those concerned to adopt reform
My third reason is the ingenuity of the idea of a 15-year term. Modern careers are based not on a lifelong devotion to a particular subject but a much more varied career, often with a fixed term. The ingenuity of the report is its adoption of that aspect of modernity. I very much hope that this report can be taken forward as soon as possible.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, like all who have spoken, I warmly congratulate and thank the Lord Speaker for taking the initiative, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for taking that initiative forward. I agree with virtually everything that the committee has come up with, not least on the size at 600; the two out, one-in principle; the 15-year term for new but not existing Members; and the Cross-Benchers staying at the same percentage as at present in the House. I also agree that there should be no age limit. Here I cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. As I said in the debate at this time last year, it would be a tragedy to throw brains and experience out with the bathwater.
I have two proposals for future consideration regarding the hereditaries and the Bishops. If the House were to get down to 600, that would mean the hereditaries going effectively from 90 to 80, and the Bishops from 26 to 23. Just how that is done—because it will require primary legislation—I know not; it is beyond my pay grade, but I have a feeling that it could be done.
The third proposal, where I warmly endorse what my noble friend Lord Forsyth and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, said, concerns non-attendance. I cannot see the justification for noble Lords who are presently in the House remaining in it if they cannot be bothered to turn up. The problems are obviously the primary legislation, to which I have already spoken, but also the Prime Minister’s consent. Many noble Lords have spoken about this. My feeling is that the present Prime Minister might well go along with it, but how could she ever bind her successors? That concerns me. I just do not see how any Prime Minister can bind their successor to something that is not in statute.
I finish as I did a year ago. One of the joys of this House is being able to agree wholeheartedly with noble Lords opposite—in this context, I look at the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. All the soundings that I have taken, of which there have been many, convince me that when the time comes for our exodus from this building for the R&R—it may be in five years’ time; none of us knows exactly when—there will be a very significant exodus. It will be the tipping point. I can say now that I believe it will be my tipping point. It is not that I do not want to move to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre; it is just that it will be time to go. Those looking at this problem overall might care to conduct a non-binding survey of all Members of the House—could one have such a thing? I know not—just to see how many Peers think that they might leave when we move in, let us say, five years’ time.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD)
My Lords, I think that most of us are embarrassed and often inconvenienced by the absurd size of our House, and so the Burns report is to be greatly welcomed. In nearly all respects it proposes a sensible, fair and practical way of reducing our numbers without having to resort to primary legislation. It recommends a cap of no more than 600 Peers and a method for how this could be achieved.
I have only one serious objection to this otherwise admirable report: it wishes to link the basis on which a number of new Members are appointed to the results of the previous election. It is not because I am a Liberal Democrat that I object to this in principle. I do not believe that the House of Lords should shadow the party politics of the Commons. In fact, I believe that the House of Lords is at its strongest and most influential when it seems to be at least one remove from party politics. Party politics, with their committed manifestos and bullying Whips, should remain the sole preserve of the Commons, remembering, of course, that, quite rightly, the Commons must continue to have precedence over the Lords.
The strength of our Chamber should reside in its make-up of wise men and women who collectively have knowledge and experience in all walks of life, and, between them, represent all parts of Britain, all sexes—there are more than two nowadays, noble Lords may have noticed—all races, all religions and most specialist interests in a place where party politics should be only incidental. Of course, party politics must be a consideration when attempting to balance the House, but should remain of secondary importance compared with the value and worth of the individual Members. That is why I am so against the insistence that new Members should be balanced in line with election results. Only a minority of us should be chosen for our political allegiance or our loyalty to a past Government.
At present, approximately 80% of all Peers are appointed by the Prime Minister, or with his or her approval, and only 20% by other means. I would like to see these percentages reversed. In fact, I would be happy to see over 50% of us sit as Cross-Benchers. The ability to appoint 20% of new Peers would still give the Prime Minister considerable influence over the Lords. I propose that, some time in the future, the majority of new Peers should be appointed by an independent Lords appointment committee—one that is much more powerful than the present one, whose only major role is to recommend a small number of Cross-Benchers. The new one would be responsible not only for vetting and appointing new Peers but at the same time would monitor the balance of the House. By “balance” in this case, I mean the different parts of Britain and the widest possible variety of skills and interests, with party allegiance being of secondary consideration. In time, it would build a body of distinguished people who would represent a real cross-section of British society. Maybe it could also have the power to regulate the behaviour of those few individuals who bring our House into disrepute. Clearly, it would be in a position to control the size of the House, ensuring that it kept below the presently recommended cap of 600.
However, I appreciate that nothing like this could be achieved without primary legislation and approval of the Government of the day. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, does not yet have the remit even to recommend future reforms of the Lords. Within its limitations, though, and in spite of my personal reservations, this report is a greatly needed step in the right direction and I hope very much that the House will support it.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Burns and his committee on their excellent report on the size of the House. Before I go further, I should say that I fully support the clear, pragmatic and sensible recommendations they have delivered to the House.
Since it is nearly Christmas, I would also like to thank our excellent Library staff for their background notes in support of this issue, which have been interesting and helpful. I had not realised that the House is, at the moment, only back to roughly the size it was a very long time ago—that is, when I was born in the mid-1950s. I had assumed that the controversy over the perceived ballooning size of the House was a recent issue. I found this recent historical context particularly helpful in reassuring me that it was justified to support this comparatively gentle pace of reduction to 600 over a period of 11 years. If I may tease the Library staff, I speak as a member of a group I feel they have neglected in their analysis. I have read long, and hugely impressive, lists of the oldest and youngest Members of your Lordships’ House, and even more impressive lists of the longest serving Members, but why was there no symmetry here? Where was the list of my group and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—the shortest serving Members? As someone who was introduced almost exactly two years ago—actually, on 17 December two years ago—I agree that a period of appointment of 15 years seems sensible, and, indeed, would be happy it if applied to me as well. It is time to learn all those rules you do not find out about until you break them, time to develop competence, and time also to make a difference.
Therefore, there is just one further point that I would like to make. In doing so, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Burns and his committee, because, in a debate with 96 speakers, they are having to listen to the 96 things that they should have included in their excellent report. This must be a frustrating experience. I note that my noble friend Lord Burns pointed out at the beginning of this debate that diversity was not within the remit of his committee. However, my point is about the diversity of the House. I suspect the approach the report recommends will, at least initially, improve the diversity of the House. I have looked only at gender: but, for example, among Peers with the longest service—over 33 years—nine out of 50 are women—18%—compared with some 26% of women Peers today. However, I suggest that the parties appointing life Peers in the future should be asked to commit to diversity targets much broader than gender, in the way that my noble friend Lord Kakkar has told us that his House of Lords Appointments Commission does, to ensure that this House develops over time to look more like the country that we serve.
I repeat my strong support for the recommendations of this report and urge the House and, in particular, the Leader, not just to “take note” but to move rapidly to agree the next stage of “take action”.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for so expertly producing this analysis and for giving us the options for the road ahead and the basis for the decisions that I hope we will take. I am also grateful to the Lord Speaker for his initiative in setting up the committee.
As I go around the country and talk to people about the House of Lords, I increasingly find that they raise the question of the size of the Lords, partly due to media coverage. The public have cottoned on to the size question and are consoled when they raise it by my assuring them that we are tackling it. It is clear that we intend to do so by this very strong report and the very strong support that it is getting in the House. Moreover, many raised the point that they have been compelled to retire at a certain age—often imposed by their profession or company, or by Parliament itself—so why not us? Therefore, I thoroughly support all of the warm endorsements today of the committee’s work and most of the recommendations. There is clearly a strong consensus of support for the report in the House, a feeling that it provides an excellent basis for tackling the issue. I particularly agree on the importance of the point that Prime Ministers should not, in the future, undermine the whole system by appointing rafts of new Members, pushing the numbers back up again. It would be invidious and counterproductive if future Prime Ministers were to undermine the whole process by appointing more new Members than there were vacancies.
Having been wholly supportive so far, I have one reservation. There is, and increasingly will be, public concern that we are moving too slowly. As I understand it, the House, under these proposals, would only reach its target size of 600 in about 11 years. Only by 2042 would all serving Peers be on a 15-year fixed term. For many people outside the House, this would seem like a lifetime. It looks like, “Lord, make us virtuous, but not yet”. How can we speed it up? The problem here is that the committee imposed a condition of not seeking primary legislation to assist. I am not quite sure why, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will explain this further when he winds up.
There are two recommendations in particular that would shorten the timescale, but they would require legislation. That is controversial for some, but they certainly would quicken the pace to reduce the number to 600. First, about two years ago, the executive committee of the Association of Conservative Peers—I was chairman then—recommended that Members should compulsorily retire at the end of the Parliament in which they had reached the age of 80. That is entirely reasonable: retirement is in practice required earlier than that for most people in employment in the United Kingdom. It was generally supported by most ACP members who considered it and has also been proposed by the equivalent Labour Party committee. Of course, it was objected to by drawing attention to the valuable contributions made by some over-80s. I will very soon be in that category: not the valuable contribution makers, but the over-80s. I do not think that that is a major obstacle; the proposal is entirely reasonable. It requires legislation, but I think it would be accepted by most in the House. I certainly intend to abide by it voluntarily, which means that I will leave the House at the next election. To make it effective, however, legislation is required.
Secondly, the time has come—this is a personal view, and distinctly not an ACP recommendation—to tackle the question of hereditary Peers. It needs to be addressed. If the by-election system for hereditary Peers continues unamended, in a smaller House of 600, the number of hereditary Peers would make up a larger proportion of the membership than it does now. It cannot be justified in this day and age to give an especially favourable position to hereditary Peers. Of course I acknowledge that many hereditary Peers make an excellent contribution, but with a smaller House, the time has come for our by-election system to cease. That, together with the proposal for compulsory retirement at 80, will make it possible to have a smaller House more quickly. I hope that these points can be considered in addition to the proposals in the report, and I warmly recommend the report itself.
Local Government Finance Settlement
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on funding for local authorities in England next year. From 2015 to 2020, councils in England have access to over £200 billion to deliver the high-quality services their local communities need. They deserve no less. Local government is the front line of this country’s democracy, with councillors and officers working at the heart of the communities they serve. But to make the most of that local knowledge, councils need greater control of the money they raise, they need greater freedom to tackle challenges in their areas, and they need the certainty and stability that will allow them to plan ahead. This Government are committed to delivering that, and today I am publishing a draft local government finance settlement that marks an important milestone in the journey to doing so. It comes in the third year of a four-year deal that was accepted by 97% of councils in return for publishing efficiency plans. We will continue to work with the sector to help it increase transparency and share best practice, supporting greater progress in delivering increased efficiency over the coming year. I expect this to have a tangible impact on the steps councils take to promote efficiency from 2019-20.
Local government operates in a society that is constantly changing and the system of financing local government needs to reflect that. The current formula of budget allocations has served councils and communities well over the years, but to meet the challenges of the future, we need an updated and more responsive distribution methodology—one that gives councils the confidence to face the challenges and opportunities of the future. So I am today publishing a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. I aim to implement a new system based on its findings in 2020-21.
Alongside the new methodology, in 2020-21 we will also be implementing the latest phase of our business rates retention programme, a scheme that gives local councils the levers and incentives they need to grow their local economies. The aim is for local authorities to retain 75% of business rates from 2020-21. This will be through incorporating existing grants into business rate retention, including revenue support grant and the public health grant. Local authorities will be able to keep that same share of growth on their baseline levels from 2020-21, when the system is reset. From 2020-21 business rates will be redistributed according to the outcome of the new needs assessment, subject to suitable transitional measures.
A number of 100% retention pilots have already been announced, and these will continue. A further pilot will begin in London in 2018-19 and we had intended that a further five pilots would begin that same year. However, interest in the scheme was such that we will now be taking forward twice as many as planned. I am pleased to announce today that the new pilots will take place in Berkshire, Derbyshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Kent and Medway, Leeds, Lincolnshire, Solent, Suffolk and Surrey. The first batch of pilots are taking place largely in urban authorities; the second wave will mainly cover counties. This ensures that councils right across the country will benefit, that the scheme can be tested in a wide range of environments, and that the benefits of growth are broadly comparable between London, existing pilots and new pilots. We received so many applications to take part that we will continue to pilot business rate retention in 2019-20. Full details will be published in due course.
Over the past year my Ministers and officials have been listening to councils of all shapes and sizes, understanding their concerns and working together to develop ways of tackling them. The result of those conversations is reflected in this draft settlement. For example, rural councils have expressed concern about the fairness of the current system, with the rural services delivery grant due to be reduced next year. So today I can confirm that I will increase the rural services delivery grant by £15 million in 2018-19, meaning that the total figure will remain at £65 million for the remainder of the current four-year settlement.
We have also heard concerns about proposed changes to the new homes bonus. To date we have made almost £7 billion in NHB payments to reward the building of 1.4 million homes. Over £946 million in new homes bonus payments will be allocated in 2018-19, rewarding local authorities for their work in fixing our broken housing market. I consulted on proposals to link new homes bonus payments to the number of successful planning appeals and considered raising the new homes bonus payment baseline. Following conversations with the sectors, I have been persuaded of the importance of continuity and certainty in this area. So today I can confirm that in the year ahead no changes will be made to the way new homes bonus payments work and that the new homes bonus payment baseline will be maintained at 0.4%.
As I set out in the housing White Paper, local authorities will be able to increase planning fees by 20% where they commit to investing the additional income in their planning services. This is a significant step towards addressing the widespread concerns of underresourced local planning authorities. Following discussions with the sector I am also announcing a continuation of capital receipts flexibility for a further three years. This scheme gives local authorities the continued freedom to use capital receipts from the sale of their own assets. This will help fund the costs of transformation and release savings.
One particular issue causing concern for some councils is so-called negative RSG. This is where changes in revenue support grant have led to a downward adjustment of some local authorities’ business rates top-up or tariff for 2019-20. I recognise the strength of feeling in local government around this issue, so I can confirm that my department will be looking at fair and affordable options for dealing with negative RSG and will formally consult on proposals in the spring, so that the findings are in ahead of next year’s settlement.
Of course, anyone who has spoken to anyone in local government will be aware of concerns about funding for adult and children’s social care. That is why, over the past 12 months, we have put billions of pounds of extra funding into the sector, and why the Department for Education is spending more than £200 million on innovation and improvement in children’s social care. At spring Budget, an additional £2 billion was announced for adult social care over the next three years. With the freedom to raise more money more quickly through the use of the social care precept that I announced this time last year, we have given councils access to £9.25 billion more dedicated funding for adult social care over three years. But we also need to find a long-term solution to challenges that are not going to go away. That is why we have already announced that a Green Paper on future challenges within adult social care will be published in the summer of 2018.
