House of Commons
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I have regular conversations with the Irish Government on a range of issues. We both recognise the importance of the trade that takes place across the island of Ireland, which is worth some £4 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. Equally, though, we must not forget the importance of the GB markets to Northern Ireland, where sales are worth some £14.6 billion. We are committed to protecting both these vital markets.
Stephen Gethins
Scottish Government analysis has shown that a no-deal scenario could cost Scotland up to 8.5% of its GDP. Government analysis suggests that Northern Ireland could be cost up to 12% of its GDP. Does she believe any analysis she has seen, and is this too high a price to pay to keep a Tory civil war from breaking out?
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has dealt with the issues concerning the leaked report. It is important to state that the UK Government want to achieve a good deal for the whole United Kingdom that protects the economic integrity of the United Kingdom.
Stuart C. McDonald
If this Government are so determined to take us out of the customs union and the single market, how do they see us avoiding a hard border on the island without having a hard border in the Irish sea?
Karen Bradley
The United Kingdom Government have been clear that we do not want to see a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Irish Government have said the same, as has the European Commission. I think it is clear that we will make sure there is no hard border.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The voice of Wales and Scotland is being heard loud and clear in the current Brexit negotiations. That of Northern Ireland most certainly is not, because of the impasse. In answer to Questions 4 and 5, the Secretary of State will no doubt say that the solution is the restoration of the Executive, but if the Executive is not restored, what will she do to make sure the voice of Northern Ireland is heard in the current negotiations in Brussels?
Karen Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He will know that I have been working extraordinarily hard over the last few weeks on talks, and I will address those matters when I answer Questions 4, 5 and others. The important point is that for Northern Ireland’s voice to be heard in the way the Scottish and Welsh voices are heard, we need a devolved Government in Stormont. That is what we are working towards.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place and the fact that she is in discussions with the Irish Government. In her discussions, has she reflected with the Irish Government on what would happen to cross-border trade if one part of these islands that was in the common travel area joined Schengen, as the Scottish National party keeps arguing for? That would see a border not just in the Irish sea but across this island.
Karen Bradley
We are clear that the economic and constitutional unity of the United Kingdom is fundamental to all we are doing, and we are determined to ensure that the UK single market—the most important single market to Scotland and to Northern Ireland—is retained.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Bearing in mind that the United Kingdom is Ireland’s largest trading partner and that 30% of all employment in Ireland is in sectors that are heavily related to UK exports, will the Secretary of State outline what discussions have taken place to ensure that this mutually beneficial partnership continues unhindered by the petty point scoring, statement making, headline grabbing whims of EU leadership?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman puts his point more eloquently than I could ever dream of.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Given that the Irish Republic would lose out most if there was not a good deal with the European Union, is the Secretary of State making it clear to all the Irish Ministers she is meeting that they have a role to play with the European Union and that they should be standing up for their country’s attitudes and making sure we get a good deal, which is to their benefit?
Karen Bradley
The reality is that a good deal is a win-win for everybody—not just Ireland but all the EU27 member states. Not having that is a lose-lose; nobody benefits from not having a good deal.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has been clear that there will be no continuing customs union between the UK and the EU. Does the Secretary of State agree that that means a divergence of regulations between Ireland and Northern Ireland and that paragraph 49 of December’s agreement must be activated? In that case, will she tell us what
“specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland”
she is proposing?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady makes the point that there are unique circumstances in Northern Ireland—unique anywhere across the whole of Europe—and those unique circumstances have to be reflected. The UK Government’s intention is to resolve the matter of north-south trade—and east-west trade—through the overall UK-EU agreement, but we are absolutely determined to make sure that we respect the integrity of the north-south border and that we respect the agreements that were made in Belfast nearly 20 years ago.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
May I welcome the glistening new team to the Front Bench? I am sure the whole House agrees with me in saying how pleased we are—we are absolutely delighted—that the Secretary of State’s predecessor is recovering so well from his surgery. May I particularly welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary? He is the eighth Minister that I have had the privilege of shadowing; I do not know whether this attrition is anything to do with my personal behaviour, but I plead not guilty.
Now that the new team have had a chance to find their way around, particularly on the border, and they have studied the issue of the electronic border, do they believe that such a frontier is feasible or is it just a fantasy?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. I too pay tribute to my predecessor, who I am pleased to say is recovering well at home. I know the whole House wishes him well, wishes him a speedy recovery and looks forward to welcoming him back to this Chamber.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the matter of the border. We are determined that there will be no new physical infrastructure at the border, and we will maintain things such as the common travel area, which has been in existence since well before the EU.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I too thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) for his kind words of welcome. He and I have worked together on a number of issues, but this is the first time we have met across the Dispatch Boxes, and I look forward to constructive engagement with him and his team.
On my hon. Friend’s question, this Government are committed to reaching our pledge of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. Through our industrial strategy, we are committed to helping young people across the country to develop the skills they need for the future. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that delivering apprenticeships in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. As such, that is another reason why we need to see a restored Executive up and running.
Maria Caulfield
Employers in Northern Ireland recently told members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that while there is no Northern Ireland Executive in place they are having to pay the apprenticeship levy but have no access to the funds to take on apprentices, because without an Executive the block grant is not being distributed. The apprenticeship levy in Northern Ireland is turning into a stealth tax for businesses. Does the Minister agree that this is another reason why we urgently need a Northern Ireland Executive in place?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and gives an excellent example of why it is so important that we have a devolved Assembly up and running again. Important decisions, such as the one she mentioned, need to be taken, and that is why we need the Assembly up and running as soon as possible.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is worrying that we hear of the loss of apprenticeships, and yesterday we had an announcement that Williams Industrial Services in my constituency has actually gone into administration. What help will the Minister give us to ensure that we retain manufacturing and the apprenticeships there?
Mr Vara
May I say at the outset that I am very sorry to hear about the position of the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency? I very much hope that the employers will follow all the legal processes by way of consultation and everything else that needs doing as far as the employees are concerned.
On the promotion of more jobs, it is clearly important that the devolved Assembly is up and running because it has a critical role to play. In the absence of such a devolved Assembly, however, I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are doing all we can. Indeed, only recently we met Invest NI with a view to seeing what is happening in Northern Ireland and what we can do to help.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
One of the best apprenticeships programmes is run by Bombardier. Does the Minister agree it is fantastic news for those apprentices that the complaint against Bombardier has been soundly rejected?
Mr Vara
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. It is very welcome news that the United States International Trade Commission unanimously agreed with Bombardier, and we very much look forward to working with Bombardier, which plays such a critical role in the UK economy, particularly in Northern Ireland.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the talks, so I ask for your forbearance while I give an answer that is slightly longer than usual. Over the past weeks, the political parties—particularly the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin—have engaged in discussions on the key issues that remain to be resolved. They have done so with the continuous support of the UK Government and, in accordance with the three-strand approach, the Irish Government. Those discussions have built on the progress that was made in previous talks to reduce further the gaps between them. An accommodation between the parties has not yet been reached, but there is no doubt as to their collective commitment towards the restoration of devolution. I firmly believe that an agreement in the coming days, while not certain, is achievable. That remains my focus.
Vernon Coaker
In welcoming the Secretary of State to her new post, may I gently say to her that she should have been making a statement on this today? Every party in Northern Ireland says that it wants a deal, but significant gaps remain. Can she outline what those gaps actually are, and what she is doing to try to resolve them and bring people together?
Karen Bradley
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who is greatly distinguished in this area and knows Northern Ireland politics well, that we are at a very sensitive stage in discussions. I have been committed to making no running commentary on the talks while they are ongoing. There have been very intense and detailed discussions. I believe that we can reach an outcome, but I will do nothing that might jeopardise that.
Nigel Mills
Will the Secretary of State set a deadline for the talks so that the people of Northern Ireland know when they will have some government back, either in Northern Ireland or via direct rule from here?
Karen Bradley
I was clear at the outset that the talks would take weeks, not months. We have been in intensive discussions for two weeks now, and I hope to see the matter resolved as soon as possible.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the Secretary of State agree that in normal civil society a party that wins an election comes together and forms a Government, and parties that do not win an election and do not want to be in government go into opposition and hold that Government to account. Have we not now reached the stage in Northern Ireland where normal civil society ought to be operating?
Karen Bradley
I firmly agree that, after almost 12 months without devolved government, we absolutely need to have the Stormont institutions back up and running. The people of Northern Ireland voted for their politicians, and it is incumbent on those politicians to deliver. However, we respect the fact that this is a cross-party and cross-community resolution, as set out in the Belfast agreement. As I have said, I am determined to do everything possible to give this the best chance to succeed and to get devolved government back up and running, and I will do nothing to jeopardise that.
Bob Blackman
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that devolved government is restored as soon as possible. Does she agree that one of the stumbling blocks is that certain parties—namely, Sinn Féin—keep coming forward with new demands that were not part of the original aim of forming the Executive?
Karen Bradley
I apologise; I would very much like to give Members much more explicit and detailed answers, but that would simply not be appropriate at this stage. However, as before, I commit to returning to the House as and when I have something concrete to say on the matter.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to her new post—and the Under-Secretary of State—and wish her well in her continued efforts to facilitate talks in Northern Ireland. She knows that we are not the stumbling block to the restoration of the Executive. In the meantime, will she give a clear commitment to the people of Northern Ireland, and to this House, that the budget for Northern Ireland will be set as soon as possible, given that the head of the civil service has said
“we cannot go much beyond the beginning of February without clarity about how much departments and various public bodies are going to have to spend next year”
because the lack of a budget is affecting services, including health and social care? The current position is intolerable. We need a budget and we need it now.
Karen Bradley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments—he and I have discussed this issue. He will know that my predecessor took action on the matter, and obviously I have had discussions with the civil service in Northern Ireland. I have met some very dedicated public servants who are doing their best to deliver, but in the absence of devolved government that is becoming increasingly difficult. That is why we need devolved government, and we need it quickly. I understand the point he makes. My predecessor took action on the matter and I am sure that he will be assured by that.
Nigel Dodds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State, in so far as that goes, and I look forward to her bringing forward proposals, without prejudice to the ongoing negotiations, so that we do not have a situation in which Departments, people and services are suffering. Does she agree that the recent statement by Alex Maskey of Sinn Féin about Northern Ireland being a “putrid little statelet”, justifying IRA murder in order to bring about rights, shows the sheer disgrace, irony and hypocrisy of Sinn Féin preaching rights and equality by justifying murder and disrespecting the state of Northern Ireland? Does she agree that that sort of attitude must stop? If respect is to mean anything, it has to mean Sinn Féin showing respect towards Unionists and those who believe in the Union.
Karen Bradley
I think this shows that it is incumbent on everyone in public life to think very carefully about the words they use in public and the way they may be interpreted.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I too welcome the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. I look forward to working with them and of course wish the Secretary of State’s predecessor a speedy recovery.
We understand that the Secretary of State will not want to give a running commentary on the talks, but there is enormous frustration in Northern Ireland after a year in limbo, with successive Secretaries of State telling us exactly the same thing. Can she at least confirm that one of the big sticking points in the talks is rights—not just language rights, but marriage equality rights? Can she tell us whether she will consider taking that issue off the table by legislating for equal marriage rights in Northern Ireland, which are enjoyed in Staffordshire?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I said, I do not wish to say anything at this stage—I know it is frustrating for all that I cannot say more, and I am frustrated too—but I will come to this House and make a full statement as and when I am able to. Equal marriage is clearly a devolved issue and quite rightly should be legislated for in Stormont. That is the right place for this legislation to be enacted, and I look forward to a devolved Government being in place that can do that. He will recall that when the matter was debated in this Chamber for our constituents in England and Wales, these Benches were entitled to a free vote and Members of Parliament voted in line with their conscience.
Owen Smith
And the right hon. Lady will know that Northern Ireland did have a vote in the Assembly on this issue in November last year. It voted in favour of taking forward marriage equality for Northern Ireland, so she could show leadership on this issue and respect devolution, and potentially bring forward the prospect of devolution being resolved. Will she answer a very simple question that I think many people in Northern Ireland will want me to ask: what is she going to do differently in the weeks and months ahead to show leadership and break the deadlock?
Karen Bradley
The talks have resumed. They are detailed and intense. The parties are engaged and are working late into the night most nights to reach a resolution. I think that the politicians in Northern Ireland understand the frustration of the people of Northern Ireland and want to deliver for them, but there are differences that need to be overcome. I am doing everything I can to try to get a resolution so that accommodation can be found and devolved government can be restored.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I would like the Secretary of State just to take a few moments to explain to the House and the people in Northern Ireland the level of engagement with the smaller parties in Northern Ireland—the Alliance party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, and the Ulster Unionist party—in the recently resumed talks. I have had it reported to me that they had a cup of tea and a bit of a chat, and said, “Thank you and goodbye, see you on Thursday.” I cannot believe that that was the level of engagement, so would the Secretary of State give some reassurance about the level of engagement with smaller parties, please?
Karen Bradley
All parties have been included within the talks process since 24 January. I have met all the main party leaders on a number of occasions, including at the roundtable on Monday, and we are due to hold another one later this week. The hon. Lady will understand that unless the two big parties—the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin—can reach an agreement, we are not able to achieve devolved government, so it is right that there is detailed, bilateral discussion between those two parties. Yesterday, for instance, I spoke to or met all the party leaders.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We speak regularly with our counterparts in the Irish Government on a range of issues. In the joint report agreed with the EU at the December European Council, we reached an agreement that will maintain the common travel area. We also agreed that any future arrangements agreed between the UK and the EU must be compatible with the UK Government’s commitment to avoiding any physical infrastructure on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We will continue working closely with the Commission to agree a legally binding text for the commitments made in December.
Tony Lloyd
If the Government are committed to regulatory alignment on both sides of the Irish border, has it made it easier that the Prime Minister has declared that there will be no membership of the customs union or single market?
Andrew Rosindell
Does the Minister agree that once the UK leaves the EU we will have a duty to protect the rights of Irish citizens under UK law, through the common travel area, which predates Britain’s membership of the EU?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and is right that the reciprocal rights under the common travel area between the UK and Ireland predate either country’s membership of the EU. I can assure him that the joint report from last December contains a commitment to maintaining the common travel area arrangement.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
A recently published European Parliament report has indicated that it will be possible to have a frictionless border after we leave the EU, but is the Minister not concerned about the friction in relations between the UK Government and the Irish Republic? Will he comment on the threat issued by the Irish Foreign Minister yesterday that he will block negotiations unless legislation is introduced to force the Northern Ireland Assembly to introduce EU regulations?
Mr Vara
All the parties involved recognise that this is a difficult negotiation, but we are all committed to being flexible and coming up with innovative solutions. Our relationship with Ireland goes back centuries: trade, geography, history and so on. We have an excellent working relationship with Ireland. We hope to continue that relationship to secure the best solution possible to the issue of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that whatever arrangements are needed to achieve a frictionless border between north and southern Ireland will apply to the whole UK?
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has regular conversations with Cabinet colleagues on a range of EU exit issues, including on an implementation period. We recognise the importance of negotiating an implementation period that benefits the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] We welcome the EU’s agreement to negotiate an implementation period. The precise terms should be agreed as quickly as possible to provide vital certainty to businesses and citizens. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is most unfortunate that neither the Minister’s mellifluous tones nor the content of his answer could properly be heard because of the number of private conversations. I think he deserves a more attentive audience.
Chris Law
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I grasped the word “negotiation” in there. Has the Secretary of State agreed a concession in those negotiations with the Brexit Secretary that will allow Northern Ireland to remain part of the single market and customs union, while the UK leaves, to avoid a hard border—yes or no?
Tommy Sheppard
I think that we are all a little confused about how the Government intend to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. The Minister’s Cabinet colleagues are falling over themselves to secure the maximum possible separation from the EU and the least possible realignment. Has he ruled out the idea of separate arrangements for Northern Ireland governing trade and commerce, or not?
Mr Vara
Let me say again that the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom remains. We are in phase 2 of the negotiations, and these matters are currently being discussed. I am sure that all the parties—Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union—recognise the difficulty of the issue and will be as flexible and innovative as possible.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that it is about time the Government demonstrated a “no surrender” attitude to the EU bureaucrats who try to blackmail us and bully us over flights, passenger duty and everything else? Stand up to them, man! Stand up to the EU, and let us get on with leaving it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Let us hear Thangam Debbonaire.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Good Friday agreement was one of the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government. Is the Minister content that messing up the border issue could make destroying the Good Friday agreement one of this Government’s legacies?
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Captain Dean Sprouting, who died in a road traffic accident in Iraq on 31 January. His death was not the result of enemy activity. I know that Members in all parts of the House will want to join me in offering condolences to his family and friends at this difficult time.
One hundred years ago yesterday, women won the right to vote. [Hon. Members: “Some women.”] Indeed: some women. I am pleased to say that universal suffrage did come for women 10 years later, under a Conservative Government. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in marking the heroic and tireless struggle that led to women having the vote, because it forever changed our nation’s future.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Liz McInnes
My constituent Natasha Dudarenko suffers from Fanconi anaemia, a debilitating disease that carries a high risk of cancer. Natasha was receiving lifetime disability living allowance, which was removed following an assessment for the personal independent payment. When she appealed, she was told that because she had a degree, she did not need as much support. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that diseases, including cancer, are no respecters of qualifications. What urgent action will she take to improve the quality and standard of PIP assessments?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the Department for Work and Pensions is constantly looking at the standard of the PIP assessments that are being made. I am sorry to hear of the case that the hon. Lady has described. I think that most people will be very concerned after hearing about it, and I am very surprised at the judgment that was made in relation to that individual. I suggest that the hon. Lady sends us the details of the case, and we will ensure that it is looked into.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of UKIP-led Thanet Council’s broken election promise to support the reopening of Manston as an airport. On the basis that the Manston site was to be redesignated as “mixed use”, with thousands of houses, local councillors sensibly rejected the plan, and I salute them for doing so. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that Thanet will now be given as much time as is reasonably necessary—perhaps under a new administration—to get our local plan right?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter on behalf of his constituents. I understand that Thanet District Council has not adopted a local plan since 2006, which is why my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary has written to the district council to begin the formal process of considering intervention. This is a very serious step that shows that the council has not been doing what it should be doing in relation to a local plan. So my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering whether to intervene, and he will make an announcement in due course.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Dean Sprouting from Jarrow on his death and in offering our condolences to his family on the terrible incident that happened.
It is of course the anniversary of women first getting the right to vote in 1918, and I pay tribute to all those who campaigned all over the country to achieve that right. We should understand that our rights come from the activities of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to bring about democracy and justice within our society, and those women who suffered grievously, being force fed in Holloway prison in my constituency, and those who suffered so much need to be remembered for all time. Working-class women as well as many other women fought for that right, and it is one we should all be proud of.
With crime rising, does the Prime Minister regret cutting 21,000 police officers?
The Prime Minister
May I first say to the right hon. Gentleman that we should be saluting all those who were involved in that struggle to ensure that women could get the right to vote? I was very pleased yesterday to have the opportunity to meet Helen Pankhurst, the great-granddaughter of Emmeline Pankhurst, and to see that that memory is being kept going. As I said yesterday in my speech, I heard about the suffragettes’ fight from my late godmother, whose mother was a suffragette and both of whose parents knew the Pankhursts.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of police numbers and crime. What we actually have seen from the crime survey is that crime is now down at record low levels. That is what has been achieved, and it has been achieved by a Conservative Government who at the same time have been protecting police budgets.
Jeremy Corbyn
Recorded crime is up by one fifth since 2010 and violent crime is up by 20%, and during the period when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary £2.3 billion was cut from police budgets. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary warns that neighbourhood policing risks being eroded and the shortage of detectives is a “national crisis”. Does the Prime Minister think the inspectorate is scaremongering?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the issue about recorded crime, and one of the challenges we have seen in the police in recent years is ensuring we get proper recording particularly of certain types of crime. I am pleased to say that we have seen improvements over the past seven to eight years in the recording by the police of certain types of crime.
The right hon. Gentleman also talks about the issue of police budgets. As I have said, this is a Government who are protecting police budgets, and I might remind him that the Labour party’s former shadow Home Secretary, now the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, himself said that the police could take an up to 10% cut in their budgets.
Jeremy Corbyn
The inspectorate also found that the police are failing to properly record tens of thousands of offences, and in addition to cutting 21,000 police officers, the Government have cut 6,700 police community support officers. The chief constable of Bedfordshire says:
“We do not have the resources to keep residents safe... The position is a scandal.”
Too many people do not feel safe, and too many people are not safe. We have just seen the highest rise in recorded crime for a quarter of a century. The chief constable of Lancashire said the Government’s police cuts had made it much more difficult to keep people safe. Is he wrong?
The Prime Minister
On the issue of recording crime, the right hon. Gentleman mentions HMIC, and when I was Home Secretary, I asked HMIC to look at the recording of crime to ensure that police forces were doing it properly. Indeed, some changes were made as a result, so we now see better recording of crime. We also see £450 million extra being made available to the police. Over the past few years, we have also seen the creation of the National Crime Agency, and our police forces are taking more notice of helping to support vulnerable victims and doing more on modern slavery and domestic violence—taking seriously issues that were not taken seriously before.
Jeremy Corbyn
If you ask the inspectorate to look at unrecorded crime and it tells you what is going on, the least you could do is act on what it tells you. I want to quote something that may sound familiar to the Prime Minister:
“The first duty of the Government is to protect the public and keep them safe, and I have to say to the Government that they are not putting enough focus on police resources.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 5.]
If she casts her eyes to the far Conservative Back Benches, she will see the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and that is what he said about her Government and what they are doing. Gun crime has increased by 20% in the past year, and the chief constable of Merseyside recently said:
“So have I got sufficient resources to fight gun crime? No, I haven’t.”
Does the Prime Minister think he is crying wolf?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the Government are protecting police budgets. In fact, we are not just protecting police budgets, but increasing them with an extra £450 million. We are also ensuring that our police have the powers that they need to do the job that we want them to do. I seem to remember that the right hon. Gentleman does not have that good a record when it comes to increasing the powers for the police to do their job.
Jeremy Corbyn
Since 2015, direct Government funding to the police has fallen by £413 million, and Chief Constable Dave Thompson of West Midlands police said:
“The current flat cash settlement for policing means force budgets will fall in real terms.”
In addition to police cuts, other public service cuts are clearly contributing to the rise in crime: 3,600 youth workers have lost their jobs; 600 youth centres have been closed and boarded up; the probation service has been cut and privatised; and reoffenders are committing more offences. When it comes to tackling crime, prevention and cure are two sides of the same coin, so why are the Government cutting both of them?
The Prime Minister
We have put in place various pieces of work on anti-knife crime, on serious violence and on issues such as domestic violence. But I come back to the point I made in my last response: the right hon. Gentleman voted against changing the law so that anyone caught carrying a knife for a second time would face a custodial sentence. He has called for much shorter sentences for those who break the law. He might want to reflect on the fact that knife crime fell when there was a Conservative Mayor in London, but knife crime is going up now that there is a Labour Mayor in London.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am very clear that crime is of course wrong. The way to deal with it is by having an effective probation service, by community service orders and by the rehabilitation of offenders. What the Prime Minister said goes to the heart of her record: she was Home Secretary for six years, but crime is up, violent crime is rising, police numbers are down and chief constables are saying they no longer have the resources to keep communities safe. After seven years of cuts, will the Prime Minister today admit that her Government’s relentless cuts to the police, probation and social services have left us all less safe? The reality is that we cannot have public safety on the cheap.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman really needs to reflect on what Labour would be doing if it was in government. You can only pay for our public services if you have a strong economy. What would we see with the Labour party? We do not need to ask ourselves what we would see, because the shadow Chancellor’s adviser told us at the weekend:
“We need to think about the obvious problems which might face a radical Labour government, such as capital flight or a run on the pound”.
That is what Labour would do: bankrupt Britain. The police would have less money under Labour than under the Conservatives.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point on behalf of communities across the country, which he does from the unique position of his own experience and understanding of these issues. It is important that we take account of specific requirements of someone’s faith, especially when they have lost a loved one and are grieving. Although, as he will be aware, coroners are independent judicial office holders, I understand that the Ministry of Justice is speaking to the Chief Coroner about this point to see what more can be done. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Yesterday it was announced that 10 Royal Bank of Scotland branches in Scotland that had been earmarked for closure are to be reprieved. I am grateful for that news, which comes on the back of community pressure and the leadership that has been shown on this issue by the Scottish National party.
On three occasions, I have asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions to call Ross McEwan into No. 10 Downing Street. Will she accept her responsibilities, given that we own RBS? Now that we have saved 10 branches, will she call in Ross McEwan and join us in calling for all the branches to remain open?
The Prime Minister
As I have said before, it is of course important that customers, especially those who are vulnerable, can call on the services they need. Obviously I welcome the Royal Bank of Scotland’s decision, which is a commercial decision for the bank. If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on ensuring that people, including perhaps those in remote communities, have access to the services that they need, he should ask himself why the Scottish Government have been such a failure in ensuring that people in remote communities have broadband access to online banking. The Scottish Government need to get their act together because, quite simply, Scotland under the Nats is getting left behind.
Ian Blackford
That was pathetic. The Prime Minister has not lifted a finger; we saved the banks.
Yesterday we celebrated the achievements of the suffragette movement, which was about democracy, equality and fairness for women. However, today in the United Kingdom, 3.8 million women are not receiving the pension to which they are entitled. A motion in this House last November, which received unanimous cross-party support—the vote was 288 to zero—called on the Government in London to do the right thing. Will the Prime Minister do her bit for gender equality and end the injustice faced by 1950s women?
The Prime Minister
As people are living longer, it is important that we equalise the pension age of men and women. We are doing that, and we are doing it faster. We have already acted to give more protection to the women involved. An extra £1 billion has been put in to ensure that nobody will see their pension entitlement changed by more than 18 months. That was a real response to the issue that was being addressed. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about equality, he has to recognise the importance of the equality of the state pension age between men and women.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. I have known Lord Shinkwin for many, many years. He has been a valiant champion of the rights of disabled people over those years. His own experience and his work in public life, particularly in the other place, are a fine example of how disabled people can be standing up, speaking up and ensuring that they take their rightful place in public life.
On the issue of the disability commissioner, the EHRC is an independent body, and it was its decision to abolish the disability commissioner. The question is: what is being done to help disabled people and how can we ensure that we are helping them? That is why we are committed to tackling the injustices that they face. We are spending more than £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions—that is a record high. But, of course, we do want to ensure—I urge the commission to do this—that the EHRC pays proper attention to the needs and rights of disabled people, because that is an important part of its remit.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Lady raises an important issue. I will certainly look at her request and I will also ask the Department for Transport to do so. As she says, too many people suffer loss and tragedy at the hands of learner drivers in these circumstances, and we will certainly look at that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Royal Marines do indeed play a vital role in defending our country and I pay tribute to them for all that they do. Protecting the UK is, of course, our priority. As my hon. Friend will know, we have in place a review—a modernising defence programme—that is about ensuring that our defence capabilities meet the rapidly changing and evolving threats that we face. That is the right thing for us to do. Of course, any comments and suggestions that have been made about cuts to defence are purely speculative, and I remind him and other hon. Members that in fact we are committed to increasing our spending on defence.
Mr Speaker
In offering him best wishes for his birthday on Sunday, I call Mr Dennis Skinner.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
And happy birthday, Dennis.
The hon. Gentleman asks why the Labour party was in a position of being able to spend more on public services. I will tell him why: because a Conservative Government had left a golden economic legacy.
Mr Speaker
I call Alberto Costa. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Order. Mr Costa, I do not think you knew how popular you are.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and this matter is obviously of considerable interest to his constituents. Of course we need to get the right balance between enabling development to take place, and therefore growth, and continuing to protect and enhance our natural environment. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards achieving that sustainable development. On the specific issue of logistics parks, I am sure that a Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister—indeed, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to look carefully at ensuring that a date is identified for when that change will be made.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very good news that there are 7,000 more cancer sufferers alive today than there would have been had we simply continued with the way we were in 2010. I am very happy to join him in welcoming that news. Cancer survival rates have increased year on year, but of course we want them to increase even further. Last year, there were 7 million more diagnostic tests than in 2010, and 290,000 patients started treatment for cancer—that is 57,000 more than in 2010. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that although we should welcome the improvements that have been made and congratulate and thank the NHS staff for all they have been doing, there is more for us to do. That is why we are backing up our plans for cancer with a further £600 million to implement the cancer strategy for England.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Obviously I will look at the hon. Gentleman’s request, but those who are concerned about the way in which policing is being undertaken in their area should actually speak to their local police, who make operational decisions about what is happening. We have protected overall police spending and continue to do so. Indeed more money is being put into the police. I remind him that it was a Labour shadow Home Secretary who said that police budgets could be cut by 10%.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The national formula, which is the basis for calculating the funding for clinical commissioning groups, takes into account a large number of factors, including rurality and demographics, which are the factors that my hon. Friend suggests need to be considered. NHS Kernow did see an increase in its funding this year and it will see a further increase next year, taking its funding to more than £760 million. That is part of our commitment to ensuring that we put extra funding into the NHS, but of course we continue to look at ensuring that the distribution of that funding takes account of all the factors that it needs to.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We recognise that we need to take action in relation to rough sleeping, which is why we are putting more money into projects to reduce rough sleeping. That includes projects such as Housing First, which are being established in a number of places to ensure that we can provide for those who are rough sleeping. None of us wants to see anybody rough sleeping on our streets, which is why the Government are taking action.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Today is the anniversary of the signing of the Maastricht treaty, and we have come a very long way. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her approach to the customs union? May I also mention the fact that, in the Liaison Committee last December, I warned her about ultimatums from the EU, as I did again in my urgent question only last week? Will she be good enough to be very robust when discussing these matters in the Brexit Committee, as I am sure that she will be, so that we ensure that we repudiate any of these EU threats?
The Prime Minister
At the time when the Maastricht legislation was going through this House, I suspect that there would not have been many thinking that my hon. Friend would stand up to recognise the anniversary of the signing of the Maastricht treaty. I suspect that he feels able to do so only because we are coming out of the European Union. I assure him that we will be robust in our arguments. As I have said right from the very beginning, we will hear noises off and all sorts of things being said about positions, but what matters is the position that we take in the negotiations as we sit down to negotiate the best deal. We have shown that we can do that; we did it December and we will do it again.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I would have thought that the hon. Lady should be welcoming the improvements that have taken place in her constituency, welcoming the many more children who are in good or outstanding schools as a result of this Government, welcoming the extra health funding, welcoming—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister is in the middle of giving her answer—perhaps she has concluded it—and Members must not shout at the Prime Minister when she is doing so. The Prime Minister has concluded; I call Chris Philp.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Recent reports have suggested that the European Commission is asking that we enter into certain limited, legally-binding agreements in relation to bits of our exit in isolation. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it remains the Government’s policy that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and that we will therefore only enter into a legally-binding agreement in relation to the entire exit agreement, not just parts of it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. It was reflected in the joint report published in December that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The negotiations that are now taking place are to put greater detail into the definition of the implementation period, and we expect to do that by the March European Council. Alongside side that, the negotiations will look at the legal basis of the withdrawal agreement. Of course, both the withdrawal agreement and the implementation Bill will have to come to this Parliament for agreement in due course. At that stage, I would expect to have the future relationship set out in a way that means people are able to look at the whole package when they come to make that decision.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister knows that one of the key objectives of American trade negotiators in any future deal after Brexit is to secure access for American companies to do business in the NHS. Will she give an absolute guarantee that the NHS will be excluded from the scope of those negotiations? Will she also confirm that she has made it absolutely clear to President Trump in her conversations with him that the NHS is not for sale?
The Prime Minister
We are starting the discussions with the American Administration, first of all looking at what we can already do to increase trade between the US and the United Kingdom—even before the possibility of any free trade agreement. The right hon. Gentleman does not know what the American Administration are going to say about their requirements for that free trade agreement. We will go into those negotiations to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
A recent report by Open Doors highlights the top countries where Christians suffer horrific persecution. We need to take action and send a signal to other nations. These countries are often associated with luxury holidays. Will the Prime Minister consider earmarking a specific fixed percentage of international aid to go towards tackling religious persecution?
The Prime Minister
I know that this is an issue of concern to many Members of the House. I was pleased, a matter of weeks ago, to meet Father Daniel from Nineveh and Idlib, who talked about the very real persecution that his congregation were suffering and had suffered in the past. He presented me with a bible that was burnt; it had been rescued when a church had been set on fire. This is a real issue. All our aid is distributed on the basis of need in order to ensure that civilians are not discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion. We are working with Governments, the international community and the United Nations to support the rights of minorities and to ensure that our aid reaches those in need. We will, of course, further explore what more support we can give to ensure that we address the persecution of religious minorities.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware that all free trade agreements involve some customs checks and, therefore, infrastructure at frontiers, which would be completely incompatible with maintaining an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. As the Cabinet Sub-Committee will apparently finally get around to discussing this today, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why she is so opposed to the UK remaining in a customs union with the EU? Not only would this be better for the British economy than a vague “deep and special partnership”—whatever that is—but it would help to ensure that that border remains as it is today, which is what we all want.
The Prime Minister
The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. That means that we are leaving the single market and the customs union. If we were a full member of the customs union, we would not be able to do trade deals around the rest of the world. And we are going to have an independent trade policy and do those deals. The right hon. Gentleman asks about customs arrangements. Well, I suggest that he looks at the paper published by the Government last summer.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The brain injury charity, Headway, says that a family recently had to pay £1,500 over 15 weeks in hospital car parking charges. CLIC Sargent says that families who visit their children who are sick with cancer have to pay hundreds of pounds in parking charges. Despite Government guidelines, 50% of hospitals charge for disabled parking, and staff—from nurses to hospital porters—have to pay hospital car parking charges. Given the unanimous support for the motion in the House of Commons last week, will the Prime Minister address this social injustice and abolish hospital car parking charges once and for all?
The Prime Minister
I recognise that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on this issue for some time. As he says, we have set strong guidance for hospital trusts on the issue of car parking charges, and we do of course look to ensure that it is being met. Individual hospitals are taking their own decisions on this matter, but it is right that the Government have set very clear guidelines for those hospitals as to how they should approach this.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has done much to tackle modern slavery. My constituent was trafficked here as a child, sold at least once on the long journey, and then forced to work in the dark in a cannabis factory for years. Now the Home Office is proposing to send him back to Vietnam. Will the Prime Minister intervene not just in this case but in this complex and confused area of the law?
The Prime Minister
I recognise that, as the hon. Lady says, there are cases that are complex in terms of the legal application. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has heard the case that the hon. Lady has set out and will, I am sure, look at that particular issue—both the individual case and the wider point that she is making. As we know, the best possible solution to this, which we all want to ensure, is for people like her constituent not to be trafficked into the UK in the first place to work in these cannabis factories.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Like many, I am delighted to note the good progress in lifting the ban on beef exports to China. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we are able to export Scotch beef and other Scottish products such as whisky to other parts and all parts of the world?
The Prime Minister
I was very pleased that when I was in China last week we were able to work with the Chinese Government towards the opening up of the Chinese market, particularly to beef products and dairy products, which are two key issues for the United Kingdom. I am also pleased to say that the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association was on the business delegation with me, and was doing everything that she does, most ably, to promote the interests of Scotch whisky. Of course, the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that we are making sure that we can have an independent trade policy, developing trade deals around the rest of the world, which means that good Scottish products, and indeed good products from the rest of the UK, can be sold around the world.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Centuries- old GKN, a world-class company and Britain’s third-biggest engineering company, is facing a hostile takeover by Melrose, leading to break-up, sell-off, closures and redundancies. That would make a mockery of industrial strategy. The Government have the power to intervene because of the defence work carried out by GKN. Will the Prime Minister act in the national interest and block this unwanted takeover?
The Prime Minister
Of course, the Business Department will be looking closely at, and has been following closely, the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I can assure him that I, and the Government as a whole, will always act in the UK national interest.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
With one of the largest undeveloped brownfield sites in the country located in my constituency in Stanton, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the new housing infrastructure fund will help Erewash residents to buy a new home?
The Prime Minister
The housing infrastructure fund is a very important development. One of the major complaints that constituents—residents—often have when they see the possibility of development in their area is lack of infrastructure. The housing infrastructure fund enables that infrastructure to be put in place so that it can support developments in a way that helps to support local residents. I am very pleased by the Housing Secretary’s announcement of nearly £900 million last week. We are seeing real interest in the housing infrastructure fund. It is making a difference. It is enabling more homes to be built and more of my hon. Friend’s constituents to buy their own home.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent is 58. She has COPD, four pins in her leg, and a walking frame, and is just out of hospital after having blood clots in her lung. She got a taxi to Bridgeton jobcentre yesterday, only to find the doors locked because the Government closed it on Friday. Will the Prime Minister apologise for not having told my constituents in Bridgeton, or any of the constituents, apparently, whose jobcentres are being closed; will she refund my constituent the £10 she spent on a taxi; and will she apologise for this absolutely ridiculous situation?
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Lady that, yes, we are seeing some jobcentres being closed in Scotland. There is not going to be any decrease in the level of service that is offered to the people of Scotland. We are increasing the number of work coaches across the country. What we are doing is ensuring that we can continue to provide a good service to the people of Scotland.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Intimidation on social media is a growing issue for many people across the country, especially for women standing for election, as yesterday highlighted. Can my right hon. Friend update us on the progress that is being made and does she agree that we should take no lessons from a party whose shadow Chancellor has called for violence against women on this side of the House?
The Prime Minister
May I say to my hon. Friend that I think this issue is a particularly important one? I said yesterday, as indeed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the weekend, that we are consulting on a new offence of intimidation of election candidates and campaigners. That follows the report from Lord Bew and his committee about the degree to which there was intimidation at the last general election, particularly intimidation of women, BME candidates and LGBT candidates. This is an absolute disgrace and it has no part in our public life. I would urge the shadow Chancellor, once again—he keeps refusing to do this—to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for saying that she should be lynched.
Taylor Review
Wednesday 7th February 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Vagrancy (Repeal) Bill 2017-19 View all Vagrancy (Repeal) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Taylor review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
I am delighted to set out the Government’s response to the review of modern working, which was led by Matthew Taylor. He set out his ambition that the Government should place as much emphasis on creating quality jobs as they do on the number of jobs. Good work and developing better jobs for everyone in the British economy are at the centre of the industrial strategy vision.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that, as we leave the European Union, there will be no roll-back of employment protections, but today we are committing to go further and to seek to enhance rights and protections in the modern workplace for even more people. We will support employers who give individuals their correct employment rights, but we will prevent undercutting by unscrupulous employers who try to game the system, by clearly defining who is employed and who is not. We will extend the right to receive a payslip to all workers, including a statement of the hours that they work. We are requiring employers to clearly set out written terms from day one of the employment relationship, and to extend that to all workers. We are taking forward 52 of the 53 recommendations in the Taylor review, and all but one of the recommendations from the joint report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee.
For workers on zero-hours contracts, we are creating a right to request a stable contract. For the first time, the state will take responsibility for enforcing a wider set of employment rights, including sick pay and holiday pay, for the most vulnerable of workers. Employers who lose tribunal claims against staff and are found to have had no regard to the law will face fines of up to £20,000, quadrupled from the current £5,000. We will also ensure that employment tribunal awards are paid correctly.
The Government are very grateful to Matthew Taylor and his panel, as well as to the many individuals and organisations who contributed to the review. I would also like to thank the BEIS, Work and Pensions and Scottish Affairs Committees for their contribution to this work. Through our response, we are acting to ensure good work for all, to protect the rights of those on low pay and to ensure that more people get protection, security and certainty in the work they do.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The tragic case of Don Lane, a DPD gig worker, epitomises the precarious and unstable working life many people face and the failure of the Government to protect workers. They needed to do something bold today, but it appears that they are simply papering over the bleak realities with rhetoric. Launching four consultations, merely considering proposals, and tweaking the law here and there is not good enough. How would any of this have actually helped Don Lane? It simply would not—that is the fact of the matter.
So I ask the Minister: which rights will apply to which workers from day one? How will they be quantified for zero-hours workers? Why, despite public support, have the Government not protected agency workers by abolishing undercutting through the Swedish derogation? How does a right to request more stable hours differ from the current position? Without an obligation on the employer to accept such a request, it is meaningless. Why have the Government not brought forward any meaningful proposals to protect gig workers? Defining working time misses the point. We needed clarity on workers being paid when they are logged into apps waiting to receive jobs, as well as clear and urgent direction on the legal status of gig workers. Why was there not even one mention of trade unions? On the genuinely self-employed, we see the creation of a website allowing the self-employed to talk to each other—well, bravo! Why is there no system of support and no recognition of the precariousness of their situation? This is simply window dressing.
What we needed today was radical new architecture of the law at work to protect workers, in which the genuinely self-employed are offered key protections and the involvement of workers through their trade unions is crucial. We saw none of that, and to miss those things out of any recommendations is to miss the ocean and look at the pebbles underneath.
Andrew Griffiths
I have to say that I share the hon. Lady’s desire to improve the rights and protections for the workers we represent in our constituencies. It is disappointing that in her long response she was unable to welcome any of the steps we are taking. As a result of the actions set out in our response to this review, millions of workers will have greater rights and access to more protection. Indeed, I argue that we can rightly claim to be leading the world in improving the quality of work for our constituents.
The hon. Lady seems to argue that it is wrong to be consulting on these issues. I hope the House will understand that in addressing the issues she raises—such as employment status in the gig economy, the rights of agency workers and better transparency in the workplace—we are modernising employment law to make it fit for the future world of work. We are seeking expert views on how to do that, which is absolutely right. Our intention is clear, and we are consulting the experts on how we deliver on that promise. Matthew Taylor himself has said that these issues are complex and we must take time to get them right, but the House should be clear that we are consulting on them in order to act. Rather than rolling back employment legislation, which we are sometimes accused of, we are improving the rights of workers and the enforcement of those rights.
The hon. Lady mentions the very regrettable case that has been in the newspapers over the past few days. I extend my sympathies to the family of the individual concerned. I cannot speak about individual cases, but I direct her to page 15 of our response. It clearly sets out what we are going to do to ensure we have the correct definition of workers’ status, so they can have access to the kind of things she is talking about—sick pay, days off and the ability to attend doctor appointments if necessary.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is competition for workers in a fully employed market not the best engine for driving forward improved conditions?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding us that we have record numbers of people in work. Unemployment is at its lowest rate for 40 years. It is true to say that the labour market is tightening, but I see that as an opportunity. Businesses are realising that if they want to retain their best workers they need to offer the best possible arrangements for those workers. We are also clear that whatever the situation, we want to act to protect the most vulnerable workers in our society. That is what we are doing in the Matthew Taylor report: we are giving them the protection they need.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Government’s response does not address the issue of bogus self-employment, which affects 1.8 million workers. The right to request is different from an actual right enshrined in law. Has the Minister looked at the contents of the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, in my name, which addresses many of these issues? Will the Government look at simplifying the definition of a worker to one definition, to eradicate bogus self-employment? Will they look to legislate to ensure that workers have a fixed and regular-hours contract? Will they address the issue of late-notice shift changes and cancellations, which affect those with caring responsibilities? What protections are there for workers under contractor liability where an employer ceases trading or absconds?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. What I would say is that this is addressed in our response to the Matthew Taylor review. What he is talking about is the need for a better definition of workers’ status, be that employed, self-employed or worker. We are consulting to make sure we address those points, and I am very happy for him to be a part of that consultation. I am very happy to talk to him and to talk about his Bill, but we are clear that by having a definitive definition of people’s employment status we can solve some of the problems he highlights.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Having sat on the joint BEIS and Work and Pensions Committee, I am really pleased to hear from the Minister today that the Government will adopt its recommendations. The area of case law on the meaning of “worker” is really complicated, so I understand the need for consultation to understand it. We heard evidence of Uber and Deliveroo not treating their self-employed workers as if they were employees. It is a complex area. I urge the Minister to do this as quickly as possible, because there are other issues to consider, such as national insurance contributions and how the Child Support Agency deals with self-employed earners. This is a big, big area, so getting that clarification quickly would be welcome.
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend makes that point very clearly, and I thank her for the contribution that she and her fellow members of the Committee made to our decisions. She is absolutely right that we need to get on with it, and that there is huge complexity in relation to people’s status. If the only possible response, as it is at the moment, is to engage lawyers, go to the courts and undertake expensive litigation, that will not help the people she highlights at Uber, Deliveroo and so on. We are very clear about our intention, and we are getting on with the job to make it a reality.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I welcome the response to Matthew Taylor’s review—seven months after he published it. The Minister’s response today seems to be “we are now consulting the experts”, but that is exactly what the Government did when they asked Matthew Taylor and his panel to undertake their review. I am afraid there is very little from the Government’s response today that will do anything to genuinely help the bogus self-employed, including Don Lane, who are crying out for desperately needed reform. The Work and Pensions and BEIS Committees produced a Bill that the Government could take through Parliament, with cross-party support, to sort this out. The country is crying out for change. I urge the Government to be a little bit more ambitious.
Andrew Griffiths
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are hugely ambitious. These proposals will help millions of workers. I pay tribute to the recommendations that her Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee made, and we are accepting all but one of the recommendations contained in that report. She will understand, as I think Matthew Taylor said when he gave evidence to the Committee, that this is hugely complicated, and we need to consult further. We are not consulting about whether we should do this; we are consulting about how we do it. I thank her for her contribution and reassure her that our ambition is strong.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome the measures set out by my hon. Friend. Alongside the living wage, they give the belief that we are the true workers’ party of the United Kingdom. Do the proposals also apply to apprentices, some of whom are not even paid the right apprentice wage?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response and for the work he does to ensure that the Conservative party is the party of the worker. He is absolutely right: this Government are committed to ensuring that people get fair pay. That is why are putting a record amount—£25 million—into enforcing the living wage and the national minimum wage. As a result of that record commitment, we have seen a record £11 million of wages recovered for some of the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our society. I assure him that all workers, including apprentices, are on our radar. We are beefing up the enforcement teams, and we are going to make sure that workers get the pay they deserve.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister established the Taylor review in response to a report written by Andrew Forsey in my office, I thank the Minister for his statement. Previously the Government rejected one of the Taylor recommendations, which was that if workers in the gig economy were required to turn up to work at their employer’s request in times of low demand, they should still be paid the minimum wage. The Government rejected that proposal, thank God. Will the Minister again affirm that that is the Government’s position?
Andrew Griffiths
I place on record our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his continued work in this area. He is right to say that that continues to be the Government’s position. However, we are consulting. The benefit to the employer is flexibility, but we have asked the Low Pay Commission to look again at whether people on zero-hours contracts should get some preferential, extra payment to compensate for the inconvenience.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm the Government’s plan in relation to employers’ national insurance contributions, to ensure that the tax system is not incentivising unscrupulous businesses to pretend that their employees are self-employed?
Andrew Griffiths
Clearly that is very high on the agenda. The work we are doing in relation to status will ensure that people who are genuinely self-employed are classified as such. Employers who are trying to game the system by pretending that someone is self-employed when in fact they are working will be addressed. The reality is that if it looks like work and feels like work, it is work, and people should be paid in the same way.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister will recall the Government’s awkward embarrassment when they tried to align national insurance for the employed and the self-employed. Can he explain how the Government propose to deal with that outstanding anomaly?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. The Chancellor set out our approach to those matters, and I have nothing further to add at the moment.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s position on this and urge them to make quick progress, but there is one area in which employment rights are potentially about to be seriously damaged: the right of British citizens to work in 30 other countries in the EU and the European economic area as we leave the EU. What are the Government doing to ensure that young people and others have the opportunity to go and work overseas, bringing great benefits to their own career and, when they return, to their businesses or the companies for which they work, which they have enjoyed for many decades?
Andrew Griffiths
I wondered how long it would be before we got on to the “B” word, Brexit. I know that my hon. Friend is hugely concerned about that, as are businesses large and small up and down the country. He will have to wait a little bit longer, I am afraid. That announcement will, I am sure, be made by someone higher up the food chain than I, but I can assure him that the concerns of workers and British business are being heard by Government.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Zero-hours contract carers get paid for face-to-face work, so they get paid for every 15-minute visit, but none of the travelling time in between. They often have fragmented contracts and have to be available for work throughout the seven days of the week, and they do not have proper time off. That is one example. Then we have couriers, who have to deliver more than 100 packages a day for 48p a package. They often have to keep driving 15 hours a day, six days a week, and they are called self-employed. Surely the Minister has got to end that appalling practice by properly defining and enforcing employment law. Nothing he has said today has reassured me that he is going to help the 3.2 million people who are missing out on their basic employment rights.
Andrew Griffiths
Allow me to try to reassure the hon. Lady that those issues are being taken care of. She will be aware that a Green Paper on social care is imminent, and those social care issues will be covered within it. She talks about when workers in the gig economy are clocking on and off and what constitutes their working time. If she has read the report, she will know that we recognise that the law should be clearer about when people are being paid and the hours that they work. We will address that within the consultation and come up with firm proposals.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Minister on the positive way he is taking forward the Taylor review and the Government’s ambitions. Back in May 2014, I brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill to ban unpaid internships. In 2016, I introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban unpaid internships—which the Labour party did not support, I hasten to add. When the Minister is dealing with the section of the Taylor review on unpaid internships, I urge him to liaise closely with our noble Friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose private Member’s Bill on that issue is in Committee in the other place at the moment.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for the great effort and the huge amount of work he has put into standing up for the rights of those young people who are being abused in relation to internships. He has raised that issue many times in the House, and I can reassure him that we are cracking down on sectors where unpaid interns are doing the job of a worker. There will be proper enforcement, and young people who feel they are being abused in that way will be covered. The enforcement will be strengthened, and we will ensure that those people get the wage they deserve.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
While I of course welcome the publication of the Taylor review, may I press the Minister a little bit further? As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, the Taylor review recommends ending the Swedish derogation that allows agency workers to be employed for extended periods on worse terms and conditions than the person working by their side on a more permanent contract. Is the Minister still considering that recommendation, or is he going to ignore it?
Andrew Griffiths
I can be absolutely clear with the hon. Lady that we are very attuned to the impact of the Swedish derogation and how it can be used unfairly on workers.
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady asks me what we are doing about it: we are specifically consulting. In the report, she will see that there are four consultations, and one specifically comes forward with proposals. [Interruption.] She may sigh, but we have to listen to the experts, and then we will deliver. We recognise the difficulties in relation to the Swedish derogation. We want to extend the support both for agency workers and those who feel that they are being disadvantaged—[Interruption]—on terms and conditions, exactly—and we will be taking this forward with firm proposals.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Is it not the case that the Government asked Matthew Taylor to undertake a report, Matthew Taylor brought forward some recommendations and the Government are getting on with implementing what Matthew Taylor asked the Government to do?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We can see from the response of Opposition Members that they realise this Government are bringing forward protections for millions of workers. This Government are providing them with sickness pay and holiday pay, and the enforcement needed to make sure that those vulnerable people on the lowest pay get the pay they deserve.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
When Matthew Taylor came before the Scottish Affairs Committee, he spoke of the inspiration he derived from the Scottish Government’s fair work convention. Will the UK Government be implementing something similar?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and for the work that the Scottish Affairs Committee has done. We took a great deal of interest in that work, which raised some very interesting points. She raises the issue in relation to Scotland. Our focus is clear: we are delivering on the commitments—the 52 commitments—in the Matthew Taylor report, and we will be doing so as a matter of urgency.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
While I am sure that millions of low-paid workers will welcome the fact that the Government are going to issue four consultations, they may well be more concerned that the Government’s own impact assessment on our leaving the European Union included the assumption that employment rights would be deregulated. Will the Minister tell the House which employment rights were included in the assessment, and whether the Government will make an ongoing commitment to maintain at least current employment rights?