Finally, I am conscious of calls for further flexibility in the setting of council tax. While we all want to ease growing pressure on local government services, I am sure that none of us wants to see hard-working taxpayers saddled with ever-higher bills. This settlement strikes a balance between those two aims, giving councils the ability to increase their core council tax requirement by an additional 1% without a local referendum, bringing the core principle in line with inflation. We have abolished Whitehall capping. Under the Localism Act, local government can increase council tax as it wishes, but excessive rises need to be approved by local residents in a referendum. This provides an important check and balance against the excessive increases seen under the last Labour Government, when council tax bills doubled.
This change, combined with the additional flexibility on the adult social care precept that I confirmed last year, gives local authorities the independence they need to help relieve pressure on local services such as adults’ and children’s services, while also recognising that many households face their own pressures. In addition, directly elected mayors will decide the required level of precept by agreement with their combined authorities. I am sure that voters will be watching closely to ensure that this freedom is not abused—as will I.
I can also confirm that the Government intend to defer the setting of referendum principles for town and parish councils for three years. This is subject to the sector taking all available steps to mitigate the need for council tax increases and the Government seeing clear evidence of restraint in the increases set by the sector as a whole. I have also agreed measures with the Home Secretary to make it easier for police and crime commissioners to meet local demand pressures by allowing a £12 council tax flexibility for police services, raising an additional £139 million to support our police.
This settlement recognises the need to keep spending under control while also tackling many of the issues that have been raised by local government over the past year. With two years of real-terms increases in resources available to local government, it will give local authorities the funding and freedom they need to make decisions in the best interests of the communities they serve. It is a settlement that offers councils the resources they need, the stability they have requested and the fairness they deserve, and I commend it to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place earlier today.
On reading the Statement or listening to the noble Lord delivering it, you could be forgiven for thinking there was not a problem, but of course, the opposite is true: the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that between 2010 and 2020 local authorities will have had their direct funding cut by 79%. Anyone involved in local government will be fully aware of the serious pressure on budgets, resources, staff morale and the communities local authorities seek to serve. While local government will welcome some of the piecemeal measures being offered here, what has been announced today is not enough and is extremely disappointing. Missing also is any evidence of a coherent plan, and the lack of vision is troubling. Announcing a few million pounds here and there for specific initiatives while overall depleting local government funds is a recipe for disaster.
Local government delivers a vast range of the core services that people rely on day in, day out, and the Government need a new approach. I pay tribute to the staff employed by local authorities up and down the country for the job they do in difficult circumstances. They deserve a decent pay rise; perhaps the noble Lord can refer to that when he responds.
The noble Lord said that the Government are publishing a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. Can he explain what he means by relative needs, and what is the direction of travel he is embarking upon? I disagree with him that the budget allocations have served councils and communities well in recent years.
The Government have announced that they are moving ahead with another phase of their business rates retention programme. Can the noble Lord tell the House where they are with the fair funding review and whether that is in effect being incorporated into the consultation he referred to in his Statement? I see that there are to be five new business rate retention pilots, and it was no surprise to see that Surrey made it on to the list. I am sure that Councillor Hodge and his colleagues on Surrey County Council will be pleased.
Rural areas have specific problems, so it is pleasing that the rural areas delivery grant will not be reduced next year. I am also pleased that none of the changes that were rumoured to be happening to the new homes bonus have come about; that will be a relief to many.
The noble Lord referred to the 20% increase in planning fees. Certainly, everything helps, but it is disappointing that the department to date has not allowed even one council to trial full cost recovery of planning fees. I do not see the objection to having one council trial this. The fact that council tax payers are subsidising the planning process is a matter of regret; we should seek to eliminate that unfairness and thereby release funds to be spent on local priorities.
One of the most serious issues facing local government is the crisis in adult social care, and the measures in the Statement make no progress towards finding the solution to the problem of providing quality care services for our ageing population. This will be a disappointment to local authorities, as will the failure to deal with the crisis in children’s services: we have seen a reduction in early years interventions and a record number of 72,000 children taken into care. Last year 170,000 children were subject to child protection plans, which is double the number seven years ago. Reductions in the amount of money available for important early years intervention just leads to unbearable pressure and risk, which is both shocking and completely avoidable.
Analysis by the Local Government Association revealed that in 2015-16, 75% of councils exceeded their children’s social care budgets by, in total, £605 million. Can the noble Lord tell the House how he justifies measures which further expand the crises in children’s services and adult social care and do not give local government the stability it needs? Why does he think it acceptable to place a further burden on council tax payers in the next financial year, instead of providing the additional funds that would equate to the rise that can be applied to the council tax for adult social care without having to hold a local referendum?
As Christmas approaches, the homelessness situation is shocking. The Government are not providing the necessary funds to help local authorities deal with it. Imposing legislative requirements without adequate funding will not address the problem. The Government will not face up to the crisis, and the measures here provide little comfort to those in desperate need and those who seek to provide these valuable services.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The key test of this Statement is whether the provisional finance settlement will alleviate the general funding pressures facing local councils. I think that the answer to that question is: hardly at all. As the letter from the Communities Secretary accompanying the Statement explains, the resources available for local government will rise from £44.3 billion in the current year, 2017-18, to £45.6 billion in two years’ time, 2019-20. This represents an increase well under the current rate of inflation and does not reflect rising demand to the extent that it should. In recent years, pressures have grown significantly because of year-on-year underfunding. In the end, the question is how much is local government actually receiving to spend overall, and not simply how much is it going to have over the next two years? Nevertheless, I welcome the extra support allocated for rural services and the thinking on the new homes bonus and negative RSG. However, I hope the Minister will be able to say a further word about government thinking on business rates and what their ultimate objective is.
As I understand the Statement, there is to be an extension to the number of 100% business rate retention pilots. At the same time, all local authorities will be able to keep more of their business rate income, equivalent to 75% overall in 2019-20. Alongside this, there will be a new system of fair funding—or at least I assume that that is the objective. That will be introduced from 2020-21. For the new system to succeed it will require redistribution to reflect needs and resources. Will the Minister say a further word about what the Government are trying to do? Are they trying adequately to reflect needs and resources, or are they aiming at 100% business rate retention? If the latter, where will the support needed for poorer authorities come from?
We have heard about the pressures on children’s and adult social care. There is an issue of principle here. This time last year, I said that council tax should not be used to make up deficits in resourcing, particularly as demand rises in children’s services and adult social care. I do not understand why it should take 15 months from the announcement in March this year of some extra central funding for adult social care to the production of a Green Paper in the summer of next year to discuss the problems of adequate funding for adult social care. I think that the problem is much more urgent than that.
To take another example of things happening too slowly, the 20% increase which is to be permitted for planning fees was debated in your Lordships’ House many months ago. There is a demand now for additional planning expenditure, so I wish government could work a bit more quickly in dealing with some of the real problems on the ground.
There is a question about council tax referendum principles and the right of councils to increase council tax by the rate of inflation without a referendum. I would prefer that there were no referendum system at all and that local authorities were freed up to make the decisions they think are right in their area. In the end, they will face the verdict of voters through the ballot box. What is happening is that the Government are increasing council tax further. As I understand it, an extra 1% is to be permitted without a referendum so that, in practice, the rate of inflation is met at least in the next year. This is putting the cost of supporting national services on to the council tax payer. I am not convinced—and I said the same thing last year—that this is the right way to go. Poorer authorities, in particular, have a lower council tax base, so if the aim is to redistribute, simply charging extra through council tax to pay for services in the more deprived authorities seems not to be the right way to go.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to produce a model which is fair? The words “fair funding” were used a great deal this time last year. I very much hope that those words will continue to be used. For funding to be fair, council tax payers must also have fair demands on their wallets. Will the Minister bear that in mind? I hope that, for the rest of this Parliament, the Government will not simply load council tax so that local government receives more complaints because their council has been underfunded by central government for a considerable time.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is always straining at the leash. I look forward to his contribution later.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Shipley, for their contributions and send all our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is unwell. We wish her a speedy recovery.
First, I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I join him in thanking local government officials who work incredibly hard on behalf of their local councils and, indeed, of us all. I will try to clear up a point he made initially about consultation. The consultation on this local government settlement is open until 16 January. The consultation on the fair funding review is open until 12 March at 11.45 am for some reason. I do not know why it is 11.45 am—but just before noon. It will be looking at relative needs, issues such as deprivation and so on. I can confirm that the intention is to ensure—as I suppose the name suggests—that we have a system that is fair across the board and one that achieves some balance.
I appreciate that they do not totally coincide, but council tax payers often also pay income and other forms of tax, so it is a mistake to see the two as totally separate classes of people—council tax payers on the one hand and those who make contributions to central taxation on the other. They are often the same people and we have to appreciate that these services cost all of us money. This is not to say that there are not important issues to be dealt with and a balance to be struck.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to five new business rate retention pilots. It is actually 10. Through him, I thank Lewisham for being part of this. Indeed, all London boroughs are contributing. We had an incredible response although not, I regret, from Newcastle or any authorities in that area, but we had 240 local authorities wishing to be taken into consideration. The 10 pilots will include local authorities from the relevant areas; in all, I think that 89 local authorities are participating in these pilots. So obviously we will see how those pilots proceed and will hope to gain something from them. Both noble Lords asked about the ability to carry the pilots forward. The intention is to look at the issue in the round.
There was a question about adult social care. The review will report no later than the summer of 2018. I appreciate, and sometimes share, the anxiety to move more quickly than we do, but it is important to get these things right rather than to go quickly. I remind noble Lords—although I am sure they do not need reminding—that this year we have had a general election. That has taken some time out of the process for understandable reasons, as I am sure noble Lords will agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to a trial of full cost recovery of planning fees. He has previously raised that issue, and I undertook to have a look at what I thought was an interesting and valuable idea. I assure him that we are looking at that possibility.
In the meantime, we have put an extra £2 billion into adult social care and £200 million into children’s social care, and the Department for Education is looking at that. As I said, the review is due to report by the summer of 2018.
I should repeat—I believe I am repeating it, unless I missed a paragraph in the Statement—that the referendum limit is now going up to just under 3%, so an increase of just under 3% is possible without a referendum. I remind noble Lords that a referendum on this has been held on only one occasion—I think I am right in saying that; I will write if I am wrong—and that was unsuccessful. That perhaps indicates that there is not such an appetite out there as is supposed for council tax increases.
Both noble Lords referred to some of the issues that they welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, certainly referred to the rural services grant, the new homes bonus, the negative RSG and the pilots, and I very much welcome that. I confirm that we wish the model to be fair. I think that the noble Lord referred to the new burden being placed on local authorities in relation to homelessness, which he said we are not funding. In fact, we are funding it under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. That legislation had a broad welcome in this House and was steered through this House by the noble Lord, Lord Best, with government support. We are committed to £71.2 million to help fund the new burden.
If I have not covered all the points raised by the noble Lords, I hope that they will be content if I pick up anything that I have missed in writing.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my interests listed in the register— namely, that I am the chairman of the Local Government Association. I am also the leader of South Holland District Council, which is in Lincolnshire, so I thank the Government very much for letting us be one of the pilots. We much appreciate that.
As my noble friend might expect, I need to be critical of the fact that again adult social care was not mentioned. I cannot see the new funding in a positive light, as the £2 billion will not actually be £2 billion; it will be about £900 million this year, which will be insufficient to deal with the pressures. However, I have every faith that my noble friend and the Secretary of State will be able to persuade the Treasury that it will be in this Treasury’s best interests to find additional money. We all know that the people most affected by adult social care crises are those who vote. Also, as has been said, there has been a massive rise in the number of looked-after children. That will need to be reflected in direct funding to local councils, which will have to pick up that burden. However, I am confident that there is still time for my noble friend and the rest of the DCLG team to persuade the Treasury that that needs to be met.
I do not want to carry on being critical, so I will make some really happy noises. The fact that the changes to the new homes bonus flagged in the last few months will not be implemented will be well received by local government. Clearly, that would have been a counterproductive move and we are pleased that it is not happening. On a South Holland-specific basis, if the Government are looking for somewhere safe to trial the setting of planning fees, somebody whom I know will probably be writing a letter in support of that and offering their council as a pilot. They would not use it to stop development, which, I know, is one of the risks that the Government are concerned about. They are worried that some people might use it as a way of stopping planning permissions being granted in the first place by pushing up the fees to a prohibitive level.
All in all, I think that the Statement was a game of two halves. There was quite a lot to be glad about. The 1% council tax increase was a massive move forward—by 50%—although it is still not massive in terms of cash. In the case of South Holland, I think that it will increase my council tax by about 15p a year over and above what was already in the budget, so it will not make a fantastic difference. Given that 50% of my council tax goes to a drainage board and not to direct services offered by the council, a bit more flexibility around that would be appreciated. However, from the sector’s point of view, it is a welcome move. A move to relinquish the Treasury’s control of what we can charge locally is much appreciated but it would be a much better idea to remove the Treasury from the equation altogether. It is a local tax taken from local people for local services, and that should not require HMT to go anywhere near it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am still looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I am sure there will be time.
I thank my noble friend very much for the welcome he has given to the pilot in Lincolnshire, and we certainly look forward to seeing how that pans out. I also thank him for the qualified welcome for the local government settlement from the Local Government Association. I have read its response and it welcomes some of what it is in the settlement. I can well understand its position. It would be most extraordinary if in any year the Local Government Association said, “That’s everything we want”, and my noble friend did not disappoint on that front.
I thank him for the welcome that he gave regarding the new homes bonus. I agree that there is a challenge in relation to adult social care—as I said, we have the summer review coming up—and I also agree that there is a challenge in relation to children’s social care. We have recognised that with additional funding but I note what he says.
I also note what he says in relation to South Holland in general, although perhaps not his request to trial full cost recovery of planning fees. We have not yet agreed to that. It is something that we are looking at, and obviously we would make sure that it went through a proper process if we did agree to it. However, I thank my noble friend for his response.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, first, I refer to my interests as a Newcastle city councillor, in which capacity this is the 51st local government settlement that I have had to engage with.
I notice that the Statement bears the heading “Check Against Delivery”. I assure the noble Lord that local government will certainly check against the delivery of the Government’s intentions as expressed in the Statement, and it will certainly hold the Government to account for the consequences of this settlement.
Perhaps I may refer in the first instance to the question of business rates. The Statement says:
“The aim is for local authorities to retain 75% of business rates from 2020-21 … From 2020-21 business rates will be redistributed according to the outcome of the new needs assessment”.
I have two questions about that. First, how far have the Government got in developing a system for equalising—or, at any rate, balancing—the distribution of business rates? Secondly, are they now looking at the position of firms such as Amazon with large out-of-town premises, paying next to nothing in business rates and, for that matter, probably diminishing the return of business rates in local authorities with this new economy that is forming? Will the Government look at the implications of that for financing local government, as well as perhaps in other respects?
There is also a distinct question about the funding of children’s social care, which is said to amount to some,
“£200 million on innovation and improvement in children’s social care”.
The present situation is that the funding is £600 million short of what is required to support the existing services. Even if this £200 million were devoted to closing part of that gap, it would still leave those services substantially underfunded. It seems to me that the Government have not taken the right step in adequately funding what is a crucial service and one which, as my noble friend pointed out, is growing and will be an ever-greater call on local government finances.
I also have a question about the slightly odd wording, if I might put it that way, on page 6 of the Statement, in which the Government announce their intention to give,
“local authorities the continued freedom to use capital receipts from the sale of their own assets. This will help fund the costs of transformation and release savings”.
But if these are capital receipts, they cannot be used for revenue purposes—can they?—which the Statement appears to imply. They can be used for capital purposes which might have marginal impact on the revenue side, but they cannot be used to contribute significantly to the revenue situation.
My noble friend referred to the shortfall in education expenditure, but there is clearly also a significant shortfall in social care, to which the Statement made no reference at all, as he pointed out. That is a serious burden on local authorities. Ultimately, and this is the other side of the problem, that will probably increase the costs for the National Health Service. If local government cannot provide social care, the call on the health service, and in particular hospitals, will grow disproportionately. The Statement makes no effort to deal with that situation.
So far, the check against delivery is not encouraging, but it remains to be seen whether, over time, the Government can improve on what has been a pretty downbeat result for local authorities and, more importantly, their citizens.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord referred to his 51 years in local government. We know from his contribution today that he has not lost any of his enthusiasm—like a young colt, he was anxious to intervene and make his point, and I congratulate him on that. However, it was the usual dismal litany of matters that he set out, and unlike his noble friend on the Labour side, he did not welcome some of the points in the Statement. Let me try to deal with some of the perfectly fair points that he made, some of which I will respond to, if I may, subsequent to the Statement.
On how far the fair funding review has gone, as I indicated we are opening the consultation today for response by 12 March, with the intention of bringing it in in 2021. Obviously, there is thinking on the broad general principle, but we want to see how we look at issues of deprivation and provide a fair funding formula.
The noble Lord referred to the broader question, which has been raised before, perfectly validly, of online shopping and the fact that there are some very large players such as, but not limited to, Amazon. He suggested that it is perhaps a question of rebalancing some of the ways that we raise money. I will cover that in a letter, if I may, but from memory I think that there is an international aspect to this issue that kicks in in the spring—there is reference to this issue and we are participating in that. I appreciate that that is a rather woolly reference, but I will clarify it in correspondence.
The noble Lord referred to the significant challenge, which certainly exists, in children’s social care and adult social care. We have provided already a precept of 3% from the last Statement a year ago, and we have increased flexibility this year in relation to the referendum, which helps. However, I accept that there is a significant challenge. I accept also that the noble Lord is right to say that we will be checked against delivery.
The noble Lord made a point about capital purposes, and we are both mere lawyers in this regard. However, I think that there is probably some accounting process whereby transformational investment from capital funding, which would help with the revenue side of things, is classified as capital. I suspect that that is the case, but again I will take up that somewhat technical point in correspondence.
The noble Lord is right to refer to a broader consideration of the complex—or perhaps not so complex—interrelationship between the health service and social care and the need to get that right. This has challenged Governments of all colours in the past, but I accept that there is a broader question that we need to look at.
The noble Lord will be pleased to know that, in relation to Newcastle, there is a £2.3 million increase in funding from this settlement, quite apart from the referendum uplift, and a maximum additional funding of £6 million as a result of the council tax flexibility previously announced. I am sure that that is of some comfort.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, the Statement mentions parish councils,
“taking all available steps to mitigate the need for council tax increases”.
It would help if the Government tried not to impose new costs unnecessarily on parish councils. I refer particularly to the proposal that every parish council, however small, should have to appoint a data protection officer, who apparently cannot be the parish clerk. I declare my interest, having the honour of chairing the Marlesford parish council. We have only seven councillors for 230 people, and our precept is only £2,000 a year. We worked out that if we were to have a data protection officer—who has to be a “qualified” professional—that alone could add 10% to our precept. I believe that that is unacceptable, and I hope that the Government will do something about it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first of all, I thank my noble friend for all that he does in relation to parish councils; they are an important part of the patchwork of democratic participation in Britain and are very much valued. If I may, I will take up his point about the data protection officer and come back to him, because I am not sure of the answer. However, I accept that in a small council a cost like that cannot be easily avoided. If there is some way of mitigating it, I will certainly get back to my noble friend with the suggestion.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s Statement. Speaking as a former councillor on a local authority for 10 or 11 years, I know that many areas in the country are very deprived. Some of them are not only the most deprived areas in the country, but it is sad to see that in England and Wales we have some of the most deprived areas in Europe. I did not hear much in the Statement about plans to uplift those areas from the deprivation they have suffered for decades.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the points that he raised. First of all, we are talking here about a settlement only for England—obviously, Wales is dealt with by the National Assembly for Wales. On funding generally for Wales, the noble Lord will be aware of the Barnett formula, which takes account in its own peculiar way of the needs of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England, the fair funding formula will seek to address some of the points that the noble Lord quite rightly raises about deprivation. As I indicated in the Statement, it is important that we look at that, and it is now open for consultation until 12 March.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Following on from what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, my parish council is not nearly as big as his. Our annual precept is only £500. Will the noble Lord confirm that, if you do not have any electronic equipment, such as computers, you do not have to worry about the Data Protection Act?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, that does seem like a very reasonable deduction. I will write to my noble friend if I am wrong, but I think that will be the case. Once again, I thank my noble friend for all he does, and indeed noble Lords around the Chamber who have previously been, and in many cases still are, councillors. That service is very important to people in their areas; it tends to be the most trusted level of government and it is an essential part of our national life.
House of Lords: Lord Speaker’s Committee Report
Lord Burns
That this House takes note of the Report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I note that there is no one on the Government Front Bench who is connected with the Burns report. I will reiterate the point that has been made by many noble Lords that there are two main reasons this report is able to command such a consensus—and they have consequences, I think, for the way we go forward from the acceptance of the report and, I hope, the buy-in to the report from the Prime Minister. I think that the secret was, first, the excellence of the report itself. I will name not only the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues but the clerk, Tom Wilson, who I am sure played a very active part in making it a readable and very coherent presentation. It is a model of its type. I also join in the thanks to my noble friend Lady Crawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for their statesmanlike contributions. I hope that that accolade does neither of them any harm.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The secret comes also from the fact that the Cormack group, for quite a long period of time, showed considerable statesmanship in being ready for the moment when the constellation of the stars was such that a request to the Speaker to progress this matter was acted upon. The key in my view, and it comes to the operational side of the implementation of this, is that the leapfrogging between the three parties—the two major parties in particular—was becoming an embarrassment. No one could keep on asserting that somehow the increase in the size of the House had anything to do with the Members. Clearly, that would be a preposterous argument.
As a former TUC employee, I feel I should mention that the phrase “package deal” is something that people take to mean that you have to say yes or no to the totality of what you are presented with and take a view on it. On that basis, I have no doubt that this package will command overwhelming support. To use a popular phrase in the current debate about Europe, it cannot be cherry picked; it is a bit like the European internal market—I am the only speaker so far to have got Brexit into my speech.
It is very bold in some ways. I will ask the following question to anybody in the House who is competent to respond to it. In some ways, this report signals the end of the dissolution honours. Unless the numbers stack up at the time, there will be severe limitation on the prime ministerial prerogative, not just as a principle but in practice. I stress that because I think that it would be impertinent, almost, of the House to say that we want to see the end of the dissolution honours. However, as I understand it—perhaps someone could comment on whether I have understood the implementation arithmetic—there cannot be a dissolution honours in the traditional sense if the numbers do not make provision for that. It is against that background, but only against that background, that I have a limited degree of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, who made the comment that he thinks that any new year list for 2018, in a couple of weeks’ time, could be seen as a legacy issue. That is not to move the goalposts, but the Labour/Conservative gap in the House is 50—250 versus 200—which is 25% if you do the arithmetic that way round, or 20% the other way around, and it is obviously bigger than the gap at the last general election. I just make that point.
I will make one more point about how, in the implementation period—a point touched upon by one or two other speakers—it is a coincidence that the reference to 15 years is the period of three Parliaments. It has other connotations, but in this case I think it would be useful for somebody to take on board the fact that there needs to be an implementation group, in some way or other, to see how and when the arithmetic would be done for the changeover of each new Parliament—if Parliaments are, in fact, averaging four years rather than five.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, numbers can paint a picture of a thousand words. Of almost 100 noble Lords who are speaking today, the average length of service is 14 years and the average age is 72. The gender balance, at less than 20%, is below the average of this House, as is the ethnic diversity. Interestingly, almost 40% are former MPs and MEPs. If you add former civil servants and hereditary Peers, the ratio increases to over half of all those wishing to make their voice heard. For the outside world, our deliberations might therefore appear as the establishment debating its own future. So I hope that your Lordships will forgive the temerity of a non-career parliamentarian who has served a mere 15 months in this House and is more than two decades below the average age in sharing some observations.
First, I add my support for the overall thrust of the report. It is in keeping with the great pragmatic British tradition of seeking voluntary change to pre-empt external imposition. I am familiar from my City experience with the takeover code: a voluntary set of rules governing public company mergers and takeovers, viewed by most practitioners as highly effective, where enforcement is by mutual consent among market participants rather than by legislation. Similarly, these reforms are a stake in the ground and, while there may be some imperfections and areas for improvement, we have to start somewhere and get ahead of events before they overtake us.
We should also recognise that these proposals are necessary but not sufficient. I will quote my noble friend the Leader of the House, who said:
“Any reform … must not be simply about numbers; it must result in this House working better in fulfilling our role effectively”.—[Official Report, 5/12/16; col. 589.]
I therefore wish to highlight five brief points that should logically be addressed, either as part of the current proposals or in the next phase of an evolutionary process of professionalising the House.
My first point is about legitimacy. For an appointed Chamber, this must inherently come from achieving a composition that reflects the full diversity of modern Britain. While there might be a natural political incentive to achieve such representation, it deserves a coherent framework. I therefore propose adding a third area of oversight for the House of Lords Appointments Commission beyond the two already identified in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the report. HOLAC should be asked to monitor formally the composition of the House and highlight areas of underrepresentation to the groupings. I believe that this is an extension of the role which it already performs informally.
My second point is about anachronisms. Other noble Lords can speak more knowledgeably about hereditary Peers, but I would make one humble suggestion to Lords spiritual: if they voluntarily reduce their numbers to increase the allocation of Cross Bench Peers, this might help facilitate representation of all major faith communities across Britain, whilst still giving prominence to the Church of England.
My third point is about the thorny issue of implementing voluntary retirements. This may prove to be a Pandora’s box, given the behavioural and adverse selection issues of managing people who cannot be formally unseated. It risks creating a new dynamic between Members and their party leadership which, as appendix 1 to the report states,
“might favour party loyalists and assiduous voters at the expense of members more willing to question or challenge their own parties”.
My fourth point is about younger Peers, both existing and prospective. There are currently 34 Peers under the age of 50. While the report articulated the disadvantages of a fixed retirement age, there is a de facto retirement date of 2042 implicit in paragraph 88, which most affects this group. I therefore propose a modification that would instead create a backstop date where any remaining life Peers by 2042 are shifted to a 15-year term, bringing them in line with newly appointed Members.
There is also a more fundamental question about the disincentives and opportunity cost for prospective younger Members to accept appointments to the House, unless they receive proper financial and administrative support. Assuming we proceed to the next phase of implementation, we should include younger Peers and those with substantial careers outside Westminster in drawing up the detailed rules.
This leads to my fifth and final point related to financial issues, where the report is largely silent, other than the veiled threat in paragraph 108 of withdrawing financial support to incentivise retirement. We should recognise, however, that membership of the House is not just a retirement activity for many Peers but a source of income, too. There are incentives and behaviours that flow from this reality. If we were a commercial organisation, financial inducements would be found for early retirement. Unfortunately, this is too toxic to contemplate. Similarly, there is merit in moving away from daily attendance allowances to fixed base fees and supplements for committee work, rather like non-executive directors.
To sum up, in my short time in this House I have come to appreciate its unique strengths as a second Chamber. With so much to offer, it would be a tragedy if we did not get on the front foot and shape our own destiny though sensible and enduring reform—not only of our numbers but, equally importantly, of our effectiveness, functions and financial arrangements.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add my voice to the many expressions of thanks to our Lord Speaker for his early action following elevation to the Woolsack in initiating this committee. I extend those thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his fellow committee members. They have had a herculean task. The report’s recommendations are original and show an enlightened approach to the very real problem of numbers. But that said, I have to admit, echoing earlier comments, that it is difficult to add original comments when speaking on a single question and numbered 73 on the speakers list.
I have one or two observations: I would like to see greater regional representation in new appointments. Perhaps the Appointments Commission could consider this in some way. Also as set out in my own submission, I supported the suggestion of an age limit. Whether it is 80 years or something different I am not sure—I quite like the sound of 80—but only if there is a positive date attached which allows this House to request a five year extension for individual Members whose presence we would not wish to lose. Going off-piste slightly, I think that the Appointments Commission should be part of this, by being given more teeth, and perhaps a slightly redefined set of required criteria in assessing candidates or new applications.
Is a figure of 600 too many? The noble Lords, Lord Geddes, Lord Blencathra and others, have mentioned the possible move to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre as part of reconstruction and renewal. I feel quite strongly that that event, if it happens, is extremely likely to create its own cull on our numbers. There will be quite a few who just do not want the change and do not want to move. We should in that event prepare for departures.
I hope the Prime Minister is listening to this debate, so to speak. This is about statesmanship, not party politics. It will require considerable restraint to the powers of patronage, and I add my voice to those who have already asked the Leader of the House to report back in the clearest of terms.