Andrew Griffiths
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady clearly missed the three times I have said in response to this urgent question that not only are the Government committed to maintaining employment rights as they are currently set out, but we are going further in extending rights and protections to millions more workers. As a result of what we are doing by taking forward the brilliant work of Matthew Taylor, we will have employment protection that is not just as a good as in the rest of Europe, but the best in the world.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Opposition Members have a longer memory than Government Members, because we remember that this Government took away employment tribunal fees support and disallowed people even from accessing justice in the workplace. This is too little too late—four consultations—because we need transformational politics when it comes to employment regulations in this country.
Andrew Griffiths
I do have a long memory. I have a memory of the recession brought on by the previous Government, and I have a memory of the millions of people unemployed as a result of their policies. We are talking about memory, but the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that today we have one of the most dynamic economies in the world, record employment, record low unemployment, a minimum national living wage of £7.50 that was introduced by this Government, record numbers of women in work and an economy that is the envy of many.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, has said that these measures will do nothing to tackle the problem of what she describes as
“the hire and fire culture of zero-hours contracts or sham self-employment.”
I know my constituents in Blaydon, many of whom work in the gig economy, will be disappointed that the Government have not taken a more dynamic and firm approach in tackling such basic rights and are putting this out for a further period of consultation.
Andrew Griffiths
I would just remind the hon. Lady that if she actually reads the report, she will see that we are asking the Low Pay Commission to consider higher minimum wages for workers on zero-hours contracts—
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady says “Consider”, but I would have thought she was a supporter of the Low Pay Commission and that she would think this was a good idea.
We are creating a right for all workers on zero-hours contracts to request a more stable contract, and the Government want to go further than the Matthew Taylor report to address the issues of exclusivity of agency workers or those on zero-hours contracts. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) welcomed that; I know many in the trade unions organisation do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
One of the issues not within the scope of the Taylor review was that of unpaid work trials, which is regrettable. However, on 16 March my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) is bringing forward his Bill to end exploitative unpaid work trails. Will the Government be supporting it?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am happy to meet his colleague to discuss his Bill.
Bill Presented
Vagrancy (Repeal)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran, supported by Caroline Lucas, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine and Jo Swinson, presented a Bill to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed (Bill 162).
Homelessness (End of Life Care)
Wednesday 7th February 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Homelessness (End of Life Care) Bill 2017-19 View all Homelessness (End of Life Care) 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 Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about end of life care and support for homeless people with terminal illnesses, including through the provision of housing for such people; and for connected purposes.
Not having a roof over your head at night and being homeless on the streets must be frightening—cold, lonely, depressing. To be seriously ill, as well as homeless, seems to me to be beyond frightening, with people wondering when they will die, when the pain will stop and whether anyone will care or even notice. Yet homeless people are dying on Britain’s streets, in our parks, in doorways or, if they are lucky, in ill-equipped hostels.
Although it is difficult to give precise figures on how many people are dying like this, the evidence we have from those working on the homeless frontline is that it is happening time and again. Homeless people are dying alone in pain in Britain in 2018. Let us look at some of the figures we do have. The average age at death of a homeless person is about 47 years. Homeless people are attending at A&E departments six times as often as people with a home. They are admitted to hospital four times as often, and they are staying three times as long.
I have spent a fair bit of time since last June’s election finding out more about this horror, thanks to amazing organisations such as Pathway, St Mungo’s, Hospice UK and Shelter, as well as some new work by the Care Quality Commission and some hard evidence and research by a range of academics, especially at University College London and the Faculty for Homeless and Inclusion Health. Listening to these experts and reading their work, including many interviews with homeless people themselves, I have been genuinely shocked about the wave of suffering right under our noses that we continue to ignore.
These same organisations are also doing incredible work to tackle this suffering. There are charities, GP practices, hospices and hostels around our country that are helping seriously ill homeless people, and showing what is possible when groups of professionals, volunteers and researchers come together and resolve to find solutions. Yesterday, I visited the Royal Trinity Hospice by Clapham common to see how one of Britain’s amazing hospices has reached out to homeless hostels in its area to share the excellent palliative care it can provide.
My first message to the House today is a positive one: we can give decent end-of-life care to everyone, including the most marginalised homeless people, if we resolve to do so. We can as a Parliament say that no homeless person in this country, whoever they are and wherever they are from, need die on our streets.
I do not believe that legislation alone can ever deliver the lofty aims that we in this House often seek. The Bill alone will not be a magical cure. To reach the goal of good end-of-life care for society’s most marginalised people, we will need better integration of services and new types of accommodation—most likely including specialist hospice hostels—and we will need to train staff, in the NHS, in homeless hostels and in hospices. But the law can help, not least as a huge catalyst for change.
My starting place is the current housing law that states that somebody has no right to housing if they are “intentionally homeless”. That is a curious legal phrase—cruelly curious—because, in truth, very few people deliberately aim to be on the streets. In my experience as a constituency MP, the vast majority of so-called intentionally homeless people want nothing more than a roof over their heads. However, this intentionality test has survived at the legal centre of most decisions on homelessness for over 20 years. Today, I am saying that the test should disappear for homeless people who are terminally ill. In future, if a doctor diagnoses a homeless person with advanced ill health and certifies that they expect that person to die within the next 12 months, that person would have an automatic legal right to appropriate housing, along with an appropriate package of care and support for their needs.
In discussing the detail for this simple idea with housing lawyers and palliative care experts, we soon focused on what would count as terminally ill, because estimating when someone is going to die is hardly an exact science. Moreover, we hope that good palliative care will extend life. The test we went for therefore comes from the best practice that GPs are being encouraged to adopt for all their patients—namely, that they should set up a palliative care register. GPs add patients’ names to their palliative care register if they expect that they are at high risk of dying within the next 12 months. The trigger I am proposing for these new rights for seriously ill homeless people would therefore use a system that most doctors already have.
In many ways, what I am asking for is only a small change, but I believe that it could have profound effects on the lives and deaths of many homeless people. It would force housing departments in councils across England, and their social services departments, to act without question. I think that the Bill would add to the excellent work of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who piloted his Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 through the House. His Act will force councils to think harder and longer about preventing homelessness in the first place, and my Bill would force them to prevent people dying without a home.
The original idea for my Bill came from my wife, Emily, who is a housing lawyer specialising in social housing issues. In discussion with Emily and other housing lawyers, it became absolutely clear to me that the existing law does not go far enough. Dying homeless people need a new basic and automatic right to housing and care that their GP can trigger and that the council cannot question. The right that I am proposing is for appropriate housing, so the local authority will not be able to fob the person off with a bed and breakfast miles away. Indeed, under the Bill, the authority’s social services department would have to get involved, too, by liaising with the GP and other parts of the health service to ensure that the right care and support is there.
I do not want to pretend to the House that implementing this will be easy. Homeless people can present with some of the most challenging health issues imaginable: a wide variety of mental health problems, drug and alcohol addictions and severe respiratory conditions. The evidence also suggests that the homeless often lose trust in people—in the hospital doctors who had no choice but to discharge them back on to the streets and in the family members from whom they have become estranged. Their past use of the NHS can make it difficult to patch together a full medical history. They might have self-discharged from hospitals to feed an addiction, or because the institutional setting proved just too much for them. But it is the complex nature of the health and social needs of many homeless people that demands that we act. If we truly want to end health inequality in our country, we have to start with end-of-life care for the homeless, because the people this Bill is trying to help are currently experiencing the worst health care and outcomes of any group in our country.
Homeless people can find it difficult or even impossible to advocate for themselves, but with three quotes I want to let three homeless people speak to the House now:
“Bad death is being lonely...no friends around you when you’re passing away. Well, death is never really good, but at least it’d be better with friends around....you know, someone to hold your hand and whatever.”
“I think when you’re homeless and you’re out on the street so long, you’re surrounded by grief and death and a lot of stuff. It makes you cold. It makes you unfeeling towards people.”
“End of life? What end of life are you talking about? I’m on the street and nobody cares about me.”
Friends, please support the Bill. Let us show that we do care.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Edward Davey, Ms Karen Buck, Bob Blackman, Sir Vince Cable, Mr Kenneth Clarke, Caroline Lucas, Norman Lamb, Kate Green, Wera Hobhouse, Geraint Davies, Christine Jardine and Mary Creagh present the Bill.
Sir Edward Davey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed (Bill 163).
Police Grant Report
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:21 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 239 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2018-19 (HC 745), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
I would like to start by taking a moment to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of our police officers. Of course, those who work in Parliament must never forget the ultimate sacrifice paid by PC Keith Palmer as he stepped forward to protect us in the line of duty. We also know from our constituencies that on every day and in every force, police officers take risks—sometimes extraordinary ones—to protect the public. They deserve our gratitude and, more importantly, our support.
The background to this debate is one of increased investment in policing since 2015. This year in England and Wales, we will invest £12.6 billion in our police system, compared with £11.9 billion in 2015-16, which represents an increase of around £700 million. Having seen evidence of changed demands on the police, we propose a settlement that increases total funding across the police system by up to £450 million in 2018-19. This will mean that, in 2018-19, we will be investing over £1 billion more in policing than we did in 2015-16, and that is at a time when public spending continues to be constrained due to the high borrowing that we inherited from the Labour party. I think that that is a significant statement of the priority that this Government attach to public safety.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. I agree completely that he was right to reject the representations from the Opposition that proposed cutting police funding by 10%. Will he tell the House something about the reserves held by forces, because a number of them seem quite substantial?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to that point later in my remarks, but the fact is that the police system is sitting on reserves of about £1.6 billion, and those reserves have grown by more than a quarter of a billion pounds since 2011. In the interests of the taxpayer, we are pressing for greater accountability and transparency regarding how that public money will be used.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the central Government grant is flat for this year, and that in the millions of pounds he is talking about, the only increase will be picked from the pockets of taxpayers throughout the country?
Mr Hurd
The Labour party continues to peddle the lie that someone else will always pay. Each police force will get a flat-real increase—that is drawn up through flat cash from the centre and an increased precept from local taxation. That is the balance of the proposal in its entirety. There is no such thing as Government money; it is either tax or borrowing. Someone has to pay, so let us nail the delusion of the Labour party that someone else will always pay.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that between 2010 and 2015, the police budget from central Government was reduced by 5% every single year? The Minister makes the point that this is all taxpayers’ money, but is it not the case that he is continuing to move the burden of taxation away from central Government and on to local ratepayers?
Mr Hurd
This is a false argument from the Labour party. The fact remains that when one looks at police funding, on average something like 70% of local police force funding across the system still comes from the centre. The settlement barely changes that. We are responding to calls from many police and crime commissioners for greater flexibility in their local precept. That is what we are delivering but, in the face of continued Labour smoke around police cuts, we cannot get away from the fact that as a result of the settlement, we will invest over £1 billion more in our police system in 2018-19 than we did in 2015-16.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
If everything is so rosy, why do we hear about a very different picture from chief constables and police and crime commissioners in their regular sessions before the Home Affairs Committee? I want to ask the Minister a specific question about funding for capital cities. I have repeatedly asked, as has the South Wales police and crime commissioner, for Cardiff to get additional resources, given its responsibilities as a capital city. Why are the Minister and the Government refusing to do that? Cardiff gets less funding per capita than the west midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. Given our responsibilities as a capital city, surely that is not right.
Mr Hurd
I am happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman personally to discuss that in more detail. I am not suggesting that everything is rosy in the world of policing, as the police face a very challenging set of circumstances, but I am announcing how we will increase investment in our police.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister will accept this point. He tells us that there is a flat-cash settlement, which in effect is a cut from central Government at a time of massively increasing demand on our policing due to many different reasons, such as terrorism and organised crime. How can he possibly square the Government cut with that increase in demand and the fact that the public feel less secure?
Mr Hurd
The numbers cannot lie. As a result of the settlement, if PCCs do everything that we are empowering them to do, we, as a society, will be investing over £1 billion a year more in our police system than was the case in 2015-16. The Labour party can continue to talk the language of cuts, but the numbers tell a different story. There will be £1 billion a year of additional public money in our policing system next year compared with the position in 2015-16.
Mr Hurd
I will give the right hon. Gentleman a bit more time to recover from presenting his excellent ten-minute rule Bill, so I will proceed with my argument.
When shaping the settlement, I spoke personally to every PCC and chief constable in England and Wales. The Home Office collaborated closely with the police’s own demand and resilience review. I am incredibly grateful to frontline officers across the country who gave me their time and very candid opinions during my visits. I also thank Members from all parties who engaged with me on behalf of their local forces.
We heard three messages from that engagement. First, it is very clear that demand on the police has risen, and it has done so in areas of greater complexity and resource intensity. That does not mean that the British public are experiencing more crime. Indeed, the independent crime survey for England and Wales, which our independent statisticians confirm as being the most authoritative data on long-term crime trends, shows that the public’s experience of crime has continued to fall. It is down by almost 40% since 2010. However, police-recorded crime, which is a different thing, has risen significantly since 2015. Again, the independent statisticians are clear that the drivers of that growth include improved police recording of crime, and the fact that more victims of high-harm hidden crimes, such as domestic abuse, modern slavery and child sexual exploitation, are coming forward—
Gloria De Piero
When police cuts are made, it is our poorest communities that suffer most. Lone parents and the unemployed are twice as likely to be burgled as the average person, and the deprived and unemployed are twice as likely to be the victims of violent crime. Do not the police cuts show what side of the argument Conservative Members are on and who they stick up for? It is not the poor, who need the police more.
Mr Hurd
I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon, but even if I have to shift my geography, I do not think that my argument will change. I hope that she welcomes the fact that Nottinghamshire police will receive £4.5 million more cash in 2017-18 and the statement from her PCC, Paddy Tipping, that he will use that money to recruit more police officers.
Sir Edward Davey
I thank the Minister for giving way and for allowing me time to recover. He keeps making a point about police reserves, but for the benefit of good public debate, will he tell the House—either today or in a letter—what the recommended level of reserves is? What do the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary set out? Will he tell us the right level of reserves so that we may judge the comments that he keeps making?
Mr Hurd
As a Liberal Democrat who worked tirelessly in government to promote more open and transparent government, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have no problem with the principle of greater accountability and transparency around the use of public money, which is the kernel of the debate. The guidelines are not mandated. The advice that police treasurers get from the body he mentioned indicates that they should be thinking of about 3% to 5% of revenue as basic contingency reserves. The £1.6 billion that I cited in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) represents around 15% of annual revenue, so the reserves that the police hold clearly go above what might be reasonably expected for pure contingency funding. That is absolutely fine, as long as the people whose money that is get a good explanation of what the money will be used for.
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. Friend says that the right level for reserves is about 5% of revenue, but Gwent police’s figure is 42% and that for North Wales police is about 24%. Does he know any reason why the reserves of those police forces are quite so high?
Mr Hurd
To clarify, the advice for treasurers, in terms of pure contingency funding, is that prudent levels would be about 3% to 5%. It might be entirely appropriate for police forces to hold significantly more than that, as Gwent does—it sits at the extreme end of the spectrum—but my point is: what will the money be used for? It is public money and we are entitled to know. There might be very good plans for how the money will be used, and those plans might significantly enhance the effectiveness of the police force, but to my eyes, there is insufficient transparency and accountability regarding how that money is used. At a time when the Labour party keeps talking about cuts to the police service, it remains an awkward fact that the police have increased their reserves by over a quarter of a billion pounds since 2010. That is public money that has not been used.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I remind the Minister and the House that a reserve can only be spent once, and it is simply unsustainable to plan a police budget on the basis of one-off spending. If police authorities have plans to spend their reserves, what will the Minister’s answer be when we set next year’s police grant and those reserves are no longer there? We cannot keep spending reserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Drax
I am most grateful. My right hon. Friend is doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances—[Hon. Members: “You created them.”] I remind Members that the Labour party virtually bankrupted this country. We are dealing with the consequences of living within our means, and this—sadly—is one of them. May I put the record straight? The hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) cited a connection between of a lack of officers and the poor, and asked which side of the argument we were on. Members on both sides of the House believe in law and order whether you are rich or poor. I just wanted to put the record straight.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Yvette Cooper
The Minister will know that the Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the changing pressures on policing, and part of that will involve our looking at resources. Of course, the additional funding for counter-terrorism is welcome and extremely important, but the real-terms squeeze on police forces’ core funding from central Government is a real concern for forces throughout the country. Given the changing patterns of crime, including the rise of not just violent crime, but online fraud—forces have told us that 95% of online fraud cases are not being investigated at all—as well as the pressures on support for vulnerable people, is he not worried in his heart of hearts that he is simply not providing forces with enough money to keep people safe?
Mr Hurd
No, I am not, and I will address that. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for welcoming the increased investment in counter-terrorism policing, although I understand that her Whips will send her through the Lobby to vote against it. It will be interesting to see how she explains that to her constituents.
On the right hon. Lady’s more general point, I am arguing that given our very constrained public finances, which I think everyone understands, the settlement is fair and comprehensive. It represents an increase of £1 billion in annual investment in our police system compared with 2016. There is a recognition that the pattern of demand on the police has changed significantly. They are doing more work in areas of greater complexity and resource intensiveness, and they are having to build the capability to tackle modern crime, not least cyber and online crime. The Minister for Security and Economic Crime, who is sitting next to me, is working hard to build those capabilities, with a significant budget.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I press the Minister further on counter-terrorism? A number of local forces are saying that the so-called new money for counter-terrorism is not new money, but has been financed by backfilling from neighbourhood policing. We all know that neighbourhood policing is vital to any long-term counter-terrorism strategy.
Mr Hurd
I need to correct that, because it is fake news. The money for counter-terrorism is ring-fenced—this is new money. I note the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I also note that, as I understand it, he will be voting against this money today.
I was talking about the serious changes in the nature of demand on police as a result of the increase in recorded crime. I was at pains to point out that some of the drivers of this growth in recorded crime are welcome, as they reflect improvements in the police recording of crime, following substantial criticisms from the inspectorate back in 2014. They also reflect the fact that more victims of high-harm hidden crimes are coming forward, which I am sure the whole House welcomes. We are also clear, however, that there is genuine growth in low-volume, high-impact violent crime, which concerns us all. That will be the focus of the Government’s upcoming serious violence strategy.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
When will the Government publish that strategy?
Mr Hurd
We said that we would publish it in the spring. It comes on top of regulations to ban the sale of zombie knives, and a consultation on a range of new offences around the sale and possession of dangerous weapons.
In addition to the changes in demand I have outlined, there is the escalation and evolution of the terrorist risk. In the context of police resources, the point is that demand on the police has risen, which has put more pressure on our police—there is no doubt about that.
The second message we got from many PCCs and chiefs across England and Wales was a request for greater flexibility regarding the precept. PCCs are, of course, elected by their local populations, and many want a greater ability to determine how much local funding they can raise to deliver for their communities. The third message was a request for greater certainty over future funding so that PCCs are able to plan more effectively and free up reserves for investment. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have proposed a funding settlement that responds positively to all three messages.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me a nice answer, because I will be voting tonight as well. He knows that Lincolnshire police force has been historically very badly underfunded, and we are grateful to him for visiting Lincolnshire and taking an interest. What steps is he taking to improve the situation in Lincolnshire and support our excellent police and crime commissioner, Marc Jones, who is having to use funding flexibility to protect police numbers and effectively put up council tax. What is the Minister doing to help us in Lincolnshire?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate for more resources for Lincolnshire policing. It is a stretched police force, but the PCC, Marc Jones, is doing an excellent job. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that Lincolnshire will receive another £3.3 million next year, and if all goes well it will get something similar in 2020. He will know that the independent inspectorate notes that Lincolnshire is one of the forces that still needs to make efficiency improvements, but I undertake to work closely with that force to monitor the situation. As I said in the written statement accompanying the provisional grant, we have not lost sight of the fair funding review; we just feel that the comprehensive spending review, which will shape police funding for the next five years, is the most appropriate context for that work. I hope that the combination of those things will assure him of the sustainability and effectiveness of Lincolnshire policing.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Minister said that he had received three messages—let me give him a fourth one, from the people of St Helens: antisocial behaviour—up; robbery, theft and burglary—up; violent and sexual crime—up; police funding—down; police numbers—down. What is he going to do about it?
Mr Hurd
On one level, I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but increased funding is going into his police system, and if he actually tells an honest story to his constituents about crime, he will refer them to the national crime survey, which shows that crime, in the experience of his constituents, continues to fall, alongside the national trend.
In terms of the shape of the settlement, I want to be clear that there will be no reductions in the amount of core grant paid to any PCC.
Mr Hurd
No, there won’t. There will be no reduction in the amount of core grant paid to any PCC. This means that PCCs will keep all the benefits of tax-based growth in their area. That is a change, and one that West Midlands police, for example, were particularly keen on. That is a change: there will be no reduction in the amount of core grant paid to any PCC. We are also giving PCCs and Mayors more flexibility on their precepts. The settlement empowers them to ask their local residents to make a bigger contribution to support local policing. We want this to be affordable, at a time when money remains tight, so we have limited increases in local police precepts to an additional £1 a month—or 25p a week—for a typical band D household. If all PCCs use these powers, they will be able to invest, collectively, a further £270 million in 2018-19. Since 2016-17 local force funding has been protected in cash terms, including police precepts, but this settlement goes further. The combination of flat grant and rising precept in 2018-19 means that all PCCs can maintain their funding in real terms next year if they use the new council tax flexibility.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry, but the Minister is completely wrong. Flat cash is a cut when inflation and other pressures on PCCs are taken into account. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked what the Minister could do to help the Lincolnshire force. What the Minister is doing is pushing the increase on to local taxpayers. Why did he not say that to the hon. Gentleman?
Mr Hurd
I will make two points to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who, as ever, is thoughtful on these matters. The combination of flat-cash grant from the centre and an increase in precepts means overall net-net “flat real” for local police forces. [Interruption.] That is what I said, and that is what is true. Labour Members continue to ignore the second part of that combination, which is the increase in precepts. [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members have a problem with this, because they continue to pretend that someone else will pay. What we said in response to PCCs who wanted increased flexibility on precepts was that they should go to the people in their locality and say, “I should like to ask for an extra 25p a week as an additional contribution to local policing; would you accept that?” Where surveys have been carried out, PCCs have met with approval rates of between 75% and 80%, which suggests that that was the right question and the right answer.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister has just been caught red-handed trying to use smoke and mirrors to kid people that the flat-cash settlement that he is announcing today means that any increase in the precept will be wholly spent on additional resources for the police. That is simply not true. The truth is that the Government are cutting the resources that they are giving to every police force in the country, and are asking residents to foot the bill for a poorer service. That is a total disgrace, and the Minister should stop attempting to misdirect people who are following the debate.
Mr Hurd
I will take no lessons on distorting the truth from Labour Members who continue to peddle the lie that there is such a thing as free Government money, or that someone else will always pay. The response from people on the ground who were asked, “Are you prepared to put a bit more money in to support your local police?” was a resounding “Yes”. I am not misleading the House. The combination of flat cash from the centre and increases in precepts—the ability to maintain growth in council tax precepts—means that we have moved, at local level, from flat cash to “flat real”, before we come to the additional investment from the centre. That means that next year the Government will invest over £1 billion a year more in local policing than we invested in 2015-16.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Excuse my ignorance, but is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse a Minister of the Crown of misdirecting the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I think the spirit of the debate is that feelings are running high. I have not yet heard anything that I considered to be disorderly, but Members will obviously bear in mind that they should be careful about they say.
Mr Hurd
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate the sentiments of my colleagues on the Back Benches.
I was talking about the additional investment that we are making from the centre. So far I have talked about what we are doing to enable PCCs to increase their investment as a result of increases in the local precepts, but we are also providing an extra £130 million for additional investment in national priorities such as digital technology and the police special grant. This is not somehow disconnected from the earlier conversation; it is about how we invest, as a country, in the police system.
The police special grant is an essential tool to help forces who face exceptional events, and it is right for us to do that. This year we are using it to help Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police respond to the horrific terrorist attacks, as well as helping forces such as South Yorkshire to pay for very large investigations of child sexual exploitation. We are increasing special grant funding by more than £40 million next year to ensure that, for example, we can support the Met in providing security for the commonwealth summit in April.
We are also increasing our crucial investment in police technology. If we are to fully realise the potential benefits of mobile technology and ensure that officers spend as much time as possible on the frontline to protect the public, we must deliver modern 4G communications for the police service and key databases that can be accessed on the move, and must give the police the tools that they need to track down suspects as quickly as possible. That requires investment from the centre. We are, for example, creating a single national automatic number plate recognition system with a greatly enhanced ability to track vehicles and link different vehicles, locations and crimes in order to detect and prevent crime and safeguard vulnerable people.
Mr Hurd
I have already taken a great many interventions from Labour Members, and I need to make some progress to allow the debate to flow.
Of course, the No. 1 responsibility of Governments is the safety of our citizens. The tragedy of five terrorist attacks in London and Manchester in 2017 has sadly reinforced the threat that we face from terrorism. It is therefore right that we are increasing funding for counter-terrorism policing both this year and next¸ and it is disappointing that Labour Members will vote against that tonight. In September we announced £24 million of new money this year, which would go to forces throughout the country to meet the costs relating to the tragic terror attacks. I am also pleased to confirm that the Government have agreed to provide a further £4 million this year to meet the costs arising from the attack at Parsons Green. We are significantly increasing the counter-terrorism policing budget for 2018-19 to £757 million. That is £70 million more than was scheduled, and reflects the priority that we attach to the incredibly important task of protecting the public.
As well as increasing funding by around £450 million in 2018-19, we have signalled—and I think this is the first time we have done so in the context of police grants—that we are prepared to protect Government grant and repeat the additional precept flexibility in 2019-20. That is a response to the calls from many PCCs and budget-holders for more forward visibility to help them to plan more effectively. We have made it clear that the 2019-20 local police settlement will depend on progress made by forces this year in three critical areas: productivity, financial efficiency and transparency about financial reserves, which we discussed earlier. All those need to be improved.
Stephen Doughty
South Wales police are already doing all those things. We have reduced the reserves to the minimum level allowed. We have collaborated hugely on bringing services together. Seven contact and control rooms have been reduced to one, and 18 custody facilities have been reduced to four. Our command unit structure has been streamlined, we have reduced the estate by a third, and we have reduced the fleet by 20%. The bottom line is that, with demand going up, we have reduced the reserves and made all those efficiency savings. Now the Minister is offering a flat-terms settlement, which is a cut. Where else do we go?
Mr Hurd
What I am actually offering is £6.7 million of additional cash investment in South Wales policing next year. I have taken on board everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, and I congratulate the leadership of South Wales police on what it has done to improve efficiency. The level of the reserves is not extravagant. Where I take umbrage with the hon. Gentleman is on the amount of investment, which, as I have said, will rise by £6.7 million next year. I hope he will welcome that.
Improved productivity means making better use of the most important asset in the police system, which is police officers’ time. In 2018, in the modern age, that means making the most of the opportunity presented by digital and big data technology. For example, a growing number of forces—not least Lincolnshire, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—now embrace mobile working. If all forces took advantage of mobile working like the best forces, that would mean that the average officer could spend an hour a day extra on the frontline, where hard-working officers want to be. It has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers in England and Wales. That is the implication if best practice is extrapolated across the system.
More mobile working, better use of data and better connected systems are all critical to modern policing. That is why the Home Office is working closely with PCCs, chiefs and experts to shape a credible roadmap that can properly harness the power of digital technology to promote more effective policing. To give further support to that process of reform, we have ensured that police forces will benefit from the £175 million police transformation fund in 2018-2019. The fund, led by police, is delivering real results and enabling forces to invest in transformation and digitisation for the future.
When budgets are tight, we have to keep challenging inefficiency, so the Home Office is also working with the police leadership to develop plans to unlock an estimated £120 million-worth of efficiency savings from more collaborative procurement and shared systems. Finally, on behalf of the taxpayer we are pressing PCCs to provide much better information on how they are using their £1.6 billion of financial reserves to improve services to the public. These reserves have risen by over £250 million since 2011. It is public money and the public deserve a proper explanation for how it is going to be used. That is why last week we published comparable national data on police reserves and new tougher guidance on the information PCCs must publish on their planned use of reserves. This is the shape of our proposed police funding settlement out to 2020.
What has been the reaction on the ground? Many PCCs have welcomed the funding settlement we set out in December. I am pleased to say that almost all PCCs in England have chosen to use this new council tax flexibility to determine how much local funding they can raise to deliver for their communities, and local people have shown their support. In Cumbria, 1,500 people responded to the consultation and over 70% of them indicated that they support the proposed precept increase. In Leicestershire, nearly three quarters of respondents voted for a £12 increase, and in Lancashire 78% supported increasing the police precept there by £12.
PCCs have been explaining to their communities why they have opted to make use of this ability to raise the extra funding. Most PCCs are intending to use this funding to protect or strengthen frontline policing in their force next year. For example, Matthew Scott, the PCC for Kent, announced that he will recruit up to 200 additional police officers next year, taking the total number of officers in Kent to its highest level since 2012. In Surrey, the PCC, David Munro, has proposed increasing the precept by £12 to protect local policing teams and respond to increasing threats such as cyber-crime and child abuse, while investing in efficiency programmes to give Surrey a police force fit for the future. In Humberside, PCC Keith Hunter has stated that by increasing the precept by £12 a month the force’s recruitment plans will take them from the planned 1,867 police officers next year up to 1,925 officers by 2020.
Mr Hurd
I am not going to take any more interventions.
In Nottinghamshire, PCC Paddy Tipping plans to increase police officer numbers up to 1,940, do more to tackle knife crime, and invest in a new custody facility capable of meeting current and future demands. These are just a few examples of how both Conservative and Labour PCCs are using this opportunity to improve the effectiveness of their service to the public.
We have listened to the police. We believe that, through the combination of the increased investment from this settlement, the scope for further efficiencies and productivity and the high level of reserves in the police system, the police have the resources they need to do the job. At the same time we are working with the police to lay the groundwork for the next spending review, which will include a final view on the fair funding formula. As I have said, we believe that the spending review is the right context for those decisions.
We are also supporting the police in other ways. We are ensuring that police have the full protection of the law when carrying out their duties. We are supporting the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, which will increase the 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 safety of the public is of course our first priority and we will continue to ensure that the police have the resource they need to cut crime, protect the public, and help victims to get justice quickly. I believe that what I am presenting today is a fair and comprehensive settlement within the constraints of the fiscal position we are in. It will see us raise our investment in policing to over £13 billion next year in England and Wales, an increase of over £1 billion since 2015-16.
I wish to end where I began: by recognising once more the exceptional attitude, hard work and determination of our brave police forces. I commend this motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Many colleagues wish to contribute, so after I have called the shadow Minister I will impose a time limit of 10 minutes.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I want to start, as the Minister did, by paying tribute to the men and women who serve in our police service. The counterpart to this debate took place a little under a year ago, and no one could have imagined the unspeakable series of attacks that would follow in 2017. Throughout, our police service officers have risen to the highest standards of bravery, dedication and duty, truly honouring the founding principles of policing in the process. Chief among that covenant is that our police service depends ultimately on public support. After a year in which we have seen officers run into danger to keep the public safe, the police can rarely have counted on such strong public support as they enjoy today.
But I know from speaking to those officers that they are tired of warm words, backed up with no action from politicians. Today they are under sustained pressure the like of which the service has rarely, if ever, encountered, and today we have heard that there is not to be a single extra penny from central Government for local police forces.
Before I go into the detail of the funding settlement before us, I want to deal with the demand that the Minister says he recognises the police are under. Between 2010 and 2017 the average number of 101 and 999 calls has rocketed; in South Yorkshire it has tripled. Just last year 999 calls increased by 15%. Forces such as the West Midlands police are receiving the number of calls on one day in June that they used to receive only on new year’s eve. In the last year overall crime has risen by 15%, the largest increase since records began, violent crime is up by 20%, robberies by 29% and sexual offences by 23%. Last year over 1.4 million more people than the year before experienced antisocial behaviour, while the number of orders handed out fell by a quarter. Yet those are only a tiny proportion of the issues our police have to deal with.
On becoming Home Secretary, the now Prime Minister told the police their only “mission” was
“to cut crime. No more, and no less”,
but 83% of calls to command and control centres are non-crime-related. They are calls associated with mental health—last year the Met took an average of one mental health call every five minutes—or with missing persons, a demand that has tripled for some forces over the last seven years. They are associated with a raft of vulnerabilities, because, as other services buckle, the police are relied upon more than ever as the social service of last resort.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the Minister has alleged, what Labour Members are doing today is standing up for their constituents and voting against cuts that are unsafe and putting our constituents at risk?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Today we will be voting against a completely inappropriate police funding settlement that leaves our communities exposed and the public at risk.
On top of all the demand I have listed, there is the unprecedented terrorist threat our country now faces. It is frankly unbelievable that, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council has recognised, the report before us fails to meet those growing needs and exposes gaps in the protection of the public.
So we have no choice but to vote against the motion tonight. We do so for three key reasons. First, the report prescribes an eighth consecutive year of real-terms cuts in Home Office funding. Secondly, it pushes the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers, and the very areas that have seen the most substantial cuts will get the least, inevitably creating a lottery of winners and losers that has no place for public safety. Thirdly, it fails to meet the needs identified by police chiefs, first and foremost in the area of counter-terrorism but also in local policing.
Simon Hoare
I am sure the hon. Lady has done a lot of homework before today’s debate, as we all have. Therefore, given the backdrop to what she has just said, can she advise us how much money—how many pounds, shillings and pence—her party would be adding to the police grant this year?
Louise Haigh
As the hon. Gentleman will know, our manifesto spelled out very clearly that we would dedicate 10,000 additional neighbourhood policing officers. The settlement before us today does not dedicate any additional funding to local policing and in fact, as I will come on to, would be swallowed up almost completely by inflationary and cost pressures.
One of the chief jobs of Parliament is to hold the Government accountable for the promises they make to the public and for their record of action in office, so I want to briefly focus on the context for this year’s police settlement. In 2015, the current Prime Minister promised the public that after a period in which £2.3 billion had been taken from police budgets, the Conservatives would now “protect police funding”. On many occasions that promise has been repeated to the public and to this House. Indeed, it was repeated by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions just today. In fact, the House of Commons Library has shown that real-terms central Government funding to local forces has fallen by £400 million since 2015—the equivalent of more than 7,000 officers.
Sandy Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Conservatives say we are inventing the cuts, they are not taking into account the cuts to police officer numbers? Between 2010 and 2017, Suffolk has seen 150 fewer officers, 100 fewer specials, 86 fewer PCSOs—50% of the group—and 200 fewer support staff. That represents a 25% cut in personnel across the board, so it is not surprising that we have seen a concomitant increase in crime.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite what the Government like to say, every single Member of this House will have seen frontline cuts to police forces. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House insisted in this Chamber that
“frontline policing throughout the country as a whole has not changed—it has, in fact, slightly increased since 2010.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 421.]
This has been a familiar refrain throughout the Government’s time in office: “Yes, we are making cuts, but they are having no real impact.”
Gloria De Piero
More than 36,000 101 calls went unanswered or were abandoned in Nottinghamshire last year, which is a 201% increase year on year. Those people needed genuine help, but they did not get it.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of abandoned calls has increased as the number of calls to 101 and 999 has increased. We now have 21,000 fewer police officers on our streets than there were when Labour left office in 2010, 17,000 fewer police staff, who perform vital functions in investigations, and 6,000 fewer PCSOs. Neighbourhood policing—the absolute bedrock of our model of policing—has been decimated, which is an appalling legacy of this Government. Neighbourhood policing is not just a “nice to have”; it is vital to our policing system and underpins the police’s ability to police by consent. It is almost wholly responsible for building and maintaining relationships with communities, and if we reduce our police to nothing more than a blue light that arrives only when the absolute worst has happened, we risk rolling back all the progress that has been made in police accountability and trust over the last generation.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling speech. Does she agree that the cuts to police numbers in areas such as mine mean that there simply are not enough police officers to attend crimes as they happen, such as burglaries that are in progress? Vans are continually broken into and people have their tools stolen time and again, but the resources to help those people simply are not there.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister has heard time and again from Opposition Members that the police do not have the resources to respond to serious crimes, with burglaries being a particular problem, but the Government seem happy to sit back and allow that to happen. They are the only Executive in modern times to have presided over consecutive falls in police numbers in every single year of their time in office.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the policy of Katy Bourne, the Sussex police and crime commissioner, who is recruiting an extra 100 officers?
Louise Haigh
If that is the case, I am delighted for Sussex police that it is recruiting additional officers, but that comes in the context of severe cuts and a fall in police officer numbers over the past seven years.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that any current recruiting follows year-on-year consecutive cuts to police numbers? Southwark has lost 200 police officers and PCSOs despite having the highest volume of 999 calls in London, experiencing a terror attack last year, and seeing high rates of moped and knife crime.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is right that the context is seven years of prolonged, deep cuts from this Conservative Government that have led to police officer numbers falling and crime rising. Looking across Europe for international comparisons, we see that only Lithuania and Iceland, both of which are suffering deep depressions, chose to cut frontline policing by proportionally more than we did over the past 10 years. These choices have not been made out of necessity; they have been made out of ideology. Promises to the British public have been broken time and again. That is why we were right to treat the Policing Minister’s statement before the Christmas recess with a heavy serving of scepticism. He told us the settlement would give the police “the resources they need.” When Opposition Members doubted him, he told us to go away and read the detail so that we might feel more positive. Well, we have, but we are not.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also read the detail and said that it did not meet the level of investment required. It is not hard to see why. The council’s funding document, which was submitted to the Home Office ahead of the settlement, requested £450 million for local policing alone, not for the entire service, as the Minister has sought to claim. It estimates that inflationary pressures on local forces add up to £209 million—not to mention cost pressures of £38 million and the additional pressure of the unfunded pay rise announced last year. Taken together, all of that will almost entirely wipe out the funding raised from precepts, meaning that local people will be paying more and getting less. As has been said, that will happen on top of an eighth year of real-terms cuts in the support the Government give to local forces. The flat cash settlement this year will equate to a cut of £100 million over the next year, so it is not difficult to see why commissioners across the country are calling the settlement “smoke and mirrors.”
I turn to the precept, because it is not additional money from Government, as the Minister tried to claim. Any additional money will come if PCCs take the decision to increase their policing precept. Once again, the Government display the worst type of localism: passing all the blame on to local decision makers while refusing to fund the tough decisions that they have to make.
What is more, this method of funding the police is fundamentally unfair. The areas that have taken the biggest hit from funding cuts since 2010 stand to gain the least from the maximisation of the precept. For example, the West Midlands, which has lost a staggering 2,000 officers since 2010, will raise a little over 2% from the precept. By contrast, Surrey, which has half the population, will raise almost the same in cash terms as the West Midlands, but by maximising the precept it will be able to raise 7.5% of its budget. When it comes to public safety, the settlement creates winners and losers based on postcode. The police funding formula at least made an attempt to fund forces based on need, but it seems to have been kicked into the long grass yet again. The alternative—funding the police through the precept—means that community safety depends on the ability of the local community to pay.
Before I conclude, I want to discuss reserves, which the Minister was keen to dwell on and which have been published with greater transparency this month. When the unfunded pay settlement was announced last year, police forces were lectured over their levels of reserves and were advised to use them for the 2% unconsolidated increase. The figure bandied about for the total amount of reserves is £1.6 billion, but the Minister knows full well that the vast majority of that figure is earmarked for capital projects or for known future spending. The real figure of usable reserves is £378 million, as the Minister’s own publication shows. Much of that is routinely being used for day-to-day policing as a result of cuts, and there is a danger that some forces will be put in the vulnerable position of not being able to respond to an emergency. In fact, the last available HMIC analysis revealed that only nine forces out of the 43 have more than the 5% level of reserves recommended by the Audit Commission, so the attempt to continue to distract us with the reserves is transparent, and the public and police leaders across the country will see right through it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly given the horrific events of the last year, I want to turn to counter-terrorism. Nobody who has read the report of David Anderson, QC’s review into the four fatal attacks in the spring and summer of 2017 can be in any doubt about the strain on counter-terror policing. In one chilling excerpt, he notes:
“On 21 March 2017, prior to the Westminster attack on the following day, investigation of Khuram Butt”—
one of the London Bridge attackers—
“was suspended. Investigation of the other SOIs”—
subjects of interest—
“investigated under the operation had been suspended the previous week, due to resourcing constraints brought on by a large number of P1 investigations”—
that is, priority one investigations.
Mark Rowley, the national lead for counter-terrorism policing, told the Home Affairs Committee in October that counter-terror policing was dealing with a 30% uptick in operations. He warned that
“dealing with this uplift in work at the moment is a real stretch”,
and that counter-terrorism had been put on an “emergency footing”. He continued:
“Given that we now have a growing number of subjects of interests we are investigating and a very big growth in the number of investigations…we have a bigger proportion of our investigations that are at the bottom of the pile and getting little or no work at the moment.”
I am certain that will horrify the public, as it horrifies me. I am equally certain that the public will wish the Government to give counter-terror policing the resources it needs to counter that threat. It is therefore staggering that Ministers have chosen, through this settlement, to give counter-terror policing just half of the resources it requested to keep the country safe.
Police chiefs are now openly warning, in an unprecedented way, of tough choices as a result of Ministers’ failure properly to resource their efforts in a threat climate described as “stratospheric.” If the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, the responsibility of the Opposition is to make sure the Government keep to that promise. The failure properly to resource the counter-terror effort alone would be justification enough for the Labour party to vote against the police grant today, but in fact this settlement fails to meet not only our security needs but the needs of local policing and of the communities that are most in need.
The Minister has said time and again that he will ensure the police have the resources they need to do the job. There will not be a single chief constable in this country who can tell him that he or she has the resources needed to fully protect the public and provide a professional service in the current climate. Under the Government’s watch, crime is soaring and the public are exposed. The Government must urgently think again.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to listen to both the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is rightly holding the Government to account. I take all her points on board.
We all know that there are clearly issues with police funding, but, if I may be so bold, not once did the shadow Minister suggest how the Labour party would deal with the huge hole in our public expenditure that, as I said in my earlier intervention, was to a large extent—along with the banking crisis—created by the Labour party before the coalition Government came into power. We inherited this terrible financial conundrum. We are trying to provide money for our public services, and when our economy improves, we will generate the income to pay for all the public services that so desperately need our money.
I thank Dorset police force and all its officers for doing an outstanding, courageous and dedicated job, and I am eternally grateful, as we all are in South Dorset—indeed, in the whole of Dorset, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is here, too. I particularly praise our chief constable, Debbie Simpson, who is retiring after 35 years. She has been exemplary in her career, which proves how much can be achieved by a female officer. She has got to the very top, and all credit to her. I thank her for all the hard work she has done, and I look forward to many other female officers achieving the same rank.
I thank the Minister, for whom I have huge respect, for the extra £4.2 million. I also thank him for seeing me privately to go through my concerns. I am very grateful to him and to his Department.
I will quickly touch on three issues, and I will not take up much of the House’s time. First, I am grateful for the £12 precept flexibility, but there is still an outstanding deficit of £1.5 million. Dorset is considering a merger with Devon and Cornwall, which will aid the deficit. Work is under way on perhaps having one police force, and savings are being made. Unfortunately, that will optimise what we have, rather than growing the workforce, which in my humble opinion, and in the humble opinion of many others in Dorset, is what we should do.
Members on both sides of the House have mentioned reserves, and in 2017 Dorset’s reserves were 11% of our overall budget, compared with the national average of 15%. Dorset police force has managed to reduce its reserves by 26% since 2011, compared with all forces, which on average have increased their reserves by 19%.
Secondly, we need wholesale investment in policing. I totally accept that new crimes, such as modern slavery, human trafficking, sexual exploitation and cyber-crime, are now taking far more precedence and far more of our police officers’ time. What I regret is not the effort being made to combat those crimes but the fact that it is taking officers off the beat. I am a former soldier, and holding the land—or dominating it, in the case of Northern Ireland—and patrolling very troubled spots is where we gained information and intelligence. The deterrence was formed on the streets.
While we investigate all these other crimes—I give all credit to police officers—we must not lose sight of the fact that, in my humble opinion, we need more officers on the ground. Crimes are still being committed. A jewellery shop in Corfe Castle has now been hit three or four times. I believe the gangsters responsible come down from the midlands. They crash in, crash out and take their ill-gotten gains back to where they came from. Those crimes would not be committed if there were a police presence on the ground. I urge the Minister and the Government to think carefully about that point.
Finally, as the Minister has mentioned—I mentioned it to him in private, and I now do so in public—the grant is set in December and the police and crime commissioners then have until February to set their budgets. That is unlike local authorities, which have a four-year budget period that gives them much more time to plan ahead. I ask the Government to look at that.
What can be done to help Dorset police? I urge the Government to go back to the funding formula, which treats us unfairly for all kinds of reasons that I do not have time to go into now. This is an emotive subject for many, but I believe the overseas aid budget will balloon to some £20 billion in 2020. Do not get me wrong, because I have absolutely no objection to money going to overseas aid, but I object when at home—and charity starts at home—we are unable to provide enough money for all our public resources, not just the police service. I urge the Government and any right-minded person to consider the 0.7% overseas aid target. Yes, we should give money where it is needed and where we can afford it, but not before we look after all the needs of our own country.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I feel very strongly about policing, law and order. We make the laws in this House, and we ask the police to enforce those laws out there. Between us, we make up the before and after of the legislative process. The fabric of a functioning society is based on collectively agreeing the laws that govern our country and then upholding those laws by deciding what happens to those who do not respect them. That is the essence of democracy, and those principles cut right across the different political parties, which is why I find it so difficult to comprehend what this Government are doing to policing and to policing budgets.
West Yorkshire police force has had a 35% reduction in funding since 2010, resulting in almost 2,000 fewer officers and members of staff—a 20% reduction of the force. The force has risen to the challenge set by this Government and has rationalised its estate, modernised to deliver efficiencies and reformed by investing in digital policing. The force has delivered £140 million in savings to get to where we are now. However, I am afraid to say that those deceptive words simply mask the fact that West Yorkshire police are now able to do less with less.
West Yorkshire has the fourth-largest force in the country and, to set the context, it takes in the busy cities of Wakefield, Leeds and Bradford, yet it also covers many Pennine towns extending up to the Lancashire border. We have diverse communities, with black and minority ethnic populations making up more than 50% of 14 of our wards. Although that is a welcome part of our diverse heritage, the House will appreciate that it also presents challenges. International events, terrorist incidents and extremist acts can all undermine community cohesion.
On any one day in West Yorkshire, one police officer is on duty for every 2,097 members of the public. On average, the force makes 136 arrests a day, with a staggering 43 of those arrests related to domestic abuse. The force will attend 38 house burglaries, 44 thefts from vehicles, 16 thefts of vehicles, four serious violent crimes, seven robberies, 57 assaults, 17 sexual offences and 159 incidents of anti-social behaviour, and it will deal with 141 incidents of domestic abuse in total.
We keep being told that crime is falling, that it is changing and that new crimes are emerging, but the lion’s share of criminal activity within this mix is all thefts and violence—there is nothing new in this at all. Yet layered on top of all that are these new and emerging types of crime. Non-recent child sexual exploitation and abuse investigations now account for 33% of all West Yorkshire police investigations—33% of that investigative capacity is taken up by non-recent CSE cases. There were 184 offences relating to modern-day slavery in 2016, which compares with just 19 three years ago. Technology is enabling types of crime such as the grooming of young people for sexual exploitation, human trafficking or radicalisation, and people are most likely to be the victim of fraud than any other crime, with this often being enabled by online activity.
There has been a particularly disturbing increase in firearms discharges in West Yorkshire over the past two years, with firearms predominantly used by organised criminal gangs as a means of resolving disputes. Hon. Members will not need me to remind them that the highest-profile discharge of a firearm in West Yorkshire resulted from the extreme actions of Thomas Mair, who, motivated by right-wing ideology, took the life of our friend and colleague Jo Cox. Sadly, we are no strangers to extremism in West Yorkshire, with several Prevent priority areas presenting a continually evolving threat for the police to assess and manage.
In addition, I want to raise the issue of mission creep within policing, especially in relation to safeguarding and mental health, a point excellently made by the shadow Minister. Some 20% of all incidents reported to West Yorkshire police now relate to safeguarding. More than 20,000 missing people investigations were recorded in 2016, an increase of 258% compared with the 2013 figure. Of those, 2,500 were people who have gone missing on more than one occasion within the past 12 months. The percentage of children reported missing who have gone missing on more than one occasion was 37%. Every day, on average, West Yorkshire police will investigate 65 missing people, with 53 of these cases being graded as “high risk” or “medium risk”, where we are into “drop everything else” territory. The police will also be called to 43 separate incidents associated with mental health.
I have spent time with the out-of-hours mental health team in Halifax and seen the massive challenge that falls to the police outside the normal working hours of other agencies. I was horrified to see that although concerted efforts have been made to keep people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 out of police cells, there is a crippling lack of alternative and more suitable assessment space. So people in the midst of a mental health crisis are being bounced from pillar to post, until an assessment suite or bed becomes available, often in the back of a police vehicle, but they are predominantly the responsibility of the police for as long as that takes, because of the shortcomings of mental health services to really meet the demand.
On Halloween weekend in Halifax I witnessed four officers tied up with mental health cases for most of the night. That involved two double-crewed units, which probably represented about a quarter of the officers on shift that evening. So I ask the Minister: have we ever really taken a decision about the role of the police in relation to mental health, vulnerability and safeguarding and said that we want to them take on these additional responsibilities? I am not sure that we have, and we have allowed this mission creep to occur.
There will always be a role for the police in these matters, but given that the budget for West Yorkshire police has been cut by 35% since 2010, that the police are not the best agency to take a lead on some of these challenges where there is no criminality, just vulnerability, and that resources are as stretched as they are, we have drastically expanded the responsibilities of the police at the time when our forces can least cope with this. How can we look to empower the right people within social services, care homes, hospitals and the mental health profession, so that they take the lead on addressing these societal problems, rather than have it falling to the police by default, rather than by design, and certainly not motivated by any sense of best practice? Bearing in mind that safeguarding alone accounts for 20% of the workload of West Yorkshire police, the resources that would be released back into neighbourhood policing and back on to the frontline by making this shift could be significant.
I heard the Minister’s opening remarks and the Prime Minister’s comments about funding at Prime Minister’s questions earlier. West Yorkshire’s PCC, Mark Burns-Williamson will be increasing the precept, which is anticipated to generate in the region of £4.5 million. To give that some context, I should say that the 1% pay bonus, which is long overdue for officers but has to be found from existing budgets, will cost about £4 million. To be crystal clear, the pay bonus almost cancels out the precept, leaving a flat cash settlement without inflationary increases, so the settlement pays for less and less year on year and only further cuts within West Yorkshire police will square that circle. That is the reality of the budget before us, which is why we are so concerned about it.