I wholeheartedly support the committee’s recommendations. If we do not, we will drift on with bloated numbers—possibly growing numbers. In that case obsolescence and radical change may well occur. Without wishing to be alarmist, we have seen in the recent election the impact, or so we are told in the media, of social media on the Labour Party campaign in the general election. For us, in the event of the possibility of radical change, if orchestrated by malicious media, this could become a firestorm and imperil this Chamber as we know it. I say this simply because it is a subject that comes up in a cyclical fashion in the media, and we have to take control of the change.
I wholeheartedly support the committee’s recommendations. These reforms are vital. We must attempt to control the process if we can. I urge us all to initiate them from within.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, like many others in this debate, I echo general support for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee’s ingenious report. I use the word ingenious in its old-fashioned sense. Since every Member of your Lordships’ House is an expert on this topic, it seems to me that consensual agreement must be impossible. Nevertheless, I believe that it is appropriate for the process of which this is part that it should proceed.
Having said that, in going forward to recalibrate the role and character of the second Chamber, I think, like my noble friend Lord Gadhia, that the report is a necessary but not a sufficient step. This is one of the reasons I do not want, at this point, in this debate, to drill down into it. Rather, I would like to go back to some remarks made at the outset by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, among others. It seems to me that this Chamber, and Parliament as a whole, in pursuit of family-friendly arrangements fail to recognise that what is friendly for the denizens of Greater London is often the opposite for those who, like me, live at the other end of the country. The House of Lords is not only for those from the south-east. The financial implications for those who may not previously have been in the City and live in Belgravia are quite different from those who have spent a lifetime, for example, as a social worker in Middlesbrough. The House of Lords is not only for those who are rich. Those who have pensions have very different financial circumstances from those who have to work, inter alia, to accrue them. The House of Lords is not only for those who do not have to work.
I urge that attention is given to these and similar points as we move towards a different type of House of Lords from the one we have now. We all know that membership of this House is an honour, a privilege and an obligation. But, as they say where I come from, it butters no parsnips, and that should not exclude suitable and qualified Members being able to join it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to the debate on the report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House, which I believe to be extremely positive in its conclusions and recommendations. I acknowledge the huge amount of work undertaken by the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Like many other noble Lords, I am broadly supportive of the recommendations, particularly the reduction to 600 Members and the proposal that that should be capped in future, and that all new Members would normally serve a non-renewable term of 15 years. These are clearly consistent with the aims outlined in the report.
The report indicates that the committee considered the feasibility of recommending a retirement age but declined to do so. Yet as of 11 November our current membership has an average age of 69, with a range of 39 to 98. There are 296 Peers aged between 71 and 80. While I am fully aware that only a small percentage of people of advancing years develop cognitive decline sufficient to warrant difficulty at work, the majority of employers are in a position to recommend an occupational health assessment for workers above a certain age—to protect their employees, as well as those they serve. Judges now have a fixed retirement age and other people making major strategic decisions in a range of organisations and businesses are regularly required to undertake medical assessments to ensure their capability for their role. I wonder whether the committee discussed this, in line with the Nolan principles of public life. If so, perhaps we should seriously consider, in relation to the nature of our work, introducing such assessments, perhaps at 80 years of age. Of course, the vast majority of Peers of this age would meet the requirements, as can be seen by the quality of debates in this House on a daily basis. However, this would also provide public accountability of our collective responsibility as a House to demonstrate our fitness to practise, as other professions are required to do.
I will not talk much longer because other people have said the things that I hoped to say, but I reiterate the situation that my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge outlined. We came in at the same time, three days apart, and we both think it would be entirely reasonable to offer to retire at the end of a fixed term; neither of us will be 80 at that point. My reason is that I was appointed through the Appointments Commission process to help balance the House in terms of representation; in my case, predominantly nursing. By the end of 15 years, I would expect the House to benefit from a new Member with more contemporary knowledge of this field. I do not wish to suggest that I am not ably assisted with superb advice from relevant professional and charitable groups in relation to nursing. However, over time there is no substitute for recent, relevant occupational experience for people appointed in the way that I was. Therefore, I would like the House to consider not only a fixed term of appointment—at the very maximum, of 30 years—for new life Peers but a maximum period for current Peers from an agreed date, possibly 2022. This would still give the flexibility for Peers appointed for life to retire earlier but would also indicate to those who in future may be appointed only for 15 years that we are dealing with the reduction of our current membership in a fair and consistent manner.
I acknowledge the Speaker’s commitment to the principles of public life by calling for this review and commend the committee for producing an excellent set of recommendations, which I fully support. I believe that we need to work at a faster pace than the report indicates, in a manner consistent with the Nolan principles of public life I referred to earlier, particularly in relation to selflessness and leadership.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for the report, which makes eminently sensible reading. I wholeheartedly support the proposed changes but there are further significant changes that the introduction of this system of 15-year appointments will require. While scrutiny of legislation is a key role of this House, in our unwritten constitution this Chamber is one of the checks and balances on executive power; the others being judicial review, civil society, a free media and, at the moment, a wafer-thin majority in the other place.
Your Lordships’ House will continue to be effective or even to exist only if our level of public support and therefore our legitimacy increase. Your Lordships need only to glance over the pond to see how vital the institutions that check executive power are. This reform at this time is crucial, and while this Chamber is rightly known for its wisdom and experience, the tectonic plates of culture and technology are shifting so rapidly that a Chamber that is appointed in this new way will have legitimacy only if it continues to include a range of ages in its membership.
I am pleased that the committee recognises, in paragraph 31, that this system of 15-year appointments provides,
“a disincentive for prospective members to accept appointment to the House at a relatively young age”.
This disincentive is not further explored in the report, nor is it assessed in relation to the expenses system. Quite how a person in their late 30s, as I was, who has a career in the voluntary sector and who lives in the north-east, will be attracted to a 15-year appointment needs careful consideration. If the Lords will be a part-time role, perhaps this will work, but there seems to be an inconsistency between the briefings outlining that the party groups will consider more carefully whom they select as they will need a ministerial team, with all the time commitments that that entails, and paragraph 14 of the report, which states:
“Continuing to allow members to undertake careers and activities outside politics is necessary if they are to maintain and update their expertise”.
A further committee is needed to consider whether your Lordships’ House will be full-time or part-time, whether it will be salaried, whether there will be support staff, and how to ensure that younger Peers can still join.
I look forward to welcoming the new Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Sarah Mullally, and commend the fact that 10% of the Anglican presence in your Lordships’ House will soon be female. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham is correct that there is a cap on the Lords spiritual but there are four more on the Cross Bench. Thirty-plus Bishops or former Bishops is too many and arguably squeezes out nonconformist church leadership and the black and minority ethnic church, whose absence from your Lordships’ House is an obvious gap, which I hope the commission will see fit to resolve.
This further committee would, I hope, not have to consider the hereditary peerage system as this is Her Majesty’s Government’s responsibility alone. This House and the other place overwhelmingly want change but the Government, who control the legislative agenda, are stalling. So I trust that my noble friend the Leader of the House, as the only Member of your Lordships’ House to be in the Cabinet, will inform her colleagues that the racially and gender-biased selection system for the legislature needs to go. The pool of hereditary candidates is almost exclusively male and all white. I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that this is not a problem for today, as it should have been a problem of yesterday. Her Majesty’s Government’s position risks undermining next year’s celebrations of a century of women’s suffrage, and the admirable leadership of the Prime Minister in tackling racial inequality. It is ironic that today, the Ministry of Justice adopted the recommendation from David Lammy’s “explain or change” review concerning racial bias in the justice system, and yet the Government’s legislative inertia is endorsing the racially biased hereditary peerage system. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to please write to noble Lords to explain or change Her Majesty’s Government’s position on this.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who is not in his place, for standing in for me this morning as I had another appointment. Like the rest of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for the work they have done—although, rather like the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, I believe that the pace set out is quite inadequate for the problem that we face. I will come back to that in a moment.
Before the committee was appointed, I wrote to the Lord Speaker saying that I believed we had a real problem over the size of the House. This was two years ago. I suggested to him that we needed early action and that he should open a public book in which Peers who were prepared to go early, preferably around the age of 80, would put their names and make a public declaration of their intention, in order to get the size of the House down. He wrote back to me and said that it was an interesting idea but we would wait to see what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, came up with.
I put the view to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee that we need a retirement age. I still believe that we need a retirement age. Without any doubt we have some quite extraordinary people here over the age of 80, but there are quite extraordinary judges, surgeons, teachers, civil servants and heads of the Armed Forces who are all in the public service, as we are in the public service. We set out their terms and conditions, and all of them have retirement policies of one type or another, and we are able change them if we so choose.
Yet we are different from the rest. The debate today should focus to a degree on this: whether we should continue to be different. Okay, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would change that in due course—in 11 years’ time, when this is finally enacted. It would be virtually 11 years before it finally worked its way through. We could do it overnight in the way that we reformed the Lords in 1999 when the hereditaries went in one fell swoop, with literally hundreds of them going. If we opted for a retirement age of 80, we would have close on 250 people going fairly quickly, and the House would survive.
In turn, we would be in a better negotiating position with the Prime Minister if we had made such a move ourselves on a voluntary and moral basis to influence the course of events and to try to persuade the Prime Minister of the day to draw up a code of practice on how appointments would be made in future to ensure that the House was kept within reasonable limits. I share the committee’s view that it should be 600 and all the other recommendations that it made.
I have one question for the noble Lord. When the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, was speaking, he said that we would require legislation to introduce a retirement policy in the Lords. I believe that he is wrong, but I would be grateful for clarification on that. I believe that we could decide that we wanted to go for a retirement age—whether 75, 80 or even 85. We could take that decision, and if we did that we would not only be doing the right thing but we would be sending the right message about the kind of politics we believe there should be in this country and that where change is needed we will do it ourselves.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, this report has all the analytical rigour we have come to expect from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who has had more praise heaped upon him during the course of the day than most of us could hope for in a lifetime. No doubt his ears are burning.
In paragraph 10 of the report, we find the killer insight: on present trends, the size of this House will eventually exceed 1,000. The case for action is overwhelming. I strongly support the approach to reducing the size of the House that the report recommends—but I have three reservations, like some other noble Lords.
My first reservation is over the bishops and the hereditaries. In a diverse House, reflecting the whole nation, I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would hope to see archbishops, cardinals, rabbis, imams and representatives of other faiths. Many hereditary Peers justify their presence in this Chamber by the quality of their contributions, not least today, but it is anomalous in the 21st century for Britain to be the only country in the world where parentage is a passport to Parliament—and, alongside Iran, to be one of only two countries in which an established religion has a guaranteed place in the legislature. Comprehensive reform of the House of Lords would address these historic anomalies, but I find the notion that every part of the House should reduce its numbers except the bishops and the hereditaries, and that at the end of this process those groups would end up as a significantly higher percentage of the House than they are now, to be profoundly distasteful—as did the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor.
My second reservation relates to paragraph 15, where the report refers to,
“existing members who may have arranged their affairs on the basis of membership for life”.
The report suggests that such Members should be treated fairly but is silent on how. I do not expect this issue will affect many noble Lords—it certainly does not apply to me—but some Members of this House, as we all know, gave up established careers, perhaps in academia, to make a full and continuing contribution to our affairs, and they calculated when they did so that their attendance allowances would make up for their loss of income and, later in life, for a reduced pension. For a small number of Members, unanticipated change may bring real hardship, and it would be unjust of us not to consider that.
My third and final reservation is that the report helpfully shows what the outcome would have been if the regime proposed had applied from 1959. It shows the hypothetical position at three critical inflection points in our recent political history—1979, 1997 and 2015—when a new party of government, with a radical agenda, held the reins untrammelled. At these three moments, the new governing party would have been the smaller of the two main parties and, on two occasions, far smaller. I am sceptical that, were those circumstances to recur, which they are bound to, and with the voluntary system proposed, an incoming Prime Minister will naturally show restraint. We will all feel mightily foolish if we march out the door, only to see a little later a longer line marching back in the opposite direction. Even if our current Prime Minister agrees this system, she cannot bind her successors, as many speakers have said. I conclude that, difficult though it may be, this eminently sensible scheme will work only if it can be enshrined in legislation. Given the consensus apparent during the course of this long day, I do not understand why that is not possible.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)
My Lords, like the almost 100 noble Lords who have sought to intervene in this debate, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his efforts to apply some degree of logic to the problem of this House being allegedly 35%—some might even say 60%—too large. Be that as it may, my conviction is that there are greater parliamentary problems which, if our little local difficulties are not carefully handled, may escalate beyond what we would seek to achieve.
Having served for almost 35 years in the Commons and this Chamber, it is my experience that the changes we require are not such as can simply be resolved here. By seeking to do so in isolation, we could create a disastrous knock-on consequence. Compared with 1983, when I was first elected, the overall standards across our democratic process are being eroded to a dangerous and damaging degree. We seem to have been conditioned to accept that raw academic ability is the sole arbiter in creating a foundation for success.
I still yearn for that breadth of commitment and experience I found all around me when I first came to Westminster. It combined years of experience among those who came from the shop floor and the mines, from management both of the workforce and of technical and financial resources, from military experience, and from professional know-how. Is that experienced-based criterion a thing that survives only in this Chamber? Could we be in danger of sacrificing that, not least with the 15-year option? I was already in my mid-40s when I arrived here—but, like so many of my colleagues, I had been tried and tested professionally, militarily and in business before I was asked to stand for Parliament. I was not imposed on my constituency by some remote and faceless party structure. Bluntly, I was more than some privileged or glorified “interim bag carrier” with a predestined ambition whose time had arrived.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has ably sought to give us guidance—but suffice it to say that leadership, planning and practical politics derive from experience, not from patronage. I want to see my United Kingdom with political acumen and with renewed moral standards, which sadly are being steadily and selfishly eroded. That will not happen by our performing some egocentric little local exercise here in this Chamber, and certainly not by increasing the authority and diktats of the faceless back-room shakers and movers, to the detriment of effective, experienced and principled government here in Westminster. Power must never be surrendered to popularity.
Without wanting to be too controversial, I simply ask noble Lords how long it has been since any UK Government articulated a coherent and strategic foreign policy that they would feel able to explain and justify? The House of Lords must change, but it must not end up neutering itself in the erroneous belief that somehow we alone are, or could be, the sole source of strength amid the United Kingdom’s diminishing national role and responsibility. I therefore conclude by saying that we should not merely identify cosmetic changes in this Chamber, and that it is our clear obligation to properly evaluate all the potential consequences. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath-water.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, like previous speakers before me, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the committee, before moving straight on to say that I disagree with the recommendations—not all of them, but the principal drive towards reducing the number of Members of this House. It was a question that should not have been set. It is not on the public’s lips; it is not in MPs’ mailbags. There is no need to reduce the number of Peers in the House. The only time it becomes an issue is when the quality of the behaviour of some of us brings the rest of us into contempt, or if the Government are defeated and then some Members of this House are no longer required.