To balance the books, West Yorkshire police will need to find another nearly £13 million over the next four years. This Government have made a lot about reserves, which we have heard again today. Beyond the force’s legal obligation to hold contingency moneys, this year alone the PCC has had to find £11 million from reserves to fund everyday frontline policing. By 2022, most of West Yorkshire’s reserves will have been spent or committed to existing obligations, including capital build programmes and further technology investment. The reserves are being spent year on year just to keep officers on the streets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) articulated earlier, this money can be spent only once.
Before closing, I want to extend my thanks to Sabina Yasbin of the Met police, as well as to Assistant Chief Constable Angela Williams and Police Sergeant Alex Macleod of West Yorkshire police, who have been co-ordinating my participation in the police parliamentary scheme. It has been brilliant and I recommend it to all colleagues. Every MP will no doubt have a good working relationship with local officers, but having the chance to get a real overview of the local force in detail and to spend time with specialist units that we would not otherwise come into contact with has been an eye-opening and incredibly useful experience, not least because it has helped me to feed into the Protect the Protectors campaign and the related work on the safety of emergency service workers.
With that in mind, I wonder whether the Minister can update the House about when we might see the “Protect the Protectors” Bill return to the Chamber on Report and Third Reading. Its return is eagerly anticipated by colleagues. Can he respond to the inquiries made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the vision of the Bill always having been about having a tough deterrent, so that people reflect on the seriousness of these actions and do not assault emergency services workers in the first place? Although we are incredibly pleased and grateful that the Government have worked with us on extending the six-month sentence for assaulting a police officer to 12 months, we are continually receiving representations from people who are concerned that that will not be the ultimate deterrent that we had hoped for with the Bill. Can the Minister update the House and respond to the letter from my hon. Friend about the Government’s appetite for pushing the sentence to 24 months? I would be grateful if he updated us on that.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has spoken this afternoon, as she has done on a number of occasions, with great passion and clarity on the type of policing we want to see in our country and how it is delivered. Conservative Members are clear that there is a widening gulf in the Labour party on this issue. I am convinced that the vast majority of Labour Members, like all Conservative Members, support our police and policing. We follow up our speeches and words with our actions in that sort of support.
I am not sure I will take lessons from some Labour Front Benchers—I exclude the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) from that, because she spoke with great force and passion. We have a shadow Chancellor who believes that MI5 should be disbanded and the police should be disarmed. We have a shadow Home Secretary who has just left her place but who has, over the years, with her party leader, supported and revelled in IRA terrorism. We have also had the police berated by some for policing, quite properly, industrial action. When I asked the question, which again got no answer, about what the Labour party would do differently on this grant, we were reminded of the manifesto pledge of 10,000 extra police, yet even with all the months that have elapsed since that general election, Labour still has no idea how they would be funded and how much it would cost.
I will, though, take some lessons from my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister. Until the most recent reshuffle, it was my pleasure and honour to serve both him and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime as their Parliamentary Private Secretary. Both are men of complete integrity and are dedicated to combating crime in this country. They are, one might say, the Batman and Robin of the Home Office. I will not say which is which; I shall leave that to my right hon. Friends to fight out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) did earlier, I pay tribute to the work of the Dorset constabulary under the leadership of Debbie Simpson, our chief constable, who is leaving office having served five years as chief and 35 years as a copper. I also pay tribute to Martyn Underhill, Dorset’s police and crime commissioner. Martyn and I do not agree on everything, but what is beyond doubt is his commitment to trying to ensure the very best deal for my residents in North Dorset and for those throughout the county. He has just finished his consultation, in which 79% supported an additional £12 on the precept for band D council tax to deliver the sort of policing that people in the county quite rightly want to see. He is a good example, in a county that splits broadly 50:50 between rural and urban—certainly in population terms—of what can be done with imagination and fixity of purpose.
I pay huge tribute to PC Claire Dinsdale’s work leading Dorset’s rural crime team, which was the result of our commissioner responding to an issue and to which he has provided manpower and resources to combat rural crime, including wildlife crime and crime on farms. That is an illustration of how fixity of purpose and determination to clamp down on waste can ensure that money is best focused on the delivery of services. I recommend that model to other authorities.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the nature of crime in this country is changing, so the nature of policing has to change, too. The idealised picture of Dixon of Dock Green wandering around the beat, knowing every little old lady and little old man and clipping schoolchildren around the ear for scrumping apples is a rather nostalgic picture that brings a lump to many people’s throats. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) laughs; perhaps there are no apples to scrump in Liverpool—I do not know—but there are certainly plenty in North Dorset. We do not run through wheat fields in North Dorset; we are frightfully well behaved because we know of the rural police team.
I am absolutely convinced that, in difficult circumstances, this year’s grant will continue to deliver the requirement of a changing policing response to the type of crimes people face, so the Government will have my support on the motion.
Neil Coyle
On terrorism and the threat that we face, does the hon. Gentleman know why the Government have not yet taken up the opportunity to close the loophole on terrorism insurance? That would help the police to do their job and to protect businesses from terror attacks. While I am on my feet, may I suggest that, whatever he believes the shadow Home Secretary to have done, it is deeply offensive to suggest that she has ever revelled in IRA attacks on this country?
Simon Hoare
On the latter point, I direct the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She said that every activity moved one step closer to a united Ireland and should be celebrated. I will leave it up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to use the word celebrated or revelled, but I think that we know where her sentiment was at that time.
I was privileged to serve on the Investigatory Powers Bill Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and the then Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), performed a balancing act with the often competing and rather tense environment of the civil libertarians on one side and the civil lawyers on the other, and a political imperative to keep the country safe. That is always kept under review. We all know the figures—I am not going to bombard the House with the statistics—but I do not think that anybody could seriously question the commitment of Conservative Members and the Government to combating terrorism in all its forms and to ensuring that our law enforcement agencies and the laws under which they prosecute are always fit for purpose, with an element of flexibility to meet new challenges.
I urge my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister to look favourably on the proposal to merge Devon and Cornwall police with the Dorset constabulary. They are collaborating hugely well at the moment and that is clearly the next stage. It will deliver savings that can be focused on frontline policing in the great county of Dorset, to the benefit and safety of my constituents.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I should say at the outset that I might have to leave before the end of the debate as I have to take the Chair in Westminster Hall.
As the Minister would not do so, let me begin by acknowledging that the cash freeze in this settlement is, when we take inflation into account, actually a real-terms cut for West Midlands police. That is what the Government are doing to policing in the west midlands. It is in addition to the 2,091 officers we have already lost and the £145 million that has been cut from the budget since this lot came to power.
The West Midlands police and crime panel has agreed to the commissioner’s request to add an extra £12 to the precept paid by already hard-pressed council tax payers—had it not, the situation would be even worse—but given the high number of band A and B properties in our area, the west midlands simply does not have the same revenue-raising capacity as places such as Surrey or Hampshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said. Hampshire’s population is almost 1 million smaller than that of the west midlands, but Hampshire will raise more through its precept, meaning it will experience budget growth as a result of the settlement, whereas even after a £12 council tax increase, West Midlands police will still be £12.5 million short of the money needed just to stand still.
Today’s settlement is a ministerial announcement of a further cut to policing for the people of the west midlands. It will mean fewer officers, even less neighbourhood policing, slower response times and the closure of 28 police stations. We have heard a lot of talk about reserves, so let me be clear: other than the basic requirements for insurance and emergencies, West Midland police’s reserves will be exhausted by 2020. We spent what was in the kitty on making up for the earlier cuts; there is no secret hoard at Lloyd House. Of course, the Government are quick to argue that they have given extra money for counter-terrorism, but the Minister needs to recognise that £47 million of the £50 million received by West Midlands police has already been spent. Such policing costs £100,000 a day when the threat level is critical, and neighbourhood policing, which is already virtually non-existent in many of the communities that I represent, ceases to function altogether.
Our chief constable says that given the challenges his force faces, he cannot understand why, as the largest force in the country apart from the Met, we are spending below the national average per capita on policing. Basically, there is not enough money to provide a properly resourced police service in the west midlands. The public can no longer expect police protection when they need it. The 101 phone service is a joke, routine burglaries do not get a response, the clear-up rate is falling and public confidence is at an all-time low.
Some 92% of my constituents who responded to my recent crime survey said that the Government’s reduction in the number of police officers had proved to be a false economy. Why will the Government not admit that they have got it wrong? How long will we have to put up with the “emperor’s new clothes” farce we witnessed at Prime Minister’s questions today? The Prime Minister must be the only person in this country who thinks that crime is falling, just as she was the only one who thought that stop-and-search powers were a bad idea. Well, try telling that to the parents of a knife crime victim.
The simple truth is that we cannot rely on the Government to keep dangerous rapists and violent criminals in prison after they are caught. We cannot rely on them to provide a properly resourced probation service to supervise criminals on the outside, and now we cannot rely on them to provide enough money to police our towns and cities. Their record is one of total failure. The Minister should be apologising; he should be ashamed of himself.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Setting police budgets for 2018-19 has been a real challenge both for the Government and for local forces such as Suffolk constabulary. I recognise the significant amount of background work that my right hon. Friend the Minister carried out ahead of presenting his provisional proposals before Christmas. He visited and spoke to every police force in England and Wales so that he could obtain a better understanding of the demands that they face and how those can be best managed. I am grateful to him for the time that he spent with Suffolk colleagues, the police and crime commissioner for Suffolk, Tim Passmore, and me so that we could provide him with a full insight into the challenges faced by Suffolk police.
I understand that the Government, in arriving at their funding proposals, have identified national challenges to which it is important to give some priority, including complex and hidden crimes such as child exploitation and slavery, and the terrorism threat. It is right that additional funding has been allocated to address those national issues. That said, both the history and the future of good policing is local and community-based. It is important that the Government recognise the significant pressures that preparing a budget has presented to the police and crime commissioner for Suffolk.
Suffolk constabulary is the force with the highest caseload per officer in the country, at 150 per year, yet it receives one of the lowest funding settlements. A disproportionately high percentage of the county’s funding is received through the council tax precept. At 42.6%, its figure is one of the highest in the country, and that compares with the national average for England of 32%.
While Suffolk constabulary is a well-run and efficient force, it has to contend with a significant number of modern-day pressures. To meet them, the police and crime commissioner is increasing the precept by 6.8%. The budget of the office of the commissioner, out of which important support services such as domestic violence support have been funded, has been reduced from £1.3 million to £936,000.
Suffolk is an efficient force that has produced a higher proportion of savings compared with its overall budget than any other constabulary in England and Wales. A collaboration with Norfolk is generating internal savings of £26 million a year. Eight buildings are now being shared with the fire service, and five more such arrangements are proposed. The PCC is starting work to refinance the private finance initiative contract that he inherited, which was agreed before 2010 at an original interest rate of a punitive 13%.
Suffolk constabulary is under significant pressure. It faces a significant increase in demand: emergency incidents are up 14%; domestic abuse is up 40% against a three-year average; serious sexual offences are up 50% on the same basis; cyber-crime is up, with 943 online crimes reported last year; and the number of missing people is up 12%. Against that backdrop, there is an urgent need to review the police funding formula. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to do so, but I urge him to come up with a timetable for starting the review as soon as practicable.
The current system, in which a disproportionately high level of funding is derived from the council tax precept, is unsustainable. Suffolk has to contend with a wide variety of modern pressures, including the county lines drugs and organised crime challenge, and a significant increase in its elderly population. Some 13,000 Suffolk citizens have been diagnosed with dementia, and that figure is predicted to rise by a further 40% by 2025. That places additional demands on police officers.
Police budgeting is a very difficult science, as events that can never be predicted will take place. One of those is the tragic case of Airman Corrie McKeague, who disappeared after a night out in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). Quite rightly, Suffolk constabulary has carried out an extensive search for Corrie, but very sadly it has not yet shed any light on his disappearance. The search has cost £2.15 million so far. An application has been made to the Home Office for the repayment of those costs, and I urge the Minister to process that application and to reimburse Suffolk constabulary as soon as practically possible.
A further unforeseen cost that Suffolk constabulary might have to bear arises out of its court case with Ipswich Town Football Club regarding the policing of roads around the ground on match days. Madam Deputy Speaker, I should declare that I am a lifetime supporter of Ipswich Town and a season ticket holder. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Suffolk police could not appeal the case and that it should cover the costs of such policing. That could well result in significant back payments to the football club for the period between 2008 to 2013. Personally, I do not agree with the decision, and I believe that it was wrong of the football club to pursue the case. On match days, the two roads—Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way—that surround the stadium are closed to traffic, and in my opinion they then become part of the stadium. I question whether it is morally right for the public and the taxpayer ultimately to pay for the policing of sporting and leisure events, which can generate significant revenues for the clubs or organisations involved. We are all aware of the enormous salaries paid to footballers, particularly those in the Premier League.
Last month, additional tickets were sold to away supporters for the match against Leeds United, for which Ipswich Town no doubt received additional revenue. There were some incidents, and an additional police presence was required close to the junction of Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way. It is wrong that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. The Court’s decision could have ramifications for police forces across the country, and I urge the Home Office to introduce legislation to address the problem as quickly as possible.
Producing police budgets for 2018-19 has been a major challenge for both the Government and Suffolk’s police and crime commissioner. I recognise the pressures that the Government are under, but the system is very nearly at breaking point. Suffolk is traditionally a well-run rural force, but it is now having to deal with a wide variety of 21st century metropolitan challenges on an increasingly stretched budget. The unique nature of Suffolk, with the challenge of county lines and the demographics of an ageing population, means that policing in the county is under increased pressure. It is no longer reasonable for such a high percentage of the policing budget to come from Suffolk council tax payers. The situation needs to change as soon as possible, so I urge the Government to instigate the funding review without further delay and as quickly as possible.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. The debate has already touched on several very wide-ranging challenges that our police forces must face, but I will confine my remarks to three main issues. First, I wish to speak about how the settlement does little to address the struggles faced by the already underfunded and stretched police forces in Wales. I will then briefly reiterate the case for devolving policing to the Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. Finally, I want to raise an issue of which the Minister is, I hope, already aware: the complications that the apprenticeship levy is causing for Welsh police forces.
Members of the Government seem to have a problem with figures, whether that is £350 million for the NHS or £440 million extra for our police forces. Neither figure quite adds up, as the irrepressible North Wales police and crime commissioner, Arfon Jones, has made quite clear. This has already been discussed this afternoon, but it is worth reiterating that around £270 million of the £450 million supposed increase is accounted for by the Government allowing forces to levy higher precepts on council tax payers. The remaining £180 million is accounted for by the Home Office increasing central allocations. For North Wales police, the settlement means a real-terms cut of about £2 million. The police now face hard decisions on whether to implement further—and perhaps dangerous—budget reductions, or to increase the council tax precept, which hits constituents who are already feeling the pressure on their finances.
The police and crime commissioner for Dyfed-Powys police, Dafydd Llywelyn, has done an excellent job of retaining the number of police officers in his force in recent years, despite budgetary pressures and the growing demands that the police now face. We have already heard a lot about the new and changing challenges that our police forces must address, and he has employed an innovative approach in an attempt to cater for those new challenges. He has invested in such things as body cameras and better mobile technology, and established one of the best cyber-crime teams in the United Kingdom. However, I am told that keeping his budget in the black and maintaining the number of officers on the beat is becoming an impossible task.
The settlement subtly shifts the burden of funding from central Government to the local taxpayer, forcing PCCs to make an unenviable choice of cutting police numbers and putting their constituents at risk, or increasing council tax in already hard-pressed communities. It is patently clear that this is not a sustainable or fair settlement.
Of course, the police forces of Wales have been underfunded for years. There are now 750 fewer police officers in Wales than there were in 2010, which represents a drop of about 10% since the Conservatives took office. I would be hard pressed to find residents or communities across Wales, particularly in rural Wales, who have not witnessed the closure of either a local police station or the station desk. Central Wales, and particularly my area of Ceredigion, suffers the unique challenges of rural policing.
Responsibility for our policing policy is still retained here in Westminster, hundreds of miles away from the police forces that are carrying out their duties. Unlike in Scotland or Northern Ireland, our underpowered Welsh Parliament does not even have a semblance of the control required to deliver the policing that our communities need. It is not just those powers that would be boosted by the devolution of policing. Figures provided by Welsh police forces indicate that if policing was devolved and funded on a population basis, as is the case for other services, police forces in Wales would be better off to the tune of around £25 million a year.
The failure to comprehend the current devolution settlement is exemplified by my final point. My hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has exposed a potentially devastating funding dispute that is born of confusion surrounding Welsh devolution and the apprenticeship levy. The apprenticeship levy, which Welsh police forces are of course subject to, is one of the main sources of funding to train the next generation of police officers, but despite having to pay millions into the levy, Welsh police forces are yet to receive a penny from it. This is down to a dispute between the Welsh and UK Governments. The Government at this end of the M4 claim that as training is devolved, the Welsh Government are responsible for the funding of training and apprenticeships. The Welsh Government, on the other hand, claim that the funding of officers’ training and apprenticeships is a matter for Westminster because policing is a reserved matter.
As I have noted, Welsh police forces are already under significant financial pressure. Whether this impasse is a product of incompetence or error, or a consequence of some political gamesmanship, it will mean fewer police officers on Welsh streets. We desperately need to overcome this impasse, so I would be most grateful if the Minister would update the House on the matter, particularly regarding what progress has been made to overcome this problem.
PCCs of all political colours have expressed their dismay with the police grant. Westminster’s apathy for Wales has never been more evident than when it comes to our police forces. My final request is that the Minister again considers the case for devolving policing to the Welsh Parliament and giving Wales the power to address its own policing needs. With our Welsh Parliament powerless to change things and central funding falling short of a level that could reasonably be considered fair, Welsh police forces face a difficult future indeed.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.
It goes without saying that the work of the police in keeping us all safe and secure is so incredibly important. They deserve our thanks for all their work. One of the cornerstones of our way of life and our society is that our police forces are independent, professional and do their job in line with their duties. We should all be proud of what they do. I support the work of the police in dealing with the threats that face the nation, including their counter-terrorism work. We should support and praise the work of special branch and MI5. It is important, on occasion, that some of our officers are armed and able to protect us from the most serious and grave threats. I hope that the whole House will unite in thanking all arms of the police for their important work. Having been under attack here ourselves, we know very well the importance of their work.
I will particularly talk about the work of Kent police and Kent’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott. He has been in office since the last police and crime commissioner elections, and has been successful in increasing the number of police officers. Since his election in May 2016, he has worked hard with the funding available to get 80 extra police officers and has protected PCSO numbers at 300, when other police forces have sadly seen fit to reduce them. And he has managed to do this despite having only 12% in reserves.
Now, when I was listening to the discussion about reserves, I thought of a parable. I do not know whether anyone else in this place went to Sunday school, but I did, and that is where I heard the parable of the talents. In that story, the master goes away and leaves his servants with some talents. One of the servants spends the talents wisely and uses them productively to further the important work of the master. Another buries them in the ground and leaves them there to do nothing. The discussion about reserves is a bit like that; reserves do not exist just to sit there for a rainy day, on the off chance that something happens. Reserves are to be used. They ensure that we have the money to spend to help keep us safe and secure. Kent’s PCC has been assiduous in doing that. Kent police only have about 10% in reserves, but he has been spending money to get more officers on the beat and on the frontline to keep our towns, villages and communities safe and secure. Money should be spent on the frontline of policing, not just left to rot in a bank.
It is important that we celebrate the ambitions of the police and crime commissioner of Kent to get a further 200 officers on the beat. He is not unrealistic. He told me that this cannot go on forever, saying, “We can’t keep digging into our reserves because we basically don’t have any left.” He knows that the police will need further funding in the future, but for now the settlement is a good one that he is happy to support. I take his advice because he knows best how to spend money efficiently, wisely and well, he knows how to get the best out of the frontline, and he has ambitions to improve the safety and security of Kent. In our discussions, I have told him how important it is that we have more police on the frontline in Dover and Deal, especially when it comes to these 200 officers who he has the ambition to recruit. I have made a particularly strong case that we should have more police officers in the town of Deal.
At various points in this debate we have heard about the accessibility of the police. We had an unfortunate situation in the past, which came into being under the independent police and crime commissioner that we had for a while in Kent. At that point, there were just two hours of desk time for the residents of Deal to be able to see the police in the local police station. I have been making the case that the funding the commissioner will have should be used to increase the amount of desk time from two hours to four or five hours each day, and ideally for six days a week, rather than five. People would then be able to discuss their concerns with police personnel and would feel that the police were much more in the heart of the community and more accessible— face to face, not just over a telephone. I have been making this case to the commissioner and I hope he will take heed.
I am pleased that Kent has seen an increase in its allocation from £279.3 million to £288 million, which is a £8.7 million increase. And I am pleased that Kent police are not like the wasteful servants that we hear about so much—pleaded for by the Opposition, who like to bury their reserves. Kent’s police and crime commissioner spends his reserves to ensure that we are doing things on the frontline.
Charlie Elphicke
I will finish in a moment, but I will first give way to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot resist giving way in order to listen to the points he makes.
Charlie Elphicke
I am, as ever, very tempted by the hon. Gentleman. I think that 10% is pretty much at the bottom of the table. [Hon. Members: “No, it’s not.”] It pretty much is. Places like Gwent, at about 42%, are very high up. Indeed, Durham is at 12%.
Charlie Elphicke
I will not take a further intervention, but I will say that Kent has been dealing with its reserves and is minded to continue to be very efficient in that way.
Mr Bailey
I have difficulty in following the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Having praised his local police authority and said that police authorities should be spending their reserves, can he explain how his authority is keeping 10%, which is double what the National Audit Office says is the appropriate recommended level?
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I gently point out to him that the average reserve level is 15% overall, so Kent is well below the average. The PCC is saying that he can continue to manage as things are for the next year, but that in due course this opportunity is going to be exhausted and there will need to be greater scope—and of course there will. That is important, but it is also important that we do not just bury our talents in the soil but use them effectively, wisely, and well.
The Minister and the Government were right to reject representations from Labour Members at various points that the police budget should be cut by 10%, and right to reject unfunded spending commitments. We hear about how 10,000 police people can just be magicked out of the ground with no basis on which to fund that spending. There are two important elements. First, we must have a sense of reality. Secondly, we must make sure that we support the police in what they do: give them adequate resources; do not just have reserves mouldering away in the bank; and concentrate resources on the frontline, with more officers on the beat in Dover, Deal, across Kent, and across the nation.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), although I found it hard to understand how he could be praising his police authority for not practising what he was preaching.
I will try to take a consensual approach.
Mr Bailey
Well, in common with other Members on both sides of the House, I have taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, and, having done that, I would have thought that we would all be united in our admiration for the sheer professionalism, dedication, commitment, skill and expertise of our police forces.
Having started on that consensual note, I will move on. I make no apologies whatsoever for standing up, in line with other west midlands Members of Parliament, to criticise this settlement in the context of what West Midlands police are going to get and what their needs are going to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) outlined some of the key statistics, and I will not repeat them. What it amounts to is that, following this cash-plus precept settlement, there will be a £12.5 million gap in what is needed to sustain the current level of service. It could lead to the closure of 18 police stations. West Midlands police force has lost over 2,000 officers, and it is difficult to see how it could go on without losing more.
The key issue is the funding model that the Government are developing for the police in areas such as the west midlands. If there is an annual flat grant, which effectively means that we lose the real value of that grant by a certain percentage every year, allied with a maximum on the precept, then the areas with the lowest-value property profiles—nearly always urban areas with lower-income people and often higher crime rates—will become disproportionately disadvantaged year on year. That is the situation that is developing in the west midlands. A rise in council tax in the west midlands will raise £3.35 per person. In Surrey, it raises £6.42 per person. That is why we see other anomalies such as Hampshire, which, with almost 1 million fewer residents, has a larger increase in its settlement arising from the precept than areas such as the west midlands.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that a reserve can be spent only once. More importantly, all the West Midlands police divisions have gone now, including in Coventry, so nobody really knows who to point the finger at. I have had meetings with the police on this. The public in Coventry, and in the rest of the west midlands, are becoming very concerned about the fact that there is a lack of policemen, but, more importantly, that the funding formula is grossly unfair to the west midlands.
Mr Bailey
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. Indeed, he leads me on to my next point.
We can bandy statistics around, but what matters in the end is the perception of the people who work in the police force and the perception of the public who experience the service it provides. Find me an area in the west midlands policing zone where local people will not complain of a reduction in the frontline neighbourhood policing in their area. Find me an area in the west midlands that has not seen an increase in crime rates and a lowering in satisfaction with the service.
For me, that was reinforced when, six months ago, a middle-ranking policeman asked to come and see me. He explained that he had joined the force over 10 years ago, risen in the ranks, and found it incredibly satisfying, but was going to have to leave. The strains on him, the public expectations of what he could deliver, and how demoralised he was feeling because he knew that he could not deliver were such that he could face it no more. That may be a one-off, but I am worried by the fact that the chief constable and the police commissioner reiterate to me everything that officer cited as his reasons for leaving when they describe the overall funding statistics for their service.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
If the West Midlands force is like Gloucestershire’s, at weekends it is almost held together with specials. Without those specials, the police could not do nearly as much as they try to do on a normal weekend. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr Bailey
Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important point. Increasingly, the police are becoming dependent on the activities of specials and others. Again, I pay enormous tribute to them, but obviously there comes a critical balance when one thinks, “Is this the correct way forward?”
Another aspect of the West Midlands police budget is funding for counter-terrorism. The force has been particularly hard hit over the past year. It had to freeze neighbourhood policing during that time, for the very good reason that it has had to devote resources to counter-terrorism. With depleted numbers of officers and huge additional burdens being placed on the service, for very good and strategic reasons—the protection of the public—something has to give. That is worrying, because there should not be a choice between counter-terrorism policing and neighbourhood policing; the one is complementary to the other.
I would like to give a very good example of that in the west midlands that is of particular significance to me. Only a few years ago, the Ukrainian terrorist Pavlo Lapshyn was arrested and tried after he had killed Mohammed Saleem in Walsall. That same terrorist placed a nail bomb outside a mosque in my constituency. It went off, and had it not been for the fact that the worshippers at the mosque had changed the time of their service, the casualty numbers could have been enormous. That case highlights the significance of neighbourhood policing, because it was the information provided to local police forces by local people that enabled the man to be arrested and brought to justice. One wonders whether that would happen today, given the current level of neighbourhood policing. In any case, it underlines the point that without frontline neighbourhood policing—people engaging every day with the communities in their local areas—the efforts of the counter-terrorist police will be blunted. They need the work of neighbourhood police.
I conclude by emphasising that I am sticking up for the West Midlands police. They do a fantastic job in a multicultural area with a lot of low-income people and great challenges. The people of the west midlands and the police that look after them deserve a funding formula that will give them the resources necessary to adequately meet the expectations of local people, so that they can live in the security that they are entitled to expect.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I, too, would certainly like to pay tribute to my local force, Devon and Cornwall, which does a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances. Rural constituencies have the extra challenges of distance and a lack of good infrastructure, particularly broadband. If hon. Members looked at the roads there, they would understand why there is a real challenge.
I have talked to my PCC, Alison Hernandez, and she would like me to say thank you to the Government, for two reasons. First, she is pleased that they have listened specifically to a request for flexibility. As a consequence, the police precept will go up by 6.8%—the maximum—but I would take issue with those who say that it is inappropriate that the increase will come out of the taxpayers’ pockets. After all, mainstream tax also comes out of all taxpayers’ pockets. This at least ensures that we know the precept money will be spent on policing.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am very interested by that. Will the hon. Lady put out leaflets in her constituency to tell her constituents that tonight she has voted for her local council’s policing precept to go up?
Anne Marie Morris
Absolutely, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why—although I am not going to put it in a leaflet. The point is that people on the streets are saying that they are prepared to pay for health and social care, education and policing. What they do not like is non-specific tax rises that they think will be spent on things that they do not really value.
Anne Marie Morris
No; I have taken one intervention and, given the time and how many Members wish to speak, I will carry on.
My PCC was also pleased that, this time, the final settlement took account of the increase in housing numbers. In the past, that has not been done and that has meant a lower settlement. However, it is clear that many challenges are ongoing because, as the Minister rightly said, the nature of crime has changed. We have increased terrorism and cyber-crime—indeed, even in Devon, someone is more likely to be the victim of cyber-crime than of a physical violent crime—so it is right that we increase our investment in those areas.
When I talk to schoolteachers and my local police force, however, I learn that there has been a subtle change—again—and that violent crime is increasing, although it is of a different nature. Burglaries were going down, but are now going back up again. More worrying is street crime. A gang culture is growing, and if it is growing in Devon I am sure it is also growing everywhere else. To deal with that, we need more bobbies on the beat. The police also need greater resources. One of the tools for dealing with the issue is dispersal orders, but these days they are for a relatively short time—a matter of 24 or 48 hours—whereas they used to be for days, weeks or, in some cases, months. The police tell me that it is difficult to deal with gang culture because they do not have the tools that they need. That is an issue that the Minister might look at.
In my surgeries, it is clear that one of the biggest growing issues is antisocial behaviour, which Opposition Members have also mentioned. We will have to think long and hard about how we deal with that, because at the moment it is not seen as a crime per se, so it is batted between local authorities and the police and nobody really deals with it.
One of the new crimes that most certainly requires more bobbies on the beat is modern-day slavery. It is of particular interest to me, because the police lead on it is in Devon. For us, sorting out modern-day slavery is very important. Members might ask, “Does that really happen in Devon?” Yes, it does. We have significant levels of prostitution, as well as people enslaved in processing factories and in agriculture. Most research suggests that the number of people in slavery is significantly under-recognised and under-reported, but the only way we will find many of the individuals suffering from this horrendous crime is through bobbies on the beat who know what is going on in their local area. We need to think again about how we can be clever and get more bobbies on the beat.
I am sure that the proposed merger between Dorset police and Devon and Cornwall police will make a big difference. They already work closely together, and the proposal has my support. I hope that the Government will also support it. One point that my PCC would like the Government to consider is how we might find additional funding for the police. Her suggestion is that the Minister might look at business rates. At the moment other emergency services, especially fire, get a share of the business rates, but the police do not. That is particularly relevant in my constituency, because we were lucky enough to get into the pilot for local authorities to retain 100% of rates.
I shall summarise by saying, “Overall, in the circumstances, well done.” The local police do a fantastic job, and they are pleased by the greater flexibility. However, I think they would echo the comments made by Opposition Members that the funding formula has to be reviewed. Whatever it is like in the west midlands, in rural areas of Devon there are real challenges that the current funding formula simply does not meet. A review is needed that recognises that the challenges of today are very different from those of 20 years ago.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), although I am not sure I quite agree with all her points. I would like to begin by thanking Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner, Lancashire’s chief constable, and the policemen and policewomen who serve so diligently and professionally to keep us all safe. The work they do is essential. On behalf of them and the people of my constituency, I would like to challenge a couple of assertions that the Government continue to make.
The first assertion is that crime is falling. In Lancashire, the number of police officers is certainly falling: we have 1,200 fewer police officers than there were in 2010. As for Government Members’ comments on what Labour would do, actions speak louder than words. When we left government, Lancashire had 1,200 more police officers—the Government’s action has been to reduce the number of police officers in Lancashire by 1,200. At the same time, crime is increasing. In Lancashire, hate crime increased by 22% last year, fraud by 15%, knife crime by 32%, domestic abuse-related crime by 20% and theft by 18.9%, and senior police officers have commented on the tsunami of cyber-crime that is currently only part-measured. The number of police officers is falling and crime is rising.
The second assertion I would like to challenge is that police funding is protected and rising. That is incorrect. To come anywhere close to existing budgets by applying the full allowable precept would raise only £6.1 million but amount to a 7.25% increase in precept for the taxpayers in my constituency and across Lancashire. The fact is that since 2010, Lancashire constabulary has been required to make savings of £72 million, with an additional £17 million to come by 2020. The only way it can anywhere near continue to function is by asking people in my constituency to accept higher levels of crime and to pay for the privilege.
Mention has been made of reserves. I really am flabbergasted to hear the comments of Conservative Members about burying reserves. Burying their heads in the sand would be a more appropriate assessment of what is going on. Am I really hearing correctly that those on the Government Benches want us to run a service as important as the police on reserves? That is no responsible way to plan for a vital service. In Lancashire, earmarked reserves are kept for the modernisation of the force, so that it can attempt, in the face of so many challenges, to keep one step ahead of the criminals and adapt to the changing nature of crime. General reserves remain just below the required 5%. It is a good job that the Lancashire constabulary has been so prudent, because in the past 12 months it has been required to foot the £5.9 million bill for policing fracking in Lancashire. Goodness knows where the funding would have come from to pay for that had Lancashire not been so prudent.
Chief constables across the country, including in Lancashire, are saying that it is more difficult now to keep the public safe. The recently retired chief constable of Lancashire said that he could not guarantee keeping people safe on current budgets. People in my constituency of Burnley have the second-highest level of crime in Lancashire, and crime is rising across all areas of my constituency. My constituents will now be faced with paying more in council tax. They are taxpayers, and I value taxpayers’ money, as do they, but I question the service they are getting for their contribution.
If the Government, as is their right, no longer prioritise police forces and the safety of the people, they ought at the very least to be honest about it, instead of trying to delude the British public.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who in her magnificent speech spoke up for our police service, spoke up for our country, and spoke up for the safety and security of our citizens. She was absolutely right to do that, because the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. That was a responsibility we took deadly seriously when we were in government. The development, with the police, of the British model of policing—neighbourhood policing, 17,000 extra police officers and 16,000 police community support officers—saw crime fall by 43%. That progress has now been slammed into reverse, with 21,000 gone nationally and 2,000 in the west midlands. If we look at the most recent statistics in the west midlands, we see that there has been a 14% overall increase in crime, with increases of 15% in gun crime, 17% in knife crime, 31% in serious acquisitive crime and 8% in domestic violence.
What planet do Conservative Members live on? Do they not hear from their communities the concerns that we hear? I remember a packed public meeting I called on 24 November, with our admirable police and crime commissioner David Jamieson, together with the leadership of our police service. There was complete dismay among local people about rising crime. There had been eight serious incidents in a matter of months involving knife crime, gun crime and machetes, and there were concerns that we never see our police any longer. One after the other, people said, “We are frightened,” and older people in particular said, “We are frightened to go out after night falls.”
Mr Jim Cunningham
I will give my hon. Friend an example. Last week there was a public meeting in the Willenhall area of Coventry, and the police more or less said that there was a shortage of policemen in that area. That is a typical example. The public are seriously concerned about rising crime in that area and other parts of my constituency, and they want something done. They want more policemen and no more alibis from the Government.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend puts it well—more police officers, not more alibis. I will come to that in one moment.
The consequences being felt by the British public are ever more serious. One police officer said to me, “Jack, I hate to say this, but increasingly some criminals feel free rein, because there just aren’t enough of us any longer to keep the community safe.” In terms of response times, domestic violence victims are having to wait from four hours until the following day for the police to turn up, when they are desperate for the safety that the police bring.
The hollowing out of neighbourhood policing—that great British model of policing celebrated worldwide, which Labour built in government—is having increasingly serious consequences. On the one hand, neighbourhood policing is about not just the detection of crime but working with the community to prevent crime in the first place. On the other hand, it is crucial to counter-terrorism, as it is the eyes and ears of the counter-terrorist effort. We face the most serious threat to our country in a generation, from terrorism inspired by ISIS and al-Qaeda and from far-right terrorism, which now accounts for 15% of terrorist threats. Time and again, the heads of counter-terrorism units right across the country say the same thing: neighbourhood policing is vital to keeping the public safe and stopping the terrorist threat.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) was right when he said that such are the demands upon the West Midlands police service, including surge capacity after terrorist attacks, that it had to suspend neighbourhood policing for an entire month. It is little wonder that the people in the communities concerned express utter dismay and ask, “Where are our police officers?”
We heard a series of assertions from Conservative Members. In essence, their mantra is, “We have cut police, but we have cut crime and protected police budgets, and ours has been a fair approach.” The assertion about cutting crime is not true. The stats on recorded crime have been substantially cleaned up, but the Office for National Statistics has intervened to ensure that in future, we also take account of cyber-crime, which was not previously included in the statistics. Incidentally, cyber-crime has a low level of reporting, but if we included the estimates for it, we would see the crime figures go up by in excess of 25%. That is all the more serious now, because a person is more likely to be mugged online than on the street.
The assertion about protecting police budgets is not true. West Midlands police has suffered £140 million of cuts to its budget. It needed £22 million this year just to stand still. Instead, all it has been able to get is the £9.5 million thrown up by the precept. That means a real-terms cut of £12.5 million. It is little wonder that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has estimated that 359 more police officers will go in the west midlands. Our PCC has said that 28 police stations have already closed and more are likely to close.
As for this nonsense about a fair approach, I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). In his powerful speech, he argued that if we compare the treatment of the west midlands to that of the leafy shires of Surrey and Hampshire, nothing could be further from the truth than the idea of a fair approach.
Turning to the police service itself, as the thin blue line is stretched ever thinner, our police officers are paying the price. I want to pay tribute to them for the work they do and the heroism of their approach. I remember police officers chasing an armed robber who had hijacked a car and driven off with two young children in the back seat. Putting their lives at risk to keep those kids safe and recover them for their mum and dad, they ran towards danger. That is the nature of their job and the nature of their heroism.
Police officers pay a price in their own physical security—a police officer in Birmingham was stabbed in the neck as he effected an arrest on 12 December—but also in stress, sickness and despair. The statistics on the impact on the police service of their having to do ever more with ever less resource are profoundly depressing.
So many police officers have paid the price with their own jobs. Some of the most heartbreaking occasions I remember were when the West Midlands police had to use regulation A19 to retire police officers aged 51, 52 or 53 who had 30 years of service. Some of the finest police officers one would ever want to meet—they were doing an outstanding job and they loved their job—were forced to retire because of Government cuts. Let us hear no more about “We have cut crime” or “We have protected budgets”, because nothing could be further from the truth.
May I say in conclusion that I listened in disbelief to the cavalier disregard not of the Minister, although I fundamentally disagree with what he has said, but of the Prime Minister earlier? I have to ask: does she not hear the same concerns that we hear? As a senior police officer put it to me, is she deaf to reason? Does she ever meet local people and listen to their concerns? If she did, she would hear about the same experiences that I and everyone else on the Opposition Benches has heard about. I remember a woman who has lived in Perry Common for 44 years saying, “I don’t go out after dark any longer”. Local shopkeepers who have been robbed at knifepoint told me, “People are afraid to come out after dark, and it’s affecting our business”. A woman from the Slade Road area said, “I’ve lived here for 60 years, and I love the area, which I was brought up in, but I no longer feel safe”.
I must say in all frankness that it is simply not good enough to hear Conservative Members praise the police service and then preside over the biggest cuts in policing history. Forgive me if I put this bluntly, but the consequences are that, ultimately, people will die who might otherwise have lived, people will suffer injury who might otherwise have walked in safety and people will have their house burgled who might otherwise have enjoyed security in their home. The consequences could not be more serious. The Government have got it fundamentally wrong, and Opposition Members are absolutely determined to stand up for that first duty—the safety and security of the British people—and stand up for our police service.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Can we be clear what is being done with this settlement this afternoon? We are seeing a fundamental change in the way our police in this country are funded—moving funding from central Government to local taxpayers. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) quite rightly said that what the Government have announced today is a cut in central Government funding. It is a flat cash settlement, if we look at and take into account inflation and other things.
This is the first time I have ever seen such a parade of Conservative MPs with the duo from Dorset—the hon. Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—saying how they welcomed the settlement, and with the remarkable statement from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that she will say on a leaflet to her constituents that she is voting to put up their taxes. It is the first time I have ever heard a Conservative MP say they were going to put up taxes, but that is what we are actually doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is correct that this is not just about what is happening now; it is about what has been happening over the past seven years. The Prime Minister’s crime sheet, when she was Home Secretary, speaks for itself: a 5% reduction in the central Government grant for policing every single year, aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats. In Durham, that has meant 350 fewer officers and 150 fewer support officers.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Cleveland police, who share many services with the neighbouring Durham constabulary, have also seen such cuts. Does my hon. Friend agree that 500 fewer police officers—the boots on the ground—over the past seven years is intolerable?
Mr Jones
Yes, but that is what is happening on the ground. We hear all this guff and rhetoric from the Government about how they are somehow protecting frontline policing, but it is frontline officers who we are losing, and it is frontline officers who my constituents want to see on the streets.
We are told that local people will be quite happy to have their council tax increased. The proposal is for a flat increase in the precept of £12 a year across band D properties. The Government argue that that is fair, but for Durham it is completely unfair. Durham relies on central Government grant for 75% of its funding, so because of the makeup of council tax bands for properties in Durham, a £1 increase would increase expenditure by £46 per head of population. In Thames Valley, the figure would be £60, and in Surrey, it would be nearly £90. If the system is reliant on local council tax bands, the local precept that the police and crime commissioner can raise in some areas is severely limited. The Minister said that police and crime commissioners are welcoming this. Well, they have to be, because it is the only way they will plug the funding gap that is being created by the Government.
The other thing that is unfair is how this actually falls. In Durham, for example, 55% of properties are in band A, so if the police and crime commissioner increases the precept by the maximum, which he will have to do, that will raise £2 million, £800,000 of which will come from band A properties, and just £62,000 of which will come from band H properties. That is fundamentally unfair. The system means that those who are least able to pay will end up paying more. It is no good the Minister saying that he is protecting funding, because he is pushing that on to local taxpayers and in some cases on to the poorest in our society, who cannot afford to pay.
We have been promised a review of police funding, which clearly has been kicked well into the long grass. What we have tonight is a start, because no doubt next year we will have the same: flat cash again and more being pushed on to local taxpayers, and no doubt we will be told that the police budget is increasing.
A lot of nonsense has been talked about reserves. I thought that this crime had been ditched when George Osborne left this place, because he often criticised local councils for having reserves. He made the fundamental mistake—I learnt this many years ago in local government—of mixing capital and revenue, as this lot on the Government Benches seem to do willy-nilly. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) used a biblical reference, but I did not quite understand what he was talking about. Let me put the record straight on Durham. Durham has £5.7 million in general reserves, which is about 5% of the budget, so exactly what it should have.
We also have to consider earmarked reserves, which are for things that will increase efficiency. For example, Durham has another £5.6 million that it will be investing in modernising the force. In the recent period, the force has spent £10 million of its reserve paying off its pension liability, saving it some £850,000 a year. It has also had to use some reserves for the £4 million cost of the Medomsley inquiry, which is a very serious investigation that the force is undertaking. If reserves are used, they should be used cleverly and to make efficiencies. As hon. Members have said, when they are gone, they are gone. They cannot just be reinvented. What we are seeing today is a fundamental change. No doubt, the same situation will come back next year.
Let me come to counter-terrorism. It is right to put more money into counter-terrorism, but as hon. Members said, if we cut back on neighbourhood policing, that will have a direct effect on the police’s ability to counter the radicalisation that is taking place in some communities. I welcome the £50 million that is being brought forward, but I hasten to add that the request was for double that—£104 million—and I am interested to know why the Government are not meeting that requirement. I would like to know how the money is being used for regional forces. Durham, for example, has had to use some of its budget to fill the gap on the demand for counter-terrorism work. It would be interesting to hear how the £50 million will be spread across forces.
Although this is a terrible settlement, I think that my Front Benchers have given the Conservative party a great weapon to beat us with by deciding to vote against the entire settlement. The only thing that Conservative Members will use is that we voted against the £50 million for counter-terrorism. A lot of things in the settlement are fundamentally wrong for our communities. Forces such as Durham—one of the few forces that is not only outstanding, but outstanding in terms of efficiencies—have made the efficiencies that they can make and cannot cut back any more. If the settlement process continues, as I suspect it will, and each year the central Government grant is cut and more is put on local forces, places such as Durham will be completely disadvantaged. Promises have been made about reviewing the funding formula, but we are yet to see that. Without it, places such as Durham will find it more difficult to put in place not the policing that someone has arbitrarily decided is needed, but the policing that local people demand of their local police.
I pay tribute to the men and women of our police force. They do an extraordinary job and do things that many of us would not even dream of doing. In Durham, I congratulate the police and crime commissioner Ron Hogg on his leadership, as well as the chief constable, the men and women of the force on their work that they do, and the support staff behind them.
Let us be clear about what is being done: local people are being asked to pay for this increase. The Minister says that we have an increase in police funding. Yes, we have, but people will pay more tax locally. The Conservatives will vote later to increase the taxes of many poor people across the country to pay for policing. That is a fundamental change, and it is about time that the Government were honest about what they have been doing with policing and the cuts—[Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene?
Mr Jones
Doubled policing revenue—yes, he has, but not at central Government level. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that he is cutting the central Government grant and cutting numbers. I quite like him as an individual, but people are not stupid—they will see through this—and I look forward to him telling his local constituents and others that the Government are voting for a tax rise for them today, because that is exactly what he is doing.
In conclusion, this is a thoroughly bad settlement. We need a fundamental change in police funding, because if we do not have that, this system will lead to more and more cuts at local police level and a very unfair system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to reduce the time limit to nine minutes.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and to support the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has done a fantastic job holding the Government to account for the cuts that are blighting our communities.
On Sunday afternoon, I attended a community meeting at Glade Primary School in my constituency about burglary, which has been blighting the lives and safety of residents in Clayhall and right across my community for not just weeks but months and years. I arrived expecting to find dozens of residents ready to speak about their experiences, but there were well over 300 people gathered at the primary school—so many that we had to gather in the playground, where, one by one, they described their experiences as victims of crime in our community and their demand that we do something about it.
We heard from a mother who described her family’s situation following a burglary. She said:
“My 11-year-old does not keep fiction books under the bed – do you know what he keeps? He keeps hockey sticks. He has an evacuation plan where he takes his seven-year-old sister and a phone to the bathroom if we get burgled. We shouldn’t feel this unsafe in our own home.”
Another resident said that her children were also talking about action plans, adding:
“It is not a matter of if, but when our house will be burgled. We feel like we are just waiting for our turn. What are we meant to do if someone tries to get in, the police don’t come out when we call 999 – what practically can we do?”
I will never forget the woman, a victim of burglary, who came to my surgery and told me she slept under her living room window because she was frightened that if she slept in the bedroom people would burgle her house. She is probably looking with horror at the most recent reports of aggravated burglary in my constituency. These thugs do not care whether a home is occupied, as a family in Peel Place discovered when five thugs entered their home, hit their 11-year-old boy with a hammer, held the father down and repeatedly cut his hand with a knife. These are not one-off examples; this is an accurate picture of the burglary that is making my constituents’ lives an absolute misery.
Our London Borough of Redbridge has one of the highest burglary rates in London. Tonight, Redbridge Council enforcement officers will be out patrolling the streets, on foot and by car, doing the job that the police should be doing, so I ask the Minister the question that residents asked on Sunday afternoon: where are our police? I can tell the residents where they are. Many will be unemployed or seeking other work. Police numbers are now at their lowest levels in three decades. In London, we have lost 2,600 officers and 3,000 PCSOs and £700 million has been lost from the Metropolitan police budget.
We can see the impact on crime. It is up almost 16% in Redbridge. Violent crime and knife crime are up in my community and right across London. In spite of the nakedly party political attempts by the Conservative party to lay the blame at the door of the Mayor of London, people know, from this debate and from police and crime statistics from across the country, that violent crime and knife crime are rising not only in London but in cities right across our country. Those cities have one thing in common: the level of cuts inflicted on them by the Home Office. It is an absolute disgrace. As one Conservative councillor said on Sunday afternoon, “I expected our lot to make cuts, but I never believed they would cut the Army and the police.” Is that not the truth? Whether people vote Conservative or Labour or for another party, they do not expect to see the Conservative party inflicting real-terms cuts on the police service. Perhaps that is why barely half a dozen Back-Bench Conservative MPs could be found this afternoon to come in and support the Minister. The great amassed numbers on the Conservative Benches know that what the Government are doing to policing in our country is wrong, and we are seeing the consequences, with rising crime in our communities.
What does that mean in practice for victims of burglary? As residents said on Sunday afternoon, it means that when they dial 999, no one comes; that although forensics turn up a few days later, they never actually see the copper they think will be investigating the crime; that when they dial 111 to report back intelligence, no one answers; that people are smoking and dealing drugs with impunity on street corners in broad daylight; that boy racers can tear down Woodford Avenue knowing that there will not be a police car to pursue them; and that burglars have the front to break into people’s homes while they are in knowing that, even if they or their neighbours dial 999, the chances are they will be in and out before a police officer responds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)
Why doesn’t he speak to Sadiq Khan?
Wes Streeting
And how dare Ministers talk about Labour’s record on crime and counter-terrorism? Members should look at our record in government of funding the police adequately and then look at this shambles of a police grant, which provides barely 50% of what the Metropolitan police asked for to tackle terrorism. We are facing an unprecedented terror threat. We saw it last year with the attacks on this place, across London and in Greater Manchester, and we know that the nature of the terror threat evolves all the time. How on earth can the Minister stand at that Dispatch Box and defend a police grant that would fund barely half of what the Metropolitan police asked for?
The fact is that the Conservative Government are presenting a proposal that no one should support. We should send them back to the drawing board and tell them to come back with a proper plan to protect our communities with adequate funding that does not leave my constituents paying high levels of council tax for a service that is not as good as the one that they had before.
Neil Coyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am grateful to the idiot Minister for suggesting that he needs to talk to Sadiq Khan. Does he agree—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I do not think I can possibly have actually heard what I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say. I trust that he will immediately withdraw what he said, and say it, very briefly, in a different form.
Neil Coyle
I withdraw the comment, but I think that my point will make the case. Does my hon. Friend agree—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will not make a point in this Chamber by using language that is unsuitable for this Chamber.
Neil Coyle
And I have said that I withdraw it.
Does my hon. Friend agree with me, with Sadiq Khan and with the Home Office’s expert panel that London should receive its full share of the national and international capital city grant, which would deliver an extra £280 million to the Met?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members constantly attack the Mayor of London, but, as I have said, it is clear from the crime profile throughout the country that it is not individual police and crime commissioners who are responsible; it is the central Government cuts that are being heaped on them by the Home Office. It is a total disgrace.
People see through the spin, not because politicians like us have arguments in this place, but because they have listened to what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said. They have listened to what was said to the Home Affairs Committee by Mark Rowley, the outgoing head of UK counter-terrorism policing. They have heard what police constables have had to say. The Government can blame the Mayor of London as much as they like, but they know that their cuts are ultimately responsible for the rising crime across the country, and they need to redress the situation as a matter of urgency.
I have absolutely no intention of voting through a police grant proposal that will lead to real-terms cuts in policing, taxpayers paying higher taxes for a poorer service and a disgraceful position that leaves local government enforcement officers doing the job that the police ought to be doing. The fact that the Minister has come here today and quoted those statistics with a straight face reflects poorly on him, but it reflects even more poorly on a Government who should be cutting crime rather than cutting police.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the powerful and passionate speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).
I pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of police officers and staff in my constituency and throughout Merseyside. I also thank our chief constable, Andy Cooke, and our excellent police and crime commissioner, Jane Kennedy, for their leadership during what has been a very challenging period. Since 2011, Merseyside police has been asked to make sizeable cuts to its budget. The force had already slashed £82 million from its annual budget, and it expects to have to make a further £18 million in cuts by 2021. Last year our chief constable warned that Merseyside police was reaching breaking point as budgets were “stretched to the limits”. He also issued a stark warning that further cuts in our police budget could result in some offences not being responded to at all. Merseyside has lost 1,700 police officers and staff since 2010. At the same time, the fire and rescue service in Merseyside has had its budget cut in half by the Government, and Liverpool City Council has faced some of the most savage funding cuts of any local authority.
Merseyside Police Federation tells me that the decreasing number of officers has led to an increase in single crewing, meaning that officers are forced to attend call-outs on their own. It tells me that three quarters of officers are “often or always” single crewed. This has an obvious and significant impact when dealing with certain categories of crime, as it affects the police’s ability to break up gangs or to arrest people in large groups.
The combination of budget cuts and rising crime has serious implications for my constituency. In just six months last year, there had already been more gun-related violence in Liverpool than during the whole of the previous year. Last weekend in my constituency, armed gangs broke into three separate properties and threatened residents with a shotgun, a machete and a hammer. The number of shootings has increased, with nine gun-related murders across Merseyside since 2014. Merseyside police has long been recognised around the country as one of the best police forces for tackling gun crime, but it says that it is stretched to the limit. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly quoted our chief constable’s comments about this issue at today’s Prime Minister’s questions.
I want to speak briefly about an issue on which the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), has truly led: the scourge of scrambler bikes. It affects my constituency and others across Merseyside, and I have been working with our police and crime commissioner and the local force to try to tackle the problem. I welcome what the Minister said about the Home Office review, and I was pleased before Christmas to support the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), which seeks to give greater legal protections to emergency service workers, including police officers, who pursue people on scrambler bikes. I am pleased to report that yesterday Merseyside police crushed 300 confiscated or stolen scrambler bikes. However, the force and Jane Kennedy tell me that they need both the resources and the powers to do more to tackle this appalling scourge.
I want to finish by addressing what I think is a fundamental issue of social justice, and I apologise that in some ways I am repeating points that colleagues have made. Merseyside police relies on central Government to provide 81% of its funding. It raises just 19% of its funding through council tax. That is a major part of the reason why police forces in poorer areas such as Merseyside have been hit the hardest by funding cuts. We have some of the most deprived communities in the country, which not only brings particular policing challenges, but means that it is harder to raise extra money through the local precept.
Like other colleagues, I shall make the contrast with Surrey, because it is so stark. Surrey’s cuts to its central Government grant have been similar to those of Merseyside, but last year Surrey police was the only force in the country that raised more money locally than it received from Government. As it has a more affluent council tax base, Surrey loses less funding, even though it probably faces far fewer complex crimes than we on Merseyside. There is an inherent unfairness about this, as that fundamental issue affects areas with high levels of deprivation.
That brings me to the question of the precept for Merseyside police and the Minister’s announcement in December that Jane Kennedy, our police and crime commissioner, will be able to raise additional funding through the council tax. There will be no additional money from central Government, but money from Merseyside council tax payers. Jane has been consulting on this, and I expect to hear an announcement from her soon. I should make it clear that I support her proposed increase in the council tax.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that his police and crime commissioner, like the PCC in Durham, has no choice in this?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend anticipates my point. My PCC has no choice, and of course similar challenges are facing the local authority, so my constituents, if the increase goes ahead, will pay not just 2% for the police, but 4% for the local authority, so there will be a 6% increase in council tax. That is no criticism of either the police and crime commissioner or the local authority, because it is the only way in which they can get the money that they need for policing, social care and other crucial local services.
To return to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has raised, putting £12 on the council tax of band D properties raises more in some parts of the country than in others. The ability to raise more locally is regressive, as it compounds the existing inequality that I have described. Merseyside police has already had to make huge cuts, and that has undoubtedly affected its operational capability, as the chief constable has told us. I implore the Minister to work with Jane Kennedy and our chief constable to address this fundamental issue of social justice, because my constituents worry about crime and antisocial behaviour, especially when we are sadly seeing the return of significant levels of gun violence across Merseyside. The police desperately need additional resources, so I finish by echoing my hon. Friend the shadow Minister in urging the Minister to think again.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
As MPs, we are all aware of the importance of effective policing in our constituencies. We have a duty to speak out when we believe that there is a problem, and we have a serious problem at the moment, which is a direct result of funding cuts. Since 2010, we have lost 21,000 police officers nationally and more than 6,000 police community support officers. In fact, police numbers are at their lowest in three decades, which is having a real impact on policing. Last March, HMIC’s annual report highlighted a shortage of detectives and suggested that serious crimes were being investigated by junior staff. Other concerns included a downgrading of emergency calls to justify slower response times.
We know that police work can be demanding and dangerous at times. I pay tribute to the hard work of Merseyside’s police officers and PCSOs, its police and crime commissioner, its chief constable and all the support staff for their dedication and sheer hard work. We owe them a debt of gratitude. However, they are being let down by this Government, as they were by the previous coalition Government.
Merseyside police’s budget has been cut by £82 million since 2011-12, and the force must make a further £18 million in savings between now and 2021-22. There has been a net reduction of 1,726 staff, including the loss of over 1,000 police officers—that is a 22% reduction in police officers alone. It is impossible for the public not to feel the effects of cuts on that scale, and police officers are feeling the effects, too, given the increased stress that comes from working in an under-resourced service when demand—in other words, crime—is on the rise. People have the right to feel safe in their communities, but this Government are sadly letting them down. Crime increased in Merseyside by 15% between 2016 and 2017. Emergency calls increased by 9.5%. Burglaries went up by 22% and robbery was up by 31%. The number of domestic violence cases increased by 18.5% and rape cases increased by 33%. That last figure is alarming, but it reflects changes in how things are recorded and victims’ increased willingness to come forward. It also includes a number of historical offences, but the police must still address such crimes.
Other issues include the serious problem of scrambler bikes, which are a scourge on our communities, and antisocial behaviour, which causes anxiety and instability. In Wirral West, I am hearing reports of such activity in areas that have never had any problems before. Such is the Government’s failure to protect them, some residents who have lived in an area for 10 years say that they want to move house. The first responsibility of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but this Government are failing. It is both reckless and irresponsible that the Government know the impact that cuts in police funding are having on victims and communities, yet they continue to make them, so I ask them to pause and reconsider their approach. Austerity is not working, and when it is applied to policing, it is a high-risk strategy that puts our communities, police officers and PCSOs at risk. I ask the Government to think carefully about the impact of their actions on victims of crime and about the profound trauma that people often experience.
There is no doubt that some of the increase in crime is a result of other austerity measures being pursued by this Government. Cuts to local authorities are leading to the closure of the very services that should be there to support communities, such as the youth services that have such an important role to play in providing young people with constructive ways of being actively involved in their communities. Those services do invaluable work by drawing young people away from getting involved in low-level crime purely because of boredom and a lack of anything else to do. Almost 40% of calls to Merseyside police are connected to mental health issues. The Government are clearly failing to fulfil the commitment made in 2013 to achieve a parity of esteem between physical and mental health in the NHS, and they are failing to provide the services that are so desperately needed.
An analysis by the King’s Fund that was published in January showed that, between 2012-13 and 2016-17, the funding gap between NHS mental health and acute providers actually widened. It revealed a 13% reduction in full-time equivalent mental health nurses between September 2009 and August 2017. The number of nurses providing in-patient care declined by almost 25%, and the total number of nursing support staff in the community fell by 18% over almost exactly the same period. The report also found high sickness rates. Trusts are finding it extremely difficult to recruit, so staff turnover is currently leaving 4% fewer mental health nurses employed each year.
The Government’s obsession with austerity is creating real problems for our overstretched police services, and officers are having to respond to that failure. We are also seeing reports of private police forces appearing in our country. The chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation has warned of the creation of a two-tier system, highlighting the need for public scrutiny of private forces. That is an extremely worrying development, and it suggests that communities buying such services have lost faith in the Government’s ability to provide an effective police force altogether. I do not believe that to be the case, but I do think that there is an urgent need for increased funding.
None of us wants to live in a country in which some areas hire private police forces because of a lack of policing, while other areas are left with an under-resourced service. That is an extremely dangerous route to go down. The Government need to take stock, rethink and give police forces across the country the funding they need. The public expect nothing less.
Mr Hurd
With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the contributions from Back Benchers. Given how many interventions I took at the start of the debate, and in the interest of time, I do not propose to take any now. It has been good to hear so many Members on both sides of the House paying tribute to the hard work, bravery and dedication of their local police forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has spoken to me regularly about fair funding for Dorset. He wants more officers on the ground, and I am sure he will make representations to Dorset’s police and crime commissioner about what the PCC proposes to do with the additional £4.2 million he should receive from the settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made the extremely important point that as crime is changing, the police have to change, too. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). We never hear Labour talk about this, but the Government are committing £1.9 billion for cyber-security, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset asked me to look seriously at merger proposals, and we will do so once we see a business case.
My old friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), has been a long and passionate advocate for fairer funding for Suffolk, as have other Suffolk MPs, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Newton Abbot have my assurance that we will look seriously at concluding the fair funding review in the context of the next comprehensive spending review, and I noted the representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney about the emergency grant. He made a very important point about the precedent of Ipswich Town in the policing of football.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) inevitably raised the tone of the debate by speaking about the parable of the talents. He is right about reserves, and I note his desire to see more officers in Dover and Deal. I know he will make representations to Matthew Scott, who now has more resources to deliver just that.
Various Labour Members offered variations on the same theme. A number of Labour west midlands MPs, including the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), talked about cuts and depleted reserves. The fact is that West Midlands police will receive an additional £9.5 million next year, which the police and crime commissioner says he will use to recruit a further 100 officers. Not unlike many other forces, West Midlands police has increased its reserves by £26.9 million since 2011.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) again talked about cuts and depleted reserves, but Lancashire police will get an additional £6.1 million and has increased its reserves by £26.6 million since 2011. I am sure that she will be as curious as I am about how it intends to use that money.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) made a typically thoughtful and well-informed speech on police matters. Again, however, her local force will receive an additional £8.9 million, and has increased its reserves by £60 million since 2011. I am sure that she will make representations about how that money is spent. She was rightly thoughtful about the issue of mental health, and there is a common theme across the system that police are spending more of their time dealing with people on the mental health spectrum. In many cases, that is entirely legitimate, as the police might be pursuing criminal activity or being deployed for public safety, but we are actively working with the police to get a better evidence base on exactly what is happening. Obviously, we want people on the mental health spectrum to be dealt with by qualified people and we want our police officers to be focused on their core job. The hon. Lady asked me about the date for the next stage of the “Protect the Protectors” Bill, and I can tell her that this will be on 27 April. I can also assure her that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will get an answer to his letter.
Given the various themes that came out of the speeches made by Labour Members, I am disappointed by Labour’s approach to this. Policing is one of our most important public services. These are very serious and demanding times for the police, so a serious response is required. I have to say that it sounds as though Labour is now very much in the scaremongering, fake news business, totally detached from reality. For example, Labour continues to use the mantra that crime is rising, even though the independent statisticians show that it is falling. The bottom line is that, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, Labour Members will vote against £450 million of increased funding for policing, including a £70 million uplift for counter-terrorism in the face of the worst terrorist threat for a generation. That is the position of the modern Labour party. On this side of the House—
Mr Hurd
I will not give way. The Government will continue to invest in policing, meaning that this country will invest £13 billion next year in policing. We will do the right thing to make sure that the police have the resources they need, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I remind the House that this motion is subject to double-majority voting: of the whole House, and of those representing constituencies in England and Wales.
Local Government Finance
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:28 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 223 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
We come now to the three motions on local government finance, which will be debated together.
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has today certified the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. All three motions are therefore subject to double majority voting: whole House and those representing constituencies in England only.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move,
That the Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2018–19 (HC 791), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall consider the following motions:
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2018–19 (HC 792), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2018–19 (HC 790), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
Sajid Javid
Every day, local government delivers vital services for the communities they serve—services that many of us take for granted, provided by dedicated, often unsung councillors and officers in places that we are all proud to call home. As such, as I have said before, local government is the frontline of our democracy and deserves the resources it needs to do its job and to deliver truly world-class services. To that end, late last year we published a provisional settlement for funding of local authorities in England. We invited people to give their views on this via a formal consultation to which we have received almost 160 responses.
My Ministers and I have engaged extensively with the sector, with individual councils, with Members of Parliament, and with the Local Government Association and other representative groups, ensuring that we were available to speak to anyone who wanted to raise particular issues or to ask any questions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for his sterling work in this area, not just over this period but for the past three years. I thank the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who recently joined the Department, for picking up the baton.
I am immensely grateful to everyone who has contributed to this consultation and our wider engagements with the sector.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
After all the consultations and discussions that the Secretary of State has held, is he in a position to revise his view that Liverpool City Council should lose 68% of its budget and have to face a crisis in children’s social care as well as in adult social care?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady should be assured that Liverpool City Council, like almost every other council, is seeing an increase in its spending power from last year going into this year. She points out the challenges that the council has had in trying to bring about efficiencies. That, as I will come on to explain, has been a theme for many councils, but she should be assured that over the next two years there is a real increase in the core spending power of all councils, taken together.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Set against Coventry City Council’s needs, the so-called increase that the Secretary of State is talking about is delusional and derisory, to say the least. It does not meet the council’s needs.
Sajid Javid
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can draw some comfort from my words in due course.
This work, with the feedback that we have received over the past few weeks, has informed the final settlement that we are unveiling today. It is part of a four-year settlement that gives English councils access to over £200 billion in funding in the five years to 2020. It gives them greater freedom and flexibility over the money that they raise, in recognition of the fact that no one knows their local areas, and the opportunities, challenges and pressures that they face, better than the councils who serve them. It strikes a balance between relieving growing pressure on local government while ensuring that hard-pressed taxpayers do not face ever-increasing bills.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Could the Secretary of State explain why Stroud District Council is the only council in Gloucestershire that has no revenue support grant promised under these proposals? Worse than that, the other three district councils in Gloucestershire get some money under the rural services delivery grant, yet Stroud gets nothing. Why does he think that is fair, and how can he defend it?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman, like many colleagues in the Chamber, is served both by district councils and county councils, all providing services for his constituents. The whole picture should be taken together. He will know that his county is seeing, for example, an increase of some £10.8 million to provide some very important services. Also importantly for Gloucestershire, including the district councils as much as the county council, the Gloucester business rates pool is part of the 100% pilot, which it estimates will lead to further additional funding this year of about £10 million. I hope that that helps to reassure him.
The settlement comes in the third year of a four-year deal that was accepted by 97% of councils in return for publishing efficiency plans. This gives the certainty and stability that they need to plan for the future. Many local authorities have done impressive work to deliver better value for money and are setting an example for other parts of the public sector. We are keen to continue to work with the sector to increase transparency and to share best practice so that councils can deliver increased efficiency over the coming years and transform services.
In all, the settlement answers calls from councils over many years for greater control over the money that they raise and the tools to make this money go further. This is the approach that we have taken across the board, listening to local authorities and responding to what we hear.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about core funding. I think the average for county councils—[Interruption.] Mine is Durham, by the way, for the Parliamentary Private Secretary who is looking it up. [Laughter.] The average is a 2.1% increase, but for Durham it is only 1.4%. The reason for that—[Interruption.] Durham County Council—the PPS has got the wrong one! [Laughter.] The reason is the low council tax base, as 55% of properties in County Durham are in band A, which affects the council’s funds—County Durham, if the PPS has still not got it.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is obviously familiar with the numbers for his own council, which is good to see, and his council is getting an increase. As I have said, and this will be a theme throughout the settlement, we have to always make sure that we are striking the right balance between providing increased resources and keeping any burden on taxpayers to an absolute minimum. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support that.
We are creating a whole system of local government that is fit for the future. The current formula for financial allocations has served local areas well over the years.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
North Yorkshire is doing its best to make ends meet despite a difficult and tight spending round. Can it be right that spending power in North Yorkshire is £770 a head, when in many other areas, especially in London, it is around £1,100 a head per year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a fairer funding review that delivers fairness for North Yorkshire and other rural areas?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes about looking at the fairness of the distribution, and I know that he has spoken powerfully about that in the past. We are looking at it, and I will come to it shortly in my speech.
A world of constant change, involving big shifts in demographics, lifestyles and technology, demands an updated and more responsive way of distributing funding. That means that we have to question the fairness of the current system, which is why I was pleased to launch a formal consultation on a review of councils’ relative needs and resources in December. This is not just a paper exercise. We have an unparalleled opportunity to be really bold and ambitious, and to consider with the sector where the most up-to-date evidence and data lead on drivers of local authority costs and to create a whole new system that gives councils the confidence to face the opportunities and challenges of the future.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
That is an excellent idea. Can the Secretary of State reassure the unitaries in my part of Berkshire that he does not envisage them going into negative grant, as it is called—in other words, getting no help at all?
Sajid Javid
I can give my right hon. Friend some reassurance on that matter. I will come to it in more detail in a moment, and I hope that he will be genuinely reassured.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
When the fairer funding formula comes into being, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will work with other Ministers to really understand the huge gulf that is starting to appear between city metropolitan areas and rural shire counties. We are becoming second-class citizens in rural areas because of the lack of funding in comparison to socialist metropolitan areas.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about ensuring full co-operation throughout all Government Departments working jointly with our local authorities on fairness and distribution. One way we have tried to make the settlement fair is by recognising the special factors that affect rural areas, including Shropshire. My hon. Friend’s council in Shropshire will benefit from £6.6 million in rural services delivery grant.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Conservative portfolio holder for finance on Stoke-on-Trent City Council says that it will lose £15 million of central Government grant over the next two years—that is Stoke-on-Trent with hyphens for the Secretary of State’s PPS, as he diligently searches his folder—but the Secretary of State will tell me that our revenue spending will be going up. Who is not telling me the truth? It cannot be the case that spending is going up when the portfolio holder tells me that the grant is being cut.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, I must say that interventions have to be short. A lot of people want to speak. What is unfair is if people make interventions and then leave, and other people have to sit for three hours waiting to speak. That is just not honourable. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is going to be here, but I just make the point about short interventions.
Sajid Javid
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the core spending power for Stoke-on-Trent—with hyphens—is increasing by £3.5 million in the settlement. Indeed, the core spending power per dwelling for Stoke-on-Trent is higher than the average for the class. I hope he welcomes that.
The consultation on fairer funding closes on 12 March and I urge all those with a stake in the system to make their voices heard. We aim to introduce this new approach from 2020-21.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I applaud my right hon. Friend for launching the consultation on fairer funding. Will he be able to reassure the House that, in contrast to some of his predecessors who have said nice words about fairer funding but have not reflected the significant changes that were introduced under the previous Labour Administration, the consultation will inform the next spending review so we will actually to see it put into practice?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance and I take this opportunity to thank him for the strong representations he has made on behalf of Shropshire, which have fed into the settlement.
The business rates retention programme will also be introduced in 2020-21. It will give local authorities powerful incentives to grow their local economies. So far, this has been a resounding success. Under the current scheme, local authorities estimate that they will receive about £1.3 billion in business rates growth in 2017-18, a significant revenue stream on top of the core settlement funding that is set to continue into 2018-19.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I welcome the 10 county-wide pilots. Will the Secretary of State consider extending the pilots to include small unitaries such as Southend and Thurrock or areas of the county such as south Essex, if the whole Essex plan does not work?
Sajid Javid
There will be further pilots and I will come on to that in just a moment.
It is right that we will be going further. It is our aim for local authorities to retain 75% of business rates from 2020-21. This will be achieved by incorporating existing grants into business rates retention, including the revenue support grant and the public health grant. Local authorities will be able to retain 75% of the growth in their business rates from the new base lines in 2020-21, when the system is re-set.
The long-term plan is to allow local government to keep 100% of its business rates. With that in mind, I announced an expansion of the 100% retention pilots that proved so popular in December. As a result, we will be taking forward 10 new pilots covering 89 authorities, instead of the five we originally planned. A further pilot will begin in London in 2018-19, and existing devolution pilots will continue in 2018-19.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My local authority in Hartlepool finds it increasingly difficult to establish a business rates base but will participate in the programme. However, its departments face 40% cuts, and it has a £6 million shortfall. How fair is that?
Sajid Javid
For the hon. Gentleman’s local council in Hartlepool, there will be an increase in the core spending power of 1.9%, which is £1.5 million. He talks about fairness. It is worth pointing out that the core spending power per dwelling in his local authority is £1,931, which is significantly higher than the average for the class. I hope that that reassures him that his local authority is getting a significant amount of spending power, particularly from a per-dwelling point of view.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I understand the thinking, which is that councils that say they are doing well in terms of business should be rewarded and retain their business rates. However, how will councils in deprived areas be compensated for the fact that they cannot do so well in terms of business? I was a councillor in a deprived local area—it happens to be the Secretary of State’s birthplace—and we tried for many years to encourage more business and enterprise, but it was incredibly difficult.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady’s local authority, Bath and North East Somerset, was part of a business rates pilot in 2017-18. As I said, we have extended that pilot, which gives the local authority the ability to take advantage of that and put in place incentives for local businesses to see growth. The council estimates that it can see millions of pounds of extra income from that, which I would have thought she would support for her local community.
The business rates pilots will help to test the system, to see how well it works in different areas and different circumstances. The purpose of the pilots was to have a broad distribution across north and south, urban and rural, and small and large. The pilot areas will keep 100% of the growth in their business rates if they expand their local economies, which is double what they can keep now. I can confirm that I will open a further bidding round for pilots in 2019-20 in due course. In expanding those pilots, we have responded to what councils have told us, and we are doing the same in other areas.
Rural councils express concern about the fairness of the current system, with the rural services delivery grant due to be reduced next year. In response, I can confirm today that we will increase that grant by £31 million in 2018-19. That is £16 million more than was proposed in the provisional settlement, taking the total figure to £81 million—the highest amount ever paid in rural grant, at a little over the sum paid in 2016-17.
We recognise that the so-called negative revenue support grant is causing concern. Changes in revenue support grant have led to a downward adjustment of some local authorities’ business rates top-up or tariff for 2019-20. We know we must address that problem, and we will consult formally on a fair and affordable set of options for doing so, with plenty of time to reflect on the findings before next year’s settlement.
Following discussions with the sector, we are continuing with the capital receipts flexibility programme for a further three years. That scheme gives local authorities continued freedom to use capital receipts from the sale of their own assets, to help fund the transformation of services and to release savings.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State about the negative revenue support grant? He has not actually said expressly that there will no longer be a negative revenue support grant. My local councils are saying that the Government cannot be trusted on this, and unless and until the Government commit themselves to saying there will not be a negative revenue support grant, they will have to budget on the basis that there may be one.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Such certainty is of course very important for many local authorities, including his own, and I hope I can now make the situation clearer. It is our intention to deal with the problem of the negative RSG, but we have yet to determine exactly the best way of doing so and providing support to the local authorities affected, and that is why it is right to consult on it. I absolutely commit to him that we will do so, and when we do—our plan is to do it in the spring—I hope that he and others will make an input to make sure that we get it right and really deal with this problem for his authority and many others.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State reflect on the issue of the transitional grant? It may be important to some authorities, but will he confirm the figures Sheffield City Council has given me showing that the authorities that have had the biggest cuts to their core spending—cuts of over 30%—have between them benefited in this financial year to the tune of £10,000? That is the total figure for the authorities that have had the biggest cuts in grant over the past few years.
Sajid Javid
My remarks a moment ago were about not the transitional grant but the problem of the negative RSG. I will come on to other grants in a moment.
We have responded to concerns about proposed changes to the new homes bonus. By the end of 2018-19, we will have paid out £7 billion under the scheme to reward the building of some 1.4 million homes, including £947.5 million for the year 2018-19. When we consulted last year on proposals to link NHB payments to the number of successful planning appeals, it was clear that the sector wanted continuity and certainty. That is what we have delivered, with no new changes to the NHB this year and the baseline being maintained at 0.4%. Furthermore, as we set out in our housing White Paper, we are enabling local authorities to increase planning fees by 20% where they commit to investing the extra income in their planning services. That should provide a welcome boost to local planning authorities and address concerns about under-resourcing.
The final settlement includes small adjustments to top-ups and tariffs for authorities based on corrected Valuation Office Agency data. I know that my opposite number—that is, the opposite number I have today, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—has been trying to make some mischief on this point, so let me spell it out very clearly for him. [Interruption.] Well, he raised a point of order on this issue yesterday. I think it is worth spelling it out clearly, because perhaps he has not understood what we have said.
The provisional settlement was based on the VOA’s official statistics, the best published data available at the time. Just ahead of the provisional settlement, officials were notified of an error in the VOA data. Ministers were not told about this until 16 January, as officials did not know what, if any, changes might have to be made to the tariffs and top-ups for individual authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that the moment corrected statistics were published by the VOA, revised figures were provided to local authorities to enable them to finalise their budgets. He should also know that part of the reason for the publication of a provisional settlement—the clue is in the name—is to test the numbers and to make adjustments. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he spend more time dealing with the substance of today’s settlement and a little less on childish antics.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying the position. Of course, the point is this: who runs the Department? The Secretary of State has some responsibility. If his departmental officials knew that the data were incorrect, was it not incumbent on him, as Secretary of State, to have known that and made it clear to the House when he presented the provisional settlement that the data were likely to be changed? The fact is that he came to the House on 19 December and gave incorrect information when answering right hon. and hon. Members’ questions. It is shameful.
Sajid Javid
As usual, the hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box and raises his voice, acting like a child again. He has nothing whatsoever to say on the substance of the issue.
Councils have a crucial role to play in helping to deliver the homes that our country desperately needs. However, we all know that we cannot achieve that without having the right infrastructure in place: the schools, GP surgeries, transport links and other essentials. The private sector can go only some way in delivering that infrastructure. It is clear that we must raise our game to match our ambitions, which is why last July we set up the housing infrastructure fund to support local authorities to provide infrastructure and build more homes. In the end, we received a staggering 430 bids, worth almost £14 billion, to deliver 1.5 million homes, demonstrating the incredible ambition that is out there to tackle the housing crisis—an ambition that we are keen to get behind and back fully. Hence our move to more than double the housing infrastructure fund in the autumn Budget, dedicating an additional £2.7 billion to it, bringing the total funding to £5 billion.
Last week I was delighted to announce the first funding allocation: £866 million for 133 successful projects, involving 110 councils, that will help unlock up to 200,000 homes. Those projects promise to deliver a strong pipeline of homes at pace and scale, and represent another important step towards meeting one of the defining challenges of our time.
I will now turn to another major challenge: social care. I am under no illusions about the pressures that councils face in addressing one of the biggest challenges we face as a country, which is why we have put billions of pounds of extra funding into the sector over the past 12 months. I can today announce a further £150 million for an adult social care support grant in 2018-19. This will be allocated according to relative needs and will help councils to build on their work and support sustainable local care. It comes on top of the additional £2 billion for adult social care over the next three years announced at the spring Budget. With the freedom to raise more money more quickly through the use of the social care precept, which I announced this time last year, we have given councils access to £9.4 billion more dedicated funding for adult social care over three years.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The problem with putting up council tax in order to pay for social care is that some of the most disadvantaged areas have a very low council tax base. In Hull, for example, what we can raise through that increase in the precept is very small compared with the needs we have. Are we not moving back to the days when the poor were keeping the poorest, about which George Lansbury protested in Poplar nearly 100 years ago, by putting the onus back on local authorities in very disadvantaged areas?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady suggests that the only way councils can access funds to provide social care is through council tax, which is absolutely not the case, as she knows. It is an important way to raise some of the funding, but an increasing amount is coming from central resources. For example, the £2 billion that was allocated in the spring Budget takes into account the ability of local authorities, including the hon. Lady’s, to raise money locally. It is right that we have that balanced approach, but I know that there is more to do on adult social care, and that funding alone will not help to fix the challenges. This long-term challenge requires a long-term systemic change. The publication of a Green Paper this summer on future challenges in adult social care will help set us on a path to secure that.
Finally, we are responding to calls for more flexibility over setting council tax. Local authorities will be able to increase their core council tax requirement by an additional 1% without a local referendum, bringing the core principle in line with inflation. This will enable them to raise revenue and meet growing demand for their services while keeping taxes low. Having done away with Whitehall capping, we have enshrined these checks and balances into the system. 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.
In addition, directly elected Mayors will decide the required level of precept by agreement with their combined authorities, and it will be easier for police and crime commissioners to meet local demand pressure under measures that I have agreed with the Home Secretary. They will allow for a £12 council tax flexibility for police services, raising an additional £130 million next year. We will, however, defer the setting of referendum principles for town and parish councils for three years, and we will keep that under review. In all, I want to see the sector doing everything possible to limit council tax increases and show restraint. I am keen to ensure that these freedoms are not abused, and I am sure voters are too.
My Department’s name recently changed to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That underlines our focus on fixing our broken housing market and getting Britain building, but I remain absolutely committed to the community and local government elements of our work. They are the foundations on which everything else stands. It is not enough to build more homes; we need to build better and stronger communities. Councils acting truly as local government and not local administration will help us to achieve that.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
On the point about local government, will the Secretary of State confirm that this settlement will see real-terms increases for local government over the two-year period?
Sajid Javid
I can confirm that there will be a real-terms increase in resources for local government over a two-year period, rising from £44.3 billion in 2017-18 to £45.6 billion in 2019-20. I should clarify, however, that due to the additional £166 million that was announced this year, that is a real-terms increase over the two-year period rather than year on year.
We have listened to local authorities, and through this settlement we have delivered what they asked for, while at the same time keeping spending in check. We have delivered a real-terms increase in resources over the next two years, more freedoms and fairness, and greater stability and certainty for local authorities to plan and drive value for money. They, and the communities they serve, deserve no less. I commend the settlement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Opposition spokesman, I warn hon. Members that, as is obvious, a great many people wish to speak this afternoon and there is limited time, so there will be an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes. Of course, that does not apply to Mr Jim McMahon.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, what on earth was all that about? We have been waiting since December to get this detail. We were told that discussions were taking place and that there were journeys over to No. 11 to make sure that we secured money for housing and public services such as adult social care. To see just crumbs off the table being provided is depressing.
On my way here, I often walk past the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I imagine the Secretary of State, when he was in that Department, being fulfilled, happy, contented and enthusiastic about his brief. What a contrast with now! He clearly does not have the energy for this brief and does not understand the detail, to the extent that incorrect information was presented to the House during the December debate.
Probably more telling is how little attention the Secretary of State got from the Chancellor. The social care crisis ought to have been addressed in the autumn statement, but because it was not, he now has to work within the departmental budget.
Jim McMahon
I am pleased the hon. Gentleman asks that question. At that time, there was already an in-built deficit in the Budget because of the increase in the national living wage and employers’ national insurance contributions, so even within the £2 billion allocated there was a £1.3 billion in-year deficit, because of the need to make sure that the provider market could be sustained. That is my response. It is just not enough money. Everybody in the House and our communities knows that. It is just a shame that the Secretary of State does not carry the weight in the Treasury to get the money into the Department and out to councils and into our communities.
Mr Betts
The Local Government Association has calculated that there will be a £2.3 billion gap in social care funding by 2020, having taken account of the 2017 Budget increases, and there are similar figures from the King’s Fund. The National Audit Office did a report for the Communities and Local Government Committee looking at these figures and basically confirmed their accuracy. There is a real problem here that cannot be disguised and that will not go away without extra funding being delivered.
Jim McMahon
Those figures are absolutely right. The analysis from Age UK shows that 1.2 million people who would have been entitled to social care in 2010 are no longer receiving social care because of cuts to the eligibility criteria by councils.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Coventry City Council has probably lost about £90 million over the past few years. The Government are playing a very clever game: they are shifting the cost of local government on to the local taxpayer, so that they can boast of keeping taxes low. It is really just a double-edged sword.
Jim McMahon
I agree with that. We are here debating work carried out by people outside this place—local councillors and local government workers—and it is right in this place to thank them for their hard work, their dedication and their grit and determination to make sure that services are provided in the face of severe austerity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim McMahon
I want to make some progress, because I am conscious of the number of people down to speak.
We need to ask a number of questions when faced with the settlement. First, does it step up to meet the scale of the challenges facing local public services in England today? Does it meet the challenge of 1.2 million older people who would have been entitled to social care in 2010 who no longer get the care they need? Does it meet the challenge of huge increases in the number of child protection and looked-after children cases reported by the LGA? After nearly a decade of Tory-dominated Government, does it begin to rebuild the essential community infrastructure that was taken away after the financial crash?
My view is that it fails on every one of those counts. The funding settlement today is little more than an insult. I want to put this into context—after all, we can have a party political debate about it and attribute blame, but that makes no difference to the day-to-day experiences of local councils.
Jim McMahon
I want to lay out the case, and then there will be a long time for debate—but only if I rush through this to allow time for people to speak.
Central Government funding of local services has reduced by 40%—less money when demand is increasing—and we all know that it has not been distributed evenly. The overall reduction has hit local authorities with lower tax bases hardest because they are more dependent on central Government grant. The UK Government’s total spending on local government, as a share of the economy, has fallen sharply. In 2010, it accounted for 8.4% of the economy; by 2022, the figure will be down to 5.7%, which constitutes a 60-year low. Yet councils in England still have 1,200 statutory obligations. They have less money, but the same is required of them. That has had an impact on people, in that 811 fewer people now work in local government. The local government workforce today is the lowest since comparable records began, when the central Government workforce is the highest that it has been since comparable records began. Moreover, the figures are not fairly distributed across government, let alone geographically.
If austerity had not kicked in and affected our local council base, councils today would have £14 billion more than they have. That would be sufficient to deal with the crisis in social care and the crisis in children’s services.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and it seems to me that his answer to every question is, “Send more money.” My question to him is: where is the money going to come from?
Jim McMahon
I will come to that a little later. [Interruption.] There is absolutely no such thing as “no cost effect” when it comes to not providing vital services for people. We know that because older people are not being looked after the way that they need to be looked after. We know because social care is not being provided in the home. More than 3 million delayed-discharge days have been attributed to a lack of social care. More than 120,000 hospital beds have been blocked, so there is a cost involved.
Most people who understand public services would say that it is far better to have joined-up public services that are unified at local level, so that money is spent to best effect and spending is tailored to the circumstances of the individuals who are using the services, than for people to have to navigate the ridiculous silos in which money is held. However, we must also accept that people are living longer, which has health and social care consequences that carry a cost.
As a society, we must make up our minds about the type of country in which we want to live. Are we the country that ignores older people who need care because we can ignore them? They are not visible in the same way as ambulances queuing up at A&E. The truth is that 1.2 million people who are in their homes are being ignored by central Government, and by the Treasury in particular. I think that they deserve better.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point about adult social care. Would the Labour party work with other parties to bring about a bipartisan approach? Everyone knows that there is a problem, but we should all work together to find a solution.
Jim McMahon
The problem with health and social care is that so many reports have been commissioned, but by the time a commission has met, considered the evidence put before it and reached a conclusion that can be accepted across partisan divides, the world has moved on and the challenges have changed. Some of this is not difficult, but any idea that it does not come down to pounds and pence is nonsense. Of course we can be more efficient with the money that we have, and we ought to ensure that that happens. We can work better across Departments, and we should do that as well. Ultimately, however, there has to be enough money in the system to meet the demand.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman is talking about a very important challenge that we face as a nation. Will he confirm that the Labour party would double council tax to deal with this crisis, as other members of it have suggested? Our voters would need to know that.
Jim McMahon
Council tax has an important role to play, as have business rates, but it also has significant limitations. I shall explain why a little later.
Any idea that the social care and safeguarding crisis—we should talk about safeguarding as much as we talk about social care and the NHS, because it is all-important—that can be addressed through council tax, through a property-based system that is now 27 years out of date, completely misses the scale of the challenge that faces public services.
Jim McMahon
I need to make progress.
I want to touch on what the 1% additional council tax means. When we seek to raise money through council tax—through a property-based tax—that takes account of the property values in an area, but it bears no relation at all to local needs or the cost of delivering services in that area. Therefore, the more pressure that gets added to councils to provide that from council tax, the more inequality we are going to see through council tax.
In Richmond, 1% for social care would raise £36 per person over the age of 65, but in Rochdale it raises just £18, because the tax base just is not there to support an equal increase in cash being taken. So if all we do every year is come back and say that we are going to allow another 1% and another 1%—and perhaps, if things get even worse, allow another 2%—that will just take even more from people who can afford it even less, because although council tax is important, it is regressive; it takes far more from lower income families than any other form of direct taxation in this country. So as much as it is important, we ought to always have an eye on the impact on those who actually pay the bill. After all, as we often hear from Government Members, there is no such thing as Government money; it is all the public’s money. That is right, but we are quicker to take the money from some people than from others it seems. We should focus on that, too.
We know that social care and children’s services are in crisis, and we know the complexities of social care will mean there is greater demand on the public purse. The difficulty is that the Government’s approach has been completely underwhelming and has completely missed the opportunity to set the record straight. Aside from the massive increase in looked-after children and children in receipt of reviews, we also know the way that has been funded is completely unsustainable.
The transition grant and the rural service delivery grant were introduced on the basis of two concepts. First, those who were hit hardest by the reduction in revenue support grant would get greater support to help them in a temporary period of two years to adjust their baseline budgets and organise efficiencies to eventually deliver a balanced budget. Secondly, there was a recognition through the second grant that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas than in urban areas because of sparsity. I am afraid the evidence base for both of those does not hold water and has not even passed the test the Government have set. So the transition grant that was meant to be there for two years has now been extended, and the rural service delivery grant has been completely undermined by a report the Government themselves commissioned by LG Futures in 2014 to assess the additional costs of delivering services in rural as opposed to urban areas.
The report said there were differences in the cost of delivering some services in rural as opposed to urban areas but the net cost in terms of the impact on councils’ overall budgets was felt harder by urban areas as the costs in those areas were far higher. [Interruption.] That is not my report; it is a Government report published on their website that supports the revenue support grant. Given that the evidence base has been decried by the Government’s research, I am staggered that they are putting even more money into a system where the evidence base is completely contrary to the position the Government seem to be taking.
The report found that 11 service areas were affected in rural areas and that accounted for about 15% of the council spend in those areas, but when it looked at the 15 service areas that were not affected, it found that they accounted for 31% of urban local authority budgets, so there was a 15% additional cost because of sparsity in rural areas versus 31% of additional cost in urban areas for service delivery. Therefore, if there was going to be a grant designed to help councils deal with the additional cost of delivering public services, on an evidence base the Government have commissioned, accepted and published on their website, that ought to be directed to urban authorities where the costs have been demonstrated to be much higher. Yet we continue with this farce.
I find it interesting that the Secretary of State does not have the Chancellor’s ear. When he knocks on the door of No. 11 and asks for more money, the Chancellor is not particularly interested in banking that support for the future as much as the Secretary of State is determined to bank the support of Conservative Back Benchers for whatever reason. Perhaps it is to face off a rebellion today or to buy off Conservative shires—a purpose that has not yet been declared. He should be honest about why the money has been allocated.
I do not resent the argument being made by areas with service delivery costs relating to sparsity that that ought to be reflected in their settlement. I do not disagree with that at all, and I commend the MPs who have made that case and have managed to secure progress from the Secretary of State, who on most measures does not seem to understand his brief. However, he certainly understands the need to appeal to Back Benchers and to bank their support for the future.
I resent the view, however, that some councils in some areas can be funded in a fairer way—although still not fair—while others have to sink or swim depending on their council tax base 27 years ago. That is not a fair or sustainable way to fund council services. I have no confidence that the fair funding review will deliver what most reasonable people would consider to be a reasonable and fair funding formula, which would be one based on need that would take into account urban deprivation, rural sparsity, demographics and demographic change, and the difference in unit costs for delivering public services. A fair formula would take all that into account and arrive at a number, but that is not what is on the table today.
The Conservatives who will go through the Lobby later to support the motions should bear this in mind: there is no new money. Money has been moved around from departmental budgets that were set before Christmas. The money in the transition fund and the rural service delivery grant is a one-off that has been taken from the business rate safety net—the Government will not say how that will be funded in future—and from other departmental reserves. How will councils be funded between now and 2022? Do Conservative Back Benchers really want this charade at this point in the calendar every year? We know that there is not enough money to fund public services, but they hold their nose because they have been bought off with a couple of pounds. They absolutely understand, in the way that all Opposition Members do, that the cuts have gone too far and that our communities deserve better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To accommodate the level of interest in this debate, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches, which the Chair had previously notified would be seven minutes, now needs to be six minutes.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to lead the debate from the Back Benches today, and I will start by agreeing with one point made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon): his congratulations and applause for the work of local government staff up and down the country in delivering services for local residents day in, day out, with a resource base that is diminishing overall. However, I disagreed with almost everything else that he said.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have a limited recall of local government finance, which may not be his fault, as he has not been in the House for very long. Those who were Members between 1997 and 2010, under the previous Labour Administration, will recall that there was a significant shift of local government resource from rural to urban areas. The hon. Gentleman referred to a piece of research undertaken in 2014, but I encourage him to read more widely. In particular, he should look at the work done by the Rural Services Network, which has carried out considerable research into the additional cost, which it acknowledges, of the delivery of services—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is not the evidence, but it is the evidence provided by the RSN. I should declare that I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on rural services, which is supported by the RSN.
I do not have very long to speak—you have given us a tight time limit, Mr Speaker—so I will confine my remarks to a few points. I will give the shadow Minister one example of the unfairness, as I and other Conservative Members see it, between rural and urban areas. The proportion of spending power funded by council tax in rural areas for the coming year, 2018-19, is 69%, while the proportion of spending power funded by council tax in urban areas is 55%. The burden on council tax payers in rural areas is significantly higher, which can be illustrated by comparing almost any urban authority with any rural authority that I care to mention.
My rural authority is Shropshire, which I will compare with Coventry, an urban area not that far away that has a similar population base, Shropshire’s spending power in the provisional settlement, before the additional measures announced this week, is £1,623 per dwelling, whereas Coventry’s spending power is £1,780, so there is £157 more spending power per dwelling in Coventry. Coventry generates £21.5 million more than Shropshire, and as £21.5 million is close to 9% of Shropshire’s total spending power, it represents a significant divergence in capacity at a time when the costs of delivery in rural areas are going up disproportionately.
One of the reasons why the costs of delivery are increasing disproportionately is the rapid acceleration in the age profile of our residents in rural areas. I have been surprised to discover that my constituency of Ludlow now has the 11th oldest population in the country, so there are only 10 constituencies in which more than 28.2% of residents are aged over 65. The situation is leading to considerable cost pressures on the delivery of adult social care in rural areas. The cost in Shropshire is going up by roughly £10 million a year, so the increase in core spending that will result from this settlement will be more than absorbed by the increasing cost pressure on delivering services to our increasing elderly population.
I welcome the measures announced by the Secretary of State this week, and I welcome the fact that the Government will publish a Green Paper in the summer on the cost of social care. It behoves us all to get involved, and I am sure that many all-party groups and interested groups outside the House will make representations. The all-party group on rural services, which I have the pleasure of chairing, will certainly make a representation.
My final point, in my last minute, will be to welcome yesterday’s announcement of a £16 million increase in the rural services delivery grant. I am pleased that £900,000 of that will come to Shropshire to reflect the costs I have mentioned. I also welcome the extra £150 million for the adult social care support grant, on top of the £2 billion announced in the past 12 months, about which the Opposition spokesman was so grudging. This reflects the Government’s recognition of the challenge in social care, and we are doing the right thing by trying to meet that challenge.
I also welcome the announcement about the retention of capital receipts for an additional three years, which will be of great help to authorities such as Shropshire Council. I am particularly pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed in response to my earlier question that the current review will be taken forward into the spending review.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
This debate has to be seen against the background of a 79% cut in direct funding to local authorities between 2010 and 2020—those figures are from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Local government has faced bigger cuts than virtually any other part of the public sector, and how well local government has dealt with that is to the great credit of councils across the country of all political persuasions. There have been real cuts to services, and if central Government were as good at managing their resources as local government, we would probably see much better services being delivered by central Government Departments. The reality, however, is that the councils with the biggest needs, such as Sheffield City Council, have faced the biggest cuts. There have been more than £300 million of cuts in grants to my local authority, and we have seen the problems in Northamptonshire only too starkly in the past few days.
On Monday, as we looked at business rates and local government finance, the Communities and Local Government Committee heard from witnesses including Councillor David Simmonds from the Local Government Association and Councillor Paul Carter from the County Councils Network, both of whom are respected Conservative leaders. When we asked them whether other councils were likely to follow Northamptonshire, they said, “Not this year, but unless attention is paid to the growing pressures of adult social care and children’s services, which are becoming an even bigger problem in some authorities, there is a cliff edge that other authorities are going to fall over at some point.” Those Conservative leaders are not going off half-cocked or at a tangent; they are facing up to the real problems that local authorities are having to address daily.
The £150 million extra for social care is of course welcome. We are now somewhat used to having sticking plasters every year to address the social care problem, but it is just that the sticking plaster has got a bit small this year—it is £150 million rather than the billions we had perhaps come to expect. The LGA has said in its assessment that by 2020, the gap for social care will be £2.3 billion. That figure has been confirmed by the King’s Fund and by the National Audit Office in a report for the Select Committee. It is there for everyone to read, so this problem is coming at us—it is here and now, and it is growing. Conservative leaders of local authorities are saying this just as strongly as Labour leaders, and we are talking about a total funding gap of nearly £6 billion. That is the reality, and I have not heard Ministers challenge it in any way. These are the problems that local authorities are facing up to, and without extra resources, they will not be able to deliver the services that our constituents need.
I wish to pay particular attention to two issues, the first of which is business rates retention. Council leaders told us on Monday that there is a great deal of uncertainty. The four-year funding settlement that we are now in the middle of was welcomed by local councils, as they saw a degree of certainty, but they are now uncertain about what will happen in 2020. The Government’s intention is to have 75% business rate retention, which will give an extra £5 billion to the financing of local councils, but the Government intend to offset that by making the money pay for public health grants, rural delivery grants and other grants, so there will not actually be any net new money for local councils as a result. The leaders told us that when the move is made to 100% business rates retention, it will deliver another £5 billion, but local councils need that money to deal with the pressures on them now, and they will grow by 2020. The policy cannot be used to provide a reason for giving even more powers to local government in order to absorb that £5 billion, which is the Treasury’s intention. Ministers really have to think about that. There is a way to solve the funding problems in 2020: use this extra £5 billion from 100% business rate retention to fund dealing with the pressures that local government can identify.
Finally, I wish to talk about the fair funding review, which is a wonderful form of words to keep Conservative Back Benchers happy, is it not? Everyone smiles and says, “Fair funding means we are going to get more,” but one person’s fair funding is, of course, another person’s unfair funding, as we have seen over the years. Local government cannot agree among itself how fair funding should be sorted out. Of course it is right to review needs assessments every so often, and the Select Committee has put forward some evidence, following research we had commissioned on that review. But in the end, this is a zero-sum game, because when one council gains from the review, another will lose. What came out clearly from our evidence session on Monday—I believe that this was said by the Conservative leaders—is that if the cake is not large enough, the fair funding review will probably end up being seen by no one as fair at all. That is the real problem. If additional funding is not identified, the growing crisis in social care will mean that there will be an even worse failure to deliver for some of the most needy in our communities, with the risk that some local authorities will be so financially strapped that they will follow Northamptonshire. That is a warning of which we should all be aware, and we have to bear it clearly in mind in the next few months.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Shrewsbury is one of the most popular places to which to retire in the whole United Kingdom. The beauty of our historic town and the Shropshire countryside attracts a lot of senior citizens to come to live in our community. We celebrate their contribution to our constituencies and to the county, but with that increase in the number of senior citizens comes, of course, additional adult social care costs. I have become interested in the local government finance settlement because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) said, our local council has faced increases of £10 million per annum in its attempt to grapple with the spiralling costs of adult social care.
When previously the Labour party ran the local council, it increased council tax by 16.6% in one year. That caused a great deal of distress and concern to people on fixed incomes, especially senior citizens, which is why we have encouraged the council to freeze council tax and do everything possible to limit the increases that local people will have to pay. I am proud that the council has managed to do that.
Shropshire Council has reduced some of the operating costs, as we have asked it to do since we came into office, and a lot of the fat has been cut away. In fact, the council is one of the most efficient in the whole United Kingdom. However, having made the efficiency savings, it is now really struggling to meet additional costs, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and I have spent so much time in discussions with the council leader, Peter Nutting, and the chief executive, Clive Wright, to hear at first hand about some of the difficulties they face.
As a result of those discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and I, along with other Conservative MPs from rural shire counties, decided to meet the Secretary of State and the Chancellor over the past few weeks to highlight the difficulties that rural shire counties face. I wish to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). My right hon. Friend is not able to join us today because unfortunately he is in hospital after an accident but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will acknowledge, my right hon. Friend has played an important part in the campaign for funding for Shropshire Council.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
May I reciprocate by thanking my hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown in those meetings and for his determination, which has meant that rural counties have got a better deal? Equally, I thank the Front-Bench team for listening to us and being so helpful to people who need their help so badly.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, we almost think of Herefordshire as part of our area.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend is not quite Salopian, but he is certainly our neighbour, and I thank him.
Whether we look at funding for local government, education or, indeed, health, we can see, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) will acknowledge, large gaps in funding—a disparity between rural and inner-city areas.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that rural sparsity and above-average ageing populations, such as Wiltshire’s, do increase costs. Does he agree that deprivation is not confined to urban areas, as the Opposition believe, but can actually be found in rural areas such as our constituencies?
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend makes a critical point. When Labour were in government, I brought Labour Ministers to parts of Shrewsbury, including Harlescott, Ditherington and Sundorne, where there are some of the highest levels of deprivation throughout our county and the region. They were amazed. The Opposition just think of Shrewsbury as a quiet, sleepy, beautiful little historic town. They do not understand that there are significant levels of deprivation in rural shire counties.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and to his colleagues in the Department for treating us with a great deal of civility and decency and for listening so attentively to our representations. I thank him for the additional £166 million, as a result of which Shropshire gets an additional £2.3 million. However, the taskforce that we have created will continue its work until we get a fairer funding settlement. I am very grateful to him for taking the first step in ensuring that the fair funding settlement is implemented. He has announced the start of a public consultation process, which is something that none of his predecessors did, so we can now acknowledge that he is taking our concerns seriously and is putting forward the mechanics to ensure that we finally have a fairer funding settlement between rural and inner city areas.
When the dust settles on this local finance settlement, I will continue to lobby my right hon. Friend, as will my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, to ask for Shropshire to be considered for the next tranche of business rate retention pilot schemes, because that is a very good initiative and something from which our county could benefit significantly.
I will end by inviting the Secretary of State to Shropshire. He has been there before—he represents a constituency not far from us—and we have been very grateful for those visits. None the less, I invite him again to come to spend a day looking at how services are provided across a rural county, and how there are huge additional costs in providing those services. I say to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) that, in contrast to what he attempted to say in his contribution, those additional costs do exist. In dealing with a lot of very small schools in rural villages, meals on wheels and getting support to remote rural villages, there are, of course, additional costs, and until they are taken into consideration, we, in the shire counties, will continue to lobby strenuously on this matter.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I know that I will not be alone in observing that the level of casework coming through my constituency office these days has never been so high. The reason it is so high reflects a number of things. It certainly reflects the fact that 7,500 people used just one of our local food banks, the B30 food bank, last year alone; it reflects the changes in the benefits system; it reflects the persistent problem of low pay; and it reflects real problems of crime and antisocial behaviour that was covered in the previous debate.