This is not about the size itself. We already have clear evidence that only 490 on average turn up, so we have 200-plus consultants on tap who cost us no money but who have expertise they can bring into the Chamber. They do not get paid if they are not here. Once you take off those who are not paid and those who do not claim, that leaves roughly half the number who can currently sit in this Chamber on the payroll. If this proposal is seen through, and we artificially reduce the number of Peers to 600, it will end up costing the taxpayer more. If there are 600 full-time working Peers in this building, that would cost about another £6 million. I am not aware of any organisation that seeks to wound itself in terms of its experience and capability and at the same time cost the people it serves more money. That would be very perverse.
It would also drive up the average age of Peers entering this House. I am not sure that anybody aged 40 or 50 would choose to come in—in the middle of a career break—do 15 years and then find out they not only had nowhere else to go but had no pension on top of that, because we are not pensioned here. We also get plenty of complaints that the Chamber is too London-centric, but this would clearly drive up the number of people from London to whom this place becomes attractive, while making it less attractive to those from the shires. It would probably make us more London-centric, more expensive and less experienced.
On that basis, I cannot really see the point in pursuing this much further. In addition, to expect the Prime Minister or any future Prime Minister to fetter their own ability to reward people who have done good things or to create spaces in the other place is a bit naïve. I am not sure many Prime Ministers would agree to do that, and I do not think it is fair to try to pressurise this one into doing it. If Members seriously are concerned about the size of the House, we should move some formal stuff that locks future Prime Minsters into place as well and not just fetter the current one’s choice.
Before I sit down, I have a question, but I do not know who to ask and whether I will get an answer. What would happen if the monarch serves a Writ of Summons on somebody and they refuse to come because the Code of Conduct says they cannot?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in commending the thoughtful efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues and this report. However, with no disrespect, it is a publisher’s glowing dust cover to a hardback book titled Lords Reform. Blank pages and chapters in the book need to be written before those who must abide by the consensus being sought can fully judge its worth. Second-order and other key issues must be addressed and fleshed out. The House must tackle these as part of the effort to gain a broad acceptance of this strategy.
A Prime Minister, on taking office and while in it, and on departure from office, and party groups, individually by their then leader and severally, must indicate acceptance. These undertakings need to span the period not just of one Parliament but of successive ones and future holders of their offices too. Should it be a matter for a written undertaking, and perhaps Statements in Parliament? I understand the rubric that one Parliament cannot tie the hands of another; nor, presumably, can party leaders bind their successors. But is this of sufficient importance for all to set this aside in some solemn and binding way, short of statute? How realistic is it to harmonise such a gross mismatch between the horizons of a 15-year or 20-year corpus and the near-term partisan volatility of just a few years or even only months—the political in-office lifespans of Prime Ministers and other party leaders? Is this an Achilles heel? I sincerely hope not.
For the Cross-Bench group, the issue is much clearer so long as the two-out, one-in principle is followed. But the aspirations of those who lobby for an elected second Chamber may be eviscerated for a generation.
However, there is another issue to clarify. Is the 600, when reached—or indeed the numbers annually being aimed at in the process of reducing to 600—to be deemed a “never to be exceeded” total? If not, what flexibility should be considered and should that be part of the undertakings of parties and Prime Ministers? The report suggests new Ministers given peerages need not be counted in the 600 in the year of their elevation. But if some party or group does not take up a yearly allocation, will pressures to use any headroom below 600 prove irresistible? The House might need some of that number to be effective.
During my time as Convenor I had a number of exchanges about Cross-Bench membership with the then Lord Chancellor. He was leading on the first of the several attempts to move on to stage two of House of Lords reform. In general it was about Cross-Bench numbers, but I also raised some examples of appointments who, while worthy of a peerage, were not then on the Prime Minister’s list. Some of those have since been added; nor, presumably, will retiring Speakers from the other place be excluded. Traditionally their peerage follows a petition made by the other place.
As the report mentions, the previous Prime Minister further extended his Cross-Bench appointments list to consider a range of non-public service individuals, which looks very much like a return to the status quo ante Mr Blair’s original decision to forgo making non-party appointments. Before 1997, new year and birthday honours lists used to have about a couple of peerages each time, normally expected to be for Cross-Benchers. A return to that might not be contentious and set a more measured rate of appointments. The dates on which Justices of the Supreme Court take their seat on retirement will not necessarily fall within the once-a-year election proposal, and of course if a Parliament were not to run its five-year term, other variations would apply.
My point here is that, aside from the arrangements already proposed, there may be a number of special and earmarked cases that come up and do not lie within the normal party and HOLAC ambit or the timing of once-a-year appointments. Equally, I am sure that those I have mentioned are far from the only special cases that one or more might feel justified in promoting. This brings me back to the question: is there to be a “never exceed” limit on membership? If not, how should any variation be expressed? This question may need some very wise heads to put together a universally acceptable answer. It will be important not to fudge it.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it has been said by everyone but not yet by me: I echo the words of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee. The report has the huge benefit of being not only elegantly written but mercifully brief. I hope to match the brevity if not the eloquence.
What more is there to be said? We seem to be creating an impetus, a demand, for change that can probably no longer be stopped. We focus almost obsessively on numbers and cutting our House down to size. I wonder if that might lead in the course of time to more professionalism and politicisation—that is a possibility—and more expense too, as we have just heard most eloquently from my noble friend Lord Porter. That would be an unexpected consequence of reform, but change there will be. The question is whether that change will be achieved voluntarily or imposed upon us. Once you put the ferret down the rabbit hole, you can never be entirely sure of the consequences.
It is not just the reforms that we are discussing today; in connection, there is also renewal and restoration to consider. At some point in the not-too-distant future, it is likely that we will be moved to a different place—well, we move or we burn. I think it was Churchill who said we make our buildings and then our buildings make us. I wonder what the QEII conference centre will make of us. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, suggested, that in itself is likely to greatly reduce our numbers. It will also change our practices, how we see ourselves, how others see us, what we do and how we do it. We will not be the same House when and if we return to this place.
There is a still more pressing factor. Next year we will be immersed in the elected Government’s main legislative vehicle, Brexit. Some noble Lords have already declared that it is a Bill of betrayal, threatened trench warfare and even compared it to the appeasement of Hitler. That sort of action and that sort of language threaten to undermine everything that the Burns committee has been trying to achieve. If this unelected House decided to engage in open trench warfare, what options would that give any Prime Minister other than to appoint new Peers? This has to be thought through. To use a rather hackneyed phrase, we cannot have our cake and eat it.
Reform, renewal and restoration, Brexit—this could all come together as a perfect storm that might sink this place completely. So it is evolution or revolution. There is no standing still, not any more. The Burns committee stands for evolution, uncertain as that process usually is. That is why I support it, always bearing in mind that it is the other House, the House of Commons, that is in far more need of reform than we are.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, even if it is as the 82nd speaker in today’s rather long but important debate.
In all my years in Parliament, I have never been persuaded of the need for an elected second Chamber. I agree with elections—since 1973 I have fought 11, one every four years—but I do not think an elected Upper House will be anything other than a rival to the House of Commons, particularly if that House were elected on the basis of proportional representation. Having been involved over the last decade in the establishment of parliaments in Northern Ireland and Wales, I think it is inevitable that as a new parliamentary institution is set up it will eventually want more powers as it goes along. In Wales’s case, I think that was right, but would that be the case for an elected second Chamber that wanted more and more powers as the years went by?
However, if we do not have an elected Chamber then we have to have an appointed one that is reformed. In the two years that I have been in this place, I have been deeply impressed at the level of debate and expertise. I have been particularly impressed by the level of scrutiny of legislation, which is infinitely better than that in the House of Commons. At the same time, though, we have to look at the issue of size. When I entered Parliament in 1987, the House of Lords had 1,200 Members. In all the years that I was an MP, I never had one single letter or email about the size of the Lords. That is not to say that it is not an issue, because it is. My noble friend Lady McIntosh and others have said that it is a matter of reputation, not only of this House but of the whole of Parliament. Over the last five or six years, for all sorts of reasons, Parliament has not been seen in the best light. Unless we try to ensure that this House is a reasonable size then we are doomed, particularly on the basis that the Government want the membership of the House of Commons actually to go down. You cannot have a reduced House of Commons and an increased House of Lords; that just does not make sense in a modern constitution. I therefore join in the chorus of approval for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, whose committee has done a tremendous job on the report. “Elegant” is certainly the word; it is also practical, important and, most importantly, possible.
There are of course other issues that need to be addressed. I think we should abolish the by-elections for hereditary Peers. However, I believe the Bishops’ Bench should remain. I am a Catholic Christian who is quite willing to pass on to the Church of England the issues of Christianity that need to be debated in this place, and I have never heard any contribution from the Bishops’ Bench with which I have disagreed. I think that is important too.
The other issue that is important, certainly for those of us who do not live in or represent London, is the need in a changed political landscape to ensure that this place properly represents the nations and the regions of the UK. We now have devolution of sorts in Northern Ireland—I hope it will come back—and in Scotland and Wales, and there is an increasing move towards devolution in the north of England as well. Like many second Chambers in the world, this one could do a great job of ensuring that the nations and the regions of the UK in the 21st century were properly debated and looked after.
There is a problem with all of this, though, which has been touched on by a number of noble Lords during the course of the debate. If we are to listen to the gossip and rumours that are now prevalent throughout Parliament that the Prime Minister is about to appoint anything between—I have heard—25 to 56 Peers into this place, simply for the reason of passing legislation on Brexit, that would torpedo this report. That would never make sense. We cannot have the House of Lords appearing to be extremely united in wanting the report to be implemented and then, only weeks later, for that to be undermined by the creation of dozens of new Peers by the Prime Minister—who, I admit, has been very moderate on this issue in years past. If there is to be a race between new Peers being appointed by the Prime Minister and the implementation of the report, I am all in favour of the implementation of the report.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I express my thanks to the Lord Speaker for initiating this incredibly important piece of work, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for their report. I strongly support their recommendations. Although all of us might want to tweak the odd one here or there, I strongly support the report.
I am sure everyone would be delighted if I just sat down at this point, but I want to focus on just one issue. It seems that the underpinning for all other proposals in the report is provided by the proposed fixed cap on the total number of Peers with the right to sit in the House of Lords. Without that reform, the rest of the proposals will probably fall or achieve very little. Fears have been expressed that the Prime Minister will be reluctant to lose her complete freedom to exercise her powers of patronage. I understand those fears. But if the Prime Minister agrees that this House should better reflect the political balance across the country over time, and that the public would not accept an increase in the size of this House to 1,000 or more Peers, I hope she can be convinced of the need for the reforms presented by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
The big question is whether Theresa May accepts that it is impractical, self-defeating over time and offensive to the British public for successive Prime Ministers of both political parties to pack the House with their own appointees, to seek to rebalance the numbers of Peers on each side. That is, of course, a zero-sum game.
If we can assume the Prime Minister’s support on these issues, an answer to the patronage problem surely lies, as others have said, on page 13 of the report, which makes it clear that,
“the monarch is empowered to appoint life peers other than under the Life Peerages Act 1958”.
This power was confirmed by RP Gadd in Peerage Law, published in 1985—albeit that the power has not been used very recently. Importantly, Peers appointed in that way would not be entitled to a seat in this House. The Prime Minister would thus have complete freedom to appoint any number of Peers, if she really wished to, but she would need to decide which of those Peers could best serve your Lordships’ House. Others would have the honour of a peerage anyway, and if they were suited to sit in this House they could surely apply to the House of Lords Appointments Commission so that when a place became available they could have a position in this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said—I find this interesting, as I had not worked it out for myself—the Burns report would, anyway, enable a Prime Minister to create roughly the same number of Peers with a position in this House as have tended to be created, on average, by Prime Ministers over the years. What the Burns report would prevent is the creation of vast numbers of Peers for political purposes—and I very strongly support bringing an end to that type of activity. On this basis, I hope that the Prime Minister and the leaders of the opposition parties can support the report.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I join virtually everyone who has spoken in congratulating the Lord Speaker, and the committee on its ingenuity in producing the report, which guides us into what I regard as the first step of Lords reform. As many noble Lords will recall, I have been pressing my own plan for the last 12 years—but it would, of course, require primary legislation, so the report, which does not involve primary legislation, obviously represents the way ahead. Some of my own proposals are not a runner in these circumstances, and I am glad that the committee was kind enough to allow me to give evidence before it.
There are many parts of the report with which I strongly agree. Primarily, there is the essential need to reduce numbers; we need to impose a fixed cap of 600 in 11 years. I had suggested 500. I was interested to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and my noble friend Lord Caithness both felt that that was reasonable, and I would much prefer a quicker move than one that took 11 years. My own proposals, which, I am afraid, were cancelled out by the need for primary legislation, would have got us there immediately after the next election.
I welcome the fact that no party should have a majority and that the Cross-Bench percentage should remain at around 20%, and I can accept the 15-year term for voluntary retirement, in the interests of making progress. I would have preferred, and have proposed previously, that each party caucus should decide who stays and who goes. The party caucuses know best who contributes and who does not. As I read the report—I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would comment on this when he sums up—I think it would still be possible within its terms for the party caucuses to do that task.
Finally, I very much welcome what is summarised in Figure 4 on page 21, whereby new party appointments would be based on the average of the percentages of seats won and votes cast at the previous general election. I think I was the first one to propose this, with the help of the Library, in our debate two years ago last September—and I believe it is the best and fairest basis for making the political appointments.
Those are some parts of the report with which I strongly agree, but there is one area that I do not think the committee addressed—perhaps because of the need for legislation. It is the potential problem to which I have tried to draw attention all these years—the fact that the work of this House would come to a standstill if at an election a new party came to power or into a coalition from a small base, or no base. That has happened in recent years in Turkey, in Italy, and more recently in France—and it could happen here, because we all know that politics and politicians are not the flavour of the time. I remember how, in the mid-1980s, the SDP came quite close to being the dominant party in the public opinion polls. A new party in government or in coalition could find itself with few Ministers or Back-Benchers, and only tiny replenishments under the oblique reference in the third paragraph of Appendix 5.
That situation would be one thing that would trigger primary legislation, and I fear that this is one thing I must criticise in the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He said that he thought Appendix 5 would partly deal with that problem—and I stress that it would only do so partially.