The reality, though, is that so many of the cases that I take up today relate to services provided by Birmingham City Council. Yes, Birmingham does not always get things right, but then neither does any other local authority. However, as a council under Labour, it has continued to prioritise children’s services; kept most libraries open when many other authorities have closed theirs; and taken an active role in boosting jobs and skills for young people, leading to initiatives to manage and reduce the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. It is also leading in the co-ordination of the response to the collapse of Carillion locally. It is building homes and has a programme to improve fire safety in tower blocks—we are waiting for a Government response on this—which needs and deserves help from the Government.
The truth is that so many of the problems that I see at my advice desk are down to the fact that Birmingham City Council is simply not allowed the resources by Government that it needs to provide the services that my constituents deserve. Figures in the provisional local government finance settlement show that Birmingham’s core spending power will drop by 2% over the period between 2015-16 and 2019-20, even if Birmingham City Council raises its council tax by the maximum 3% each year. In comparison, over the same period, Hampshire’s spending power will increase by 4.8%, Surrey’s by 4.7% and Warwickshire’s by 7.5%. Government funding to Birmingham City Council has been cut by almost £650 million since 2010. That is more than 75% of the current net budget. It has lost 40% of its workforce, and adult social care, which has rightly attracted a lot of attention in this debate already, has had to be cut by 48%. We all see the consequences of that.
Fairways, a day care centre in my constituency, is under threat of closure. In proposing that closure, Birmingham City Council has got it wrong. I hope that service users and I will persuade them to change course. However, the council has been put in this position and is on the brink of making the wrong decision due to the 48% cut in the budget for adult social care.
But the point I really want to make is not just that Birmingham needs more support, but that it deserves a fair deal in the formula used by the Government. The Government have failed to correct an historical error in the funding formula, which means that Birmingham is £100 million worse off today than it should be. Why? Because the Government cut grant allocations to local authorities in 2014-15 and 2015-16, pro-rated to the level of grant received, and they disregarded the ability to raise council tax income. The result was that the authorities receiving more Government grant because they were least able to raise council tax income—because of the generally higher levels of deprivation—received the largest cuts proportionately.
Birmingham City Council met the Government to discuss changes in approach to the distribution of the cuts made to local government, so that the cuts would take account of the ability to raise council tax. I am pleased to say that the Government did change their approach to allocating cuts from 2016-2017 in order to take that into account. However, the inherent unfairness of the first two years’ cuts remains. Based on the latest local government finance settlement, Birmingham City Council estimates that it will receive £100 million less funding in 2018-19 than if the cuts were made fairly.
Like all local authorities—particularly those with the highest levels of deprivation—Birmingham needs greater support from the Government. But I am not just making a special case for Birmingham because of that. I am asking that all local authorities are treated equally in the level of cuts made annually. And if they are to be treated equally, Birmingham City Council should receive £100 million of extra funding. The Government have not agreed to that. My question is, why not?
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
What we get in our local government grant is key to delivering the standard of living that all our constituents want. I thank the Minister, because we have been fortunate in Devon, where core spending has gone up 3.3% to £537.8 million. We have an additional social care grant of £2.2 million and a rural services delivery grant of £7.5 million, although the business rates pilot money of £10 million has perhaps been the most valuable to us, as it has doubled what we might otherwise have received. Hon. Members might be expecting me to say, “Thank you—that’s enough.” And I do thank the Minister. But, in a sense, the case has largely been made by my Shropshire colleagues: even that money is not enough, because we have a shire county with an ageing population and infrastructure challenges. I will not repeat the valuable case that has already been made.
This debate is not just about how much money authorities receive, it is also about how it is spent. I have a real concern that some of the money sent to local authorities by the Government will not actually be spent on what the Government imagine. That happened with the last chunk of additional money for social care funding. My local authority is—forgive me—strapped for cash, so it decided to reduce what it was going to spend itself, and instead included the extra chunk that came from the Government. The bottom line is that it was not actually social care providers, and particularly care homes, that saw the benefit. That does not seem right.
There is no oversight of the commissioning of social care or, indeed, of many other commissioning functions of local government, so the level of service provided is a postcode lottery. My constituency has some really good private providers, but they do not take any patients or inmates from the public sector because they simply do not offer sufficient rates. Nursing care homes in my constituency—the ones actually provide nursing care—have largely gone because they simply cannot be paid enough to provide support. It is those nursing care homes that we need, almost more than the standard care homes. I would suggest that the Government think not just about how much is spent, but how we supervise and have some oversight of how local authorities spend that money.
Children’s services are in an equally dire position. The department is overspent in Devon and the weighting has been inadequate, yet to try to save even more money, the council is looking not at outsourcing, which is what it did before, but at bringing in-house its provision of public health services for children. I am concerned that what the Government are doing, while well intended, is not delivering the right result.
In education, I certainly welcome the increase, and indeed the new funding formula, but it is not delivering what we need. Yes, it is more, but for the same reasons of sparsity, it is not enough. As a result of the formula, some schools will actually be worse off now than they were before the formula was introduced. The formula is opaque and unfair, and it is not designed to re-address the situation when, hopefully, the good times roll again. I urge the Minister, working with the Department for Education, to look again at how we can make the funding formula really fair.
My real concern, however, is special educational needs. Devon has one of the most critical situations in this regard. Much of the provision is out of area and consequently very expensive. We need a hub, which requires initial capital investment from Government. Something that has rather surprised and horrified me is that when any child is what we used to call statemented—that is, needing support, usually about £10,000, which is about what is needed to pay for a teaching assistant—the local council gives the school only £2,000 and the school is expected to find the difference. The school is not a business; it is there to provide a public service. That does not seem right, but I am sure that the Department could fix it if it wanted to.
Mental health provision is also inadequate—we know that; there are no surprises. We welcome the offer of a person specifically focused on mental health within schools. However, this must about providing an additional person, not just trying to retrain somebody who is already fully employed.
The funding settlement for education does not cover costs such as salary increases, pension increases or the apprentice levy, nor the extra cost of children having to be supported up to the age of 26—well, they are not children any more. It seems to me that there is still a lot more work to be done.
The Government and the Department have made a good start. I believe that their intention is in the right place, and the financial support offered is welcome, but they absolutely have to address the underlying unfairness and challenges for rural areas, which are not understood in any formula that I have seen in any of the spending areas. It is critical to get this right before—if the Government have what they want—the system whereby all funding is generated locally is put in place. If we do not understand the need in rural areas, we will never be able to ensure that whatever we do locally is going to meet that need.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I came to this place having represented my community on Nottingham City Council for six years—something that I enjoyed greatly and that was a real privilege. However, being a councillor between 2011 and 2017 was quite a difficult proposition. We saw massive real-terms decreases in our funding every year as the Government downscaled their commitment to our city. That meant service cuts, council tax increases, and business rates being increasingly vital. It meant local people paying more so that the national Government could pay less. All this in pursuit of an austerity agenda that decimated demand in our local economy, leading to a historically slow economic recovery, and is now to pay for tax cuts of little social value.
I am afraid that is the picture we see again this year: spending cuts. I used to think—I do not know if it was a naive or an optimistic view of the world—that Ministers did not understand local government and that that was why there were cuts of such a scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not in his place, said that local government has been targeted as much as anywhere else in the public sector. I thought that it was because Ministers did not understand it, and thought that the services were unimportant and wasteful. Actually, it is quite the reverse. Ministers target local government because they know exactly how it works. They know that hard-pressed councils like mine in Nottingham have to set balanced budgets, so if they pull a lever and say what the reduction is, they will get that reduction, to the penny, from local government, and they can go to their Treasury colleagues having done their job. They will have had none of the responsibility and will get all the benefit. What an easy cut to make!”
That would be bad enough, but these spending cuts have been incredibly unevenly distributed. Between 2014 and 2016—around the transition grant period—Nottingham households lost 250 quid each in spending power, while those in Windsor, to pick one area out of dozens that would fit into this category, lost just £34. But it was those very communities such as Windsor that benefited from the £300 million transition grant to help them to deal with the cuts. In Nottingham? Not a bean.
Inevitably—what else could it do?—that has led to council tax rises in my community. One of the poorest communities in the country, with the lowest discretionary spend, we will now again receive a near 6% increase in our council tax. We have a small council tax base, as others have mentioned, so that will be less helpful for us than it will be for other communities. Our gap in Nottingham starts at £33 million. The Secretary of State talks about increased spending, but the reality of the situation—I suspect it is the same for all hon. Members here today—is that my council will have to make reductions. If I tell my council leader that he has more money, he will tell me that he has to make a £33 million reduction in services. If he gets £6 million in council tax, that is still £27 million that has to come from elsewhere as we deal with the toxic combination of losing grant and having significant increases in demand.
We have heard a lot about demands in adult social care, which are important, but we should not forget children’s social care and the extraordinary pressures it creates. So for my community there will be service cuts. Lest people think that this is an efficiency issue, I want to share with the House the proposals in Nottingham—[Interruption.] I am glad the Chancellor has joined us: I will be able to make a personal plea. The proposals in Nottingham include job cuts in adult social care; reducing funding for weight management, smoking cessation and drug and alcohol services; reductions in youth services; reducing funding for the careers service; reviewing transport services for vulnerable adults; reviewing fees and charges for leisure centres and bereavement services; and increasing fares and reducing frequency on the Link bus services. We have our political differences, but I doubt that anyone would say that those are “nice to haves”.
More importantly, as well as being vital services in my community, those are all stitches in time that save nine. Every single one of those reductions will lead to an increase in spending in public services elsewhere, and that is why this settlement is an act of vandalism. It is short-sighted and ill-judged. But as we all know—and I suggest this is why the Secretary of State is so attached to the idea—my council will receive all the blame. It should not; it is doing an excellent job in impossible circumstances. The fault lies at the door of the Secretary of State.
As for the fair funding review, I have no problem with systems that are a generation old being looked at, but we should be clear when we talk about fairness. I know there is an enthusiasm for capitation, but we should be clear what that would mean for communities such as mine. I am happy to accept, and I almost hoped I would get, an intervention on that point.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that areas of high social deprivation end up bearing the brunt of cuts? In particular, in my constituency, the council has had to contend with £54 million in cuts, £12.4 million of which is to schools, thereby hampering the education of the next generation.
Alex Norris
I share my hon. Friend’s perspective. I know that he will work with his council to try to mitigate those cuts, but there is a point at which that becomes impossible. I am sure that in Slough, as in Nottingham—and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), in his area—they have received reductions that are significantly over the national average. The reductions are not just ill conceived, they are unfairly distributed. When we look at the fair funding formula, we must look at that.
I have heard persuasive cases from Shropshire about the needs there. That is why we should look at hard deprivation indices to make our judgments, not special pleading or bartering for votes. We need hard figures that say where the need is greatest, because that is where the funding should go.
I have not been here very long, but I have noticed a couple of curiosities that have been in full force today. Earlier in the day, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Government Back Benches erupted with stories of how great things are going in Members’ constituencies and what a wonderful job the Government are doing. Fast-forward a couple of hours to this debate and suddenly we hear how hard-pressed those communities are and how much more money they need—and need now. As I have said, this is a zero-sum game, and the money would come from poorer communities such as mine. That is one of the odd spectacles.
We also often hear from Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the answer to public service issues is not more money, and councils should not just ask for more money. But then we have had a series of speeches this afternoon asking for just that. When the challenges are in better-off communities, the answer is always more money, but it is always less money for us. I come from Robin Hood country, and it is a sort of reverse Robin Hood. It is particularly galling to have lectures on the state of local public finances from communities that never put their council tax up, use that as a political article of faith and then say, “Look at the shortfall we’ve got.” We have always had to put our council tax up, because that is the only way we can hope to stay anywhere near in line with our demands. Those are our challenges. As we move to the fairer funding review, let us use fairness in its proper and most evidence-based form.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who made a passionate case for his area and touched on the issue of fairer funding. He is absolutely right that a fairer funding review has to be done after a period of time. I can remember making that argument to Labour Governments. The problem is that when a fairer funding review is done people then say, “Gosh, that area needs more money, but we’ve got to cap somewhere else” and Governments are not very keen on cutting elsewhere. So while I think the fairer funding formula is essential, and it is clear that county areas such as Northamptonshire should benefit, it is not the answer to all evils.
One clear issue in this debate—Members on both sides of the House have mentioned it—is adult social care. It strikes me that there is no Tory solution to adult social care, and there is no Labour or Liberal Democrat solution either. We need to work together to find a solution to a broken system. We need to do it now, way before the next general election when we start playing party politics again.
You would expect me, Mr Speaker, to talk primarily about Northamptonshire County Council, because by definition it is now the worst council in the country, having effectively said that it has run out of money. It would be very easy for me to get up and say it is all down to the Government not giving the county council the right amount of money, but that is entirely not the case. Other county councils have managed their affairs better—much better. The problem with Northamptonshire County Council is its governance over a number of years. I have to say that it has been the most difficult organisation to deal with. It does not respond to communications—to be honest, it would be easier to get through to God.
All seven Northamptonshire MPs have issued a statement saying that we have lost confidence in the leadership of the county council. The Secretary of State and the previous Secretary of State have known our concerns. I am very grateful for all the effort the Secretary of State has put into tackling this problem and putting in an inspector at the county council earlier this year. I hope that the inspector can report as soon as possible. It is clear that the solution is Lords Commissioners. The county council cannot resolve its own affairs.
How did we get to this mess? It seems to me to be partly due to the cabinet system of government. We have had the same local politicians in the cabinet year after year. They just recycle the jobs. The vast bulk of county councillors in Northamptonshire, of whatever political persuasion, are very, very good, but the fact that they do not get any information from the cabinet has not allowed them scrutinise the mess that has been going on. In fact, we could say that a clique ran the county council, and that is where it failed.
Alex Norris
I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flow, but I have heard him say that a few times now. For the budget to have passed, the very same councils that he says are outside the clique and ready to save Northamptonshire County Council must have voted for it, either thinking that the budget was a good one or thinking that it was not a good one but doing so out of party loyalty. Either way, would that not disqualify them from leadership as well?
Mr Bone
In this particular case, the budget was passed on the assurances that were given by the cabinet, and those assurances were given to the local MPs. We said, “Are you sure you’ve got the money to do this? We’re worried,” and they said, “Oh no, everything’s rosy. The budget is fine.” They produced a budget and passed it. In year, it was clear that the savings they had suggested were not happening, and they had to take emergency measures. The budget will have to be set in February or not, and that is a dilemma for the council at this very moment.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend hits on a key concern that I have about the cabinet system in local government. When I was a councillor, we had committee chairs, and we had all parties round the table, having to justify what action they were going to take. There was immediate accountability. The cabinet system has taken that away too much.
Mr Bone
I could not agree more. I was a councillor for seven years, and there was a committee system. It was a Conservative-controlled council, and I have to say, I was as much of a pain then as I am now. I remember persuading the leader of the council to take back the proposed budget because it was wrong. Nothing has changed there, I suppose.
Mr Bone
I will not. I apologise, but other Members have to speak.
The cabinet system per se is not wrong, but it can go wrong, and it has gone terribly wrong in this case because the information just was not there. The vast majority of officers at the county council are superb, as are the vast majority of members, but the fact that the information was not there meant that the scrutiny did not occur. Had there been a committee system, there is no way that the council could have got into this mess.
We are in a situation now where drastic measures have to be taken. I do not see any solution except Lords Commissioners. There will have to be a restructuring of local government in Northamptonshire. I hope that that can be done as quickly as possible, but whatever future local government system we have in Northamptonshire, it must have a committee system, not a cabinet system.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for his speech. The simple answer in his case is that the Conservative councillors on Northamptonshire County Council could find the fortitude simply to no-confidence the existing leader, rather than trying to get the Lords Commissioners to do the dirty work for them, but it seems that they would rather abdicate responsibility in that sense as well.
While I am on my feet, I wish to draw attention to the comments made earlier by the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, Local Government and other subjects—the list seems to be growing every day.
Gareth Snell
Yes, obviously he is the Minister for Bins.
The Secretary of State said that Stoke-on-Trent City Council would see an increase in its funding abilities. I have just double-checked the figures published by the Conservative portfolio holder for finance on Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and they say that £32 million needs to be cut over the next two years. Either the Conservative Minister in this place was misinformed or the Conservative deputy leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council is providing misinformation to the public. Those two statements cannot be reconciled without someone saying they are wrong. That is the nub of today’s debate. Conservative Members are quite happy to throw around terminology and certain figures simply to prove a point that they are not cutting local government, but anybody in this place who has been involved in local government knows that they are.
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I should have drawn attention at the beginning of my speech to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a serving district councillor in a shire county, so I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) about the deprivation that exists in shire counties. However, I represent Stoke-on-Trent, and what he fails to understand is that this is not necessarily about the absolute level of deprivation, but the number of people for whom those services are needed—the number of children in care and the number of older people requiring complex social care. That simply cannot be compared in a city and a county as though it is apples and apples, because it is not; it is apples and pears at best.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) made clear, the cuts being inflicted on local government are causing councils to make very short-term decisions year on year to balance budgets, because they cannot make illegal budgets—they are not able to deliver any budget that is not balanced. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent, £1 million will be taken out of the homelessness budget. That will not end homelessness, but drive more people towards A&E services and peripheral services funded by the clinical commissioning group, the police and crime commissioner or other funders that will then be asked by their departments to make their own savings. We have a circular system of cuts that do not help the individuals on which they are focused. Again, Stoke-on-Trent City Council is looking to cut £751,000 from its drug and alcohol support service by 2019-20. If, as the Secretary of State says, there is more money coming into Stoke-on-Trent, I do not understand why such political choices are being made.
It is not only Labour councillors and Labour Members who are saying this; Lord Porter, the chair of the Local Government Association, has said:
“Years of unprecedented central government funding cuts have left many councils beyond the point where council tax income can be expected to plug the…gaps”
alone. If Conservative Members will not listen to Labour Members, perhaps they will listen to their own peers who are experts in this field. Quite frankly, if Lord Porter is saying that there is a problem with local government funding, we should all sit up and listen because he knows what he is talking about.
I want to touch briefly not on the funding arrangements in Stoke-on-Trent, but, although the Secretary of State is no longer in his place, on the issues in Bromsgrove. It is one thing for the Secretary of State to tell me that my council has no problems, but another for his own council in Bromsgrove to predict a £1 million shortfall over the next three years and to have to put up council tax by 3% and for the county council to predict a £32 million deficit over the next year and to have to put up council tax by 4.94%. The leader of the county council said in a cabinet report:
“The current…financial year has faced significant financial challenges”.
This is not scaremongering by Labour councils or Labour Members. Tory councils with Tory MPs are making it quite clear that Tory Government cuts are affecting the provision of local government in their own communities.
I am not entirely convinced that the report, for all its fancy words and funny fudging of figures, will actually deliver anything to give the necessary help and support to councils that need it. I will now finish to leave some time for others, but my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said that he is from Robin Hood country. The motion does not give us the redistributive polities of Robin Hood; it is more about robbing the cities and robbing the poor.
The report is about taking money out of areas of deprivation to make sure that rebellious Back Benchers do not decide to sit on their hands and cause the Government a problem this evening. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who is not in his place, has been able to succeed in getting additional funding for his council on a one-off basis, but that is not a long-term solution for the problems faced by local government. As more and more services are pushed by this Government towards local government, it is incumbent on us all to make sure that local government is funded properly and fairly.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), not least because he, like me, has local government experience in a shire county setting.
Rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), it would be impossible for me not to speak about the situation at Northamptonshire County Council. It has been a very difficult week for local government in the county. I want to preface my remarks by saying that the vast majority of the staff at Northamptonshire County Council work tirelessly—day in, day out—on behalf of local people to deliver key public services, and no blame whatsoever lies with them for the situation in which we find ourselves.
It is no secret that we, as the seven Northamptonshire MPs, have been exceptionally concerned about the situation at Northamptonshire County Council for some time, and I appreciate the steps that the Secretary of State has taken to try to address those concerns. For example, there is the appointment of the inspector, who is currently conducting a thorough piece of work looking at what has gone wrong. As I said in the urgent question yesterday, I would welcome an interim recommendation from the inspector as quickly as possible, so that we can try to provide certainty for local people.
What is so frustrating is that, time after time, when Members of Parliament asked whether the county council would be able to balance its books, we were told, “Absolutely. You have nothing to worry about.” Such requests for clarification were made as early as last March and April and as recently as December. The responses were unequivocal—senior cabinet members at the county council were unequivocal in giving such guarantees—but we are where we are.
I believe that the concerns we have raised have been vindicated by the issuing of the section 114 notice. It is not just Members of Parliament who have raised concerns; 21 back-bench councillors now say that they have no confidence in the leadership. The independent LGA report is damning. It states that
“there is a very short-term focus on solving the financial problems of today… There is no financial strategy to deliver a sustainable position for the Council… The Council has a poor record of delivering its approved budget… Key decisions are not always taken in the understanding of the financial implications, risks and options… Financial information is not presented clearly and transparently… Decisions taken by the Cabinet need greater transparency… Some portfolio holders readily accept the information they are given without systematic and robust challenge.”
Those are damning findings. It is no secret that the inspector who is currently carrying out the thorough inspection of the county council is equally concerned.
Michelle Donelan
I echo my hon. Friend’s point about the governance of councils being important. Does he agree that structure is also important and that unitary authorities such as Wiltshire Council can prove very efficient?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am keen to return to that point later in my remarks.
It is not good enough for cabinet members simply to shrug off all responsibility and try to apportion blame elsewhere, because there has to be accountability. The question we have to ask is this: why is it that many local authorities in similar circumstances—with similar settlements and populations—have managed to handle the challenges of recent years much more effectively than Northamptonshire County Council has? It would also be wrong to suggest that Members of Parliament and members of the Government have not tried to do our bit to help with those challenges, but being able to help relies upon the frank exchange of information and an honest dialogue. What has happened suggests that that has not been the case. At every opportunity, we have tried to help.
I welcome the commitment to a fairer funding review. It is a little rich for Opposition Members to talk down a fairer funding review, because we did not have one in 13 years of Labour government. Actually, Northamptonshire has been chronically underfunded, in local government terms, under Governments from both sides; we do not do well out of funding formulas relative to more metropolitan areas. I hope that the local government finance review will help address some of those anomalies.
I have talked regularly in the House about the cost pressures created for Northamptonshire County Council by unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement in December of an additional £18 million to tackle those cost pressures, and I hope that the county council will bid for some of the money; it will be entitled to some of it, because the cost pressures are acute.
It is also vital to note that the core spending power in the period up to 2020 is up by 7.6%, which is worth £31.1 million more. Members of Parliament have raised concerns, but the Government have also taken steps to help tackle directly some of the challenges. It is clear to me, as night follows day, that a fairer funding review in itself will not solve Northamptonshire County Council’s problems. I take absolutely no pleasure in saying any of this, but I will not moderate my remarks for party political convenience, because my primary concern in all this is continuity of service for the most vulnerable of my constituents.
Where do we go from here? We obviously need to wait for the inspector’s findings. I would like to see an interim report as soon as possible, because we need that certainty. I suspect that commissioners may well need to be appointed, because the failures are systemic and need to be dealt with robustly. We need to have a serious conversation in the county about the future structure of local government. To me, it seems clear that a two-tier model just is not financially viable in the current climate.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He will know that we have very good district and borough councils—in fact, we share one. They have reserves and if we move to a unitary system—I think that is what will happen with two unitary authorities—what does he think should happen to those reserves?
Tom Pursglove
I suspect that my hon. Friend’s assessment of what the future structure might look like is correct. The reserves are very important. I am frustrated on behalf of the district and borough councils in the county that have managed their affairs properly, budgeted responsibly and put reserves away. I would like to see a model that protects those reserves for the individual communities in question. In my constituency, I think it right that the reserves that Corby Borough Council has responsibly accrued are spent on Corby and services there, and the same should happen in East Northamptonshire. That is exactly the sort of thing that we need to factor in.
I hope that councillors will engage proactively in the process of helping to shape the system. I do not want to see Government having to step in and impose a model. I want us in our communities to shape the system of local government for the future and councillors to take a very active lead in doing that. I agree that a committee structure would be the best way forward. I worked under a committee structure system. I always found it a good, constructive way to do business. It was good to have the input of opposition members and backbench members into the democratic decision-making process.
As I said, absolutely no gloss can be applied to any of this: the situation at Northamptonshire County Council is an absolute disaster. I welcome the Government’s commitments in the local government finance settlement. More can always be done and we should always keep the support that we provide under review. I look forward to hearing more about the support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but in the county, we now have to focus on getting our local government back on a sustainable footing.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Since 2010, Durham County Council has had its expenditure cut by £224 million, although after hearing the Secretary of State speak today, we might think that local government is somehow in a strong position. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) was right: the root cause of this is the austerity during the last seven years. I will not let the Liberal Democrats off the hook for their responsibility for that, because they were in government and agreed to it.
This year alone, Durham County Council faces pay inflation of £4.8 million and general inflation of £3.2 million. The impact of the national living wage increase of 4.4% means another £3 million. There is a £3 million cost relating to the demographics of elderly people, and an additional £5 million due to pressures on children’s services, which has been mentioned. That means that, in 2018-19, Durham County Council will have to make further savings of £15.3 million.
Much reference has been made to the fairer funding formula, but I think it should get done under the Trade Descriptions Act, because the Government are doing what they have been doing for the last seven years. This is about the pork barrel—they put the money where they can get the votes. That is why, for example, it is not surprising that rural sparsity funding is going to Conservative-controlled areas. Lo and behold, even though Durham is a beautifully rural county, it does not get any of that funding.
If we look at core spending power, the average increase for county councils for 2018-19 is 2.1%; for County Durham, it is 1.4%. The reason for that is what we heard in our debate on police funding: it comes back to areas with a low council tax base. If we look, for example, at the effect of a 1% increase in council tax, it is not surprising that the ones that score for core spending on that are Wokingham, with 0.8%, and Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Dorset. It was interesting to listen to the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove) talking about Northamptonshire, because under the system that is being brought in, their core expenditure will rise by 3.8%, compared with County Durham’s at 0.5%.
The root cause lies in the clamour for so-called fairer funding back when the coalition Government entered office. I hear what people say about need, but the needs assessment was taken out of the formula, and that has continued under this Government. As a result, the formula does not recognise that areas have particular needs, such as in relation to looked-after children or growing demand for elderly care. Instead, the Government are rewarding their own areas. I do not for one minute accept the idea that there is not poverty in rural areas—there is—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) said, the evidence does not prove that it is more costly to deliver services in those areas than in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for example, or some other urban conurbations.
Government Members are comparing apples and oranges, and we should think about the pressures in urban areas such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) regarding looked-after children, to take just one example. I am sure that the number of looked-after children in those areas is larger than that in some rural counties—even one such as County Durham—and that creates great pressure. It is not one of those services in which councils can pick and choose what they deliver. They have to deliver the service, and, whatever anyone says, it is very expensive to provide.
In 2010, the Government set out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, to make savings from local government. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said: the Treasury could guarantee getting the money because it was the councils that would have to do the implementation. We are now suffering as a result, however. If we are to make local councils more reliant on raising finances from council tax, areas such as mine—55% of its properties are band A—will always be at a disadvantage, even though our elderly population is growing and the demands on our services across the piece are growing.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough about social care. We need to take a cross-party look at this, because the problem will not go away, whoever is in government. The situation is not made any easier, however, with some of the nonsense in this funding formula, such as the 7% cut to public health, which will have a direct impact on that area. What we have is more of the same: a Conservative Government rewarding Conservative areas and dressing that up as a funding formula, when it is actually a pork barrel. Unless we address the situation fairly and prioritise need, this scandal in local government—and it is a scandal—will continue.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I say, with apologies to Jane Austen, that it is a truth universally acknowledged that all councils complain about a lack of money to all Governments, irrespective of which party is in control. Like many colleagues, I served as a councillor. I was a district councillor for a dozen years and a county councillor for three, so I remember having to juggle the income reductions that started under a Labour Government in 2006-07. It just sort of happens.
I welcome the announcement that Dorset will receive an extra £1.2 million to deal with adult social care and that our total rural services delivery grant, which is hugely important, will be £1.5 million. I agreed very much with a lot of what the shadow Opposition spokesman said—I appreciate that he was not quoting his own commissioned report—but whichever idiot came up with the answer that the cost of delivering services in a rural area was equal to that of delivering them in an urban area needs to be certified, because we all know that geography and population sparsity lead to increased costs. I also welcome last week’s announcement by the Department of a successful bid to the housing infrastructure fund of £4.1 million, so it was not too bad a week of news for Dorset. I agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) when he pointed to the huge debt of thanks that we parliamentarians owe to our councillors for the work they do, against the backdrop of a challenging financial position, in continuing to deliver services and to keep the wheels on the bus—if Members will forgive that analogy—at a time when incomes have been falling and savings have had to be made.
My constituency is served by three councils: East Dorset District Council, North Dorset District Council, and Dorset County Council. Although we have a two-tier authority, the county council provides, on average, 85% of the services enjoyed by the county. Over the last few years, my postbag, my inbox and visitors to my surgeries—as well as the leader and the chief executive of the county council—have made it clear that there is real, tangible pressure on the delivery of adult social services, services for children with special educational needs, and wider children’s services, as well as, of course, rural transport.
All the Dorset councils, district and county, have made great strides in reducing their costs and making themselves more efficient, and the tri-partnership between West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland, and North Dorset District Councils has made huge savings. The councils have cut through the fat and the flesh, have gone through the sinew and the muscle, have been chipping into the bone, and are now starting to suck out the marrow. They are trying to author the next steps of their future in order to deliver the services that hard-working council tax payers demand and need, taking account of the demographics, as 65% of my constituents are over the age of 70.
Those councils have submitted a proposal for the reorganisation of local government. They recognise that it is a question of not just trying to demand extra income, but of trying to deal with what they receive in a smarter and better way. The “two-unitary” solution for the county that we are seeking, which is with the Department at the moment, commands 62% of public support. It is supported by seven of the eight Dorset MPs and eight of our nine councils, as well as Bournemouth University, Poole Harbour Commissioners, the local enterprise partnership, Dorset chamber of commerce and industry, the clinical commissioning group, the police and crime commissioner, and the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils.
I plead with the Government. I entirely accept the need to reduce expenditure and to balance the books. I entirely understand why local government has shouldered a very large proportion of central Government savings. I support the Government absolutely in that endeavour: what Conservative who understands the importance of proper control of public money would not? However, I cannot stand by, and will not stand by, if the proposal that was submitted to the Government is delayed still further, or rejected out of hand. The continued provision of services for children and elderly people in my constituency is now solely reliant on this change, so it needs to be delivered.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I represent beautiful Bath. Obviously not everyone in Bath is wealthy, but on the whole it is a wealthy area. I am, perhaps, unusual, in that I lived in the north-west for 25 years, and for 10 years represented a local council area that was very deprived. I can tell Conservative Members that that was a real eye-opener. Anyone who wants to see real deprivation should visit the post-industrial towns of the north.
It is disappointing that such a partisan approach has been taken today. Yes, we should represent our own areas—I do that—but we should also make decisions in the round and look at fairness in the round, and we should make the right decisions for the whole country. The proposal we are discussing today is simply not fair. It will disadvantage the disadvantaged further, and it will increase the gap that already exists. I urge Conservative Members to think again and, if necessary, to spend a few years in local government in one of our northern towns.
I want to make a separate point about the overall proposal. The finance of local government and the way we deliver local services have changed beyond recognition in recent years, and that matters for democracy. We talk so much about taking back control these days, but the clearest evidence of democracy in action is at a local level. We deliver so much of what matters in people’s lives through local government, from bin collections and street cleaning, to planning, housing and adult care services.
Until 2014, as I said, I was a councillor for 10 years in a unitary authority. We had clear spending and decision-making powers, and there was a clear line of accountability, but even then our council budgets were dominated by two pressures: efficiency savings and ballooning adult care costs. No Government have properly addressed the problem, but this Government have led a relentless crusade to destroy local government and local democracy. Most schools have been forced to become academies and are now overseen by Whitehall, our local facilities are run under PFI contracts, and more than half of our councils no longer own any social housing stock. Meanwhile, regulatory functions such as trading standards and building regulation control services are outsourced, which is a polite word for privatisation.
Where is the commitment to new resources for social care funding following yet another NHS winter crisis? The figure announced today will not cover the annual £2.3 billion funding gap that is expected by 2020. As homelessness increases and one in 111 children spend Christmas in temporary accommodation or bed and breakfasts, where is the commitment to new social housing so that people have a home to go to? The net cost to councils of providing temporary accommodation has tripled in the past three years. Rising homelessness is costing local government more and more in the long term. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 increases the demands on local authorities, but does not provide adequate resources. Even in Bath and North East Somerset, an affluent area, the council’s estimated shortfall will be over £16 million by 2020. Most of the council’s budget—75%—is spent on adult social care services. Just a small increase in that bill will mean that my council faces a financial crisis, and that is in my affluent council area. The situation at Northamptonshire County Council is just the tip of the iceberg.
As with most of what the Government do, their approach is driven not by pragmatic policy, but by small-state ideology. The public sector is to be weakened and replaced at every opportunity by private providers. Local decision making is becoming increasingly powerless.
There is an alternative, and it is rooted in the belief that the public sector can provide good services for local people. Bin collections, schools and care services can be run by councils. A service that is run by local people for local people is normally better than a service managed from many hundreds of miles away. A service that is run for the public interest has different values from a service run for maximum profit.
The debate is yet another dismal display of the Government’s deliberate destruction of local government, and that will continue until crisis after crisis, and tragedy after tragedy, force the Government to rethink. My party is the champion of local government. We believe in local democracy and delivering the best possible services locally.
Gareth Snell
I have enjoyed the hon. Lady’s merry dance around the history of her party in government, but her party was relentless in cutting local government to the bone when it was part of the coalition. For her to say now that her party is suddenly the salvation is frankly beyond the pale.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was a councillor in local government. As he knows, when any party is in national government, its members include people on the ground who need to agree to the decisions it makes. Many of us often pointed out how difficult things were for us at the local level, and our party listened and did not support the cuts beyond 2013.
My party is the champion of local government; I am a champion of local government. We believe in local democracy. We believe in delivering the best possible services locally. We believe that local government should be properly and openly funded. Today’s funding proposals leave a gaping hole of £5.8 billion by 2020. This is another terrible settlement for local government, and it does not have the Liberal Democrats’ support.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will not detain the House for long. The local government finance settlement is of particular interest to me due to the significant challenges that councils face in areas such as Suffolk in delivering services, particularly adult social care and children’s services. I am the chairman of the county all-party parliamentary group and in that role, along with many colleagues, I have made my concerns known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am grateful to both of them for listening to those concerns and to the Secretary of State for providing an additional £150 million of funding for adult social care and an extra £16 million for the rural services delivery grant. From all that, £78.4 million will go to counties to help in the delivery of vital services. For Suffolk, there is an additional £2 million for the additional social care grant and £500,000 for the rural services delivery grant. The additional funds are welcome, as is the business rates retention pilot, which should provide Suffolk with an additional £10.5 million for economic growth-related projects.
However, additional money only goes some way towards meeting the rising costs of social care, both in Suffolk and other counties across England and Wales. Such areas face unique pressures as they are home to the largest and fastest-growing elderly populations. It is vital that the Government deliver a properly resourced, long-term, sustainable fair funding system to meet the estimated £2.54 billion county funding gap in 2021. I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s firm commitment to the fair funding review, which must result in a properly and fully researched, up-to-date, evidence-based solution that recognises both the demographic pressures of an ageing population and the actual cost of providing services in county areas. I sense a real strength of feeling among colleagues on both sides of the Chamber representing constituencies in county areas about the need for additional funding to plug the £2.54 billion gap, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), will confirm when he sums up that the fair funding review will take full account both of need and of the actual cost of providing vital services in counties such as Suffolk.
In some ways, I find it sad that we appear to be dividing counties and metropolitan areas with a “them and us” attitude. My constituency of Waveney is in a county area—north Suffolk—and believe me, Lowestoft is not a wealthy place and, looking at the current figures, I do not believe that we get the resources we need to tackle the deep-seated pockets of deprivation. We need to do something in a sensible and, dare I say it, collegiate way.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let us bring the debate back to where it needs to be. I do not think that this is about “us and them” or counties versus metropolitan areas; this is about the sheer unfair nature of the cuts. The 10 most deprived councils see the highest cuts while the wealthiest councils do not. Will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that?
Peter Aldous
As I said, I do not represent a wealthy area, and many sacrifices have had to be made on all sides, but we need to consider things in a calm and rational way to try to come up with a solution that is fair to all. That may well involve putting additional funding into the Budget, which may be the only way to find a solution that gets approval from the majority, if not everyone.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The financing of local authorities and local government has caused problems for many Governments over the years. It arises from the fact that parts of the country with a lot of businesses or a lot of rich people are able to raise quite a lot of money locally for some of the services that have to be provided. However, there are many constituencies and many parts of the country where that is not the case, where there are issues of deprivation and where there are issues that require money, and where local authorities are unable to raise the money from their constituents or from the local area. When national Governments decide how much money to give to different areas, it is therefore important that those issues are properly considered and addressed.
My constituency of Bolton South East is high up on the indices that judge poverty and health and education issues. The mortality rate is higher in my constituency than in the rest of the country. The number of people with a university degree is not in proportion with the rest of the country. The number of people who own their home is not equivalent to the rest of the country. On many issues and in many areas, the local council is not able to fulfil its obligations.
Having said all that, Bolton Council has been run by Labour for many years, and it is regarded as an incredibly sensible and financially prudent council—it has even received four-star ratings in the past. Despite that, there has been a 54% cut to Government funding since 2010. Those cuts are not acceptable. My local council is basically spending all its resources on its statutory obligations such as social care and services for the elderly and the young, including children in care, looked-after children and protected children.
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was going to make this point later, but I will make it now. I am not being party political, but I find it appalling and galling that the Tory councillors of Bolton complain that the council is not doing some of the things it needs to do—the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), a Conservative, recently complained to the local newspaper that the council has not filled the potholes. Well, the council cannot do those things because its grant has been cut by 54% since 2010. The council has to spend the money it has on vital services such as looking after our elderly and our children.
There is no money left for potholes or for environmental services. In some parts of my constituency young people cause a lot of social nuisance and a lot of problems, such as breaking car windows and breaking people’s doors and windows. The local authority is being blamed for all of that, and people are saying, “You are not doing anything.” The political parties, especially the Conservative opposition, try to put it on the council. But, again, the council does not have the resources. It is doing everything it can. Where it can find some money, it is spending on the local area to try to improve the roads, get street lighting and help look after those communities affected by crime. The council is spending its money, but it does not have enough to give. When the hon. Member for Bolton West complains about things, I always say that he should be going to his own Government and Ministers. He should be asking them for that money. We have had a 54% cut in our budget over the past eight years and they are the people responsible for the situation we are in. He should be going to them asking for that extra money—the same thing applies in respect of policing cuts. Since this Government came to power 30,000 police have been cut—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I help the hon. Lady a little? We did have the police debate before. I presume that as you were going to name the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) in the way that you have and quote the newspaper, you made him aware that you were going to speak about him. Did you do that? I am just a bit concerned that he has not been notified.
Yasmin Qureshi
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will let the hon. Gentleman know after this debate that I have referred to him.
Let me get back to the facts. Certain parts of the country need extra resources, and any funding formula that is created must take account of that. Many areas are unable to raise the money that they need and it is a big challenge for local authorities. While I am on my feet, may I ask for some extra money to fix the potholes in Bolton? May I also ask about an application that the council has made in respect of a mill on Crescent Road and a brownfield site being turned into housing? We still have not heard any response from Ministers about whether they are giving permission for building to take place. Finally, on housing, when the Labour Government came to power in 1997 they spent £18 billion on repairing homes. They did that in their first few years in office. So when people say we did not look after the issue of housing, I say that we did. We then also started building homes as well. We need more of those.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
It is great to have you in the Chair, once again, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The contributions to this debate on both sides of the House have been interesting and wide-ranging. On one level there is the political aspect, and I challenged the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Minister, to say whether there was any question to which his answer was not more money. I also asked him where the money is going to come from. That provoked the most interesting discussion in the debate; it is not always just about more money, it is also about how we organise the fundamentals of government. I sometimes wish that we were not shackled in this place by constant debates where the Opposition say that we should spend more money and we say we have to generate it first. We should look at how we organise government best and most effectively.
Let us examine the case of social care. We all know that the health service sits in one place and social services sit in another, and that, broadly, the overlap is huge and the potential efficiency savings are massive if we are able to bring them together successfully. We should all be working on that together, on a cross-party basis, to the extent that it is possible to do so within our partisan political system. We should be working on how to get the best deal for an ageing population and we should rework our public services. We need to navigate the Scylla of the trade unions and the Charybdis of public spending restraints and pressures in order to come up with ways of reworking the systems—the NHS, social services and county council systems—to make sure that we can deliver, particularly for older people where we are facing challenges.
I welcome the fact that more money was found for social care in Kent. Kent MPs were deeply concerned at the situation and the leader of the county council was concerned about the funding settlement. As a team we all worked together and met the Minister to make a strong case for Kent. I welcome the extra £166 million for social care, some £3.9 million of which will go to Kent. The increase in core spending power is also really welcome.
When we talk about local government finance, we tend just to look at core funding or the amount of money for social care, but we need to look at it in the round, because a whole load of it comes from, say, the Department for Education. I am concerned about Home Office funding. In terms of the local government finance settlement, the Home Office does a fantastic job for Calais. Over the years it has handed out £200 million, but it does not give quite the level of funding we need at the frontline in Kent and in Dover, where we take a lot of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The county council has been making a powerful case that it does not get the kind of funding compensation from the Home Office that it should get for the fact that Kent is bearing the brunt in terms of the number of unaccompanied asylum seekers.
Let me set out the issues and challenges. The total cost of net funding from the Home Office is £25.4 million. In the current year, the shortfall is £4.6 million. If there are no changes to the financing arrangements, the coming year will see a further deficit of £3.9 million. That affects public services for the residents of Kent, because services have to be provided to people who have come to this country who are not from Kent or normal residents of Kent. That is challenging.
There is a challenge with care leavers, with a funding gap of £3.1 million. If someone turns 18, the amount of money given to the county council falls dramatically, yet the costs on the council stay very high indeed. We should remember the cost of the Millbank reception centre near Ashford in Kent. For unaccompanied asylum-seeking children there is a gap of £0.6 million, because the regulations entitle all children living in foster care at their 16th birthday to remain living with their carers, if they so choose. There is also £300,000 of ineligible costs.
There is a large funding gap. I know that there is always pressure to hand out another cheque to Calais and to France—the amount over the past two years now totals £200 million—but I put it to the Home Office that we also need to fund the frontline in Kent and Dover. We need to make sure that we get a decent and fair settlement for the residents of Kent to cover the costs of the county having stepped up to the plate by caring for and doing the right thing by vulnerable unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, many of whom are children fleeing war zones who are in fear for their lives. They are not fakes—children who are really economic refugees—as has been a concern.
We need to make sure that proper funding is in place for the county council so that there is not an impact on public services that means others lose out. I very much hope that the Home Office will take those points on board and recalibrate the funding to ensure that Kent does not lose out.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke).
I shall make an extremely short contribution on behalf of the people of Redditch, which is quite a unique place. It is a semi-urban area in the middle of a rural county, Worcestershire. It shares many of the characteristics of neighbouring Birmingham, yet it is in a rural area. I wish to make the point strongly to the Front-Bench team that they must take that into account in their work on fair funding for areas such as Redditch and Worcestershire. I know that the Minister will do that.
I thank the Minister for listening to my representations and my lobbying on behalf of the people of Redditch. I welcome the increased funding for Worcestershire, which is equivalent to a 3.1% increase in the core spending power and could total £14.8 million if all the flexibilities are taken into account.
Like many colleagues, I have raised the issue of adult social care. My local council colleagues, who do a fantastic job in Worcestershire for the people of Redditch, are happy that they are going to receive an additional £1.5 million, on top of the £2 billion in the Budget. We urge the Government, in their future discussions, to think carefully about the pressures of the living wage on the delivery of services to the most vulnerable people in our population.
I thank the Government for the good news on the revenue support grant. I find it astonishing when I hear Opposition Members talk about crumbs from the table. How is £2 billion and the billions and millions of pounds that are put into local communities crumbs from the table? Of course we would all like to see more money spent, but the reason we cannot spend it is the dire economic situation that was left to us by the Labour party. That is a real shame. We should welcome the hard work that our local councillors do. I thank the Government for this settlement and ask them to look carefully at the people of Redditch.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I begin by thanking colleagues from all parts of the House who have contributed to this debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Corby (Tom Pursglove), for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).
I pay tribute to everybody who serves in local government, both councillors and officers. Let me make a special mention of Denton West councillor Brenda Warrington who, a couple of weeks ago, became the first ever female leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, and a very fine leader she will be.
It is clear from the contributions from both sides of the House that there is massive concern not only about the growing crisis in funding local government, but worse, about this Government’s inaction in addressing it adequately. Only this week we have seen a council effectively declare itself bankrupt. The issuing of a section 114 notice in Northamptonshire, a Tory-controlled council, should send shivers down the spines of Ministers, because they know that this is a crisis caused in part by them and their actions. The warning signs at Northamptonshire had been obvious for some time, but only in this Government would the Secretary of State toddle along formally to open the council’s new £53 million headquarters that it is now being told it may have to sell off. Perhaps that was the fault of his officials, too.
Northamptonshire completely overshadowed the Secretary of State’s big announcement yesterday of an additional £150 million found from the magic money tree of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. When local government budgets have been slashed by £5.8 billion since 2010, it seems that the Secretary of State cannot even shake that tree effectively. We all know from reports in the media and from Tory MPs’ tweets on Monday night that this is solely about trying to prevent a rebellion on his own Back Benches.
The £150 million extra going into social care this year is still a cut. The Secretary of State, with his banking background, might be able to kid his Back Benchers with this sop, but this year, additional Government spending on social care, even with this sum, is still facing a cut of £177 million. It is not the first time that this Government have tried this trick, because two years ago the transitional grant scheme provided an additional £300 million of funding, and what happened? Eighty per cent. of it went to Conservative-controlled councils, 70% of which were county councils. In contrast, metropolitan districts got only an additional 2% of additional funding, despite the fact that many of them were among the hardest hit. Places such as Nottingham, Knowsley and Liverpool received no additional money. When the Government talk about fair funding, they must mean funding for all councils, irrespective of their political persuasions and none, based on the services they need to provide to the communities they represent.
Let me provide Members with a few quotes:
“Councils in England face an overall funding gap that will exceed £5 billion by 2020.”
Then there is
“£1.3 billion…needed right now…to stabilise the…care provider market”,
and:
“Councils also face an unprecedented surge in demand for children’s services and homelessness support.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of Conservative peer and head of the LGA, Lord Porter. How out of touch can this Government be? How long can the Secretary of State bury his head in the sand, telling himself, “Yes, we’re making cuts, but they’re having no real impact on the ground”? He should speak to Tory councillors, because we know there is a real problem in local government when even Tory councillors are saying today what Labour councillors were saying five years ago.
I commend the work of all councillors in these difficult times. They need commending for doing all they can to support local services and local communities, despite this Government’s best efforts. This incompetent Secretary of State even thought he could come to the House of Commons in December and pass a provisional settlement off as fact, when he tells us today that his officials were to blame. He knew that it was riddled with errors. He can blame his officials today, but his letter to me, which he signed only two days ago, was far less definite. He said:
“My intention is always to provide local authorities with as much certainty as possible…We published the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement before Christmas to give councils notice of the figures they should use to plan their budgets…At that time…we knew the overall scale of the error in the…published data….We therefore published the Provisional Settlement on 19 December on the basis of the…statistics.”
Those were his words, and it was his signature. The Secretary of State is either so incompetent that his officials do not bother to tell him about important details ahead of him making a statement to the House of Commons, or he does not read the letters that go out in his name, which is perhaps why he needs to place a corrected version of the letter in the Library.
I have written to the Prime Minister today to draw her attention to this sorry affair, because it has done incredible damage to the Secretary of State’s reputation and to the Department’s reputation in the local government sector. Councillors deserve better. Many councils are doing all they can to help people live independently in their communities and reduce demand on hospitals, but with unprecedented funding cuts since 2010 and social care services facing a £2.3 billion funding gap by 2020, that is becoming increasingly difficult.
It is not just adult social care. As Labour’s first health check report showed, demand for children’s services is also placing growing pressure on local authorities. Funding to support children and their families has been cut by 55% over the last seven years, and the result of those cuts has been appallingly clear. Cuts to early years intervention meant that a record number of children—some 72,000—were taken into care last year. The number of serious child protection cases has doubled in the last seven years, with 500 new cases launched each day. More than 170,000 children were subject to child protection plans in the last year, which is double the number seven years ago.
Many of us hoped that the Budget would contain the genuine new funding that our children’s services need, but the Secretary of State failed to get that put in place. We then hoped that yesterday’s announcement might offer some hope for children’s services—another let-down. When is the Secretary of State going to stand up to the Chancellor and demand the money that the sector so desperately needs? The financial crisis engulfing local government should be giving the Secretary of State sleepless nights. The Local Government Chronicle suggests that there are already at least 10 authorities preparing to follow Northamptonshire and issue section 114 notices, and the Municipal Journal reports that one in 10 council bosses fear that their local authority will not have enough funding to fulfil its statutory duties in 2018-19. Ministers cannot afford to stand by and wait for that to happen.
Today’s vote offers all Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to send a very clear message to the Government that things have to change, that vital public services should be properly funded, and that our communities deserve better than this botched and rushed settlement. I hope that all Members will join us in the Lobby to stand up for their communities, their public services and their councillors, and to get this Government to think again about their damaging approach to council funding for next year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
It is a pleasure to close this debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. I pay particular tribute to all Members who are either former or serving members of local authorities and have brought that expertise to bear today. I pay a special tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who has left impressively large shoes for me to fill.
Local government and the hard-working, dedicated people who work in it deliver vital services every day at the heart of the communities they serve. I am deeply honoured to represent them in government—to listen to them, learn from them, and work with them to build communities that people are proud to live in. I am therefore delighted that this settlement delivers on our promise to local government. It confirms the third year of an unprecedented four-year deal accepted by 97% of councils, providing long-term certainty to local government. It is a deal that delivers more than £200 billion over a five-year period, allowing councils to be bold and ambitious in planning for the future.
But there is no room for complacency. This Government are under no illusions about the pressure on local services, so today’s settlement seeks to ease that pressure while shielding taxpayers from unaffordable bills. We have gone above and beyond the four-year deal to listen and respond to what the sector wants.
Imran Hussain
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister, but I have been advised that I must raise this point of order immediately. When I took part in the debate earlier, I should have put on the record and referred Members to my registered interest as a serving local councillor.
Rishi Sunak
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I am sorry—Mr Deputy Speaker.
Rishi Sunak
We have gone above and beyond the four-year deal in listening and responding to what the sector wants. That is why last year we allowed increased flexibility in the use of the adult social care precept, and why this year we have proposed additional flexibility on the core council tax referendum principle.
On adult social care, of which we have heard much today, on top of the extra £2 billion announced at the spring Budget last year, we have now announced an additional £150 million extension to the adult social care support grant, and we have increased the rural services delivery grant to its highest-ever level.
We are also building on the highly popular business rates retention scheme. Local authorities estimate that in the year just finishing they will keep about £1.3 billion in business rates growth, and we expect this to be maintained going forward.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister knows that I have raised a number of times the issue of people avoiding paying both council tax and business rates on holiday homes by converting them to business use and enjoying small business rate relief. Councils in tourist areas are losing out from that. Will he commit to trying to close that loophole?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He rightly points out that he raised this issue in Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier and has made representations to me about it. I am pleased to confirm that my officials and I are looking into the matter. He makes the point well. The existing system does leave some scope for ambiguity, and we will look into that.
The vital funding that comes from business rates retention—over £1 billion—is a direct result of local authorities driving economic growth in their areas, and it is on top of the core settlement funding that we have announced today. Over the long term, local government will be transformed, becoming increasingly self-sufficient with local resources funding local services. But to achieve that, we all know that the funding formula needs to become fairer, more transparent and more responsive to changing demands. Getting it right will of course be a challenge, but the prize if we can do that is a system that will be truly fit for the modern world and allow councils to face the future with confidence.
The business rates retention proposals that we mentioned earlier are a key step in this journey, and we hope to see local authorities retaining 75% of business rates from 2020-21. There is a great deal of enthusiasm across the country for this new model, and I can assure the House that I and my Department are committed to working with the sector to make this a success.
I turn briefly to some of the specific points that have been made. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) were right to pay tribute to local councillors who have, we acknowledge, made difficult decisions and have done an extraordinary job over the past few years. My hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for North Dorset, for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) talked about rural areas and the need for fair funding. I can assure them that we are committed to that. The fair funding review will specifically take a fresh look at how council tax should be taken into account when redistributing income, and relative costs of delivering services will also be considered.
My hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) rightly talked about the role of governance and leadership in local councils. They were followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who rightly said that it is not just about how much, but how it is spent. Unaccompanied asylum seekers and the costs that councils have to bear were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I am pleased to announce that the Government have allocated funding from a £29 million pot for exactly that. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby will be pleased to know that Northamptonshire will receive £231,000 from that grant, and the hon. Member for Dover will know that Kent will receive more than £1 million.
Opposition Members talked a lot about whether the funding was fair. They pointed to Knowsley, so they will be pleased to learn that it receives core spending power per dwelling 26% higher than the average. Indeed, across the country, the 10 most deprived local authorities receive core spending power per dwelling 23% higher than the least deprived. We heard a lot from the Opposition about money. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dover put it well: there is no question to which the answer is not more money. We all know where that money has to come from—our hard-working taxpayers. Under the last Labour Government council tax doubled, and that is what we would have to look forward to again.
This is a settlement that honours our commitment to local government—delivering certainty, recognising the challenges and making additional resources available, all while keeping excessive council tax rises in check. It gives councils the resources they need to provide the world-class services that their communities expect and deserve. I commend it to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that the motion is subject to double-majority voting: of the whole House and of Members representing constituencies in England.
Business without Debate
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
PETITION
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I rise to present a petition relating to the proposal for a new motorway service area at junction 6 on the M42. An MSA near junction 6 was proposed long before the route of HS2 was finalised or the extension of the runway at Birmingham airport. It was so long ago that at the time, the Transport Secretary was Lord Prescott. He was minded to approve the motorway service area, subject to the outworking of taking the hard shoulder into normal running, which today we call a smart motorway. Years later, the application has still not been decided, but the congestion on this stretch of the M42 gets heavier and heavier every day. In addition, Highways England has now said that the risk of creating a new junction south of junction 6 but above junction 5, close to the new MSA proposal, would be reasonable, even though they would have to deviate from the normal standards for motorway junctions.
The petitioners ask the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider how a motorway service area can be considered a sustainable development under today’s planning law. I present for consideration a petition of 645 signatures.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Meriden Constituency,
Declares that the proposed motorway service area near Junction 6 of the M42 is unsustainable; not least as a result of the threat it poses to road safety.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to call on the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to reject the proposals for the construction of a new motorway service area; particularly in light of significant transport and infrastructure changes since the original application was made in 1999.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002113]
Woodlands Hospice, Aintree
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have an Adjournment debate on my local hospice, which is such an important topic. Many people think that a hospice is place where people go to die, but it is actually a place where people go to live. It would not be a debate on a hospice and end-of-life care without reminding ourselves of the words of Dame Cicely Saunders, who is widely acknowledged as the founder of the UK hospice movement:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
When I recently visited Woodlands Hospice in my constituency, that is exactly what I found. Although it may sound counter-intuitive, it was a place brimming with life. Woodlands Hospice is an independent charity situated in the grounds of Aintree University Hospital. It covers a population of 330,000 in north Liverpool, south Sefton and Kirby and Knowsley. The hospice provides 15 in-patient beds with a purpose-built wing. Its wellbeing and support centre, which includes multi-professional assessment days, group therapies, outpatients, complementary therapies and a therapy-driven outreach service, provides services to enable people living with cancer and other life-limiting illnesses to live their lives in a positive and independent way.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I asked the hon. Gentleman beforehand whether he would give way, and he said he would. It is important to put this point on record. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who work in hospices, such as Woodlands and the Marie Curie Hospice in Northern Ireland, do tremendous work and are much to be thanked for the tremendous care that they provide, not just for patients, but for families?
Dan Carden
I am delighted to agree. This is a great opportunity to thank all those staff and volunteers, wherever they are across the UK.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend was describing the excellent work that goes on at Woodlands Hospice, and my constituents benefit from that as well. In addition, the hospice provides “Hospice At Home”, helping people out in the community. The combination of services is vital to supporting the national health service. Does he agree that failing to support hospices, including Woodlands, is very damaging and undermines the national health service?
Dan Carden
Absolutely, and I am coming to how the hospice sector is such a key part of our national health service.
It was a privilege to learn about the work of the wonderful staff and, importantly, the volunteers. More than 125,000 people give their time to volunteer for hospices each year. They are the lifeblood of the hospice sector. The Woodlands’ volunteer workforce of over 200 people from all walks of life and all ages add value to the patient experience, while the volunteers themselves get opportunities to develop their skills, avoid isolation and build a sense of community.
Woodlands Hospice must raise £1.3 million, which it tries to achieve with the help and support of communities in my constituency and beyond, but against the backdrop of financial uncertainty and squeezed living standards, that is no easy feat, particularly in more deprived communities such as mine, which have been hardest hit by austerity. I will return to the issue of funding later, but there are a number of ways our community supports Woodlands that do not involve straightforward cash donations: volunteering, undertaking challenge events for sponsorship, holding coffee mornings and—this year, I hope—becoming a friend of Woodlands via the new membership group scheme, which I will be taking up myself as soon as it is operational.
The support for Woodlands shown by my constituents illustrates how dearly we hold the care it provides. All Members here know how much their constituents value the care provided by hospices in their own local areas. That is what inspired me to call this debate tonight—to highlight the value of hospices as an essential part of the healthcare economy and to look at sustainable funding for hospices around the UK, particularly in the more deprived areas. It is right that those in more deprived areas, who will struggle to raise funds, receive more statutory funding.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Like him, I recently visited Woodlands, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that the NHS funding that Woodlands receives is vital to its long-term sustainability and that we are seeking assurances from the Minister that at the very least it will be maintained in the future?
Dan Carden
I absolutely agree. I hope that this debate will focus people’s eyes on the hospice sector across the UK and at Woodlands, where we need to ensure viable funding, and also funding that is longer term and better planned. Pressure needs to be taken off hospice managers as they plan the kind of care they provide for our constituents.
People who face progressive life-limiting illnesses require different levels of care. Apart from care and treatments specific to their conditions, they are likely to have what is often called palliative care, particularly as they approach the end of their lives. Death is a natural part of life. We will all die eventually, and most deaths—around three quarters—are expected, so the majority will require some form of palliative care, and everyone deserves to be able to end their life in comfort and dignity. That principle should be central to any civilised society.
There is, I am sure, agreement across the House on the importance of palliative care. It is not a bonus or extra, but an essential part of a good healthcare system. The hospice sector supports around 200,000 people with terminal and life-limiting conditions in the UK every year. This amounts to more than four in 10 of those estimated to need expert end-of-life care. Hospice care is free for everyone and provided for however long it is needed, be it days, weeks or even months. More than 40,000 people in the UK receive bereavement support from hospices each year.
Hospices support people with a wide range of conditions, including cancer, motor neurone disease, cardiovascular disease, dementia, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease—to name just a few—and they are increasingly supporting people with multiple life-limiting conditions. Most hospice care is provided while people are in their own home, but it can also be provided in a care home or at the hospice itself as an in-patient. It is a style of care rather than something that necessarily takes place just in one building. Hospices also aim to feel far more like a home than a hospital.
Outcomes are difficult to assess, and of course most patients do pass away, but it is worth remembering that many do not. A gentle, dignified, reflective and peaceful death with 24/7 expert care and surrounded by loved-ones is something that cannot be measured by traditional means, but we can measure the value in the appreciation and wellbeing of the patients and families helped through their bereavement. When I visited Woodlands, I was delighted to meet people who had long and happy associations with the hospice, had made friends there and still visited regularly for support with their health, but also to keep in touch with staff and friends.
It is also clear that NHS pressures mean increased pressures on hospices.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for outlining the work of the hospice movement. Does he agree that the values and ethos of the movement are deeply ingrained in communities throughout Merseyside? Willowbrook Hospice in St Helens, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary, is a good example. But hospices should not have to rely on the generosity of our constituents: they need statutory funding, because they are an integral part of social care.
Dan Carden
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention.
Britain’s older population is set to increase sharply in the next few decades. The number of people aged 85 or over is expected to double in the next 20 years, and the number of people aged 100 or over is set to increase by more than eight times by 2035, to more than 100,000. The number of adults with life-limiting conditions is also on the rise. Everyone deserves high-quality, compassionate care at the end of their lives.
In recent months we have again witnessed the impact of severe winter pressures on the NHS, which has left hospitals buckling under unprecedented demand. Most people in the United Kingdom—just over half—currently die in hospital. Hospitals are amazing, life-saving places, and I pay tribute to all the staff who keep our NHS running at such difficult times. It is our country’s greatest achievement.
The hospice sector plays a vital role in providing care for those who no longer respond to curative treatment, so that patients who have no clinical need to be in a hospital bed can receive specialised and personalised care provided by a hospice multi-professional team. That also frees up hospital beds for those with acute care needs. A good hospice is a perfect example of good health and social care integration. We need a joined-up approach by the NHS, social care, the community and the voluntary sector. I welcome the Government’s decision to bring social care under a departmental umbrella, and I hope that the Minister will reassure me that hospices too will be recognised as a crucial part of the care system as a whole.
On average, adult hospices in the UK receive a third of their income from the Government, although the amount received by individual hospices varies widely. The rest comes from community fundraising, grant applications, hospice charity shops, lotteries and investments. According to Hospice UK, collectively charitable hospices in the UK need to raise about £1 billion a year from their local communities, which amounts to about £2.7 million per day. In a period of stagnant wages, and with national income distributed unevenly, that is a constant challenge, and the fact that it affects different areas and regions differently must be taken into account. Hospices rely on NHS funding contributions, and need assurances that those will continue even in the challenging financial climate that the NHS currently faces.
Some hospices have agreements in place for multi-year funding, but many are reliant on year-by-year decisions on funding levels, and that requires constant planning by hospice managers. NHS funding needs to be on a more committed and sustainable basis to allow for planning and development, and to enable staff to devote more of their time and energy to doing what needs to be done in relation to patient care. Of course, in more deprived areas, such as the communities in north Liverpool, the need for statutory funding is even greater. The fundraising opportunities that are available in the catchment areas of individual hospices can be very limited. Deprivation also means more complex health needs among the population that hospices serve. All too regularly, I see people dying younger, people dying from addictions, and people dying from diseases that are linked directly to poverty.
The complexity of funding for hospices creates further organisational difficulties for management and staff. Commissioning and contracting arrangements are still causing issues: nationally, a third of hospices are now working with four or more commissioners. Woodlands, for instance, covers a number of clinical commissioning groups, and requires each CCG to maintain or increase funding each year just to stand still. When funding decisions are made on a year-by-year basis, simply maintaining funding can take up much time and effort that should ideally be focused on patients and care.
I am sure I speak for the entire House when I say that we are all very grateful for the care that hospices deliver to people and communities across the country. They need ongoing recognition of the value that they provide to the healthcare economy as a whole. Specialist palliative care and end-of-life services need to be proactively included in transformation plans and service developments. The Government’s intentions were set out in July 2016, when they said that
“every person nearing the end of their life should receive attentive, high quality, compassionate care, so that their pain is eased, their spirits lifted and their wishes for their closing weeks, days and hours are respected.”
In order to realise those aims for every person in the UK, we must look at the funding framework as a whole to make it easier for hospices to receive sustainable NHS funding.
Can the Minister address two specific points: what guarantees are there that as pressures increase on NHS budgets, statutory funding to hospices, especially those in more deprived areas with the specific health problems affecting poorer communities, will be protected, and what is the Minister doing to encourage longer term funding models—multi-year agreements—so that hospices can plan better and care better? The people-centred care that responds to complex and changing needs provided by hospices like Woodlands is invaluable, and I believe every Member will want to do all we can to support the work they do across our constituencies.
I want to finish by paying tribute to the wonderful staff and amazing volunteers who make Woodlands the wonderful life-affirming place that it is, as well as thanking all those who give up their time to volunteer in hospices across the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for the way in which he has approached this debate. I commend him on making an excellent speech, as he could not have been better at articulating the positive contribution that hospices make. I do not think there was anything in his speech with which I disagreed, which is quite unusual.
I was struck by the hon. Gentleman’s description of hospices as places where people go to live. When I visit hospices, I am struck by the very real efforts that their staff go to to make them comforting places. It can be a more difficult time for the loved ones than it is for the person who is ending their life, but they really are comforting places, and the hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to all the staff who work in them.
The hon. Gentleman powerfully praised the efforts of his own hospice, Woodlands, which is clearly providing an excellent service. I am grateful that he has given me the opportunity to address some of the concerns and make it clear how much we value the contribution that hospices make to the NHS.
It is testament to the excellence of our hospice sector that last October’s “State of Care” report by the Care Quality Commission showed that 70% of hospices are rated as good and 25% as outstanding. Those figures are higher than for any other secondary care service, which illustrates the significance of hospices’ contribution. Woodlands Hospice received a good rating in the CQC report. Like the hon. Gentleman, I congratulate its hard-working staff and volunteers on ensuring that patients get the personalised care and support that they need.
NHS England has advised that Liverpool clinical commissioning group, which is the main commissioner for the hospice—I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about there being more than one CCG, which probably adds to the strain on the hospice with regard to long-term funding—provides £900,000 of funding a year. Sefton also provides £240,000 per year, which brings the total amount provided to the hospice to over £1 million a year. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, the CCGs of Liverpool, South Sefton and Knowsley are in the process of reviewing their end-of-life care provision. They are taking into account population need, service demand, and all providers of that care, including Woodlands Hospice.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the attention that local healthcare planners are giving to this important area of care. I suggest that the commissioners should pay close attention to what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have said tonight, speaking on behalf of their communities, about the value they place on this service. I hope that the commissioners will also take note of my comments when I say that the hospice sector, and this particular hospice, are making a very real contribution to people at the end of their life.
I know that many Members have hospices in their constituencies that they support and champion, so I thought that it might be helpful if I set out the broader position on hospice funding. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, the sector is characterised by strong voluntary contributions and philanthropic activity, which is to be celebrated.
We have 223 registered independent hospices and small number of public hospices that are run internally by NHS trusts. Around three quarters of hospices provide adult services, with the remainder caring for children and young people. The hospice movement was established from charitable and philanthropic donations, so the vast majority of hospices rely heavily on charitable income for the lion’s share of their budgets, but they do receive some statutory funding from CCGs and the Government for providing local services. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the statutory funding varies from place to place for a wide number of reasons—he highlighted deprivation as one of them—but adult hospices receive an average of 30% of their overall funding from the NHS.
Funding remains a local decision, which I think is right, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we take deprivation into account when making our allocations to CCGs. He referred to long-term funding stability and the importance of knowing how much the Government will provide, and I will reflect on that important point. It would be good practice to give as much certainty as possible, which is a principle of our health funding more generally, so that will bear examination.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful that the Minister has committed to reflect on the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) about a national framework, but the difficulty in having locally determined support from CCGs is that that will inevitably vary from place to place. Some CCGs are under much more financial pressure than others, which is why it is important that we have some kind of national framework.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I would not want to depart from the principle that this is for local decision makers, but that is not to say we do not make clear our expectations about what CCGs should be delivering as we develop our national policies on end of life, and support for hospices forms part of that. Given the number of people who pass away in hospices and the care that they receive, we would encourage CCGs to carefully consider the extent to which they support hospices.
In addition to NHS funding for locally commissioned services, children’s hospices receive £11 million through the children’s hospice grant, which is awarded annually and administered by the NHS. Children’s hospices tend to receive smaller amounts of statutory funding because of how they have developed and the services that they provide. Unlike adult hospices, which tend to be more focused on end-of-life care services, children’s hospices can provide support for much of a child’s life, and that can involve not only more clinical care, but much more support for families.
It is worth highlighting the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton that philanthropic support does not just mean money. I pay tribute to all those involved in volunteering in hospices. That is a fantastic example of how communities come together to bring out the best in people, so I thank everyone involved in that work.
Members may be reassured to hear that, to improve commissioning arrangements, NHS England is making a new palliative care pricing system available in April. That should help local areas to plan services, and it will also encourage more consistency and, perhaps, transparency in how much CCGs are supporting the sector.
While hospices are, of course, an important feature of end-of-life care provision in this country, it is important to see them within the wider context of our ambitions for such care. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Government have published the end-of-life care choice commitment, which is designed to transform end-of-life care, and the hospice sector is an important partner in that process. We are determined to significantly improve patient choice by enabling more people to die in the place of their choice, be that at home, in a hospice, in a care home or in hospital. Our commitment is to set out the further action that we will take to deliver high-quality, personalised end-of-life care for everyone, including by delivering advance care planning and ensuring that we have the necessary conversations earlier. I draw Members’ attention to the reference to hospice care at home, which is a significant aspect of the programme. We need to make sure that more people are aware of what their options are, and we need to encourage innovation in end-of-life care. In collaboration with partners from the voluntary sector, including key hospice and end-of-life charities, the Government and NHS England have been working to make sure that the quality and availability of end-of-life care services continue to improve and that our end-of-life care commitment is delivered.
As I have already mentioned, the Government believe it is right that CCGs have the autonomy to shape local services according to local need, but it is important that we do more to provide commissioners with the tools, evidence, support and guidance to demonstrate the benefits of delivering our vision for end-of-life care. A crucial part of that is strengthening the provision of end-of-life care services outside hospital and in the community so that people can make the choice of where they wish to end their life.
To deliver this, we are working with sustainability and transformation partnerships so that there is tailored information to assess where we need further investment, commissioning and intervention. NHS England is also a member of the national palliative and end-of-life care partnership, which is made up of charities and organisations from across the health and care system that have together developed a framework for improving end-of-life care at a local level. More guidance will be published through that body soon.
NHS England has also commissioned Hospice UK to undertake an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of hospice-led interventions in the community. I fully anticipate that could be a good news in support of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. Although many such care models exist across England, there is poor data on what are the most effective approaches, which makes it rather more difficult for CCGs to confidently commission such services. The project will examine hospice-led initiatives that appear to be having a positive impact on where people are cared for, as well as on where they die. The Department and NHS England will pay close attention to the findings when they are made available, which should be next month.
We fully acknowledge that more needs to be done if we are to meet our ambition to reduce variations in end-of-life care and to ensure that the system works effectively to support more people to die in the place of their choice. However, I am confident that through NHS England’s programme board for end-of-life care, with all key system partners and stakeholders, including the hospice sector, we have the best opportunity to continue delivering the progress in end-of-life care that we all want, however and wherever it is provided. I cannot emphasise enough that hospices are central to our commitment. Local commissioners will wish to reflect on all the comments that were made in this evening’s debate when they come to make their allocations, and I wish Woodlands Hospice every success in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Enforcement) regulations 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Enforcement) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The draft regulations will help to complete the legislative framework for the soft drinks industry levy, which is well known to right hon. and hon. Members and will take effect from 6 April this year, as they may be aware. The levy is an important part of the Government’s childhood obesity plan, and the aim is for it to be a significant element in reducing the problem over the next 10 years. As well as encouraging children and families to make healthier dietary choices, the plan will help children to enjoy an extra hour of physical activity every day.
Children in the UK are consuming far too much sugar—three times the recommended level. The soft drinks industry produces our favourite soft drinks, which are a major source of sugar for children and teenagers, as well as adults. The levy, which has been introduced to encourage soft drinks manufacturers to reduce their sugar content, is already working, even before it comes into force in April: we estimate that approximately half the soft drinks that were above the sugar threshold when the levy was announced in 2016 have been reformulated to reduce their sugar content. We have seen the reformulation from major brands and household names that we are all aware of—Sprite, Fanta and Tango, to name just a few—and other producers have announced plans to reduce the size of larger packs.
All of this is good news for our nation’s children and adults, our health, our teeth, our waistlines and the cost to the national health service. The reformulations have meant that our original revenue forecasts have been lowered, but as we set out clearly when the policy was mooted, our objective was never to raise money from the taxpayers as an end in itself; it was always to improve public health. The revenue will be less than first suggested, but regardless of how much is raised, the Government remain committed to funding the Department for Education with the £1 billion that we originally expected, and providing the devolved Administrations with the full amount that we promised at the time.
Every penny of England’s share of the spending raised by the levy will go towards improving children’s health, including by doubling the primary sports premium to improve the quality of PE in schools. We will also provide extra funding for school breakfast clubs, which can help the most disadvantaged children in society to have a healthier start to the day. Finally, we will provide £100 million in 2018-19 for the healthy pupils capital fund, which helps schools to upgrade their sports grounds, playing fields and changing rooms.
To continue to deliver our objectives, it is vital that we have the enforcement measures we need to ensure that the levy works, and that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has effective compliance powers to prevent evasion, if that proves necessary further down the line. The primary legislation behind the levy is the Finance Act 2017, section 54 of which enables the draft regulations to provide HMRC with the same powers that it uses to tackle every excise duty evasion, including alcohol duty. That makes sense because the supply chains for alcohol and soft drinks are comparable and often involve the same people and similar risks. Enforcement is expected to come under the control of the very experienced compliance teams at HMRC.
The draft regulations specify that, of the enforcement powers in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, only those powers that are really useful and relevant will be available for enforcing the levy. That includes powers of entry, search of premises and seizure of drinks, all of which are essential for tackling excise duty evasion and ensuring that legitimate suppliers are not adversely affected by those who engage in criminality. As with the enforcement of other excise duties, the powers will be used only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect non-compliance, and all use will be subject to strict governance procedures. Were HMRC not to have these powers, the risk of fraud would increase significantly and the legitimate businesses that manufacture soft drinks would not be able to compete on a level playing field.
In summary, the Government believe that the soft drinks industry levy is a vital part of our plan to tackle childhood obesity. It is only one of a number of measures being taken by the Government today, and we would like to take more in future. It has had a proven impact. We are seeing that impact in all household brands of soft drinks on the shelves; they will contain less sugar and provide a healthier drink for our children and adults. The regulations provide HMRC with enforcement powers that are proportionate and have been well scrutinised through extensive public consultation, so I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairship. We can all agree that childhood obesity is a health time bomb. It poses serious health issues now, but it will also create health issues for decades to come. It will blight millions of lives with poor health and it will impose huge financial costs on the health service.
The NHS estimates that type 2 diabetes consumes over 8% of the NHS budget, and that is certain to rise in the coming years. It is clear that serious preventive action to protect children and young people from excessively sweet drinks and the industries that promote them aggressively is not only medically sensible but makes financial sense. That is why Public Health England, the British Dental Health Foundation and the Royal College of General Practitioners are all in favour of the levy, and it is why we support it too.
However, it must be clear that this measure on its own simply cannot do the job being asked of it. I have mentioned some headline figures, but they do not capture the scale of what is coming. Type 2 diabetes used to be a disease of middle age. Nowadays diagnosis of the disease in people in their early 30s is commonplace, with teenagers also being diagnosed. That means millions of extra cases, many of which will mean potentially decades more healthcare per person on top of what we would normally expect. That is just one disease. I have not mentioned the increase in strokes, heart disease and cancer: all diseases that will generate decades of extra healthcare spending per patient.
That brings me to the ideological crux of the tax. What is it for? Is it a scrambled attempt to raise money to plug gaps in the education budget, or is it meant to reduce childhood obesity? The Minister mentioned £1 billion guaranteed funding for the Department for Education, and I welcome that, but where is that money coming from? I know that sometimes a magic money tree can be found, but we would like to know for sure where that money is coming from and whether it is ring-fenced and protected.
Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the HMRC’s capacity to enforce the levy, given that it has been widely documented that HMRC lacks the necessary resources and capacity to cope with its current workload, with even more cuts are on the horizon? Can he tell us how HMRC will monitor the effectiveness of its compliance strategy? Can the Minister tell us how the Treasury plans to plug the shortfall in the levy predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in relation to funding from the Department for Education for initiatives that he cited that support physical education, after-school activities and healthy eating?
Ultimately, this tax may make a dent or two in reducing childhood obesity, but we know that on its own it will fail in that role. The coming health consequences of obesity will be like a tsunami; this measure on its own is like putting a couple of extra life jackets on the Titanic. For it to have any meaning it must be part of a wider strategy. The Government are planning to cut real-terms spending on public health by 4% a year until 2020. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health reported last week that most local authorities have cut spending dedicated to promoting physical activity in children. They also criticised the Government for their failure to establish an overarching child health strategy. I know that the Minister mentioned it, but the royal college criticised it with regard to the integrated, holistic approach that would make strategic sense of the levy. The Opposition cannot yet see that plan in place. Finally, will the Minister make an assessment of the impact of the levy on childhood obesity, because many people argue that on its own it will make little or no impact at all?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the levy, which will play an important part in tackling childhood obesity. As I was at pains to stress in my opening speech, the levy is only one element of a much wider Government strategy. The Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the childhood obesity plan that was published. Nobody pretends that the soft drinks industry levy contains all the elements of that plan, but it is a significant element and, again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.
The levy is working, and we have seen that in the large number of suppliers of soft drinks that have already reformulated their products. As a result, the tax will raise less revenue than was previously expected. It was never designed as a tax-raiser; it was always designed to stimulate improvements in public health. In the autumn Budget of 2017, we laid out our expectation that the levy would raise around £275 million, yet the Treasury remains 100% committed to the original promise of over £1 billion of extra money for the Department for Education.
Clive Lewis
While we welcome the £1 billion—the extra funding—to plug those gaps, if the Government then cut 3.9% of spending on public health and, it is predicted, millions by 2020, does the Minister not concede that they are giving with one hand and taking with the other?
Robert Jenrick
I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of our funding of the NHS, which has risen in every year of this Parliament. In the autumn Budget of 2017, the Chancellor committed to providing more money for both the NHS and adult social care.
The levy is an example of where the Government are taking action. We are using the tax code to change behaviours for the public benefit, and we are committed to significant increases in spending for school sports, breakfast clubs and all the other important things that will benefit from the funds coming from the levy. Every single penny raised by the levy will go to support school sports and the public health initiatives that I mentioned, plus the additional revenue that the Treasury committed to and is in no way backing down on, despite the success of the levy.
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will press ahead on this occasion; I have given way to him in the past.
As for the capacity of HMRC, this is a task that HMRC is very used to and has expertise in. It uses that capacity for all forms of alcohol excise duties, such as those that apply to the spirits industry and so on. There is no reason to question whether HMRC can do this work. Indeed, the powers that we are considering today are those that HMRC has requested. The levy has been fully subject to a public consultation with the industry. HMRC’s voice has been heard in that consultation and we believe that HMRC will be effective in enforcing this levy and in ensuring that there is no criminality, or only minimal criminality, involved with it.
As for the question of whether or not we have reviewed, or will review, the impact of the levy, we have committed to such a review—in 2020, I think—so that will be the point at which we can clearly see the impact of the levy on both public health and the industry. With that, Sir Edward, I commend the regulations to the House.
Clive Lewis
I will just clarify matters on the issue of public health cuts and sum up very quickly. We support the levy, but there are caveats. One of the key things that I wanted to mention is public health cuts. The King’s Fund, the widely respected health think-tank, has said that
“too many local government services that affect the public’s health are facing death by a thousand cuts.”
The Local Government Association said in December:
“Cutting the public health budget is short sighted and will undermine the objectives we all share to improve the public's health and to keep the pressure off the NHS and adult social care. Further reductions to the public health budget reinforces the view that central government sees prevention services as nice-to-do but ultimately non-essential.”
How can the sugar levy make sense when many other measures that might help to reduce childhood obesity are being cut? That is something that we will continuously raise when it comes to this levy.
I will conclude by saying that my first priority today is the health and wellbeing of our children—I, too, am not here to defend the soft drinks industry—but in the absence of a thought-through strategy, it is hard to disagree with the British Soft Drinks Association in its response to the Budget in 2017 that
“it’s worth bearing in mind that there is no evidence taxing a single product or ingredient has reduced levels of obesity anywhere in the world.”
The Chair
I will put the question. As a matter of coincidence, I was at my dentist’s this morning and he showed me a rather horrifying film about the danger of sugar, so he will be very interested in our proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
Some Members may know that we have introduced similar regulations today for Northern Ireland and for Scotland. The purpose of the draft regulations is to make registering to vote anonymously more accessible for those who need it most. They will also strengthen the integrity of the electoral register, and improve the registration system for electors.
Last year—this year; let me begin that sentence again. Yesterday marked 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the right to vote in the UK. That was the first step to the equal franchise in the UK, but the journey to maximise electoral registration continues. For some, the fear of having one’s name and address appear on the electoral register is a barrier to registering to vote and therefore engaging in democracy. It is good that we are debating changes that make it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights. Anonymous registration was first introduced in Great Britain in the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which amended the Representation of the People Act 1983 and provided for the overall structure of the scheme, which protects those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register—for example, victims of harassment or stalking, and some witnesses in criminal court cases. An applicant must provide their local electoral registration officer with evidence that demonstrates that their safety would be at risk. The evidence accepted is prescribed in legislation as either a live court order or an injunction from a set list of orders and injunctions, or what is known as an attestation. That is a signed statement certifying that the applicant’s safety would be at risk if the register contained their name or address. It can be made only by professions listed in legislation as qualifying officers.
About two years ago, Mehala Osborne of Bristol, with the support of Women’s Aid, started a petition to make anonymous registration more accessible for those who need it most. As a result, the Government announced in September 2016 that they would look closely at whether the current system of registering anonymously to vote could be improved to make it easier for survivors of abuse to do so. The Government consulted on changes and received broadly positive responses.
Turning to the detail of the proposed changes to anonymous registration, the draft regulations update the list of court orders and injunctions that can be provided to an electoral registration officer as evidence to demonstrate that someone’s safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the register. As evidence, applicants can use domestic violence protection orders made under the Crime and Security Act 2010 or the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, once that is in force. They will also be able to use female genital mutilation protection orders made under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Those are new and relevant orders that have been created since the anonymous registration scheme came into force.
The draft regulations will also broaden who can provide attestations. The required seniority for a police officer will be lowered from the rank of superintendent to the rank of inspector, which will make it easier for applicants to obtain an attestation. Police inspectors are frequently in contact with survivors and are well qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety. Medical practitioners registered with the General Medical Council and nurses and midwives registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council will also be able to act as attesters. Those professionals are again frequently in contact with survivors and are qualified to assess the level of risk. Managers of refuges for those escaping domestic violence can also act as attesters. Anybody who has been supported by a refuge would then have easy access to somebody who can provide attestation. Refuge managers are specialists in their field and, again, we think they are well placed to assess whether an individual’s safety is at risk.
The changes make sure that the evidence required to apply for the scheme is more reflective of the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse, and we hope to make the scheme more approachable and accessible. Women’s Aid strongly welcomes the changes that the statutory instrument makes:
“The proposed new measures send out a clear message to all survivors of domestic abuse: that their voices matter, and their participation in politics matters.”
I turn now to the changes made to the wider registration system, which are included in the regulations. The purpose behind them is to improve the electoral registration process for the citizen and make it easier and more effective for EROs to administer.
They also seek to improve the integrity of the system and the accuracy of the electoral register. They address two recommendations in Sir Eric Pickles’s review of electoral fraud. They are incremental steps, and they seek to ensure that we can make improvements to the registration system before the 2018 annual canvass. Ongoing work will explore how we can reform other aspects of the voter registration system, especially in regard to the annual canvass, to make the service as accessible and secure as possible and to put the citizen first.
The first proposed change addresses recommendation 14 in Sir Eric Pickles’s review. It adds a statement to the paper application form that says that persons who are not eligible electors are ineligible to register to vote, that applicants may be required to provide additional information about their nationality, and that the ERO may carry out checks against Government records. The change seeks to enhance the deterrent against applicants providing false information in respect of their nationality. It reminds the applicants that, if an ERO has concerns, they can and will seek further information to corroborate the information that has been provided.
The second proposed change addresses recommendation 12 of the Pickles review. It adds a statement to the paper application form to inform applicants that their application may be delayed if they do not provide the addresses at which they have ceased to reside within 12 months of the date of their application. The statement aims to minimise the number of incomplete applications submitted on paper forms. The provision of the applicant’s previous addresses is one of two ways in which an out-of-date and redundant entry can be removed from the register through only one source of evidence. It thus serves as a key way to maintain the accuracy of the electoral register.
The third proposed change brings the requirements for who can attest to an applicant’s identity as part of the application process for England and Wales in line with that for Scotland. It ensures consistency across the registration system in Great Britain. It adds the date of additional notices, adding a person’s entry to a register to the provision setting out the timeframe during which a person may attest to the identity of up to two applicants.
The fourth proposed change expands the number of sources of information that EROs can use to remove deceased electors from the electoral register. Where they are not able to obtain a death certificate or registrar notice, they will be permitted to use one of four further sources of evidence to support their decision to remove a deceased elector. The information may come from a close relative, a canvass form, a care home manager or other local records. I am sure that the Committee will agree that using that information is an appropriate way of avoiding unnecessary distress for the relatives of deceased electors. It certainly helps EROs to maintain the accuracy of the register proportionately.
The final proposed change streamlines and simplifies the correspondence that EROs are required to send to electors. The changes are designed to reduce the cost of the registration system and give EROs greater discretion to tailor their approach to the needs of electors. This saving will be achieved by requiring additional information to be included in a first notification to an elector that their entry on the register is under review. That allows the sending of a second notification of the outcome of a review to become discretionary. The regulations also make discretionary the sending of a notification of changes to an elector’s open register preference. In summary, the draft regulations make sensible and proportionate changes to the wider registration system.
Returning to the first item, which the Committee views as important, making it easier to register to vote without your name and address appearing on the electoral register may be a small thing, but it makes a big difference. It means the freedom to live your life, cast your vote and make your choice. As campaigner Mehala Osborne said:
“Survivors in the future will not be denied their voice and democratic right to vote.”
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
As we all know, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was a crucial step forward in the empowerment of women. Yesterday, as we marked the centenary of property-owning women over the age of 30 winning the right to vote, we were reminded that the fight for equality is a journey. This is just one of the first steps for women—sorry, I am delivering this speech again. The struggle for equality continues. There are still far too few women in Parliament and women still face discrimination in the workplace and in everyday life. As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of this legislation is to give survivors of domestic abuse in England and Wales a voice in our democracy. The issue of domestic abuse is one that concerns all of us, and many of us will know somebody who has experienced some form of domestic abuse. National figures show that one in four women experience domestic violence at some point in their lifetime, and two women are killed by a current or former partner every week.
Sadly, although we are here to discuss changes to the system of anonymous voter registration among other things, we cannot ignore the wider context of Government cuts. As someone who has been a trustee of a women’s aid organisation, I have seen at first hand the amazing work done by women’s refuges in turn round the lives of women and their children. However, women’s refuges have had their budgets slashed by nearly a quarter over the past seven years, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to boost funding for women escaping violent partners.
Turning specifically to anonymous voter registration, it is not right that survivors who have faced the physical, emotional and psychological impact of abuse are then silenced in our democratic process. Why? Because it is too dangerous for their name and address to be listed on the electoral roll, and too difficult for them to register anonymously. As the Minister has explained, under existing legislation, domestic abuse survivors must provide a court order or have their application supported by a senior independent witness, such as a high-ranking police officer, in order to appear anonymously on the electoral roll. The proposals outlined today will add doctors, nurses and refuge managers to the list of people who can act as an attester, and will lower the rank of police officer—from superintendent to inspector—authorised to perform this function. It is vital that every eligible elector is able to participate in our democracy, which is why the Opposition very much welcome the proposals announced today. We would like to note our thanks to Women’s Aid, which has been at the forefront of shaping and co-ordinating responses to domestic abuse for over 40 years, including this legislation.
However, it is clear that these measures do not go far enough. Survivors still have to re-register to vote anonymously year on year, and those in new homes will have to repeat their application. I hope that in future there will be time to correct that in primary legislation, as the Minister outlined in our first Committee meeting this morning.
The Minister has outlined proposals to expand data sources available to registration officers to enable them to remove entries from the register as a result of death. I recall many campaigning experiences—I am sure that Members on both sides of the Committee can do so—in which it was clear that the person I was seeking to speak to had passed away. It is distressing for the families involved. We welcome the measure, but it is disappointing that the Government seem to be focusing their energy on removing people from the electoral roll, but refuse to use the same data-sharing techniques to address the millions of voters missing from the electoral roll. The Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to increase voter registration and turnout among eligible electors, which is why we have called on the Government multiple times to examine the use of Government data to automatically place eligible electors on the electoral roll. As the Minister is new to her role, can she outline her views on this? The year 2018 cannot be a year for complacency. As we celebrate 100 years of democratic change, we should be looking for a progressive and radical solution to address this country’s democratic deficit.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I am grateful to whoever decided to include me in the Committee membership today. As the previous Minister for the constitution, I would like to pay tribute to my successor. She was also my predecessor. All Members will welcome her expertise in this particular area, and I know that she shares my passion and commitment to ensuring that looking at electoral registration and democratic participation should be a matter of social justice. It concerns all Members of the House.
Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of some women—those over the age of 30—winning the right to vote. It was not until 2 July 1928 that we achieved an equal franchise under Stanley Baldwin’s Government. I hope that we will also celebrate the passing of the Equal Franchise Act in which men and women were treated equally and with equal vigour. I wanted to give somebody a voice who is not able to speak in this Committee: Mehala Osborne herself. When I became a Minister in July 2016, I was advised to choose three things to focus on in terms of policy. One is never quite sure how long one is going to be a junior Minister. I focussed on looking at identity, at polling stations on the back of the Eric Pickles review, and at the access to elections review. I am particularly committed to ensuring that people with disabilities and sight impairment have an equal chance to vote.
I believe that 100 years on from the enactment of women’s suffrage, there are still people who, through no fault of their own, face barriers to voting, which means that we do not have 100% participation in our democracy. When Mehala Osborne wrote to me in July 2016, what leapt immediately and clearly off the page was that there was still a group of women who were unable to vote—again, through no fault of their own. If women in domestic violence refuges were on the electoral register, they would risk their security by making themselves known to their violent partners.
A system of anonymous registration had been set up by the previous Labour Government. Originally that was set up to protect the court orders themselves, but it is clear that times have moved on and we need to look at how to improve registration to make a difference for those women. There are 12,000 women in refuges, of whom only about 2,300 in England and Wales have registered anonymously. I know another Committee debated anonymous registration in Scotland, but even fewer women—only 43, I think—use the anonymous registration process there. That is simply because the barriers in the existing system are too great.
What incentive do people in a refuge have to travel across a local authority area to sign up to meet the director of social services so that she can countersign anonymous registration form needed to get a vote? In my area of Avon and Somerset, why would someone want to travel to Portishead to be able to meet with an inspector or chief inspector of constabulary to get him to countersign the form?
When looking at how to renew the legislation, it made sense to trust the refuge manager to sign the form. Why not trust a health professional? I am delighted that the Minister has been able to continue work on the legislation, because I made a commitment to Mehala Osborne that we would seek to introduce such a measure during the centenary year of women getting the right to vote. As a result of passing the draft regulations, all members of the Committee should be celebrating locally the fact that they as Members of Parliament have legislated to ensure that 10,000 women who want to vote, but have not been able to vote so far, will be able to do so.
I am sure we will still be able to make corrections to the process in future. For example, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about the issue of registration every 12 months versus every five years. We have registration every five years for armed forces personnel at the moment, and that is something that can only be changed in primary legislation. I hope the Minister will consider that in future.
Mehala Osborne set up the campaign because she had wanted to vote in the Bristol mayoral elections but found she was unable to do so. It is right that women who have had their voice taken away from them by a violent partner should be given that opportunity to have their voice heard in our democratic process.
There is much more for the Government to do. Our democratic processes are often about inputs, outputs and the processes of registration itself—it is highly technical, as we can see from the rest of the SI. However, we need to focus on the outcomes and on what we want to achieve from electoral registration. When we look at local authorities registering those individuals, how can we ensure that performance targets are set for the local authorities, so that we double down and focus on those people whom we know are from certain demographics or in vulnerable situations to encourage participation?
I set up National Democracy Week for the week of 2 July this year to ensure that as a nation we can focus on the values of our democracy and registration. I hope that the Minister will participate in and take forward National Democracy Week. What we as legislators have done today in Committee is a great thing—we should all be proud of what has happened, but there is more to do. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief, because we are approaching a vote, but I want to raise one specific issue with the Minister. I absolutely support the efforts being made today, and it is appropriate that they are happening in such an historic week when we celebrate women—or some women—gaining the vote back in 1918.
The issue is the interactions of individuals, once they have registered anonymously, with credit reference agencies. From examples from my own constituency, I know that individuals who have registered anonymously have had significant difficulty in getting agencies such as Experian, Callcredit and others to acknowledge their anonymous registration without cumbersome processes. Given that many of the women whom we are talking about today are in a vulnerable situation, they need to be able to access credit and so on without being disadvantaged. Will the Minister say a little about what the Government are doing to work with the agencies to ensure that that process is as transparent and easy as possible? In some cases, agencies have refused to accept anonymous registration certificates in the past, which is obviously a huge problem.
It is clearly excellent that we can support such women who want to vote to be able to do so safely and securely, but we must also ensure that we put the effort into the other under-represented groups. I am thinking in particular of young people and the black and minority ethnic community—in my constituency in Cardiff, we have significant under-representation in those groups.
The armed forces have been mentioned, and many members of the armed forces whom I know do not take up the right to vote or are unable to vote, particularly given the nature of their service. I hope that the Government will take forward all such issues, because everyone has a right to take part in the democratic processes of this country. We need to ensure that they are able to do so as much as possible.
Chloe Smith
I am conscious that I may have as little as two minutes before we have to vote in the Chamber. I shall do my very best to get through the issues.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood made a number of points that were made earlier in the Committee debating the Scotland version of the SI. I refer this Committee to my comments in that Committee about what the Government are doing to support refuges and their funding. I also reiterate that, although it is excellent that we are discussing something that will help women, women are not the only victims of domestic abuse; it is possible for men to be victims as well, and the changes in the draft regulations will apply to everyone.
On the points about indefinite anonymous registration, I have responded to those in the two earlier Committees. My comments are on the record. In the Committee debating the Scotland draft regulations, I responded to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) that it was the right thing to do to remove dead electors from the register. That is a case of maintaining the accuracy of the register, but the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and other Members are right to raise the need for completeness. That is why the Government have introduced a full democratic engagement plan, to ensure that we assist in registering everyone who is eligible to register.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood not only for his moving comments today, but for his excellent work—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. We were willing the Minister on, but we will have to suspend the sitting.
Chloe Smith
It only remains for me to complete my warm words for my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who did excellent work in bringing to readiness the measures before us. I would like to put on record my thanks to him and my officials for that work. I also thank him for his moving speech today. He reminded us of those we do this for, which is extremely important when we discuss legislation.
I will quickly answer the question on credit reference agencies asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. I confirm that anonymously registered electors are provided with a certificate of anonymous registration, which they can use as evidence to overcome barriers they might encounter, such as with credit reference agencies and other areas where the electoral register comes into play.
I am committed to ensuring that these measures are implemented well. Should I encounter further problems of that kind, I will be sure to ask officials and EROs to look at what can be done. I hope I have answered all the Committee’s questions. I thank the Committee for supporting these important measures in this suffrage year. This is a powerful move and the right thing to do to make matters easier for those who have suffered abuse.
Question put and agreed to.
Autumn Budget as it Relates to Wales
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call Susan Elan Jones, who was speaking before the break, I remind hon. Members who use the headphones that, when they take them off their heads, they should turn the volume down to avoid feedback on the sound system.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak when you are in the Chair, Mr Hanson.
Mae’n bleser mawr cael siarad gyda chi yn y Gadair, Mr Hanson.
Dros Gymru a Phrydain gyfan, mae gennym rai o’r gweision cyhoeddus gorau yn y byd, gan gynnwys y bobl sy’n dysgu yn ein hysgolion; y bobl sy’n gweithio yn ein hysbytai; ein diffoddwyr tân a’n heddlu; a’n lluoedd arfog. Mae ein gweision cyhoeddus yn gweithio tu hwnt i’r disgwyl i’n gwasanaethu ni bob dydd a nos. Yr ydym yn aml yn trafod ystadegau yn y lle hwn—mae hynny’n ddigon teg ac yn hanfodol—ond rwyf o’r farn hefyd bod angen inni gyflwyno prawf moesegol i’r gap cyflog ar gyfer gweithwyr sector cyhoeddus.
Yn ddiweddar, roedd nifer fawr o Aelodau Seneddol yn cymryd rhan mewn dadl am dâl ein lluoedd arfog. Gwnaed y pwynt nad oedd cynnydd yn y cyflog yn cyfateb i gost gynyddol tai ar gyfer personél y gwasanaethau arfog. Mynegodd llawer ohonom—yn drawsbleidiol—ein pryder ynglŷn â hyn. Dyna un enghraifft sy’n dangos fy mhryderon am ganlyniad rhewi cyflogau yn y sector cyhoeddus.
Mae Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Wrecsam—nid cyngor Llafur, ond un sy’n cael ei redeg gan glymblaid o gynghorwyr Ceidwadol ac Annibynnol—yn dweud ar ei wefan ei fod wedi arbed tua £18 miliwn dros y tair blynedd diwethaf, ac rwy’n credu bydd yn rhaid dod o hyd i £13 miliwn arall dros y ddwy flynedd nesaf. Mae’r cyngor yn nodi ar ei wefan:
“Mae gennym lai o arian i’w wario bob blwyddyn”.
Felly cytunaf ag Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid, Mark Drakeford, a ddywedodd y bydd cyllideb lywodraethol Cymru yn parhau i fod 5% yn is mewn termau real yn 2019-20 nag yn 2010-11. Eto, wrth inni glywed am y pryderon mawr hyn, rydym yn rhoi £3 biliwn heibio i dalu am fethiant y Llywodraeth yn y trafodaethau Brexit. Wrth gwrs, ’dwi ddim yn sôn am y £39 miliwn am y “fargen”—mae’n ddrwg gen i ddefnyddio’r fath air yn y cyd-destun hwn. Doedd dim sôn am y fath beth ar fws enwog yr ymgyrch i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd.
Beth am ddyled y Deyrnas Unedig? Yn ôl ffigyrau o’r Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol, mae dyled a oedd yn £358.6 biliwn ym mis Mai 1998 erbyn hyn yn £1,726.9 biliwn —swm syfrdanol. Dywedodd Dirprwy Lywodraethwr Banc Lloegr, Ben Broadbent:
“Mae twf cynhyrchiant wedi arafu ym mhob economi uwch, ond mae wedi bod yn fwy difrifol yn y wlad hon nag mewn gwledydd eraill.”
Dywedodd The Daily Telegraph—soniais am y Guardian bore yma, felly rwyf yn cyfeirio at y Telegraph prynhawn yma—fod
“twf cynhyrchiant wedi cwympo”.
Soniodd y newyddiadurwr Tim Wallace yn y Telegraph am y 1860au, sef y degawd diwethaf cyn yr un yma i brofi twf incwm gwironeddol negyddol. Dylai’r sefyllfa bresennol fod o gonsyrn mawr i bob un ohonom.
Er hynny, yn y bôn rwy’n credu mai pobl optimistaidd ydym ni yng ngogeldd Cymru, ac rydw i am orffen ar nodyn optimistaidd. Rwy’n croesawu unrhyw gyhoeddiad am fargen twf gogledd Cymru. Fel dywedais i, byddaf yn ei groesawu’n fwy pan fydd o’n dŵad, ond rydw i yn croesawu’r cyhoeddiad. Mae angen i ni wella’r seilwaith a gweithio’n drawsffiniol i wneud yr A5 a’r A483 yn well ac yn fwy diogel, ac mae angen buddsoddiad i sicrhau mynediad gwell i’n gorsafoedd rheilffyrdd, yn enwedig gorsaf Rhiwabon, yr orsaf ar gyfer traphont ddŵr Pontcysyllte, sy’n gwasanaethu poblogaeth fawr iawn, yn fy etholaeth it.
Mae’n her i bob un ohonom wneud y cytundeb twf yn reality, ac mae’n hollbwysig i ogled Cymru, i bobl Cymru gyfan ac i’n cymdogion ar draws y ffin ein bod ni’n sicrhau bod y cytundeb twf yn gweithio ar gyfer ein cymunedau.
(Translation) We have some of the best public servants in the world, including the people teaching in our schools and working in our hospitals, our firefighters, police officers, armed forces and others. They go above and beyond to serve us, day and night.
We often use statistics while speaking in this place, and that is understandable and, indeed, essential, but we also need to apply an ethical test to a pay cap for public sector workers. Recently, many MPs took part in a debate on pay in the armed forces. The point was made that the wage increase did not correspond with the rising cost of housing for service personnel, and many of us, on a cross-party basis, expressed concerns about that. That is one example of my concerns about what the pay freeze in the public sector can mean.
Wrexham County Borough Council, which is run not by Labour but by a coalition of Conservative and Independent councillors, talks on its website about how it has saved about £18 million during the past three years. I believe that it will have to find another £13 million over the next two years. The council says on its website that it has less money to spend annually. I therefore agreed with Mark Drakeford, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in Wales, who drew attention to the fact that the Welsh Government’s budget will still be 5% lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11.
When we hear of these concerns, we acknowledge that we are now putting an additional £3 billion aside in case of failure in the Brexit discussions. Of course, I am not talking about the £39 billion that will be needed in the deal—I am not too happy to be using the word “deal” or “bargain” in this context. There was no warning of that on the leave campaign’s famous bus,
What about the United Kingdom’s debt? According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, the debt that was £358.6 billion in May 1998 is now £1,726.9 billion —a shocking figure.
The Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Ben Broadbent, said that productivity growth has slowed across all the wealthy nations of the world, but it has been more severe in this country than in others. I mentioned The Guardian this morning, so this afternoon I will mention The Daily Telegraph. It said that productivity growth had decreased.
Tim Wallace, the journalist, talked about the 1860s in The Daily Telegraph, and said that that was the last decade until now that experienced real negative growth. The current situation should be a cause of great concern to all of us.