My final comment is that I believe we must support the report, and that we must demonstrate tonight that there is a consensus in the House to do so. In order to achieve that consensus, when at the end of the debate the Lord Speaker puts the Question that the report be noted, I challenge all those who do not like it, and who believe that there is no consensus, to cry no at the appropriate moment.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, those who were in the Chamber earlier and heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grade, will have heard him jokingly suggest that this Chamber should conduct its business under the rules of the Radio 4 programme “Just a Minute”. I am very glad that we do not do that, because I fear that my own contribution and that of many other noble Lords might be disqualified on the grounds of repetition. But that is a risk of speaking at number 85, I fear.
In my years in this House, I have come to respect and admire the huge amount of work done by noble Lords to improve the legislation that governs our nation. The role of this House is much misunderstood, as a number of noble Lords have said, notably my noble friend Lord Cromwell. A particular misconception is that we make the laws. We do not, really; we do not make any laws with which the Commons does not agree. Our role is as a scrutinising and revising Chamber that accepts the primacy of the Commons but tries to ensure that legislation is fair and unambiguous, fit for purpose and as free as possible of unintended consequences. We must constantly try to get that message across to the public, who, for understandable reasons, do not recognise our real role.
Other common misconceptions are that we are full of hereditary Peers and resistant to change. Neither, of course, is true, and the debate today is further evidence that this House is self-aware and seeks to remodel itself, while maintaining the fundamental role of a scrutinising legislative Chamber and holding the Government to account.
The Burns report is the latest, and arguably the most fundamental, of a number of incremental evolutionary changes proposed in recent years by this House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned. It seeks to address a particular subject of public and media criticism—namely, the large size of the House—which, of course, has been created by the action of others in the other place.
Many noble Lords have spoken to commend the excellence of the report, which I fully endorse. Recognising the reality that legislative time, to say nothing of agreement, is unlikely to be possible in the near future, it makes proposals to reduce the size of the House that are pragmatic and realistic and, with good will, I would argue, achievable. The report is beautifully structured and argued, and eloquently written. In short, it is something that one does not often say about official documents: it is a very good read.
Crucially, the report proposes mechanisms to reduce the numbers and retain a smaller size but, at the same time, to refresh membership, which is important. It suggests means and a timescale that is sensitive to the fact that change in the absence of legislation will have to be voluntary. That will involve some individuals unselfishly agreeing to leave. Most significantly, as many noble Lords have said already, it will depend on the Prime Minister of the day to agree to restraining their level of political patronage—and that is not an easy ask. In restructuring over time the political balance of the House better to reflect that in the country and in the Commons, the report offers some recompense.
In conclusion, there are a number of areas where we need to work hard in this Chamber to improve and inform public perception of this House. But on the issue of its size, which is a major component of our negative public image, this excellent report advocates a means to effect a progressive and positive modernisation. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee on their brilliant report, which I fully support, and look forward to the Government’s response to it.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I see this problem possibly from a slightly different perspective from most of your Lordships. It is not just that I am older than most of you, but I have been here longer than most of you and I have heard the hereditary system debated more often than you. I remember back in the 1940s sitting on the steps of the Throne next to Nat Fiennes and hearing his father, Lord Saye and Sele, sitting on that Bench where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, is now sitting, saying that the hereditary system was not a bad system. It was a bit like roulette—it threw up all sorts. “And occasionally”, he said, pausing and turning to Nat and myself, “it throws up the odd black sheep”. There was a long pause and then he went on with his speech. I mention that merely to show that I am rather embedded in this place but, I dare say to noble Lords’ surprise, I am not embedded in it in its present form.
The next way in which I differ from your Lordships is that I cannot, by retiring or even by dying, reduce the number of Peers sitting in this House; under the present constitution, the gap will be filled by some equally well or better qualified person. But that is under the present circumstances. But if this report is adopted in toto and not weakened, the circumstances will not be the same. I, for one, think that when that is in place, my job is discharged. My job I see as maintaining the effectiveness of this place in the face of government when it becomes irresponsible, as well as revising responsible legislation. That, I think, is achieved by the present proposals, provided that the 15 years is not reduced by one month. That is the absolute minimum tenure required to maintain the individuality of this House aside from the rest of the government, but incorporated in the whole of Parliament.
That brings me to my next difference of perspective. I have been concerned for some years about the way in which this country is moving. One thing that concerned me very much was the extent and degree and commonness of surprise among Members of the other place when their constituents voted, either with or against what they wanted, for Brexit. I heard astonishment expressed by many Members of the other place as well as this place, and they are the people who are meant to be in touch with what the country is thinking. They attribute—and the generality of people attribute—that vote to a genuine national desire to leave Europe and become independent. It has been so interpreted, and that has been accepted. But I see it as largely contributing to that broad slice of British society for whom things have not got easier over the last 15 years; they got a bit more difficult. To quote Shakespeare again, I think that they were saying, “A plague on both your houses—we don’t like you and we don’t like the system”.
At that stage, when you also have a far left movement embedded in the Labour Party in the country, and approved of by the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party, you have a very unstable situation. If we are to get out of this intact, we need to have a Parliament respected by the country, and neither House is now respected. My enthusiasm for these proposals is that I believe that it is the beginning of getting respect back from the country and that it will, with luck, jolt Members of the other place into looking into their affairs. It would be indiscreet and inappropriate for me to list the things that they could do, but there are a great many, and a lot of them know what they are.
Therefore, I think that this is a moment of great importance. This debate is more urgent than your Lordships recognise, because the situation is more fragile than you recognise. We are in a boat and we are talking to each other with our backs to the portholes. Outside, the sky is darkening; we need to shorten sail, and we need to do it quickly.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, when I realised that I was speaking 86th in this debate, I was reminded of an apocryphal comment attributed to the seventh husband of Elizabeth Taylor. He knew what to do; the challenge was how to make it interesting. I join every other speaker in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee on this report. There was widespread agreement, not least from last year’s debate, on the need for the desired outcome of reducing the size of your Lordships’ House, so to make a recommendation for 600 was probably the easy bit. However, given that there were things that the committee could not do, not least the fact that there was not likely to be any major primary legislation, it is a remarkable achievement to have produced a set of proposals which has commanded such widespread support in your Lordships’ House and, indeed, beyond.
I do not resile from my own personal party position that we would rather see a predominantly elected second Chamber, with proper buttressing of the voices from the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. However, as my noble friend Lord Beith said, where we are is the “best show in town”, and I readily contribute to the consensus on these proposals. They are not perfect, but that is not necessarily a criticism of the committee; it is because of the inability to produce primary legislation.
Numerous Members of your Lordships’ House have picked up on two issues that will need to be addressed: the future role of the Bishops and of the hereditary Peers. Tables 1, 3 and 4 in the report extrapolate the numbers in your Lordships’ House to 2047, when I will be 93 and not here, either through death or retirement. It is worth reflecting, as we consider proposals that will take us almost to the middle of the 21st century, that the outcome would be that Bishops and hereditary Peers have a higher proportion of the membership of your Lordships’ House than they do today. I do not believe that that is fatal to these proposals, but they are loose ends. As anyone knows, if a number of loose ends are picked at the garment can slowly but steadily unravel. It is not impossible to address this: it does not need major legislation to have, for example, what one might call an episcopal haircut. The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 was introduced in the run-up to a Dissolution of Parliament, when there is always great pressure on the legislative programme. It had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 19 January 2015, its Third Reading in this House on 12 March 2015 and Royal Assent a fortnight later. When people want it to be done, it can be.
When I tell people about how the House of Lords is constituted, I have to reflect on the fact that at the last hereditary by-election among my own Liberal Democrat colleagues there was an electorate of three and seven candidates. The winner, my noble friend Lord Thurso, achieved a 100% vote on a 100% turnout, which exceeds even North Korean proportions. That situation is not tenable as we go forward. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has been mentioned. This Session of Parliament goes to May 2019. It must surely be possible to make progress on that legislation, particularly if these proposals have been adopted.
The most important point, raised by a number of noble Lords, is that this needs a buy-in, not just from the respective parties and Cross Benches, but also from the Prime Minister. The committee itself, in paragraph 53 of the report, states:
“Maintaining the current mechanism of appointment means that the success of our proposals hinges on Prime Ministers undertaking to appoint no more new members than there are vacancies, and to do so in the party proportions implied by the system proposed”.
That cannot be stressed too much. We are told that a raft of new Peers will be created in the coming weeks and that would change the baseline. Given all the work that has been done and the consensus achieved, that should not be fatal, but it might mean the proposals will be in intensive care. If we do not take this opportunity, it will be missed. It is, therefore, important that the Leader of the House takes back to the Prime Minister and her ministerial colleagues the consensus that there is for these proposals and that we should get on with it.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, the day has been long. I have listened as every point that I might have made has been made by others, probably more eloquently. A few other points have been made as well. I shall not try the patience of the House by rehearsing what I might have said. I give my wholehearted support to the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my thanks to him and his committee.
The authority of this House depends on its wisdom and expertise, so I will say a few words on these. Several speakers have mentioned the possible difficulty of persuading Peers to resign when their time is up or even under other circumstances. It occurred to me that something might be learned from other bodies with similar problems. At least one Cambridge college takes advantage of the wisdom of retired fellows by allowing them to attend and speak at meetings, but not to vote. Should we consider a similar offer to any retiring Peer who is interested? They could take part in the proceedings and allow the House to benefit from their wisdom, but by not voting they would not interfere with the evolving political balance that the report proposes. I do not particularly advocate this course, but it might be something to have in one’s back pocket.
Regarding expertise, several noble Lords spoke about an enhanced role for HOLAC. I support this and believe that this topic merits a debate in its own right. It will not be easy but, along with regionality and diversity, the commission should further its efforts to achieve a spread of professional expertise across all parties in the House. The world becomes more technocentric daily. As a non-engineer I can say that we undoubtedly need more Peers who can speak with authority in this area.
Let us move ahead without delay with the steps necessary to implement the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Various speakers have suggested that it might not work for this reason or that. I remind them that the only way in which to ensure that it does not work is not to give it our full support.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I should say at the outset that this report, I am afraid, makes me feel somewhat uneasy. However, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the members of his committee have produced ingenious, persuasive and seductive proposals. They have done exactly what they set out to do and have done it skilfully. They have come forward with a system that reduces the size of this House without the need for legislation. I well understand why the committee wanted a system that did not involve legislation, but that is precisely what causes me unease. Without legislation, the committee is proposing that we in this House, not one of whom has been elected by the general public, should decide for ourselves how many Members we should have. We the unelected will decide that; not the electorate, the elected House of Commons or the elected Government, but ourselves—an unelected elite.
The report goes on to propose a formula for deciding how many Members of this House should be Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem or independent. It may well be sensible but, in deciding that formula, it would be the unelected deciding the party make-up of this House—not the electorate, the House of Commons or the elected Government. This matters because we are a legislature. This House helps to write the law of the land and, despite the Parliament Acts, every year this House writes or rewrites much of the legislation that reaches the statute book. Yet, under these proposals, this House would decide off its own bat its size and party make-up. If this kind of self-appointed oligarchy were being established in a parliament in some far-off banana republic, I bet that there would be howls of outrage from many parts of this House about the affront to democracy.
I understand that the report’s objective is to improve the public’s perception of the House of Lords, but I have an inkling that the public may not be as easily appeased as we might think.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have some difficulty with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne. It is not the House of Commons that has decided the size or political composition of this House. The noble Lord is suggesting a remarkable constitutional innovation. This House and its political composition are the size they are for a number of historical reasons. I am very conservative about these things and would not want to follow the revolutionary course he proposed.
Speaking late in a debate has few advantages but one can pretend that one’s own views were the consensus, and I detect a consensus that coincides remarkably with my own view. I detect a consensus that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee have done an admirable job, agree that their proposals are the only show in town, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, stated, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that we should seize this opportunity that may not recur. Like the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor and Lord Jopling, I wish we could reduce our size to 600 a little quicker than 11 years. But actually, we probably will, because the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was right to point to the likely exodus when decant, so 11 years may be a pessimistic estimate.
What most, though not all, are saying is that it all depends on the attitude taken by No.10 and the three great parties. That is true. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I pay tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about the position of the Lib Dems. We are about to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, whose stamina in sitting through all this is remarkable. I heard the Leader of the House and was mildly encouraged, although what she said was a little gnomic. I hope she will bring home to the Prime Minister the degree of genuine consensus on the Burns proposals that the debate has revealed.
To come here is not a reward but a responsibility. I am not sure that the previous Prime Minister, so lavish with rewards for friends, funders and retainers, always understood that or explained it to those he sent here. Much of that army seems to have melted into the mist. We have not heard from many of them today, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, who is a regular attender. Being 800 strong makes us a laughing stock but the real scandal is appointing legislators who are not prepared to legislate. The record so far suggests that the current Prime Minister is more responsible regarding our overall numbers and more demanding of the duties of those she sends here. That strikes me as a good omen for the discussion that the Leader is no doubt about to have with the Prime Minister. I should be content and hope that the Leader will report the constructive suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, because it is important that the Government Front Bench should always be properly womanned, manned, personned.
I would like to add one Scottish point because I am a Scotsman and not many Scottish points have been made today. The debate is, therefore, so far, defective. I will put this right. The Burns plan, as I understand it, entitles the parties—all the parties—to seats in proportion to the votes cast, and seats secured, in the elections to the other place. As I understand it, if a party does not take up its entitlement, the seats in question are not reallocated to other parties but stay vacant, like Sinn Fein’s seats in the House of Commons now. I think we can assume that Sinn Fein would not take up its seats in this House, but what about the SNP? I think it would be quite hard for the SNP to explain to the people of Scotland why the largest party in Scotland, though having no Sinn Fein-type doctrinaire objection to sitting in Westminster, as it is well represented in the House of Commons, should not take up Scottish seats here but should leave them empty. Since I believe that our debates here on Scottish issues would greatly benefit from hearing from the governing party in the Parliament in Edinburgh, making the SNP more likely to overcome its reluctance to come here is an additional advantage of the Burns proposals.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Lord Speaker for taking this initiative, following it through and keeping in touch with the committee so well. It was very interesting to work with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who made us work very hard to consider every aspect of this issue. I am not telling tales when I say that the only real arguments we had was over whose turn it was to pay for the coffee. Strangely, everybody offered to do so every week, so the members of the committee worked together well.
The Leader of the House started off by saying that she wanted to hear the views of the House and get a proper feeling. I hope that she now understands the strength of feeling on all sides of the House that we need to move on this and make something happen. I noted that a few noble Lords said that there was no real problem, but it was a very few. I think that over 90% of noble Lords who have contributed to this debate are very clear that we need to act, and in the very near future.