Essentially, however, I think that we in north Wales are an optimistic people and I will close my speech on an optimistic note. I welcome any announcement on the north Wales growth deal. As I say, I will be more welcoming when it comes, but I welcome the announcements that have been made. We need to improve infrastructure and we need cross-border working to make the A5 and the A483 safer and better, and we need investment to ensure better access to our train stations—particularly Ruabon station, the station for the Pontcysyllte aqueduct, which is very important for my constituency.
The challenge for all of us is to make the promise of the growth deal a reality. It is essential for north Wales—in fact, for the people of all of Wales, and our neighbours on the other side of the border—that we ensure that the growth deal works for our communities.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Diolch, Mr Hanson, am roi’r cyfle i mi gyfrannu i’r ddadl hanesyddol hon drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Dyma’r tro cyntaf i ni ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg yma yn San Steffan—nid yw hyn wedi digwydd o’r blaen—a dyna pam mae’n ddadl hanesyddol.
Yn siarad yn bersonnol, mae’n arwyddocaol fy mod i’n gallu cyfrannu yn Gymraeg. Pan ges i fy ethol i Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru ym Mae Caerdydd yn 1999, doeddwn i ddim yn gallu siarad gair o Gymraeg. Ers hynny, rydw i wedi gwnuud fy ngorau i ddysgu’r iaith—iaith y nefoedd. Roedd bob un o’m hynafiaid yn siarad Cymraeg fel iaith gyntaf. Roedd fy rhieni yn siarad Cymraeg fel iaith gyntaf, ond wedi iddynt briodi symudasant i ran o Sir Drefaldwyn lle doedd neb yn siarad Cymraeg. Yn fwy arwyddocaol, roedd pobl yn gweld yr iaith fel iaith o fethiant—doedd neb ar y pryd eisiau siarad Cymraeg. Mae pethau wedi newid heddiw, ond mae lot o pobl wedi anghofio beth oedd y sefyllfa amser maith yn ôl.
Ni chlywais fy nhad na’m mam yn siarad Cymraeg o gwbl, felly ni allai fy mhump chwaer na fi siarad gair o Gymraeg. Nid oeddwn i’n medru gwneud tan i mi ddod yn Aelod o’r Cynulliad. Ar ôl cael fy ethol i’r Cynulliad, lle mae llawer o Gymraeg yn cael ei siarad, gan gynnwys yn y Siambr, penderfynais fy mod i am ddysgu’r iaith. Gallwch weld felly, Mr Hanson, pam mae’r ddadl hanesyddol hon mor bwysig i fi yn bersonnol, yn ogystal â bod yn hanesoddol o ran San Steffan.
Mae’r ddadl Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig yma yn rhoi’r cyfle i ni ystyried y Gyllideb a beth mae’n olygu i Gymru. Yn fy mharn i—rwy’n gwybod na fydd pawb yn cytuno â hyn—mae wedi bod yn newyddion da iawn i Gymru. Cynuddodd y Gyllideb yr arian ar gael i Lywodraeth Cymru wario ar wasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru. Cynuddodd y grym gwario gan £1.2 biliwn bob blwyddyn, sy’n arwyddocaol iawn. Roedd grym gwario wedi codi £1.2 biliwn bob blwyddyn, ac mae hynny’n arwyddocaol. Pan oeddwn yn Aelod yn y Cynulliad, roedd llawer o drafod am y fformiwla Barnett a’r Barnett floor hefyd. Galw am fwy o arian i Gymru, mwy o rym gwario.
Ar y pryd, roedd pobl yn gweld yr Athro Gerry Holtham fel arbenigwr a bob tro roeddem yn siarad am y Gyllideb yn y Cynulliad, roedd people yn dyfynnu’r Athro Holtham. Nawr, ar ôl cytuno fframwaith cyllid gyda Llywodraeth Cymru, mae’r Athro Holtham wedi disgrifio’r sefyllfa fel a very fair settlement. Mae pethau wedi symud ymlaen lot. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru hefyd wedi croesawu’r fframwaith cyllid. Maen nhw’n dweud nawr am long-term fair funding i Gymru. Mae hwn wedi digwydd o dan y Llywodraeth Geidwadol. Rwyf yn falch iawn i glywed pethau fel hyn.
Pwynt arall sydd yn bwysig i mi: yn y Gyllideb roedd y Canghellor yn sôn am gryfhau’r economi ymhob rhan o Gymru. Siaradodd am y Cardiff city deal, y Swansea city deal, am y north Wales growth deal, ac hefyd, am y tro cyntaf, siaradodd am mid Wales growth deal. Mae hyn yn bwysig dros ben; yn hynod o bwysig i mi. Mae’n rhy gynnar i wybod yn union beth mae mid Wales growth deal yn golygu. Mae’n bwysig iawn bod pobl leol yn y canolbarth yn rhoi syniadau. Dyma pam rwyf yn siarad gyda phobl yn sir Faldwyn a thu allan i sir Faldwyn hefyd, yn y canolbarth, a phob corff yn y lle, i gynnig syniadau.
Rwyf wedi bod yn siarad gyda’r Aelod dros Geredigion. Gobeithio byddwn yn gallu cymryd mantais o ymchwil amaethyddol ac amgylcheddol ym Mhrifysgol Aberystwyth a hefyd, gweithio gyda smallholdings ym Mhowys.
(Translation). Thank you, Mr Hanson, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this historic debate through the medium of Welsh. It is the first time we have been able to use the Welsh language in Westminster. It has not happened before, which is why the debate is historic.
Personally speaking, it is significant for me, too, to be able to make my contribution in Welsh. When I was elected to the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff bay in 1999, I could not speak a word of Welsh. However, since then, I have done my very best to learn the language—the language of heaven. All of my ancestors were first-language Welsh speakers. My parents also spoke Welsh as a first language, but after getting married they moved to a part of Montgomeryshire where nobody spoke Welsh. More significantly, the Welsh language was seen as a failed language; nobody wanted to speak the Welsh language. Things have changed now, but many people have forgotten the situation of many years ago.
I did not hear my father or mother speak Welsh at all, so my five sisters and I could not speak a word of Welsh. I could not do so until I became an Assembly Member. Having been elected to the Assembly, where a great deal of Welsh is spoken, including in the Chamber, I decided that I needed to learn the Welsh language. So, as you can see, Mr Hanson, this historic debate is particularly important to me on a personal level, as well as being historic in terms of events in Westminster.
This Welsh Grand Committee debate gives us an opportunity to consider the Budget and its implications for Wales. In my view—I know that not everyone will agree—it has been very good news for Wales. The Budget increased the funding available to the Welsh Government to spend on public services in Wales. The spending power increased by £12 billion, which is significant. When I was an Assembly Member there was a great deal of debate about the Barnett formula and the Barnett floor, too. There were demands for more funding and more spending powers for Wales.
At the time, Professor Gerry Holtham was seen as an expert on all of these issues, and every time we discussed the Budget in the National Assembly people would quote Professor Holtham. Now, having agreed a financial framework with the Welsh Government, Professor Holtham has described the situation as a very fair settlement, so things have moved on a great deal, and the Welsh Government have also welcomed the financial framework. They see it as long-term fair funding for Wales, and that has happened under a Conservative Government. I am particularly pleased to hear such comments.
The other point that is important to me is that in the Budget the Chancellor spoke about strengthening the economy in all parts of Wales. He spoke about the Cardiff city deal and the city deal in Swansea. He also talked about the north Wales growth deal and, for the first time, he mentioned a mid-Wales growth deal, which is hugely important for me. It is too early to know exactly what a mid-Wales growth deal will mean, but it is important that local people in mid-Wales bring their ideas forward. When I speak to people in my constituency and outside my constituency in mid-Wales, I will encourage everyone and all the organisations involved to bring forward their ideas, and hopefully we will be able to take advantage.
I have spoken to the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I hope we will be able to take full advantage of the environmental and agricultural research undertaken at Aberystwyth University and also work with the smallholdings in Powys.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Mae yna lawer iawn o bobl yn y gogledd eisiau cymryd rhan yn y ddêl ar gyfer twf. Roeddwn mewn cyfarfod diweddar gyda’r brifysgol ym Mangor. Mae ganddynt syniadau da iawn ond fawr o syniad sut i ymgeisio. Mae’r manylion ar sut ddylai’r cynllun yma weithio yn brin iawn. Onid yw hynny’n neges i’r Llywodraeth y dylsant ddarparu’r wybodaeth yma rwan am fod syniadau da allan yno yn barod i fynd?
(Translation) A great many people in north Wales also want to take part in the growth deal. However, having had a recent meeting with Bangor University, where there are very good ideas, I know that it does not really know how to apply the details, which are scarce, of how the deal will work. That is a message for the Government that they should provide that information now, because there are good ideas out there ready to go.
Glyn Davies
Fel ddywedais i, yn y canolbarth, mae’n amser cynnar iawn. Mae cyfrifoldeb arnom ni i gynnig syniadau. Rwyf yn credu bydd Ysgrifennydd Cymru yn barod i dderbyn syniadau. Mae’n gyfle i gryfhau’r economi yng ngogledd Cymru ac yn y canolbarth. Mae’n bwysig hefyd i gryfhau’r cysylltiadau trafnidiaeth rhwng y canolbarth a chanolbarth Lloegr. Mae’n bwysig cysylltu gyda’r farchnad yng nghanolbarth Lloegr. Mae’r Newtown bypass yn agor eleni; mae hyn yn bwysig. Mae pont newydd yn symud ymlaen ym Machynlleth, dros y Dyfi.
Y cam nesaf yw cael ffordd newydd rhwng Trallwng a ffin Lloegr yn sir Amwythig. Mae’n bwysig cael cysylltiad rhwng y canolbarth a Lloegr. Mae’r farchnad yn bwysig i ni ac rwyf eisiau gweld y growth deal yn y canolbarth yn canolbwyntio ar hynny. Hefyd, wythnos nesaf, mae £7 miliwn yn mynd i fewn i’r rheilffordd rhwng y Drenewydd ac Aberystwyth. Mae lot yn digwydd. Mae cysylltiadau trafnidiaeth yn bwysig iawn os ydym am weld y canolbarth yn symud ymlaen.
Mae prosiect Pumlumon yn bwysig hefyd. Dydy pobl ddim yn gwybod lot am y prosiect, ond y cynllun yw i dalu ffermwyr â dros 100,000 erw—rhaid i mi edrych i weld os ydw i’n dweud yr un peth yn Gymraeg—i stopio llifogydd yn Lloegr. Mae hyn yn bwysig iawn a bydd yn dda i ffermwyr yn y canolbarth. Bydd yn help mawr i arbed gwario miliynau i stopio llifogydd yn Lloegr. Mae growth deal yn y canolbarth yn beth da ar gyfer hyn. Mae camlas Mynwy yn bwysig, yn mynd dros y ffin, a gobeithio gall y buddsoddiad ynddo fod yn rhan o’r mid-Wales growth deal hefyd.
Rwyf wedi bod yn Aelod yn y Cynulliad ac yn Aelod yma yn San Steffan, ac rwy’n deall bod angen i’r ddwy Lywodraeth weithio gyda’i gilydd i gael yr elw mwyaf. Mae hyn yn digwydd a dyma pam rwy’n optimistig ac yn credu bydd hyn yn parhau trwy berthynas bositif. Dwi ddim yn darllen beth sydd yn y cyfryngau. Mae’r ddwy Lywodraeth yn gweithio gyda’i gilydd ac mae hyn yn bwysig.
I orffen, rwyf eisiau mynd yn ôl at yr iaith Gymraeg a sut mae gwleidyddiaeth a materion cyhoeddus yn cael eu darlledu yng Nghymru. Dylai beth sy’n digwydd yng Nghymru—yn y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol—gael mwy o sylw yn y cyfryngau yng Nghymru. Rydym ni i gyd yma yn dibynnu ar ddarlledu yng Nghymru i gysylltu â phobl Cymru i ddweud wrthyn nhw beth rydym ni’n gwneud yma. Rwy’n dibynnu ar y BBC, S4C a ITV i wneud hyn.
Roedd yn grêt gweld Radio Cymru 2 yn dechrau mis diwethaf. Mae’n bwysig iawn i Gymru a dwi’n llongyfarch Betsan Powys ar ei gwaith. Heddiw, rwyf eisiau dweud fy mod yn siomedig ar ôl clywed bod “O’r Senedd” yn gorffen—mae pawb yn adnabod y rhaglen—a dydw i ddim yn gwybod beth sydd yn dod yn ei lle. Dydw i ddim yn meddwl mai rhaglen sy’n delio â gwleidyddiaeth sy’n dod yn ei lle. Rwyf hefyd yn cofio “CF99”. Os rydym am gysylltu â phobl Cymru, mae rhaglenni fel “O’r Senedd” yn bwysig iawn i ni. Dydw i ddim eisiau gweld yn lle “O’r Senedd” rhyw fath o adloniant; rwyf eisiau gweld y cyfryngau yng Nghymru yn delio â gwleidyddiaeth yma yn San Steffan mewn ffordd ddifrifol. Yr unig ffordd rydym ni yn gallu cysylltu gyda’r bobl yng Nghymru yw trwy’r cyfryngau. Gobeithio, yn lle “O’r Senedd”, bydd rhyw fath o raglen sy’n delio â’r pynciau pwysig i Gymru mewn ffordd ddifrifol.
(Translation) As I said, in mid-Wales it is at a very early stage. There is a responsibility on all of us to bring forward ideas. I think the Secretary of State for Wales is willing to take on board these ideas, and that is where we are at the moment. I see an opportunity to strengthen the economy of north and mid-Wales. I also believe it is important to strengthen the transport links between mid-Wales and the midlands. It is hugely important that we can link up with the markets in the midlands. The Newtown bypass will open this year. That is important, and the new bridge over the Dyfi in Machynlleth is making progress.
The next step is to have a new road between Welshpool and the border with England in Shrewsbury. It is important to have those connections with England. The market is hugely important to us, and I want to see the growth deal in mid Wales focusing on that issue. Also, next week, £7 million will be invested in the railway between Newtown and Aberystwyth.
Also, next week, £7 million will be invested in the railway between Newtown and Aberystwyth. There is a great deal happening. Transport links are hugely important if mid-Wales is to make progress.
The Pumlumon project is also important. I do not know too much about it yet, but as I understand it the plan is to pay farmers—those with 100,000 acres, I think, but I will have to check that figure—to stop run-off from their land. That is hugely important. It will be positive for farmers in mid-Wales, and it will be of huge assistance in saving millions of pounds on flood prevention work in England. The mid-Wales growth deal is very positive. The Montgomery canal is also important, and I hope that investment in that is part of the mid-Wales growth deal, too.
Having been a Member of the Assembly and a Member here in Westminster, I have come to understand that the two Governments must work together if we are to achieve maximum benefit. I think that is happening, so I am optimistic. I think a positive relationship can develop between the Governments. I do not read about what is happening in the media. The Governments are working together, and that is hugely important.
To conclude, I want to move back to the issue of the Welsh language and how politics and public affairs are covered in Wales. What happens in Wales—and in the National Assembly—should get more coverage in the media in Wales. We are all reliant on broadcasters in Wales to connect with the people of Wales and inform them about what is happening here. That is hugely important. I think of the role of the BBC, S4C and ITV in delivering those messages.
It was wonderful to see Radio Cymru 2, a second Welsh-language radio channel, established last month. That is hugely important for Wales, and I congratulate Betsan Powys for the work that she has done. However, I was a little disappointed to hear that the S4C programme “O’r Senedd” is to cease broadcasting. I am not sure what is going to replace it, but I do not think that it will be a programme dealing with politics. I remember when “CF99” was on S4C. If we are to connect with the people of Wales, programmes such as “O’r Senedd” are hugely important. I raise that point because I do not want to see some sort of entertainment provided in place of “O’r Senedd”. I want to see the media in Wales cover politics here in Westminster and at the Assembly seriously. The only way that we can connect to the people of Wales is through the media. I hope that “O’r Senedd” will be replaced by some sort of programme that covers the important issues of the day for Wales.
Hywel Williams
Rwy’n falch eithriadol o’r cyfle yma i siarad yn y ddadl hanesyddol hon. Fel pawb arall, rwy’n falch iawn o’r diwedd i gael siarad Cymraeg yn y Tŷ hwn yn Llundain. Cefais y cyfle i siarad Cymraeg o’r blaen, pan aeth yr Uwch Bwyllgor i Wrecsam dro yn ôl, ond mae siarad yr iaith yn San Steffan yn gam arwyddocaol pellach, wrth i’r awdurdodau yma yn Llundain ddygymod o’r diwedd â’r ffaith mai nid gwladwriaeth uniaith ydy’r Deyrnas Gyfunol.
Yn wir, yn gynyddol daw unieithrwydd cyhoeddus yn eithriad yng Nghymru, dwi’n credu. Heblaw am y dadleuon amlwg i mi fel unigolyn fod medru siarad Cymraeg, a hawl fy etholwyr i gael eu cynrychioli drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, mae elfen gref iawn o synnwyr cyffredin o blaid symud at sefyllfa lle mae cyfrwng ein trafodaethau ni yma yn adlewyrchu’r ffaith bod natur ieithyddol ein gwlad ni yn wahanol. Dylem adlewyrchu sut mae pethau yng Nghymru, ac mae medru siarad Cymraeg yn rhan o hynny.
Fy mwriad prynhawn yma ydy siarad yn fyr am gynigion y Canghellor ynghylch credyd cynhwyshol, ac yn wir—bydd Aelodau Llywodraeth yn falch iawn i glywed hyn—i groesawu’r newidadau hynny, cyn belled ag y maent yn mynd. Tydi nhw ddim yn mynd hanner digon pell i mi a, fel llawer o bobl sy’n cymryd diddordeb yn y maes yma, buaswn yn licio gweld y newidiadau yn mynd yn bellach. Tydi’r newidiadau ddim yn mynd hanner digon pell i bobl a fydd yn hawlio’r fudd-dal yn y dyfodol, wrth i gredyd cynhwysol ddod i fewn. A tydi nhw ddim yn mynd hanner pell i mi fel rhywun sydd yn cynrychioli pobl ac yn pwyso ar yr Adran Gwaith a Phensiynau am welliannau a newidiau.
Mae’r pryderon am y drefn newydd eisioes yn ddigon clir. Ar 9 Hydref y llynedd, yn nghwestiynnau’r Adran Gwaith a Phensiynau, gofynnais i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, a oedd newydd gael ei benodi ar y pryd, pa gynnydd a wnaed wrth ddod â chredyd cynhwysol i fewn a lle oeddem ni arni hi. Bydd rhai Aelodau yn gwybod, wrth gwrs, bod peilot wedi cael ei redeg ers tro yn ardal Shotton a bod hynny’n cynrychioli tua 5% o’r boblogaeth sydd ar hyn o bryd yn medru hawlio credyd cynhwysol. Ateb yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol oedd bod y fudd-dal newydd yn dod i fwcwl yn unol â’r cynllun, ac rŷm ni’n gweld y cynllun hwnnw yn dod i fewn rwan.
Dywedais wedyn fod cryn gefnogaeth i egwyddorion credyd cynhwysol. Rwy’n credu bod yna gytundeb ar draws y Tŷ bod yr egwyddorion—sicrhau incwm a sicrhau bod pobl yn medru mynd i’r gwaith yn haws o lawer—yn dda iawn, ond yn ôl neb llai na Syr John Major, nodweddion dwyn credyd cynhwysol i fewn hyd yn hyn yw
“gweithredu bler, anhegwch cymdeithasol a diffug trugaredd”.
Efallai bod ei eiriau gwreiddiol yn y Saesneg yn taro’n galetach:
“operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving”.
Gofynnais i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol felly, fel cwestiwn atodol, i ohurio dwyn y cynllyn i fewn yn ei grynswth. Os na fedrai wneud hynny, roedd yna gwpwl o bethau roeddwn i eisiau iddo eu gwneud, sef dileu’r cyfnod aros gan wythnos a thalu’r budd-dal pob pythefnos yn hytrach na phob mis. Bydd Aelodau yn gyfarwydd â’r problemau a all godi hefo trio cyllido am fis ar swm gymharol fach. Wrth gwrs, mi oedd yna gyfnod aros lle roedd pobl yn disgwyl am wythnos heb gael budd-dal.
Bydd Aelodau yn gyfarwydd â dadl y Bonheddwr gwir anrhydeddus dros Chingford a Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), sef awdur y drefn yma. Dywedodd y dylai credyd cynhwysol adlewyrchu’r byd gwaith: mae rhan fwyaf o bobl yn cael eu talu’n fisol, felly dylai’r fudd-dal fod yn fisol hefyd er mwyn eu paratoi i fynd i swydd. Wrth gwrs, mae hyn yn anwybyddu’r ffaith fod llawer yn debygol o fod ar gredyd cynhwysol am gyfnodau amhenodol—cyfnodau hir iawn—heb obaith am waith. Yn fwyaf sylfaenol, mae hyn yn anwybyddu anawsterau garw didoli symiau bach o incwm dros fis cyfan yn hytrach na dros wythnos neu pythefnos.
Dro yn ôl, rhedais surgery i gynghori pobl oedd yn gorfod ymdopi efo’r treth llofftydd—y taliad am lofft ychwanegol. Rhoddodd un ddynes restr o’i gwariant i mi. Roedd £1 ar waelod y rhestr. Gofynnais, “Be’ ’di’r bunt yna?” Atebodd, “Wel, ’dwi’n gorfod cerdded lawr i’r dre i siopa, ac unwaith pob pythefnos, ’dwi ddim yn cerdded yn ôl, ’dwi’n mynd ar y bys.” Dyna beth oedd y bunt. Mae pobl ar arian wythnosnol yn medru ymdopi yn rhyfeddol o fanwl hefo’r hyn o arian sydd ganddynt, yn bennaf wrth gwrs am nad oes gennyn nhw ddewis.
Ni chytunodd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i’m cais i ohirio cyflwyno’r budd-dal, ond dywedodd rhywbeth arwyddocaol: y byddid yn gwneud newidiadau pan ac os fydd angen, fesul tipyn. Roedd hynny’n rhywbeth reit bositif iddo ddweud: nad oedd popeth yn gwbl sefydlog, ac y gellir gweud newidiadau. A dyma ni—mae rhai newidiadau yn y Gyllideb, er rhai bychain ac annigonol ydyn nhw. Er hynny, mae nhw i’w croesawu.
Felly beth yw’r newidiadau? Daw y cyfnod disgwyl am fudd-dal i lawr o chwech wythnos i bump—o 42 diwrnod i 35. Fel bydd rhai Aelodau yn gwybod, telir y budd-dal yn fisol, ond rhaid disgwyl pythefnos ychwanegol ar y dechrau. Mae hyn wedi achosi problemau sylweddol yn barod. Natur y chwech wythnos oedd: pedair wythnos i wirio’r incwm—gan fod pobl am gael eu talu yn fisol, rhaid cael manylion incwm am fis—wedyn wythnos i brosesu ac wythnos i ddisgwyl. Mae’r wythnos i ddisgwyl wedi mynd. Roedd y rhan fwyaf ohonom sydd yn cymryd diddordeb yn y maes yma yn gwybod nad oedd yr wythnos ddisgwyl yn golygu fawr o ddim byd yn ymarferol.
(Translation) I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this historic debate. Like everyone else, I am also very pleased finally to be able to speak Welsh here in Westminster. I have had the opportunity to speak Welsh before, when the Grand Committee went to Wrexham a while ago, but being able to speak Welsh in Westminster is a further significant step forward, as the authorities here in London finally come to terms with the fact that the United Kingdom is not a monolingual state.
In fact, monolingualism in Wales will become the exception. Apart from the obvious arguments that stop me as a Welsh speaker being able to speak Welsh, it also restricts the ability of my constituents to be represented through the medium of Welsh. There is a strong common sense element in favour of moving to a position where the medium of our discussions here reflects the fact that the linguistic nature of our country is diverse. We should be reflecting the situation in Wales, and speaking Welsh should be a part of that.
My intention this afternoon is to speak briefly about the Chancellor’s proposals on universal credit and—Government Members will be pleased to hear this—to welcome the proposed changes in so far as they go, although I would say that they do not go far enough. I think the same would be true of many people who take an interest in this area, who would like to see the changes go further. It is certainly not far enough for the people who will be claiming the benefit in the future, as universal credit comes in. It does not go far enough for me, as someone who represents people and presses on the Department for Work and Pensions for improvements in this regard.
The concerns about the new system are clear enough. On 9 October last year, in DWP questions, I asked the then Secretary of State, who was new at the time, having just been appointed, what progress he had made in bringing in universal credit and where we had reached. As some hon. Members will know, a pilot had been run in the area of Shotton. That represented about 5% of the population who can now claim universal credit. The response of the Secretary of State was that the new benefit was about to come in as expected, and we see the scheme coming into force now.
I then said that there was quite a bit of support for the principle behind universal credit. I think that there is agreement across the House that the principle of universal credit is a very good one, ensuring that people have an income and can go into work much more easily. The agreement on universal credit is in place, but none other than Sir John Major said, with regard to this matter, that the way that universal credit had been brought in up until now was chaotic and showed a lack of mercy. It perhaps comes across better in his own words:
“operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving”.
I therefore asked, as my supplementary question, for the scheme to be postponed as a whole. If that were not possible there were a couple of things that I wished the Department to do: to bring the waiting period down a week and to pay the benefit every fortnight instead of every month. Hon. Members will be aware of the problems that may arise from trying to budget for a month on a comparatively small sum. Of course, there was a waiting period where people could wait for a week without receiving any benefits.
Members will be familiar, of course, with the argument of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who was the author of the system. He said that universal credit should reflect the working world: the majority of people are paid monthly, so the benefit should also be paid on a monthly basis, and that would prepare people for the world of work and getting a job. That ignores the fact that many people are likely to be on universal credit for periods that may not be defined, without any hope of getting work. More fundamentally, I believe that it ignores the difficulties of dealing with small sums over a month, rather than a week or a fortnight.
Some time ago, I ran a surgery to advise people who were dealing with the bedroom tax. A woman who came in with a list of expenditure that had £1 at the bottom. I asked, “What’s that £1 for?”, and she said, “Well, I have to walk down to town to shop. Once a fortnight, I don’t walk back. I take the bus.” That is what it was for. People on a weekly budget cope remarkably well, mainly because they have no other choice.
The Secretary of State did not agree with my proposal to delay or postpone bringing the benefit in, but he said something significant: changes will be made when necessary, as necessary and step by step. It was positive of him to say that the benefit is not entirely set in stone and that changes can be made. Now there are welcome changes in the Budget, although they are quite small and insufficient.
Those changes reduce the waiting period from six weeks to five weeks—that is, from 42 days to 35. Some hon. Members will know that the benefit is paid monthly, but that people have to wait an additional fortnight at the beginning, which has already caused significant problems. Those six weeks include four weeks to check income, because people are paid monthly so the details of their monthly income are needed, then a week for processing time and a week of waiting. That week of waiting has gone.
Most of us who take an interest in this subject know that that week of waiting meant very little and had no practical purpose.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Mae’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn gwneud pwynt pwysig, ond ’dwi’n siŵr ei fod yn gwybod bod unrhyw un gyda anawsterau ariannol yn gallu benthyg arian o’r Adran i sicrhau nad ydynt yn cael problemau. [Ymyrraeth.]
(Translation) The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I am sure he is aware that anyone with financial problems can borrow money from the Department to ensure that those problems are overcome. [Interruption.]
Hywel Williams
Mae’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn gwneud pwynt da iawn, a byddaf yn sôn am hynny gyda hyn. Mae’n bosib cael taliad, ond fel dywedodd fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus dros Dwyfor Meirionnydd o’i chadair, benthyciad yw hwnnw, nid taliad.
(Translation) The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will come to that in a moment, but I might as well say now that it is possible to have a payment beforehand, but that is a loan rather than a payment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said from a sedentary position.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
That change puts people into debt straightaway. The Government have not addressed the flaws in the system. The Trussell Trust says that in areas where universal credit has been rolled out for six months or more, there has been a 30% increase in people taking up food parcels. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those statistics lay bare the link between welfare reform and emergency help?
Hywel Williams
Mae’r Foneddiges anrhydeddus yn gwneud pwynt arbennig o dda. Mae’r Trussell Trust, a mudiadau eraill wrth gwrs, yn rhedeg banciau bwyd trwy Gymru gyfan, ac maen nhw wedi cynyddu’n sylweddol. Mae gennym ni rhai da iawn yng Nghaernarfon ac ym Mangor, a ’dwi wedi bod yna yn eu gweld nifer o weithiau. Gyda llaw, fy marn i am fanciau bwyd yw bod o’n dda i’w cael nhw, ond yn gywilydd bod gennym eu hangen. Fel dywedodd y Foneddiges anrhydeddus, mae cael benthyciad ar y dechrau yn golygu bod yna ddyled yn syth bin. Tydi hynny ddim yn safbwynt da i gychwyn gyrfa fel hawliwr credyd cynhwysol. Nes ymlaen, wna’i sôn am ymchwil sydd wedi cael ei wneud yn Sir Fflint ynglŷn â lle mae’r problemau efo credyd cynhwysol. Bydd hyn yn ddadlennol.
O’r hyn roeddwn i’n deall, prif bwrpas yr wythnos o ddisgwyl oedd arbed arian. Doedd dim pwrpas arall iddi. ’Dwi’n eithriadol o falch o weld y cyfnod yna yn mynd, ond gallasai’r Canghellor fod wedi gwneud llawer mwy, er enghraifft, torri’r cyfnod prosesu hefyd, fel bod rhywun yn cael yr arian mwy neu lai’n syth bin ar ddiwedd y pedair wythnos pan mae’r incwm wedi’i wirio.
Newid arall ydy, fel y sioniodd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Fynwy, y bydd taliad ymlaen llaw ar gael o dan rhai amgylchiadau o fewn pump diwrnod o wneud y cais. Yn fuan iawn, bydd rhywun yn dod i sylweddoli efallai nad yw’r credyd cynhwysol ddim yn ddigon a bydd rhywun yn medru gwneud cais am bres ychwanegol. Gobeithio bydd pobl ddim yn mynd heb ddim. Ond er hynny, fel ddywedodd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Ddwyrain Casnewydd, mae hyn yn rhoi rhywun i fewn i ddyled. Y newid arall positif a gyhoeddodd y Canghellor oedd bod y cyfnod talu’n ôl yn 12 mis yn hytrach na chwech. Ond benthyciad ydy hwn. Newid bychan ond un i’w groesawu. A dyna ni yn y bôn, hyd y gwela i, o’r Gyllideb. Nid y cyfnod disgwyl ydy’r brif broblem efo credyd cynhwysol, na chwaith y taliadau ymlaen llaw.
Hoffwn siarad ychydig bach am y pethau y byddwn i a Phlaid Cymru yn hoffi gweld yn cael eu newid ynglŷn â’r budd-dal, fel rhyw rhestr siopa i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a’r Canghellor at y dyfodol. Mae credyd cynwhysol yn arbennig o bwysig i Gymru, gyda chynifer o bobl yn medru ei hawlio. Ac i fod yn blaen—waeth i ni fod yn blaen ddim—mae hynny am fod gennym ni gymaint o bobl sy’n dlawd ac ar gyflogau isel. Dyna pam rydym yn medru hawlio gymaint o’r arian yma ar gyfradd uwch na’r Alban a Lloegr.
Bydd y cyfanswm o bobl sy’n medru hawlio credyd cynhwysol yng Nghymru yn cynrychioli tua 400,000 o aelwydydd. Mae hyn yn gyfran enfawr o’r bobl sydd yn byw yn ein gwlad, yn arbennig o gofio mai cartrefi ac aelwydydd yw’r 400,000, ac mae’r teuluoedd sy’n byw yno—y plant a’r gŵr neu’r wraig—yn ychwanegol i hynny. Felly, bydd y nifer absoliwt o bobl fydd yn dibynnu i ryw raddau ar gredyd cynhwysol yn sylweddol eto. Oherwydd hynny, byddai diwygio pellach o fudd eithriadol i ni yng Nghymru, yn arbennig o gofio fod pobl ar incymau is yn tueddi i wario’n lleol ac mae’r bunt sy’n cael ei gwario’n lleol yn mynd ymhellach o lawer yn yr economi lleol hefyd. Felly, nid mater absoliwt o gael incwm ychwanegol yw hyn, ond hefyd rhoi hwb i’r economi lleol.
(Translation) The hon. Lady makes an exceptionally good point. The Trussell Trust and other organisations run food banks throughout Wales. The number of food banks has increased substantially—we have two very good ones in Caernarfon and Bangor, which I have visited many times. It is good to have them, but it is shameful that we need them. I will try to assist them. As the hon. Lady said, receiving a loan at the beginning means that debt is immediately accrued, which is not a great position for someone receiving benefits to start from.
The problems in Flintshire are illustrative of the problems with universal credit. From my understanding, the main purpose of the additional week of waiting was to save money, so I am glad that it has been removed. The Chancellor could have done much more, however, such as trying to cut down on the processing time so that people get the money almost immediately after the four weeks in which income has been checked.
The other proposed change is that the payment beforehand, which the hon. Member for Monmouth mentioned, will be available five days before. Very soon, people will come to see that universal credit may not be sufficient, and it will be possible to apply for further funding. I hope people will not lose out or go without anything as a result because, as the hon. Member for Newport East said, that can lead to debt. The other positive change that the Chancellor introduced was to make the repayment period 12 months, rather than six. I welcome that change, although it is very small. I do not think the waiting time or the advance payments are the biggest problem with universal credit.
I would like to talk about some of the things that I and Plaid Cymru would like to see in relation to the benefit—a sort of shopping list for the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to look at in the future. Universal credit is extremely important for Wales, because we have so many people who can claim it. To be plain—we might as well speak plainly—that is because we have so many people who are poor and on low incomes, which is why we claim the benefit at a higher rate than England and Scotland.
About 400,000 households can claim universal credit in Wales, which is a huge number, particularly when we bear in mind that there are other members of those families, including children, so a huge number of people are to some extent dependent on universal credit. Further reform would be extremely beneficial for us in Wales, particularly bearing in mind that people on lower incomes tend to spend their money locally. A pound that is spent locally goes much further in the local economy. This is about not simply getting additional income, but boosting the local economy.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying very closely. Is he aware of a study commissioned by the University of Cambridge and University College London, which found that austerity killed 45,000 people between 2010 and 2014, and that a further 152,000 people will die because of austerity between 2018 and 2020? It describes austerity as economic murder. Does he agree that Wales is particularly vulnerable to the impact of that inhumane policy?
The Chair
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Arfon, may I remind Members that, when they stand to speak or intervene, they must turn down the volume of their headsets? Otherwise, we all hear the noise that we are currently experiencing in our headsets.
Hywel Williams
Diolch i’r Aelod anrhydeddus dros Orllewin Abertawe am y pwynt hwnnw. Doeddwn i ddim yn ymwybodol o’r ymchwil arbennig yna. Rydym yn sôn fan hyn am bobl sydd reit ar ymyl y dibyn yn aml: pobl cyn agosed â phosib i fod mewn tlodi absoliwt, ynghyd â phobl sydd ar incymau isel sydd mewn gwaith ac yn ceisio mynd i fewn i’r gwaith. Mae’r ffigyrau hynny’n frawychus.
Mae dipyn mwy o ymchwil yn dod i’r fei ynglŷn â hyn. Dwi wedi bod â diddordeb ynddo ers blynyddoedd lawer, yn bennaf oherwydd fy mod yn ymwybodol bod llawer o bobl yn fy etholaeth eisiau hawlio trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, ond bod y ddarpariaeth ddim yna. Wnai sôn am hynny mewn munud. Mae fwy o ymchwil yn dod i’r fei rwan, gan gynnwys, Mr Hanson, o’ch ardal chi, gan Gyngor ar Bopeth Flintshire Citizens’ Advice. Buaswn yn cymeradwyo’r adroddiad “Our local experience of Universal Credit Full Service” i’r Aelodau anrhydeddus yn yr ystafell ac i unrhyw un sydd yn gwrando. Mae yna adroddiad misol—mae hwn o fis Hydref, mae un arall gen i fan hyn o fis Tachwedd y llynedd. Maen nhw’n cyhoeddi ffigyrau a ffeithiau digon diddorol. Bydd yr Aelodau anrhydeddus yn cofio, wrth gwrs, fod credyd cynhwysol wedi cael ei redeg fel peilot yn Shotton, felly mae ganddynt ddeunydd crai ar gyfer eu hymchwil sydd ddim ar gael mewn llefydd eraill. Mae ffeithiau dadlennol yno; roeddwn yn sbio arnynt rwan, tra’r oedd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Drefaldwyn yn siarad. Mae tri-chwarter y bobl a ddaeth atynt am gyngor yn ferched. Mae yna rhaniad gender eithaf sylweddol yn y fan yna.
Fel gwybodaeth i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a’i Gyfaill gwir anrhydeddus, y Canghellor, mae’r problemau oedd yn codi yn sir y Fflint yn codi allan o bethau fel camgymeriadau gan yr adran ei hun—roedd rheina’n frith; hawlio ar-lein yn broblemus yn arbennig i bobl heb sgiliau llythrennedd; gorfod disgwyl ar y ffôn yn ddiddiwedd; budd-dal tai ddim ar gael ar amser neu ddim yn cael ei dalu o gwbl; a’r cyfnod aros yn wrthgymhelliad â phobl yn dweud na allent ddisgwyl am chwech wythnos i gael yr arian. Yn fwyaf arwyddocaol, i ddweud y gwir, mae rhan fwyaf y problemau’n codi o gwmpas y cais cyntaf, gyda phobl yn ceisio gwneud cais ac yn methu neu yn cael camgymeriadau wrth wneud.
Does dim gwybodaeth fan hyn, gyda llaw, ynglŷn â hawlio trwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg. Roedd y peilot oedd yn cael ei rhedeg yn Shotton, lle nad oes cymaint o bobl yn siarad Cymraeg, ond dwi’n siwr y daw hyn i’r amlwg wrth i’r system gael ei weithredu trwy Gymru gyfan. Pan es i Shotton i weld y system gyfrifiadurol sydd ganddynt—mae hyn eto yn bwynt i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a’i gyfeillion yn y Cabinet—doedd y system ddim wedi ei chynllunio efo dwyieithrwydd yn y golwg. Hynny yw, system trwy gyfrwng y Saesneg a chais i foltio’r Gymraeg arni oedd bryd hynny o leiaf. Oherwydd hynny, roedd yna broblemau garw efo’r feddalwedd—does dim amheuaeth am hynny. Dwi yn ofni y gwelwn ni ragor o broblemau efo hynny. Buasai’n dda gweld y Llywodraeth yn gweithredu ymhellach na’r Canghellor y tro hwn.
Hoffwn orffen trwy nodi ychydig o newidiadau buddiol, fel rhyw rhestr siopa at y dyfodol, i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a’i Gyfaill gwir anrhydeddus, y Canghellor. Mae yna fân-doriadau wedi bod i gredyd cynhwysol yn barod ers iddo ddod i fewn. Mae yna rywfaint o dorri fan hyn a fan draw, rhyw dameidiau bach sydd yn mynd yn fwy ac, erbyn hyn, mae e’n £3 biliwn yn is o ran gwariant. Mae’n swm sylweddol iawn o ystyried bod y £3 biliwn yna, yn y bôn, yn dod o bocedi hawlwyr sydd ar incwm digon isel i hawlio, digon isel fel mae. Fel canran o’r boblogaeth, maen nhw’n colli £3 biliwn. Hefyd, ar hyn o bryd, mae hawliwr yn colli 63c o bob punt ychwanegol o incwm. Felly, os ydy rhywun yn gweithio fymryn yn galetach a chael punt ychwanegol o incwm, maen nhw’n colli 63c o fudd-dal. Dyma’r tapr.
Pan nes i ddechrau cymryd diddordeb yn y maes hwn bron i 30 mlynedd yn ôl erbyn hyn, pan oedd y Social Security Act 1986 yn dod i fewn, bryd hynny roedd y tapr yn fwy na phunt am bunt. Bydd rhai Aelodau yn cofio hynny: rhywun yn ennill £1 ac yn colli £1.20 oherwydd daeth budd-dal tai i fewn. Diolch byth, mae e lawr i 63c yn y bunt rwan, yn hytrach na 65c yn lled-ddiweddar. Mae’n parhau i fod yn llawer rhy uchel yn fy marn i ac mae’n wrthgymhelliad sylweddol i weithio mwy ac ennill mwy. Rydym yn sôn o hyd yn y lle yma am waith fel ffordd allan o dlodi. Wel, dyma ni: gwrthgymhelliad pendant. Dwn i’m beth tasai’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn dweud pe tasen i’n cynnig trethi incwm uwch ar 63% yn hytrach na 40%. Mae’n wrthgymhelliad. Mae fel bod y ddadl gwrthgymhelliad yn gweithio pan yn sôn am bobl sy’n ennill llawer iawn o bres—peidio a threthi. Ond dydy o ddim yn gweithio efo pobl sydd ar ryw ychydig; mae eisiau gwneud yn siwr eu bod yn gweithio’n galetach felly peidiwch a rhoi gormod yn eu pocedi. Dylid cymryd camau buan a sylweddol i leihau y tapr a medrwn ni edrych—gobeithio—ar y Canghellor i ystyried hynny.
O ran y rhestr yma, bydd rhai o’r Aelodau anrhydeddus yn gwybod bod gofal plant yn faich enfawr ar rieni pan maen nhw’n mynd yn ôl i waith. Mae gen i a fy ngwraig brofiad uniongyrchol diweddar o hyn. Diolch byth nad ydym ni’n hawlio credyd cynhwysol, oherwydd o dan y system yna mae’n rhaid talu am ofal plant ac yna hawlio yn ôl. Hynny yw, mae’n rhaid i rywun ffeindio’r pres i dalu efallai cannoedd—dros £1,000 efallai—am ofal plant llawn am ddau o blant, ac yna hawlio’r arian yn ôl. Mae hynna yn sicr yn rhoi pobl mewn dyled unwaith eto. Felly, byddai talu costau gofal plant ymlaen yn hytrach nag yn ôl yn newid bach na fyddai’n costio llawer i’r Llywodraeth. Mater o dalu’n gynt ydy o, nid mater o dalu’n ychwanegol. Cymeradwyaf hynny fel newid buddiol.
Yn olaf ar y rhestr mae’r lwfans gwaith, sy’n caniatau i rhai pobl ennill rhywfaint—gallant ennill hyn a hyn—heb effeithio ar eu budd-dâl. Ers talwm, pan ddechreuais gymryd diddordeb yn y mater, roedd yn cael ei alw’n “therapeutic earnings”. Dyna ydy’r pwynt: caniatáu i rywun fentro i’r gwaith ac ennill rhywfaint heb effeithio ar y fudd-dâl. Ar hyn o bryd, mae’r lwfans werth £397 y mis—bron £400—cyn i neb weld lleihau yn eu budd-dâl nhw. Ond cyn i’r newidadau ddod i fewn yn Ebrill 2016, roedd y ddarpariaeth yma ar gael nid yn unig i bobl anabl a rhieni, fel sy’n wir ar hyn o bryd, ond i bawb—roedd gan unrhywun y cymhelliant bach yna i fentro. Roedd rhai pobl yn medru ennill cymaint â £734 y mis, sydd bron dwyaith cymaint, ond nid yw hynny ar gael bellach. Byddai codi uchafswm y lwfans gwaith a’i estyn yn ôl i bob unigolyn, gan roi iddynt y cymhelliad i fynd at waith, yn gam positif iawn, yn arbenning pan fod un aelod o gwpwl yn gweithio. Efallai byddai hynny yn rhoi cymhelliad i’r ail aelod o’r cwpwl fynd i’r gwaith hefyd.
Cyfeiriais ar y cychwyn at synnwyr cyffredin o ran yr iaith Gymraeg. Ers hynny, rwyf wedi cyfeirio at dim ond cyfran fach o’r hyn fyddai Plaid Cymru am newid o ran y drefn budd-daliadau. Mae yna lawer iawn mwy hoffem wneud, ond mae hynny tu hwnt i sgôp y ddadl yma. Nid yn lleiaf, hoffem ddatganoli rhedeg y gyfundrefn a symud y cyfrifoldeb am nawdd cymdeithasol o ddydd i ddydd o’r lle yma i Gaerydd. Y rheswm dros hynny, wrth gwrs, yw ei fod yn ymarferol ac yn synnwyr cyffredin i roi datblygu’r economi, darparu addysg a hyfforddiant, gwasanaethu i bobl anabl, a phob math o bethau eraill, o dan yr un to â darparu incwm. Maent yn ffitio hefo’i gilydd yn dda iawn, ac mae hynny’n digwydd mewn rhannau eraill o’r Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cam cymharol syml—ac un gweinyddol yn y bôn—byddai symud y cyfrifoldeb am redeg y system o ddydd i ddydd o fan hyn i Gaerdydd. Ond, hyd at rŵan o leia, mae’n ymddangos bod yr enghraifft bach yma o synnwyr cyffredin y tu hwnt i ddirnadaeth y Llywodraeth yma ar hyn o bryd.
(Translation) I thank the hon. Member for Swansea West for that point. I was not aware of that research. We are talking about people who are right at the edge and are close to absolute poverty, and about those who are working on low incomes or are seeking to enter the field of employment. Those figures are frankly terrifying.
Further research is emerging on this issue. I have had an interest in it for many years, mainly because many people in my constituency try to claim through the medium of Welsh, and the provision is not available. I will talk about that issue later. More research is emerging, including from Citizens Advice Flintshire in your constituency, Mr Hanson. I commend its report entitled “Our local experience of Universal Credit Full Service” to hon. Members in the room and anyone who is listening. It is a monthly report. This is from October, and I have one available from last November. It publishes interesting figures and information. Hon. Members will remember that universal credit was run as a pilot in Shotton, so Citizens Advice Flintshire has material for its reports that is not available elsewhere. Some of the figures and information are very illuminating; Some of the figures and information are very illuminating; I was looking at them as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was speaking. Three quarters of those who came for advice were women, which suggests quite a substantial gender gap.
For the information of the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, let me briefly run through the problems in Flintshire, some of which arose because of mistakes by the Department. Claiming was problematic, particularly for people with literacy problems, who had to wait on the phone endlessly; housing benefit was not paid on time or not paid at all; and the waiting period was too long—many people could not wait six weeks for the money. Most significantly, most people’s problems arose in their first application, when they tried to make a claim but failed or found difficulties.
No information is given about the right to claim through the medium of Welsh. The pilot scheme was in Shotton, where not so very many people speak Welsh, but I am sure that that problem will become more evident as the system is rolled out throughout Wales. When I went to Shotton to see the scheme in operation—this is a point for the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues—I could see that the computer system had not been designed with bilingualism in mind. It seemed that it worked through the medium of English and that Welsh was bolted on, so there were severe problems with the software—there is no doubt about that. I fear that we will see further problems. It would be good to see the Government taking action and going further than the Chancellor did.
May I conclude by noting some changes that would be beneficial? I have a shopping list for the Secretary of State and the Chancellor. Since the introduction of universal credit, there have been a few small cuts to it here and there, but they are becoming larger. Some £3 billion less is being spent—a significant sum, when we consider that essentially it comes out of the pockets of those who are on low enough incomes to be claimants. That segment of the population is losing £3 billion. Additionally, a claimant who works hard to receive a further £1 of income will lose 63p of benefit as a result of the taper.
I first took an interest in the subject more than 30 years ago when the Social Security Act 1986 was passed. The taper was more than 100% at the time: as hon. Members will remember, people would lose £1.20 in benefit for every extra £1 they earned, because of the introduction of housing benefit. That taper has recently gone down from 65p to 63p in the £1, but in my view it is still much too high, because it is a significant disincentive to earn more. We often talk about work as a way out of poverty, but the taper is a definite disincentive. I do not know what the Secretary of State would say if I suggested taxing income at 63p rather than 40p in the £1; it seems that talking about disincentives works as an argument against taxing people who earn a great deal of money, but not as an argument against stopping people on lower incomes trying to earn more. I hope the Chancellor will reconsider the taper.
This is not the final point on my shopping list, but as some hon. Members will know, childcare is a large burden on parents when they return to work. My wife and I have direct recent experience of this. I am so very grateful that we do not claim universal credit, because under that system people have to pay for the childcare and then claim it back. People have to find perhaps over £1,000 for full-time childcare and then they can claim that money back. That will certainly put people into debt. Paying childcare costs forward, rather than claiming them back, would be a step forward. It would not cost much more to the Government; it is just a matter of paying more quickly rather than paying any additional sums. I would commend that as a beneficial change.
Finally on this shopping list is the work allowance, which allows some people to gain some money without having it affect their benefit. Some hon. Members will have interest in this, in terms of therapeutic earnings allowing someone to enter the workforce and then to earn a certain amount of money without it having an impact on the benefit. The allowance is £397—nearly £400—before anyone sees a reduction in their benefit, but before the changes in April 2016, this provision was available not only for disabled people and parents, as is the case currently, but everyone. Anyone could gain that incentive to step forward. Some people could earn as much as £734 a month, which is almost twice as much as now, but that is no longer available. Increasing the allowance would affect all individuals. It would incentivise them to get into work. It would be a very positive step, particularly when one half of a couple is working. It would give the second member of that couple an incentive to work as well.
I referred to common sense at the beginning, in terms of the Welsh language. Since then I have referred to only a small percentage of what Plaid Cymru would want to change in the benefits system. I could have said much more, but it is beyond the scope of this debate. However, not least is the devolution of funding the system: moving the responsibility for the day-to-day benefits system from here to Cardiff. That makes practical common sense, so that the economy can be developed, skills and training provided and services provided for disabled people. All those and other things can be done under the same roof as providing an income. All these things fit together very well. They are done in other parts of the United Kingdom. A simple, and basically an administrative, step would be to move the responsibility for running the system on a day-to-day basis from here to Cardiff. It is a small step, but it seems to be beyond this Government at present.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. I have six hon. Members who wish to speak and I will be calling the Front- Bench spokes- people from 3.30 pm, so we have 45 minutes for six speakers, which is less than 10 minutes per person. I call Chris Davies.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Diolch, Mr Hanson. I will keep within those 10 minutes. Given that the majority, if not all, of Government Members present have either started off or fully delivered their speeches in Welsh, I shall try to put my Labour colleagues at ease by speaking through the medium of English.
I am delighted to praise the autumn Budget and I am delighted to see its effect on my constituency. Brecon and Radnorshire has one of the lowest unemployment rates not just in Wales, but in the whole of Great Britain. That is because of the way in which we are delivering and looking after the economy in this country. It is a great boost. Many Opposition Members decry the low unemployment figures, but it is a massive boost for this country. We are very lucky indeed that we have so many people in work. The boost it gives to people in work and to families is immeasurable.
Much has been said already, so I will try to pick up a few points before I sit down. The tidal lagoon has been mentioned. As someone who represents a mid-Wales seat—I will come on to that—why I am I mentioning it? In the southern end of Brecon and Radnorshire in particular, jobs would be created, tourism would be helped and the economy would be boosted.