Many noble Lords have accepted the general thrust of the report. It is important to realise that it constitutes a direction of travel and a package which we have put together and can be tweaked. Its proposals could be implemented more quickly—I think they may well be—and we considered all the other ideas and thoughts that have been raised in the debate today.
Several noble Lords have mentioned a retirement age of 80. It is true that the Labour Party group that we served on recommended that noble Lords retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach the age of 80. I am still very sympathetic to that and I think that more noble Lords will consider their future and plan ahead a little more. However, two difficulties need to be addressed that are not resolved by retirement at 80. The first is that it would not affect each party equitably. That is a real difficulty. However, the other real difficulty is that the noble Baroness said that she wanted to encourage a culture of retirement. However, we are not going to get that if noble Lords thinking of retirement think that they are just going to be replaced by more and more people on the Prime Minister’s list. That is one of the other difficulties with simply having retirement at 80.
The real key to the process suggested by the Burns committee is that of the steady-state concept—namely, that we will hit a sustainable target which will solve these problems in the longer term. A cap has been talked about. Irrespective of whether the cap is 600 or 450, it is the principle of having a cap, and thereby having a sustainable state, that is key to all this.
I wish to say a few words about the 15-year period because it is difficult to get this right. I know that some noble Lords are concerned about younger Members. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not in his place but the Clegg Bill that he supported suggested a period of 15 years, and only one term of 15 years. The average length of time served in the House of Commons is about 8.7 years at present, and there are plenty of young people willing to risk their careers to go into the Commons. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, dealt with the other aspects of that.
Mention has been made of the hereditaries. I am a strong supporter of the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Grocott, who unfortunately cannot be here today. I think that there is increasing support for that in this House. This committee, however, was looking at what changes were achievable on a relatively short timescale, and we could not propose legislation that we knew—as the Minister has mentioned again today—would be blocked and would not get through.
I also want to pick up on what has been said about the need for better regional representation, be it a senate of the nations and regions or other types of approach. As a northerner, throughout my political life I have come down to London on a Monday and gone back on a Thursday. I recognise that there is a very serious imbalance, not just in those who are represented here, but in the attitude to those of us who choose to stay and live in the north. I was told on more than one occasion that I would never get on in politics if I did not move to London. That culture is still around, but the committee could not look at the structures and suggest the kind of senate that has been mentioned, because that would have required legislation. The problem there is with our political leaders, because they are the people who have nominated to this House people predominantly from London and the south-east. That is a very big problem that we have to overcome.
Time is against me, but I will just remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said earlier. This House and the Members in it often take pride in calling ourselves a self-regulatory House. This is our opportunity, regardless of what was said a few minutes ago. Unless we take action, this issue is going to slip away from us. There is no way, without a cap and without changes of this kind, that we will not see an increasing size of this House. There is no end unless we make some changes. My noble friend said that “the buck stops here”; others have said variations of that. We can make a difference, and the report gives us a very practical way forward that we can tweak as we go along if necessary. It is the first time that we have had a comprehensive solution to this problem, one that I am glad has been so welcome in this House today.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn (CB)
My Lords, we are coming to the end of a long and very interesting debate which—let us hope—is going to turn out to be very productive and significant for the future of your Lordships’ House. As somebody who is interested in China, I have been fascinated by how often that country has cropped up in the debate: it has been repeatedly said that the House of Lords is the second largest parliament in the world, smaller only than the National People’s Congress in China. It is hard to imagine a greater difference between two institutions than that between the National People’s Congress and your Lordships’ House or the other place. In what we do, the way we do it and the way we are selected, we could hardly be more different from the Chinese National People’s Congress. This comparison is often made in jest, but it has become part of the popular mythology, and, frankly, that is pretty galling. It is less frequently pointed out that we are the largest second Chamber in the world, and it is surely time that we tackled this problem of excessive size or it will just get worse.
As I see it, the committee set up by the Lord Speaker and chaired by my noble friend Lord Burns has done a superb job. The report has rightly been widely praised by those who have already spoken in the debate, and it deals effectively and skilfully with this particular problem of size. Of course, there are points on which some people are going to disagree or have different ideas in respect of numbers or procedures, but what is proposed is a practical way forward. It is a way forward that is in our own hands without the need for legislation. This is surely the time when we should get on with putting it into effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said at the beginning of our debate to those who might disagree on minor points, this is surely not a time when we should allow the best to be the enemy of the good.
There is, however, one key element which, unfortunately, is not directly within our own control: what my noble friend Lord Armstrong referred to as the amount of water which is poured into the tank—in other words, the power of the Prime Minister to appoint new Peers. It will be essential that the Prime Minister and her successors apply self-restraint in making appointments. It has been said that one cannot expect such a self-denying ordinance to last. It is also said that one cannot instantly create a new convention. But as a country we have always been rather good at creating new traditions. Surely, once this tradition is created it will become difficult—if not absolutely impossible—to break it. I hope that we can get reassurances on this point. It is after all the one loose thread in the proposals which have been put forward. I fully support the proposals put forward in the Burns committee report. I hope that we shall put them into effect—and that we shall do so soon.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I am speaking last on this side, and in opposition to the proposals, I am rather reminded of the 1997 general election, when we used to sit in No. 10 watching “Zulu”—the fight against all odds at Rorke’s Drift. It has felt a bit like that today. But I have to speak as I see it. These plans remind me rather of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy’s celestial spheres: masterly ingenuity applied to solve a problem that does not exist. The earth was not the centre of the universe, as Ptolemy thought, and this House is not ineffective because it has many Members. It works as a cheap, part-time, respected House of expertise precisely because it has a large pool to draw on of people who do not come here every day.
I agree with those who said that a 15-year limit would cost this House the wisdom of experience. The public, given the chance, regularly send people of more than 15 years’ experience to their Parliament. Why no longer here? If a 15-year limit was in place, we would have had no Lord Speaker to call for this report and no noble Lord, Lord Burns, to write it—they would both have gone. I agree with my noble friend Lord Robathan that to remove new Members only after 15 years is not sustainable. If this House mistakenly calls for a 15-year limit, how could it reasonably expect a future Government, looking to get their new people in, not to apply that principle to all?
The report leaves it to party groups to decide how those unwilling to go would be persuaded to go. As a bit of a serial dissenter, I am uneasy about that. What kind of backstairs inducement or pressure would be applied by party Whips to make the unwilling surrender their places? We do not have many governorships left.
Crucially, the report changes the way Parliament is made up. Your Lordships would decide who stays and, to some degree, who comes. I strongly uphold exclusive cognisance of procedure, but not exclusive cognisance of the composition of Parliament. My noble friend is right: the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is that this House is made up by statute. People are appointed here under statute, either by a statutory commission or a Prime Minister who is responsible to the elected House. Composition must be a matter for both Houses. If membership is to be capped, it must surely be by primary legislation with the consent of both Chambers, not by a privy oath over there in a closed private club.
From 1770 to 1958, only Salisbury, Lloyd George, Baldwin and Attlee ever recommended over 12 Peers a year across a term of more than a year. Lloyd George rose to 15.7. Twelve new Members a year would cut our numbers by death alone. With retirement, 15 would also do so, with no need for Ptolemy’s celestial spheres. Restraint is possible; history proves it.
I rather think we are fighting the last war. The report reacts to massive creations by Tony Blair and David Cameron. There is no reason why theirs should be the future standard. The House declined in size under Gordon Brown. So far it has done so under Mrs May, but she must be able to create some new Peers, whatever the attraction to the Benches opposite of blocking that now.
It may be said that we cannot just rely on ministerial restraint, but that is the basis of the report. Unless all future Prime Ministers, not just my right honourable friend, accept restraint, then the whole report falls, as paragraph 53 declares in bold. If we have restraint, then we do not need the complexities of the report and the inevitable internal strains it will cause. Numbers will fall. If we do not have restraint, then the report is pointless and it will not achieve its purpose.
Before concluding, I must respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who tempted me to 1719. I oppose the principle of a fixed cap on an appointed House. Robert Walpole defeated that Peerage Bill partly by telling MPs that a smaller fixed House would mean fewer peerages for them. I am sure that was the conclusive argument. It was also partly on the basis—true then, and in 1832 and 1911—that a cap would leave the elected House unable to overbear the unelected one swiftly in a constitutional crisis. As Walpole then said,
“in all disputes between lords and commons, when the upper house is immutable, the lower must sooner or later, be obliged to recede”.
The Commons wisely rejected the cap which the Lords then proposed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and others that no wise Prime Minister would give up that latent power with an appointed House.
In conclusion, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on his ingenuity, as others have done, but this House would be a less uneasy, better functioning place without Peers feeling that they have to come here every day or make unnecessary speeches just to jump through the hoops of the complexities of Ptolemy’s spheres.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I should like to return to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True, later in my speech. In the meantime, I confess that I was filled with amazement and admiration when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, took on this job. He is obviously a glutton for punishment because he has chaired so many difficult groups which have come to some important conclusions. I do not envy him having to respond to 93 contributions during this morning and this afternoon’s debate. I am not going to attempt to do so but I want to try to pick out one or two themes that I think deserve a little more emphasis. I will certainly not just reiterate the points I agree with—if I did that, we would be here all night.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House have indicated today—and previously—that they are full of admiration for the ingenuity of the proposals put before our House by the noble Lord and his team. This is indeed a cunning plan but, like many other cunning plans, it has some problems. While we on these Benches broadly welcome the proposals, I want to touch on these problems because I want to ensure that the House is in accord in facing up to them.
Understandably, the committee decided to avoid any recommendations that would involve primary legislation. This self-denying constraint, while intensely practical in this particular Session, has two important consequences. First, there is a near-unanimous view in the House that, without a cast-iron guarantee—I think that was the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Newby—that No.10 will accept the full scheme recommended, all the work of his team and our discussions here in this House today and in preparation for this debate, will just have been a waste of time and effort. That, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, is the grim reality. This has been a consistent and persistent theme of the whole debate throughout the discussions today and, indeed, in the discussions that took place before this debate. I have lost count of the number of contributions today that have made that point—I think that over half the speakers have.
Unless the Prime Minister is willing to abide by this constraint, we might as well give up now, and without a statutory scheme her successors cannot be held to her agreement in law either. We would have to insist that in the event that she or any future Prime Minister broke out of this constraint, the whole scheme would be null and void.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I go along with what he said but I find the phrase “a cast-iron guarantee” unnecessary. Surely all that is necessary is for the Prime Minister to accept this report and to act on it. She can always break out of it, just as any successor can, but if she will act on it, she will set a precedent that is likely to become established and go a long way to solving this problem.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, speaks with huge authority, of course. I am only trying to point out that the team led by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in refusing to take the opportunity to put forward any sort of legislative proposal, has made the case that much weaker—not so much with the present Prime Minister but with future Prime Ministers. The noble Lord may not agree with me but, Members of the House having reiterated this point all day, I think that we should take it very seriously.
Secondly, the absence of any legislation prevents the normal constitutional process taking place. This has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, himself and by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor, Lord Birt, Lord Jopling and Lord Judd. We were forewarned in the debate last year by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—and he should know—that,
“for some heavy duty things—perhaps a cap on appointments—legislation would be necessary”.—[Official Report, 5/12/16; col. 549.]
Not only will MPs have no formal say in a major constitutional change but their constituents will have no opportunity to lobby them to express their views. It is extraordinary that in a debate that has lasted for most of the day so few Members have referred to the views of the public. At one point, one noble Lord referred to “the people who send us here”. No people send us here, but the people have a considerable interest in the composition of the legislature. I think that only the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, referred to this as an issue that we should address.
I find it ironic that those who have previously argued so vociferously for the primacy of the Commons should now acquiesce in a scheme which deliberately excludes its Members from any effective say in the composition of this House of Parliament. Here, I am with the noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne and Lord True. It is very interesting that we got to this stage of the debate before this point was raised from the Conservative Back Benches.
This would be an entirely internal—some would say incestuous—process, decided upon by the institution itself and implemented by it without all the usual checks and balances of the United Kingdom’s constitutional conventions. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I think that the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Sherbourne, are right to draw attention to this. To our fellow citizens this will look like—
Lord Cormack
The question is: does the noble Lord agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby?
Lord Tyler
Absolutely. He saw my speech when I drafted it and I saw his, and I am in absolute agreement. I will come to the point that I think the noble Lord wishes me to address in a moment.
Lord Tyler
Do Front-Bench speakers have only five minutes? The annunciator said very firmly that Back-Bench contributions are limited to a voluntary five minutes. I propose to deal speedily with the other points.
To our fellow citizens this will look like a process appropriate for the membership of a gentlemen’s club, not for the membership of half of the national legislature. To pursue a school analogy, not content with marking our own homework, we would be thought to have written our own exam paper and decided on our own expulsion system and its victims.
I was struck by the core argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in last December’s debate, and I very much regret that he is not here today. Addressing the issue of the reputational risks that an excessively large House faces he said:
“Some noble Lords appear to say that this is not too important: it is only perception. We do not exist in a vacuum”.—[Official Report, 5/12/16; col. 580.]
The former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a similar point today.
For these two formidable reasons, I believe that this is a temporary expedient. It cannot be permanent. It is important that we make that clear. We can do a very important job with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team. What we cannot do is make it the final outcome of how this House should be composed.
We should remember that the present proposals may be sufficient for a short time, but if we are not very careful, the public will become much more disposed to abolishing the House than to supporting its continued appointed basis. The public will want to know where they have a hand in these proposals. The committee’s recommendations may give us a temporary reprieve. However, for the sake of the reputation of the House they cannot be permanent. This is unfinished business. I conclude as I did in last December’s debate by saying that, eventually,
“the only acceptable method for reducing the size of a House of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy is democracy”.—[Official Report, 5/12/16; col. 509.]
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I had expected to be the 95th speaker in tonight’s debate, so I am somewhat delighted that I am in fact only the 94th. I have listened to all the speeches today and they have been to the great credit of this House. Like others, I pay tribute to the Lord Speaker and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee. The report has been described as a “masterpiece”, “skilful”, “ingenious”, “cunning”, “original”, “enlightened”, “eloquent” and “persuasive”. It is of course all these things and more. But we should acknowledge—and it was a mistake of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, not to—that the committee had a clear and focused remit. Issues about what was not in the report are not down to the committee. This House had a debate and decided what it wanted the committee to examine: the size of the House. Any errors of omission are not those of the committee. Also, on the issue of primary legislation, the committee sought to look for a way forward when the Government had made it clear that there would be no time for such legislation, so that is not something to lay at the committee’s door.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others have commented, too often in searching for perfection we reject improvements and progress. This report does not have all the answers to the various issues and concerns that Members of your Lordships’ House and others have about the role and composition of our Second Chamber. It was never able to provide that, and it was never intended that it would.
I agree with the point made by a number of noble Lords that there is not a queue of people outside Parliament demanding changes in the House of Lords. But, if most people are asked to express a view, they often will do so, saying that they want change—although they also readily admit that they do not have a great deal of knowledge about what we do.
It is interesting that in the two countries where the Governments proposed reform of the second chamber, it produced unpredicted results. In Ireland, the referendum to abolish the Senate was lost, and in Italy, the referendum to reduce the power of the second chamber was seen as a government power grab and provoked a constitutional crisis. There is hope for us there. The difference here is that this House has initiated this debate and these proposals. It is this House that is looking at ways to decide whether we can do our job better and have a better reputation. Those are the proposals that we asked the Burns committee to look at.
I welcome the point that was raised first by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—that we sometimes look at this issue from the wrong end of the telescope. We sometimes look far more at who should be in the House than at what we do. The focus of the changes and of any reform, the guiding principle, should always be what enables us better to fulfil our responsibilities. The large number of speakers and the quality of the debate today reflects our concerns about our reputation and our ability to fulfil those responsibilities and our constitutional obligations.
Tonight’s debate has been more than a broad welcome. With very few exceptions there has been clear support for this report around the House. Some issues of concern have been raised and I will briefly touch on those. One is hereditary peerages. It does seem nonsense, in this day and age, that we still have by-elections with a smaller and smaller electorate. When I last spoke on this I referred to the by-election from “Blackadder” at Dunny-on-the-Wold. Equally, I am reminded of being on a parliamentary visit with the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and introducing ourselves: “My name is Angela Smith, I am a Member of the House of Lords and I am appointed. This is the Earl of Courtown, he is a hereditary Peer and he is elected”. Our colleagues did not really understand what we were on about. I hope that as this progresses, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will have a fair wind from the Government.
On the issue of the Bishops, I was very interested in the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, which were very conciliatory. I have to say that I had hoped he would have gone further and recognised that when the other parts of the House reduce in size, the Bishops’ Benches would as well. I’m sure that is a discussion the Bishops will be having and will take forward.
The point was raised that we cannot force retirements and reductions from current Peerages, because they were accepted on the current terms of a life Peerage, but a gradual retirement plan is proposed and new agreements for new Peers to undertake a 15-year term. Having been outed—perhaps over-generously—as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House, I can say that I have no opposition to this. When I arrived in your Lordships’ House there was no opportunity for anybody to retire. Then we moved forward in 2014 and voluntary retirement was allowed. Now we are moving forward to a phased retirement for existing Peers. Given that when I started work my retirement age was 60 and it is now 67, I see no objection to having a phased retirement for all current Peers and a time-limited tenure for new Peers.
I recognise the concern that a time-limited term may be a deterrent for some, because of their careers. In part, that has been addressed by the five-year break that the committee recommended. Noble Lords are right to make the point that the Government should always be able to get their business through. It is also right that the Opposition must fulfil their duty. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris understandably thought that arguments going back to 1945 were unpersuasive, but there are more recent examples. We all accept the convention that an elected Government have the right to implement their election manifesto, but there is a danger that this Government have hyped up the problems they have had with your Lordships’ House. I recall that when the Prime Minister called the 2017 election she made reference to the “unelected House of Lords”. What had we done that was so terrible? We had passed two amendments to a Bill and, as always, those amendments were then suggested to the House of Commons, which unfortunately rejected them, and this House accepted that. That is the proper and constitutional role of your Lordships’ House. We propose amendments to the House of Commons for consideration. Our role is that of revision and scrutiny, and the conventions ensure that we fulfil that obligation. The Canadians call it the chamber of “sober second thought”, which I think is a valuable and useful way of putting it.
The value and strength of these proposals is that they do not challenge the established constitutional position of the primacy of the Commons or increase the democratic legitimacy of your Lordships’ House. Nothing changes in that regard at all. With appointments reflecting the results of each general election and 15-year terms, there will be a gradual change in the political balance of this House. That is reflected on page 9 of the report:
“Appointments after Labour came to power in 1997 gradually rebalanced the House, but they did not become the largest party until 2006”.
That was nine years later. The problem has arisen now because the Conservatives from 2010 to 2014 became the largest party, even though there were two parties in government. When the Liberal Democrats moved from the government side to the opposition side of the House, there were more Conservative appointments to make up for the fact that the Opposition were larger as well. That is partly why we find ourselves in the current position.
The Leader of the House referred to retirement. The point has been made that Members are very reluctant to retire when they believe that all they do is to create a government vacancy. If we look at the number of appointments to your Lordships’ House since David Cameron became Prime Minister, and those who left the House through retirement or perhaps enforced retirement, the Conservative appointments total 109, and those who left total 63—a net gain of 46. On the Opposition side of the House, there has been a net loss of 17, with a net gain of 24 for the Liberal Democrats. So the current position is not serving your Lordships’ House terribly well.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, had very legitimate concerns about the geographical location of where Peers come from. That does not change under this report, but it perhaps offers, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, indicated, an opportunity to redress that issue.
Other comments were made that this is a part-time House. This is not a part-time House. This is a full-time House, but we do not expect every Member of your Lordships’ House to be a full-time Member. Other noble Lords referred to the issue of a working Peer. We value the notion that some of our Members are full-time and here every day, but others bring their expertise with them and contribute to the House. A working Peer is not necessarily somebody who is here all day every day, but someone who plays a full role and contribution in your Lordships’ House.
On two further points, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—I always like the new reincarnation of the noble Lord—was the main proponent tonight of the status quo, but he made the case for change in doing so. He opposed the idea of a cap. The issue of why a cap is so important has been dealt with by a number of noble Lords. But he also made the case for Prime Ministerial patronage. Nothing in the Burns report removes Prime Ministerial patronage. In fact, Prime Ministers may have more appointments to make, as there is a turnover of Members leaving the House and new Members coming in. I grabbed the Hansard before we came back after the Statement. He said:
“It may happen only rarely, but to remove the ability of the Prime Minister to threaten to increase the number of Peers”.
It really is a disgrace when the Prime Minister thinks she can bully this House into doing her bidding through threatening to increase the number of Peers—
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, this is the lesson of history. This is exactly what happened in 1911. It is that ultimate power of the Prime Minister representing the House of Commons to be able to threaten the House of Lords with an influx of new Peers which encourages us to behave in an entirely constitutional way. Once you have removed that threat, it changes the relationship between the two Houses, and it increases the power of this House, which I do not think was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I know it is usual to thank noble Lords for their interventions, but I genuinely do so on this occasion. He has made my case. I have been threatened twice since I have been leader about the introduction of new Peers: once on the tax credits Bill, as the noble Lord will recall, and on Brexit as well. On neither of those occasions has that had any impact whatsoever on my behaviour as leader or on the behaviour of my party. What does make a difference is that we understand the conventions of this House and we understand the limitations of the role of an unelected Chamber. The noble Lord says, “We have got to have Prime Ministerial patronage so that we can hold a sword of Damocles and threaten the House of Lords”, but this is not the way Prime Ministers should operate. They should operate on persuasion and discussion and the conventions of this House, not on threats. So I thank the noble Lord, but he has just made my case for me and I am grateful to him for doing so.
Just briefly on other concerns that were raised: there were those in favour of a retirement age and those who were against a retirement age. There will be no consensus on that issue. There will be different views. On the age profile of this House, it is worth noting that the three party leaders in your Lordships’ House are younger than the three party leaders in the other place.
Some thought the proposed progress was too slow; others thought it was right; others thought it was unnecessary to do anything at all. Tragically, some thought there were too many former MPs in your Lordships’ House, and some thought, understandably, that there was an overrepresentation of Liberal Democrats.
Some thought it was wrong for the appointment of new Peers to have any link with general election results. If you make the calculation, appointments are made on five-year cycles so there is not an immediate change in balance but over time there is a rebalancing of the House. That emphasises our differences from, rather than similarities with, the House of Commons.
Finally—I can see the Chief Whip looking at me closely, but I am trying to summarise, in the absence of any other party leaders doing so, some of the 93 wonderful speeches we have had—the question has to be: are any of the objections that have been raised insurmountable? In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, are any of them fatal to the proposals? I do not consider that they are but there is one insurmountable issue: the role of the Prime Minister and of the Government. This will work only if the Government play their part. It is not about giving up patronage or appointments but about showing some restraint, as it used to be. I really believe that if this Prime Minister made that point, it would be very difficult for future Prime Ministers to renege on that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the committee for their work. If the House and the Government are to show respect for the work they have done, we will take this forward. I noted that a number of noble Lords quoted from songs and plays. I will quote Elvis Presley, when he sang, “It’s now or never”. He added:
“A little less conversation, a little more action, please”.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the very kind words that have been said about the report, and the number of noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have watched some of my close friends and people I have worked with in the past, sitting beside me, squirming with irritation at some of the things that have been said about me—I come from a very competitive background.
A lot of good points have been made which would need to be considered in any implementation. We set out a number of these in the report. We could not solve all the problems. We are reasonably confident that they are not severe problems and that they can be coped with, with a certain amount of good will. I am very grateful for the summary that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, made of some of the points. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, covered a number of the issues that I was going to cover.
First, I will make a point about diversity, culture, et cetera. It is perfectly clear that there is more to having a successful second Chamber than the issues covered in our report. There are issues of diversity, about the regions and nations, about the health of people and fitness to practise, but these were not in our remit. They are things which can be conducted in parallel with what we are proposing here. They are not necessary for it. They are good things to have and they could be done in parallel. They are very important. When I said they are not for today, I did not mean that we should put them off for ever. Instead, I sought to say that we should not mix them up with these proposals—the most important thing is to get the kind of structure suggested here in place first, and then it would be possible to deal with many of these issues. I share the views of those who said that under these circumstances we will have to move to being a more professional House, and I am confident that we can move in that direction.
The second issue that came up a lot was size. We were told that we had tried to solve the wrong problem because the issue is not the size of this House. I have repeatedly argued in all the presentations I have made, and it is something that the committee came to agree quite quickly, that size is only one aspect of this. The cap on numbers was by far the most important issue. I think almost everybody who criticised the concentration on the size of the House neglected to address the cap and what happens when the system is unbounded, as was pointed out earlier this afternoon. It is the combination of a lack of a cap on the size of the House and a lifelong ability to sit in this House that has created the enormous difficulty that we have and all the inflationary pressures that come from it. If people are appointed at, say, 55, which is the sort of trend that we are seeing, and live to 85 on average—and that is going up—we have people here for 30 years, so what size of House do we need in order to get a reasonable amount of turnover? What size of House do you need in order to rebalance it after a change of Government? The arithmetic of this is really very difficult. It is not just the size; if you have an unbounded system and the possibility of people being in this House for 30 years on average, you have a set of circumstances which is very difficult to solve without simply seeing the size of the House continue to grow. I regard that as a very dangerous situation.
A number of noble Lords made points about age. Certainly the committee had no problem with the idea of age being a factor in determining who should leave during the transition period, or possibly age combined with time served when we were going through the process of trying to adjust from the present House of 800 plus down to 600, but we have to bear in mind that under the present arrangements, and we believe that it is very difficult to avoid it, this would have to be a voluntary process. It is not something that can be imposed upon people who came into the House in different circumstances. We have seen no legal evidence as yet that the House has the power to impose a retirement age upon Members. If people can demonstrate that it does have the power, that raises a different set of issues, but we were working on the basis that the House does not have that power.
The real problem is that we cannot use age for the steady-state solution because it does not produce the stream of retirements that is needed in a regular pattern and it certainly does not produce them on an equal basis across all parties to result in what we described as a fair system. The point at which we will die and leave under those circumstances has quite a lot of randomness about it. The beauty of the term system is that it produces a regular flow of opportunities to make new appointments and it can be designed so that it is fair to all parties.
We spent hours on the subject of legislation. We did not simply decide at our first meeting that we had to do this without legislation. We looked at a lot of different options, but we were very conscious of the Government’s position on this and of the competing legislation that was likely to be around. Nothing prevents any of the changes that people have suggested with regard to the Bishops, the hereditaries and some of the other aspects if legislation is possible, but there is nothing to stop those things being subject to legislation after this system is in place and we have got agreement about the structure. A number of things could follow. I said this morning that it is possible that it might be sensible to have legislation for some of these things at a subsequent time when everyone was satisfied that the system had bedded down and there was the opportunity for legislation.
The question I asked myself and members of the committee asked themselves was whether we should wait to make any progress on these other issues until we had a slot for legislation, or should try to put together a system that could be worked on on a non-legislative basis, but which legislation could be brought to bear on at a later point. That certainly remains my position, having heard the points that have been made today.
It was pointed out that under our proposals there would be a rather slow adjustment to changes of government, and that under our formula, the Labour Party would have been at its peak in 2009. Well, that is scarcely surprising, as by then it had been in office for 12 years, and of course that was the actual position. We tried to show in the report that the calculations in the model produced results not that different from the actual results. The Labour Party came into office in 1997, but was not the largest party for quite some years after that point.
The noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne and Lord Tyler, made the point that this House would be deciding the formula for party size et cetera, whereas the House of Commons should be doing it. My impression was that the House of Commons has no impact at all on the size or the composition of the House of Lords. That is entirely in the hands of a series of Prime Ministers. This is not something that anybody has decided. Indeed, our proposal is that this would be part and parcel of an agreement, so the Prime Minister would still be in the same position, certainly regarding influencing the size, because this agreement, as many noble Lords pointed out, cannot carry on without the agreement of the Government.
My interpretation of today—and I feel very encouraged by it—is that there is a substantial consensus about the need for reform and that there is a lot of support for the proposals. Our rough calculation is that 80% of speakers said that they thought this was a sensible way of moving forward. My hope is that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can now take a very strong message back to the Prime Minister. Of course, it requires the support of the Prime Minister, which we have made clear from the beginning. Without that, it really cannot go anywhere. This is in its essence an agreement between the party leaders, and the Prime Minister is in the key position here as the person who will giving up most of the flexibility and has to be able to agree with this.
I hope that our Leader will be able to exercise her powers of persuasion and to explain what has happened in this House today and the amount of support for this, so that we can possibly move forward to a next stage where we look at implementation in a great deal more detail, come together to try to form an agreement between the parties and clear up some of the other issues that have been raised. Meanwhile, I beg to move.