Many Opposition Members will remember that I led the Westminster Hall debate on Swansea’s city of culture bid. I was asked to do it, and as a Swansea boy I was delighted to support Swansea in any which way I could. However, I am not prepared to see my constituents having to pay electricity bills that are twice or even three times the amount they pay at the moment. I want the tidal lagoon to go ahead, but we must ensure that the figures stack up. The Secretary of State made that clear earlier, as we have heard in all the debates. However political we want to be in this place, we owe a duty to our constituents to ensure that the figures add up.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Government seem to lack commitment to invest in renewable energies and look after the air quality of Gower, Swansea and south Wales. As has been said, we still have no electrification to Swansea, and in my constituency there is a proposal to put in a gas power station, with potentially £100 million coming from central Government. That will not help provide clean air to my constituents, yet the Government are shirking on the tidal lagoon. Something must be wrong there.
Chris Davies
“Shirking” is in interesting choice of word. It would have been easy to give in and say, “The figures cannot be met and the lagoon cannot go ahead.” That is what a weaker Government would have done, but this Conservative Government have tried every which way possible and are still doing so to ensure that it happens. They are trying hard, and if it is possible we will succeed.
David T. C. Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that if Carwyn Jones is serious about putting £200 million into the project, the Welsh Affairs Committee offers him an ideal platform to tell us all about it?
Chris Davies
I concur. Is it £200 million, or is it £2 million—do we really know what Carwyn Jones is offering? Do not forget that that is taxpayers’ money, not Welsh Assembly or Westminster Government money. He could come clean and say that, because this is a bill to the taxpayer, not to the Welsh Assembly or the Westminster Government. We must get it right.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman managed to read the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports on his Government’s decision to build Hinkley Point? They say it will cost an extra £13 billion in public subsidy, which will be paid for by the poorest taxpayers. Is it not true that the cheapest electricity in Wales comes from the Dinorwig pumped-storage scheme in north Wales? There is huge potential for water power in Wales, which is being ignored by the Government in exchange for nuclear power stations, with one possibly in Wylfa to be built by a Japanese company because it cannot build them in Japan anymore.
Chris Davies
We have to be cautious about any audit report and investigate further. The hon. Gentleman will remember when Conservative Members of Parliament visited Newport to look at the possibility of a Newport lagoon. The Conservative Government have not only committed to trying to make it happen in Swansea but to make the whole lagoon structure work. We are trying to put the figures together. I will move on, because the tidal lagoon is a small part of what I have to say.
I am delighted that defence investment continues at 2% of GDP, and in Brecon and Radnorshire there is strong commitment to the Infantry Battle School, the training ground in Sennybridge, and Dering Lines. The military play an important part in Wales, and I am delighted that the Government continue to support them in every which way.
Let us not forget a small item we have missed in the Budget: £4.7 million has gone to refurbishing and modernising poppy factories. They may not be in Wales, but they supply poppies to Wales. For most people in this room and outside in Wales, that is the closest they get to remembering those who have lost their lives in battle. That is very important and an item that, sadly, has been overlooked, but it is in there to support our traditional elements.
We have heard much talk about agriculture. Over the past 12 months many farmers in my constituency have seen an increase in the price of lamb and beef on the hoof in the markets, as a result of the lower value of the pound. Many who voted for Brexit—the vast majority of them did so—are looking towards the future and the great expectations it holds. They are not frightened, but they are concerned—they do not know what is going to happen, but they are looking forward to the opportunities. I wish more politicians did that, instead of constantly criticising the Brexit process.
I am delighted that the Budget did not contain a tourism tax. Brecon and Radnorshire relies exceptionally heavily on tourism, as do the constituencies of many Members present, but the Labour and Liberal-run Welsh Government already seem to be talking about a tourism tax, which would decimate the tourism industry in this country. I hope that Opposition Members will tell their Welsh Assembly colleagues how devastating it would be and what a disastrous idea it is for Wales.
Chris Davies
I agree.
The mid-Wales growth deal has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. The one question that has never come out anyone’s mouth in the Houses of Parliament, or even I think in the Welsh Assembly, is that of mid-Wales. Where does it start and where does it end? Where does south Wales start and stop? Where does mid-Wales start and stop? Where does north Wales start and stop?
As many Members know, my constituency is considered to be a mid-Wales seat, but the southern tip of my boundary is only 15 miles from Swansea bay. We have to think long and hard about where the mid-Wales growth deal will come in and where it will stop. What about constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd? The southern part of her constituency could be part of a mid-Wales growth deal and would benefit from it. It is not just about Brecon, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Ceredigion. The mid-Wales growth deal could be of great benefit to the majority of Wales, because the majority of Wales now seems to be mid-Wales.
I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who has responsibility for the northern powerhouse and local growth, has already visited Powys County Council to get the ball rolling. Before going on to do great things at the Ministry of Defence, the former Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), also visited Powys County Council to ensure that it was starting to think about where to lead with the mid-Wales growth deal. The current Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales will visit shortly and lead the project forward, along with Lord Bourne from the House of Lords. The options are never-ending.
We have made it clear to local authorities that the mid-Wales growth deal will spread from east to west, across Offa’s Dyke, because a lot of people in my constituency and in Montgomeryshire naturally cross that invisible border every day, whether to work or shop. Clearly, we have to tie everything in. I am delighted that the Chancellor mentioned the mid-Wales growth deal in the Budget. This is the first time we are seeing some real joined-up thinking from a Government. I praise the Conservative Government for starting the deal. It is a start and not a finish, but I am sure hon. Members will be disappointed to hear that it is the finish of my speech. I look forward to the mid-Wales growth deal.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Gadewch i mi ddechrau trwy ddweud pa mor falch ydw i i gael y cyfle i siarad Cymraeg heddiw. Mae’n un o ieithoedd swyddogol y Deyrnas Unedig ac mae llawer o fy etholwyr yng Ngogledd Caerdydd yn ei siarad. Felly rwyf yn gobeithio y bydd fy nghyd-Aelodau a minnau yn cael siarad Cymraeg yn y brif Siambr hefyd cyn bo hir. Nawr byddaf yn troi at y Saesneg oherwydd dwi’n dal i ddysgu Cymraeg.
(Translation) Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to speak Welsh here today. It is one of the official languages of the United Kingdom, and many of my constituents speak the language. I hope therefore that hon. Members and I will have an opportunity to speak Welsh in the main Chamber before too long. I will now turn to English, because I am still learning Welsh.
I am sure that my colleagues and the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Jack Sargeant on an absolutely excellent win in the by-election in Alyn and Deeside yesterday, increasing Labour’s majority after a brilliant campaign. He now joins our Welsh Labour colleagues in Cardiff Bay, representing his constituents and helping to deliver record levels of investment in our NHS, an extra £100 million in funding for schools, 20,000 more affordable homes and the best childcare offer for working parents in the United Kingdom.
That is in stark contrast to the Tories’ shameful approach to our nation, with the Secretary of State for Wales constantly undermining the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government, and complaining that too much power has been “centralised” in Cardiff. It is obvious that that is an attempt to create divisions within Wales, to distract people from the fact that the Tories do not care about investment in Wales, consistently ignore recommendations from the Welsh Government and exclude Wales from Brexit negotiations.
The Secretary of State is just Westminster’s representative in Wales, not Wales’s representative in Westminster, and as a mouthpiece for the Tories in Westminster he continues to block policies that would allow Wales to create more jobs and lower energy costs, as well as undermining devolution at every opportunity. It is embarrassing how obvious he and his Government make their lack of respect for Wales as a devolved nation.
The Budgets presented by this UK Government have consistently punished Wales. The UK Government give in to the likes of the Democratic Unionist party to save their own jobs. And where was the Secretary of State for Wales when the DUP was given a billion pounds for Northern Ireland? Why did he not stand up for Wales? Why did he not demand more money? In fact, where is he now?
The Welsh budget has experienced year-on-year cuts as a result of the UK Government’s ongoing policy of austerity. By 2022, when we will have had more than 10 years of Conservative rule—hopefully not—UK GDP is forecast to be £41 billion, or around 3%, lower than previously forecast. On this Westminster Government’s watch, libraries, leisure centres and youth clubs are closing, because they have starved the Welsh Government and Welsh councils of money. Mental health services are being cut back, too. Since 2010, 25,000 local authority jobs in Wales have gone and the services that make our communities healthier and more liveable in are disappearing, because of lack of funding from Westminster. The austerity politics of this UK Government is killing our communities in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales tells us that all that must be the fault of the Welsh Government. However, the seven-year public sector pay cap of this Tory Government has reduced the wages of carers, school support staff, cleaners, highway maintenance staff and many more public sector workers by more than 20%. Since 2010, nurses have suffered a 14% pay cut in real terms and current estimates are that 3,000 nursing jobs in Wales are unfilled.
In my constituency of Cardiff North, where we have the highest number of public sector workers in Wales, I have spoken to nurses who have to resort to foodbanks, and to other public sector workers who are barely making ends meet. That is unacceptable, and we should not use Welsh Government funding to resolve an issue that should be put right at UK level. If Welsh Government funding is used, we would see millions of pounds being taken from frontline services and from the budget of NHS Wales, risking thousands of public sector jobs. It is absolutely essential that this UK Government provide the funding that Wales needs, and that they treat our public sector workers with fairness and equality.
Moving on, the effects of climate change and resource depletion mean that the old, tired ways of doing business are an insufficient response to the challenges we face today. Governments and businesses must come together to create new models of sustainable growth. That is happening in Wales, and it comes at a time when Welsh industries and businesses face the danger of a hard Tory Brexit. The best way to protect our nation is to retain full access to the European single market and a customs union.
In the same way that the availability of natural resources put Wales at the forefront of the first industrial revolution, driving the growth in what was then iron, coal, steel and manufacturing, our abundant natural resources can now drive the growth of a new and different economy, which will be rooted in the sustainable and intelligent use of those resources. That is in stark contrast to the shambolic direction of the Tories in England, who seem unable to give a steer on climate targets or long-term sustainable growth. The tidal lagoon has been discussed. It is shameful that the UK Government cannot come to a decision—Tory Ministers consistently undermine it, despite, as we have heard, investment from the Welsh Government.
In a competitive global marketplace, companies will invest where there are the best conditions to make long-term sustainable growth possible. The Welsh Government have recognised that and introduced a strong legislative framework that gives certainty beyond electoral cycles. In the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 the Welsh Labour Government have set out a far-reaching economic, environmental and social agenda. That strong ambition and drive can help Wales to become a world leader in green growth, providing a platform and location where companies that share those values can thrive. I am proud to have played a part in introducing the carrier bag charge seven years before it was introduced in England, as well as to have helped to develop a truly sustainable Wales.
It is clear that the next 20 years will see a period of massive technological change. Young peoples’ voices will be critical to that process as the generation who will be at the heart of driving change over the next 20 years. The challenge now is to drive green growth widely and quickly, as we face the risks and opportunities of the 21st century. Successful markets need a strong clear vision and an effective regulatory regime. The UK Tory Government have neither. If they have any real ambition to lead on green growth they must do likewise, and put in place long-term statutory goals to reflect what we want now and in the future. They need to improve the position of business and prioritise investing in high-quality sustainable infrastructure, such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which will make Wales a far more attractive place to do business.
At the moment the UK Government and the Secretary of State for Wales are an embarrassment. They cannot take a decision on the tidal lagoon; there are U-turns on rail electrification investment; and they have failed to invest in energy efficiency or renewable energy, which would provide the vital economic and environmental infrastructure needed to boost growth and support the environment. Diolch yn fawr.
Paul Flynn
Hoffwn ymddiheurio am fy absenoldeb y bore yma. Rwyf yn falch i fod yma. Roeddwn yn edrych ar hanes yr iaith Gymraeg yma a’r brwydrau dros y blynyddoedd. Rwy’n llongyfarch fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus yr Aelod dros Dde Clwyd. Dim ond dwy flynedd yn ôl, pan oedd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Drafnidiaeth yn Arweinydd y Tŷ, dywedodd na.
Roedd fy nghwestiwn cyntaf fel aelod o’r Mainc Flaen yn 1988 am siarad Cymraeg yma. Cyfrinach fy ngyrfa yn y Tŷ yw bod pawb yn cytuno gyda phob gair rwy’n dweud 30 mlynedd ar ôl i mi ddweud e. Dyna sut mae pethau’n gweithio yn y Tŷ Cyffredin—rhaid aros am byth i bobl cytuno â chi.
Rwyf yn cytuno â phopeth sydd wedi’i ddweud am forlyn llanw Abertawe. Mae’n nonsens i’r Llywodraeth wrthod gweld posibiliadau ffynhonell pŵer sydd yn rhydd inni ac sydd yn golchi arfordir Cymru ddwywaith y dydd; rydym yn gwybod pryd fydd hyn yn digwydd—yn wahanol i rai pwerau adnewyddadwy eraill. Mae’n lân, yn wyrdd a byddai’n rhoi ynni inni am genedlaethau.
I ddychwelyd at y Gymraeg, a’r peth pwysig sydd yn digwydd heddiw, rwy’n arbennig o falch ein bod ni heddiw yn rhoi urddas i’r Gymraeg ac yn dangos i’n plant fod gan yr iaith statws. Dylem fod yn falch o’r iaith. Roedd y Gymraeg yn iaith lenyddol, gyda rhyddiaith a barddoniaeth cyfoethog iawn, cyn genedigaeth yr iaith Saesneg. Dwy fil o flynyddoedd yn ôl, yng Nghaerleon yn fy etholaeth, roedd yn bosib gwrando ar blant yn siarad dwy iaith. Intra muros—oddi fewn i’r waliau—roedd y plant yn siarad Lladin, ond ultra muros—tu allan i’r waliau—roeddynt yn siarad Cymraeg. Pa iaith sydd wedi ffynnu? ’Dwi ddim yn clywed llawer o Ladin yn cael ei siarad gan bobl a phlant Casnewydd. Dylem ymfalchïo yn beth sy’n digwydd yma: tipyn bach o ateb i’r sarhad ar yr iaith Gymraeg dros y blynyddoedd.
Does dim llawer o amser gen i, felly gad inni dalu teyrnged i’r iaith drwy gofio geiriau’r bardd am ei pharhad:
“Aros mae’r mynyddau mawr,
Rhuo trostynt mae y gwynt;
Clywir eto gyda’r wawr
Gân bugeiliaid megis cynt.
Wedi oes dymhestlog hir
Alun Mabon mwy nid yw,
Ond mae’r heniaith yn y tir
A’r alawon hen yn fyw.”
(Translation) I apologise for being absent this morning, but I am pleased to be here. I was looking at the history of the Welsh language in this place and the battles that have taken place over the years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South on this occasion; but just two years ago, when the Secretary of State for Transport was Leader of the House, he said no, we could not do it.
The first question I asked in 1988, when I was a Front-Bencher, was on using the Welsh language in this place. The secret of my career in the House is that everyone agrees with every word I say 30 years after I have said it. That is how things work in the Commons; you have to wait a very long time before people come round to agreeing with you.
I agree with everything that has been said on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. It is a nonsense for the Government not to see the possibilities that exist there, with that renewable source of energy that is freely available to us. It washes over our shores in Wales twice a day, and we know with certainty when it will come, which is not the case with some other renewable sources. It is clean energy, green energy, and it will provide us with power for generations.
If I return to the Welsh language and the important events of today, I am particularly proud that this is giving dignity to the Welsh language, and showing our children that the language has status. We should be proud of the language. The Welsh language was a literary language with a rich history of poetry and prose before the English language was spoken. Some 2,000 years ago, in Caerleon in my constituency, it was possible to hear children speaking two languages. Intra muros, within the walls, they spoke Latin; extra muros, beyond the walls, they spoke Welsh. Which language has prospered since those days? I do not hear a huge amount of Latin spoken by the people of Newport at the moment.
We should take pride in the Welsh language and in what is happening here, because it goes some way to righting the injustices done to the Welsh language over many years. Although I do not have much time, I urge hon. Members to remember the words of the poet about the survival of the language:
“The great mountains remain
The wind roars across them
The song of shepherds is heard again with the dawn, as before.
After a tempestuous age
Alun Mabon is no more
But the old language is in the land
And the old tunes live.”
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Hanson. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The recent Budget did very little for any part of the UK, but it did absolutely nothing for Wales. I will focus on two specific issues that could and should have benefited from this year’s Budget. I will talk specifically about the 1950s women’s pension scandal and a campaign very personal to me, the children’s funeral campaign.
By now, many on these Benches know what I am going to say regarding the unfair and unjust treatment of 1950s women. Without the time to prepare and make the necessary alternative arrangements, many women born in the 1950s are left in financial despair. That is nothing new to the Government. We have been here before and, sadly, no doubt we will be here again. It is important to reiterate that a pension is not a benefit; it is an entitlement that those women have paid into. Many 1950s women—today I am specifically talking about Welsh 1950s women—are currently in work not because they want to be, but because they have to be. Almost 200,000 women in Wales are or will be dramatically affected by the changes to the state pension and more than 3,000 in my own constituency have been unfairly treated by these changes. Many of these women are desperate. They call my office every day and tell me they have had to sell their furniture and other belongings, and are relying on family, friends and, for some, even food banks just to exist.
The ability to work and the availability of jobs are not options for all women born in the 1950s who find themselves in this position. For some of these women, their jobs are physically demanding, and because of their health they can no longer do things they were able to do when they were younger. Therefore, many of these Welsh women are having to rely on the benefits system. Case-load data for unemployment benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit, have significantly increased with the number of women over 60 who are accessing such benefits.
Many Welsh local authorities are stepping up to the plate and calling on the Government to make appropriate provision for these women. We know that local authorities such as Caerphilly, Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda, Wrexham and my own in Swansea have all pledged support for a fair transitional payment for these women, and many more local authorities are working towards replicating that pledge.
We must be a voice for 1950s women and we must not give up, because, to this Government’s dismay, the problem is not going away. I am proud to say that the Welsh Government give free bus passes to every individual aged 60 or over. That puts Welsh 1950s women at an advantage, in as much as they are able to travel freely. That is especially important if they are expected to travel to benefits offices or work-trial placements as a requirement of the unemployment benefit that they have to claim to survive. As this campaign goes on, so the Government’s shame grows. Every debate that this Government hear is a missed opportunity to put this issue right. It is time the Government started listening to what these women say.
Now I turn to a very, very personal campaign: the children’s funeral fund. Many will have heard me talk about this in the Chamber on a number of occasions, but it is so important to me that I need to talk about it again. I thank all those Members, some of whom are in this room, who, on a cross-party basis, signed a letter that I recently sent to the Prime Minister. For 14 months I have been asking the Government to show compassion, to ease the pressure on bereaved parents and to introduce a UK-wide children’s funeral fund. For 14 months I have been stalled. I have had my hopes raised, only to be overlooked on Budget day, not once but twice.
Thankfully, last year, the Welsh Labour Government listened. They realised that for a relatively modest amount of money, they could make a considerable difference to bereaved parents in their hour of need. They established a children’s funeral fund, meaning that across Wales, thanks to the additional support from many national and independent undertakers, parents can bury their children without the added worry of how they will afford it.
Sadly, every year about 10,000 parents are left devastated by the death of their child. I know from personal experience that the grief is indescribable. The idea of putting a price on the funeral of your loved child is something that, undoubtedly, no one would ever want to consider, until they are forced to and face that bill.
Councils around the UK have made concessions and have also looked at scrapping the fees. As a result of my campaign, which I am very proud of, I am pleased to say that many have now scrapped their fees. For some councils, reduced budgets mean that it is just not an option. In the most extreme cases, the up-front costs of a funeral can be as high as £4,000. Even if every one of the 5,000 children who tragically die every year lived in an area that charged £4,000, the fund would still need to be only £10 million annually. We know that sum is a rarity. Most local authorities charge less than £1,000, so the amount that I am asking for is so far below £10 million that it is literally small change: it is not a big sum of money for the Treasury.
This campaign is supported across the House. I have met and I continue to meet Ministers to explain why this fund is so crucial to families, but nobody listens to me. Ministers need to follow Wales’s example. I have seen at first hand the difference it makes.
Last summer, I visited a Co-op funeral director when a young couple came in who had just had stillborn twins. The funeral director did not charge them for the funeral. When I could tell them that the Welsh Government were not going to charge them either, their relief was palpable. They had lost their children and they could not lose anything else.
It is so important that the Government listen to what I am saying and that they follow the lead of the Welsh Government and make this happen. I cannot talk any more. Please, listen.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Hanson. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East for the passionate and compassionate way in which she has organised her campaign. I hope that the Government will take the time to listen to her campaign. It is a pleasure to speak in this historic Welsh Grand Committee and it is sad that it is only the second to be held in the two and a half years since I was elected to this place.
The Prime Minister and her UK Tory Government have slashed funding to Wales by more than £l billion per annum, and have imposed a public sector pay cap that impacts on Welsh workers and those across the UK in our most vital public services. We have heard time and again that the Government have refused to invest in vital Welsh infrastructure projects such as the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and rail electrification. Unfortunately, the Chancellor did not use the opportunity of his autumn Budget to address those shortcomings and to invest in Welsh infrastructure, to end the Tories’ failed austerity agenda or to lift the public sector pay cap. This Budget really felt like missed opportunities for Wales. It is clear that this Tory Government have proven time and again that they have little or no respect for Wales.
I would like to concentrate briefly on three areas, the first of which is the public sector pay cap. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, touched on this morning, although the UK Government have made pay offers in excess of 1% for some sectors, the pay cap effectively remains in place for the vast majority of public sector workers. It is important that the Government do not cherry-pick pay rises for some public sector workers in what could be seen as an attempt to divide. We need to see an end to the public sector pay cap, with a fully funded pay rise for all those working in our public services.
Local authorities have tried to help to ease the situation. The two local authorities serving my constituency, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and Caerphilly County Borough Council, decided during the previous council term to become living wage employers, thus helping to mitigate the pay cap. Across Wales, the Welsh Government have indicated their support for our public sector workers and have repeatedly called on the UK Government to end the cap on public sector pay and to give workers across the UK a much-deserved, properly funded pay rise. The Welsh Government have stated:
“The UK Government must do the right thing and lift the pay cap right across the UK public sector as part of a wider strategy to end their damaging policy of austerity.”
There are suggestions that the Welsh Government could take more action, but if they did lift the public sector pay cap unilaterally, every 1% above it would take £110 million from frontline services. Clearly, that would threaten thousands of public sector jobs in Wales and is not a practical or sensible way forward. With huge cuts to the Welsh budget and local government funding in recent years, the Welsh Government are clearly unable to take further action without funding from the UK Government. It is therefore incumbent on the UK Government to take action, do the right thing and remove the pay cap across the UK. The Welsh Government have already committed to use any funding consequentials they receive from the UK Government as a result of public sector pay rises more generally to raise the pay cap for public sector workers in Wales.
Secondly, I highlight the impact of the Tory Budget and the austerity agenda on keeping communities safe in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, across Wales and across the UK. The evidence is that the Tory Government are failing to keep our communities safe. That is apparent from new figures, which reveal that crime in the South Wales police and Gwent police force areas is increasing. The new crime figures show the highest annual rise in police-recorded crime since comparable records began in 2002.
Two thirds of my constituency is covered by South Wales police and the remaining third by Gwent police. In the South Wales police area, violent crime rose by 15%, sexual offences by 42% and total recorded crime by 11%. In the Gwent police area, violent crime rose by 20%, sexual offences by 31% and total recorded crime by 14%. At the same time, we know that the Tory cuts have sent police officer numbers nationwide to their lowest level in three decades. Since 2010, South Wales police have lost 257 officers, while Gwent police have lost 283. It is shameful that the public are now being forced to pay the price for the risk that the Tories took with community safety by slashing 21,000 police officers across England and Wales.
I and many other Members have built close relationships with our local forces—in my case, South Wales police and Gwent police—and have raised police cuts numerous times in parliamentary debates. I have had the privilege to spend a number of shifts with officers in both Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, seeing at first hand the officers’ dedication and the excellent work they are doing to keep our communities safe, despite their diminishing resources. Our police officers are working extremely hard in very difficult circumstances. However, the Government must realise that cuts have consequences, and the latest figures certainly reveal that the Tories are failing in their duty to protect the public.
Finally, I raise the issue of jobs and public procurement. In the Budget and the Brexit negotiations, the Government constantly claim that they are working hard to protect jobs and the economy. However, in recent months, there has been much speculation about Ministry of Defence contracts for the new mechanised infantry vehicles—MIVs—being awarded to German firms on a single-source-contract basis. That is deeply concerning to me as the representative of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, where we have General Dynamics starting to assemble the new generation of armoured vehicles. General Dynamics has a long and proud history in south Wales, based for many years in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn. The additional base in Merthyr Tydfil demonstrates General Dynamics’ commitment to the area and to Wales.
I believe that General Dynamics is well placed to compete for those contracts, and should at the very least have the opportunity to compete in an open and transparent tender process. I hope that the Secretary of State will today confirm that the Wales Office is doing all it can to ensure that the MOD will give Welsh firms, including General Dynamics, the opportunity to bid for that work, to support and sustain hundreds of Welsh jobs. I hope he will have had the opportunity to have a discussion with his colleague, the hon. Member for Aberconwy, who was the previous Wales Minister before he went to his new role as the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement.
Finally, there are many other areas where the Government need to take stock and listen. Their austerity agenda is failing—it is failing Wales and it is failing the UK. If the Government are unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to improve the lives of our constituents, they need to move aside and make way for a Government who will.
Geraint Davies
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I will be brief, so I will speak in English. I say in passing that my mam-gu—my grandmother—had to wear the “Welsh Not”, which was introduced after the Blue Books. Children were required to pass on a “Welsh Not” to a child who spoke Welsh. They were beaten at the end of the day, and she was beaten at the end of every day because she was very religious and did not want to pass on the “Welsh Not”.
I thought I would also mention, on the centenary of women’s suffrage, an Emily—not Emily Davison or Emmeline Pankhurst, but Emily Phipps. She was one of the 17 women who stood 100 years ago, and she was in fact from the Swansea area. She hid in a cave in the Gower to avoid the census, as a protest.
David T. C. Davies
I just wanted to make the point that Blue Books were dreamt up by a radical who was a forerunner to a Labour party MP.
Geraint Davies
I certainly regret taking that intervention. On the Budget, the mammoth in the room is obviously Brexit. This Budget should have been preparing Wales for Brexit. Some 70% of our trade goes to the EU, and 25,000 jobs in Swansea bay depend on those exports. We wanted to see investment in infrastructure and skills to boost productivity to our most important market, but instead there has been a failure in rail investment, including the electrification of Swansea. There was no commitment on the Swansea metro that we asked for, either. I mentioned earlier that despite having 6% of the rail network, Wales gets only 1% to 2% of the overall investment.
People have mentioned the lagoon. At a time when 80% of fossil fuels cannot be exploited, if we are to avoid irreversible climate change it is plainly stupid not to invest at the start of a technology that could drive a future global export market. It is strange that the cost per unit of energy at Hinkley Point far exceeds the projected cost for the lagoon. The reason, of course, is Brexit; the Prime Minister needs to go out to China on bended knee, ignoring human rights and everything else, plead for a trade deal, and we are suffering the consequences.
On skills, the primary skills delivery system is the Welsh Assembly Government, but they have undergone cuts of some 5% in the last year alone—£900 million in cuts. That is delivering cuts on the doorstep of local schools, and Swansea is certainly suffering as a result of that.
I welcome the news on tolls. That tax on Welsh trade and industry has been going on for far too long. The fuel freeze should have been more sophisticated, to push us in a more sustainable direction for transport in terms of our air quality problems; there are 40,000 diesel deaths a year in Britain.
People have not talked about quantitative easing. Basically, quantitative easing lifts asset values so the rich get richer and the poor stay poor or get poorer. The value of property in Camden is now worth more than the value of all property in the whole of Wales.
On austerity, I mentioned earlier that a study done by University College London and the University of Cambridge attributed 40,000 deaths to austerity between 2010 and 2014, and 152,000 more are expected between 2015 and 2020. Until 2010, the death rate was falling by 0.7% a year; it is now rising by 0.8%. The International Monetary Fund has shown that greater inequality generates less growth. What we are doing in Britain is making the poor poorer to pay for the bankers’ greed. In so doing, we are stifling growth. All that pay freezes, cuts to benefits and universal credit do is prevent people who would spend every penny they have to reflate the economy from doing so. They are becoming ill, and becoming liabilities to our social and health services. We are in a crisis. We must invest in a stronger, fairer future for Wales and Britain. That means investing in our skills, productivity and infrastructure, especially in Wales, which is the poorest part of western Europe, particularly the valleys and west Wales.
Finally, I will mention in passing some of the issues with universal credit. Although the Labour party has said that we should pause and look again, the reality is that the universal credit system pulls together through complicated computer systems—the Inland Revenue system, the local authority system and the jobcentre system—into an integrated system that is doomed to failure, as a way of delaying and reducing overall benefit costs and cutting corners, in the hope that the poorest, who are often the most vulnerable, can cope with their own meagre allowance and pay the rent themselves rather than being tempted to spend it on other things, even though they face delays and loans. This is a mean Government causing terrible damage to Wales, particularly its poorer communities. We need to think again and invest in the future and in productivity. We need a fairer, better Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Hoffwn gychwyn trwy ddathlu’r cyfle heddiw i dorri tir newydd a defnyddio’r Gymraeg fel iaith gyfartal yn un o Bwyllgorau agored Tŷ’r Cyffredin. Rwyf yn cymryd y cyfle hefyd i nodi blaengaredd yr hen Gyngor Dosbarth Dwyfor, a benderfynodd ym 1974 mai’r Gymraeg fyddai brif iaith weinyddol yr awdurdod. Ers 1996, y Gymraeg sydd hefyd wedi bod yn brif iaith weinyddol Cyngor Gwynedd, ac yn ei siambr mae’n arfer i siaradwyr Cymraeg ddefnyddio’r iaith bob amser pan yn annerch yn gyhoeddus, wrth areithio, wrth ateb cwestiynau ac wrth ymyrryd. Mae’r rheswm am hyn yn syml: er mwyn diogelu defnydd y Gymraeg yn erbyn y norm cyndeithasol o droi i’r Saesneg. Pan fydd siaradwr Cymraeg yn troi i’r Saesneg mewn amgylchedd dwyieithog, yn ddigon buan rydym yn profi bod y Gymraeg ddim yn cael ei defnyddio o gwbl. Nid mater o ddiffyg cwrteisi i bobl di-Gymraeg ydy hyn, eithr mater o gynnal lle diogel i’r iaith mewn bywyd cyhoeddus.
Hoffwn hefyd estyn fy niolch a’m cefnogaeth i bob Aelod Seneddol—o’n i’n mynd i drial eu henwi nhw ond mae yna ormod i mi ddweud—a phob aelod o staff seneddol sy’n mynd ati i ddysgu Cymraeg. Daliwch ati, gwnewch gamgymeriadau, peidiwch â gwrando ar y bobl hynny—ac ma’ ’na ormod ohonyn nhw—sy’n uchafu cywirdeb dros bopeth. A mentrwch i siarad yn hytrach nag aros yn ddistaw. Dim ond trwy ddefnyddio iaith y mae hi’n byw.
Mae pawb sydd wedi defnyddio’r Gymraeg, yn ogystal â phawb sydd wedi defnyddio’r offer gwrando ac, wrth gwrs, y cyfieithwyr yn y cefn yn arloeswyr un ac oll, gyda’n gilydd. Gan ein bod yn sôn bod y sefydliad hwn yn gwneud y defnydd gorau o dechnoleg, mae hyn y gyfle, pan fyddwn yn cael ein decantio, i gynllunio rwan i wireddu caniatáu defnydd o ieithoedd heblaw Saesneg a Ffrangeg Normanaidd i’r dyfodol. Mae yna gyfle i wneud hyn pan fyddwn ni’n mynd o ’ma.
Wrth gyfeirio yn gyntaf oll at yr hyn ddywedodd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, nid yn annisgwyl yr oedd yn canmol rhinweddau Cyllideb yr hydref, yn unol â ac sy’n ddisgwyliedig o’i swydd. Roedd yn ateb yn ôl y disgwyl i gwestiynau parthed diffyg trydaneiddio rhwng Caerdydd ac Abertawe a rheilffordd y Gogledd, a diffyg penderfyniad parthed morlyn Abertawe a’r morlynoedd potensial eraill. Cyfeiriodd at gynnydd Barnett—the Barnett uplift—ond nodwn fod y rhan fwyaf ar ffyrdd benthyciadau. Siaradodd, fel eraill o’i blaid, am gydweithio trawsffiniol. Is-neges sydd i hyn, sef sut y gall Gymru helpu Lloegr.
Nid ein gorllewin ni—gorllewin Cymru—fydd prif fuddiolwr ei bwerdai gorllewinol ond gorllewin Lloegr, gyda briwsion yn unig i orllewin Cymru, dwi’n ofni. Dilynwch yr arian. Yn dilyn degawd o deyrnasu Torïaidd yn San Steffan, mae Cymru yn parhau i fod yn un o wledydd tlotaf Ewrop. Mae cyflogau wythnosol, ar gyfartaledd, yn £393 yng Nghymru o’i gymharu â £434 yn Lloegr. Mae cynhyrchedd Cymru yn 80% o gynhyrchedd y Deyrnas Gyfunol, tra bod Llundain yn nes at 150%. Mater o gywilydd o hyd yw hwsmonaeth ei Lywodraeth dros economi Cymru.
Rwyf yn troi rwan at yr hyn ddywedodd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol cysgodol, yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Gastell-Nedd. Soniodd am effaith Cyllideb yr hydref ar Lywodraeth Llafur yng Nghymru, gan amddiffyn methiant i wireddu addewid polisi maniffesto i godi cap cyflogau’r sector gyhoeddus—rhywbeth sydd yn rhydd i Lafur wneud yfory yng Nghymru, pe dymunent. Roedd fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus, yr Aelod dros Ddwyrain Caerfyrddin a Dinefwr yn siarad yn rymus am ragolygon economi Cymru, a’r cymysgiad tocsig o fuddsoddi mympwyol mewn is-adeiledd a cham-flaenoriaethu economi ac is-adeiledd rhanbarth de ddwyrain Lloegr—a goblygiadau hynny i Gymru. Roedd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Fynwy a Chadeirydd y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig yn sôn yn briodol am waith y Pwyllgor ac hefyd am ei agweddau angerddol tuag at Brexit. Siaradodd yr Aelodau anrhydeddus dros Orllewin Caerdydd a thros Sir Drefaldwyn am ddarlledu yng Nghymru. Mae hyn yn bwysig, o wybod am yr ansicrwydd sy’n parhau dros ariannu S4C, a’r gyllideb sydd yn ein gwynebu mewn ychydig dros fis.
Soniodd yr Aelod gwir anrhydeddus dros Orllewin Clwyd—daeth hyn yn dipyn bach o dôn gron gan Aelodau eraill ei blaid—am gydweithio trawsffiniol. Mae ’na rybudd fan hyn am anghyfartaledd. Mae Cymru’n derbyn mwy na’i siar o garcharorion o Loegr yn y cawr-garchar yn Wrecsam. Mae’r nifer o garcharorion o Loegr sydd yn Nghymru wedi codi 76% ers mis Mawrth y llynedd.
Torrwyd araith yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Dde Clwyd yn ei hanner gyda’r rhaniad yn ein dadl heddiw. Siaradodd yn deimladwy am ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg ac effaith yr agenda llymder. Wrth gwrs, agenda llymder gyda’i wreiddiau yma yn San Steffan, ond sydd hefyd yn cael ei arall-gyfeirio gan Lywodraeth Cymru, ac effaith hynny ar wasanaethau lleol.
Roedd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Faldwyn yn siarad yn deimladwy am yr hanes o deuluoedd yn colli ac ennill y Gymraeg a goblygiadau statws iaith i benderfyniadau trosglwyddo iaith yn y teulu. Siaradodd fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus dros Arfon am oblygiadau newidiadau i fudd-daliadau i Gymru, gan gynnig awgrymiadau sy’n cynnwys datganoli, gweinyddu’r gyfundrefn nawdd cymdeithasol i Gymru a’r her o ddylunio systemau technologel-ddigidol sydd yn cynnig dewis iaith i’r defnyddiwr.
Roedd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Frycheiniog a Sir Faesyfed yn sôn am y niferoedd mewn gwaith yng Nghymru. Wnaeth hefyd gyfeirio at forlyn Abertawe, er mwyn nodi nad oes gan ei etholaeth yr un filltir o arfordir. Roedd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Ogledd Caerdydd yn sôn am sut mae’r Llywodraeth yn tanseilio datganoli a rhoi taw ar lais Cymr—croeso i fyd Plaid Cymru.
Roeddwn yn falch iawn clywed yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Orllewin Casnewydd yn dyfynnu geiriau’r bardd Ceiriog yn yr Ystafell Bwyllgor hon. Roedd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Ddwyrain Abertawe yn sôn am sefyllfa merched WASPI ac rwyf yn ei chymeradwyo a’i llongyfarch am ei gwaith diflino gyda’i hymgyrchoedd. Soniodd yr Aelodau anrhydeddus dros Ferthyr Tudful a thros Gorllewin Abertawe am y cyfleoedd sydd wedi eu colli yn y Gyllideb diweddar.
Er mai testun y drafodaeth heddiw yw’r Gyllideb, y blaidd wrth y drws, wrth gwrs, yw Brexit. Er gwaetha gwaharddiad achlysurol y Cadeirydd blaenorol—dwi’n siwr tase ni wedi bod yn sôn am Gaergybi bydde fe wedi bod yn wahanol—cyfeiriwyd at Brexit gan nifer o’r siaradwyr ac ymyrrwyr. Mi wn fod Uwch Bwyllgorau Cymreig yn bethau prin, ond hoffwn gymryd y cyfle i alw am Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig ar amaeth yng Nghymru a Brexit. Emosiynau cymysg sydd gen i wrth wrando ar siaradwyr Llafur yn mynegi pryderon am effaith y cyflwr parhaol o ansicrwydd ar economi Cymru heddiw, ac am yr angen i barhau yn yr undeb tollau. Gwell iddyn nhw gyfeirio’u cri at eu plaid eu hunain.
Roedd cryn sôn am rinweddau bargeinion twf i’r de a’r gogledd ac i’r canolbarth, a galwodd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Orllewin Clwyd am hyrwyddo cydweithredu rhwng Cynghrair Mersi a’r Ddyfrdwy a gogledd Cymru. Dwi’n croesawu rôl arweinwyr cyngor ym margen twf gogledd Cymru ond yn annog y Llywodraeth i gymryd camau cadarnhaol i gynnal cydweithredu gyda’n cymdogion agosaf yn y gorllewin, sef Iwerddon a Gogledd Iwerddon. O lle dwi’n byw ym Mhen Llŷn, Dulyn yw’r brif ddinas agosaf—yn nes na Chaerdydd a llawer yn nes na Llundain.
Yn olaf, hoffwn bwyso ar yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i ddod â rhagor o wybodaeth i ni yng Nghymru am y gronfa ffyniant gyfrannol—neu “shared prosperity fund”. Os byddwn yn gadael y polisi amaethyddol cyffredin a’r gronfa strategol Ewropeaidd, cronfa gymdeithasol Ewrop, o ble ddaw y gynhaliaeth a fu? Mae’r Undeb Ewropeaidd yn gweithredu egwyddor anrhydeddus o leddfu effeithiau anghyfartaledd. Does dim y ffasiwn draddodiad yma gan Lywodraeth San Steffan. Gofynnwn am ragor o wybodaeth am y gronfa ffyniant gyfrannol. Sut bydd ffyniant a thlodi yn cael eu diffinio, ac a ydy’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn gallu gwarantu y bydd cyllidebau’r dyfydol yn gwneud yn siwr na fydd Cymru’n colli’r un ddimai goch dan law’r Ceidwadwyr?
(Translation) I want to start by celebrating the opportunity to break new ground today in using the Welsh language in a Committee of the House of Commons. I also take the opportunity to note the innovation of the old Dwyfor District Council that decided in 1974 that Welsh would be the main administrative language of the authority. Since 1996 Welsh has also been the main administrative language of Gwynedd Council, and in its chamber Welsh speakers tend to always use the Welsh language when speaking publicly, when making addresses, in responding to questions and in making interventions. The reason is simple: to safeguard the use of the Welsh language against the social norm of turning to English. When a Welsh speaker turns to English in a bilingual environment, all too soon the Welsh language is not used at all. It is not a matter of a lack of courtesy to non-Welsh speakers. It is a matter of maintaining a safe place for the language in public life.
I also want to take this opportunity to extend my thanks and support to all Members of Parliament. I wanted to name them, but there are far too many. I encourage all members of parliamentary staff who are learning Welsh to persevere, to make mistakes, and not to listen to the people—there are too many of them—who put linguistic correctness above all else. They should take the chance to speak rather than remain silent. Only through the use of the language will the language live. Everyone who has used the interpretation equipment knows our interpreters at the back of the room are innovators. As we discuss the fact that this institution is making the best use of technology, and given the decant, we should plan now to allow for the use of languages other than English and Norman French in future. There is a real opportunity to do so when we leave this place.
On the Secretary of State’s comments, he praised the Budget, as can be expected from one in his post. He responded to questions on the lack of electrification between Cardiff and Swansea and the north Wales main line, and on the absence of a decision on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and other tidal lagoons. He referred to the Barnett uplift, but we note that most of that comes in the form of loans. Others from his party talked about cross-border working. The subliminal message in all this is how Wales can help England.
The western powerhouses will not be the west of Wales, but the west of England, with some crumbs from the table for the west of Wales. Let us follow the money. Following a decade of Tory rule in Westminster, Wales is still one of the poorest nations in Europe. Average weekly salaries in Wales are £393 compared with £434 in England. Productivity in Wales is 80% of the productivity of the UK, and London is closer to 150%. The Government’s management of the Welsh economy is a matter of shame.
The hon. Member for Neath mentioned the impact of the autumn Budget on the Welsh Government in failing to deliver a manifesto pledge to lift the cap on public pay. A Labour Government could do that tomorrow in Wales if they so wished. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr spoke powerfully about the economic forecast for Wales and the toxic mix of ad hoc infrastructure investments, as well as the prioritising of expenditure in the south-east of England and the implications of that for Wales. The hon. Member for Monmouth, the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, spoke about the work of that Committee and about his passionate views on Brexit. The hon. Members for Cardiff West and for Montgomeryshire spoke about broadcasting in Wales. That is important given the uncertainty about the future of S4C, and decisions that we are expecting in just over a month.
The right hon. Member for Clwyd West mentioned the issue of cross-border working, which was repeated a number of times by members of his party. There is an issue of inequality for Wales. In the context of cross-border working, I would like to highlight the inequality that Wales takes more than its share of prisoners from England into the super prison in Wrexham, with the number of prisoners from England and Wales having risen by 76% since March last year.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South, whose speech was cut in half due to the break in our proceedings today, spoke very powerfully on the use of the Welsh language and on the austerity agenda. Of course, austerity in Wales has its roots here, but it is also being implemented by the Welsh Government, and that is having an impact on local authorities.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke passionately about the stories of families who had lost and gained the Welsh language, and the implications of the language status in terms of decisions on language transfer within families. My hon. Friend the Member for Arfon talked about the implications of universal credit for Wales, making suggestions that include devolving the administration of welfare to Wales, and about the challenge of designing IT systems that provide a language choice for the service user.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about the numbers in work in Wales. He also referred to the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, noting that his constituency has not a single mile of coastline. The hon. Member for Cardiff North mentioned how the Government are undermining devolution and silencing the voice of Wales—welcome to Plaid Cymru’s world.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Newport West quote the words of the poet Ceiriog in the Committee Room. The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, and I applaud and congratulate her for her tireless work on that. The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Swansea West talked about the opportunities missed in the recent Budget.
Although the topic of today’s discussion is the Budget, the wolf at the door is of course Brexit. Despite the occasional prohibition from this morning’s Chair—if we had been talking about Holyhead I am sure it would have been different—Brexit was mentioned by a number of speakers. We know that Welsh Grand Committees are few and far between, but I would like to take this opportunity to call for a Welsh Grand Committee on agriculture in Wales and Brexit. I had mixed emotions listening to Labour Members talking about the impact of the ongoing uncertainties in the Welsh economy and of the need to remain in the customs union. They should refer their comments to their own party.
Mention was made of growth deals for north Wales, south Wales, and mid-Wales. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West talked about the promotion of co-operation between the Mersey Dee Alliance and north Wales. I welcome the role of councils in the north Wales deal, but I encourage the Government to take positive steps to maintain collaboration with our nearest neighbours in the west: Ireland and Northern Ireland. Where I live, in the Llŷn Peninsula, Dublin is the closest capital—closer than Cardiff and much closer than London.
Finally, I urge the Secretary of State to bring us further information on the shared prosperity fund. If we leave the common agricultural policy and the European structural fund, the European social fund, where will the maintenance and the support come from? The European Union implements an honourable principle of alleviating inequality. There is no such tradition here in the Westminster Government. I ask for further information about the fund. How will poverty be defined, and is the Secretary of State able to guarantee that future Budgets will ensure that Wales does not lose a single penny at the hands of the Conservatives?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I am going to take the advice of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and try the limited Welsh that I have learned in Welsh lessons here in Parliament over the past three months.
Mae’n bleser mawr i wasanaethu o dan eich cadeiryddiaeth heddiw, Mr Hanson. Mae’n ddiwrnod hanesyddol: y tro cyntaf i’r Gymraeg gael ei defnyddio yn y Welsh Grand. Llongyfarchiadau i bawb sydd wedi siarad yn Gymraeg heddiw—y rheiny sy’n siarad yn rhugl ac, yn arbennig, y rhai sy’n dysgu’r iaith! Rwyf yn talu teyrnged i Aelodau ar draws y Tŷ sydd wedi lobïo’n galed er mwyn siarad Cymraeg yma heddiw. Da iawn.
(Translation) It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson. It is a historic day: the first time that the Welsh language has been used in the Welsh Grand. I congratulate everyone who has spoken in Welsh today—those who are fluent speakers and particularly those who are learning the language! I pay tribute to Members from across the House who have lobbied very hard for the right to speak Welsh here today. Well done.
There have been many varied and interesting speeches today. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr gave a great macro-economic picture of the economy and stated that the UK economy needs to be tilted away from London towards Wales and the north. I concur with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West spoke powerfully about the legacy of Rhodri Morgan for Wales and the Welsh language, and the importance of this historic day when we are able to speak in Welsh for the first time in the Welsh Grand here in Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Clwyd West spoke about the need for a rejuvenated north Wales economy. He urged that the dithering over the tidal lagoon is ended and progress is made, which again I completely concur with. As peace breaks out, I would also fully support him on his attitude towards the all-party group on the Mersey-Dee alliance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South spoke passionately about the importance of the Welsh language. She spoke in English in the hope of attracting the attention of leftie, liberal, lentil-eating journalists who support diversity and all minority languages in the world, except Welsh.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda raised the idea of apprenticeships for workers who will work on the refurbishment of the House of Commons, with apprentices drawn from around the UK. That is an excellent idea and we should expand on it to make sure that produce from around the United Kingdom is used when this House is rebuilt and refurbished. I put in a bid for Welsh slate for the roof.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned the historic decline in the Welsh language and the growth deal. The hon. Member for Arfon mentioned universal credit and the impact on the most vulnerable in society. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said that everything is hunky-dory in Brecon and Radnorshire. He took a Lib Dem seat at the election in 2015, and like a Lib Dem, he was facing both ways on the tidal lagoon, so da iawn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North rightly made reference to Jack Sargeant’s election victory and contrasted the Welsh Government’s investment in Wales with the Tory Government cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East is one of the greatest campaigners in the House, on the WASPI issue and on payment for children’s funerals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West, author of “Commons Knowledge”, made reference to the tidal lagoon, which he fully supports. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney mentioned the pay cap, community safety and MOD contracts. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West berated the Government for their lack of clarity on Brexit.
Many wise words have been spoken today, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will listen. In the short time that I have, I would like to concentrate on one or two issues. The first is Brexit. Our relationship with the EU and EU countries is not viewed through the lens of what is good for the UK, but what is good for the Tory party. Businesses, universities, unions and the public are begging for leadership and direction from the Government; all they are getting is infighting and political poison. On Brexit, Cabinet members and Members on the Front Bench are like rats in a sack. That is not good enough. We are less than 13 months away from leaving the EU. We want clarity.
Wales has received £9 billion in investment from Europe, match funded by the UK. What will we get after we have left the EU? Those questions need to be answered. Airbus, Toyota and Ford are asking for a soft Brexit. Will they get it? Our Welsh universities want to know what level of co-operation or isolation there will be when we leave. When will they be told? Our Welsh farmers are asking what will happen to Welsh lamb next year, 90% of which is exported to Europe. When will they be told? Our Welsh workers want to know what will happen to their hard-won freedoms and rights, secured through Europe. When will they be told? You may have noticed a theme there, Mr Hanson. Those are right and responsible questions raised by individuals, organisations and sectors. Again, we are only 13 months away. Like us, they want answers, and I urge the Secretary of State to provide them.
The Secretary of State made much of the increase in funding to Wales in the Budget, but his figures were demolished by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who rightly pointed out that much of the increase was in the form of loans that have to be paid back. She pointed out that the smoke and mirrors of those announcements cannot obscure the fact that, by 2020, the Welsh budget will be £1.1 billion less than it was in 2010. Let me put that in a historical perspective. When I came to Parliament in 1997, the Welsh block grant was £6.5 billion. By 2010, when Labour left office, it was £15 billion—it had doubled. Over the 10-year period between 2010 and 2020, the Welsh block grant will have decreased by £1.1 billion.
Several speakers spoke about the missed opportunity in the Budget to end austerity. The Government have tried austerity for eight years—it is the only tool in their box—and it has not worked. All we have had is cuts, cuts and more cuts. Other economies have tried a mixture of prudent cuts and sensible, targeted investment. That worked in the 1930s in America under Roosevelt, who was elected four times. It worked under Obama, and it worked in France and Germany. We need to pump-prime our economy. We are eight years on, and our wages are lower than they were 10 years ago. What little growth that exists is channelled into the hands of the rich, who have seen massive increases to their salaries, benefits and bonuses. Targeted pump-priming in Wales could have included the electrification of the rail line to Swansea and Holyhead, and tidal lagoons in four areas around Wales. Those are lost opportunities.
The Secretary of State made much in his introduction of the £600 uplift in the national living wage, which was announced in the Budget. Let us put that in perspective, in terms of the cuts experienced by the vast majority of workers since 2010. It is plain to see that the cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable in our society: 80% have fallen on the backs of women. Is it any wonder that data I uncovered last week reveals that 20% of local authorities have witnessed a decrease in female life expectancy since 2010—this on the anniversary of women’s suffrage. Wages have been frozen in the public sector for years. Teachers are £5,000 worse off now than they were 10 years ago. The cruellest cuts have fallen on the poorest, the disabled, the unemployed and the dying, who have been hit with benefit freezes, the bedroom tax, botched universal credit and a public sector pay cap. It is not just about the cuts; many of those groups have been demonised by the Government. The Government have promoted zero-hours contracts, the gig economy and in-work poverty. Indeed, 66% of those in poverty are actually working. There was nothing for those groups in the Budget.
Those are the statistics. Let me give hon. Members the stories. Don Lane, a DPD courier—self-employed in the gig economy—was fined £150 for attending a medical examination for his diabetes. He later collapsed and died of the disease. That may not have happened in Wales, but every single one of us, regardless of our party, knows of cases like that in our constituencies.
In 2016, Darren Taylor of Connah’s Quay applied for personal independence payments after his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. The Department for Work and Pensions refused. In January 2017, he reapplied. Despite the fact that the pain his wife was going through left her largely confined to the house, the DWP said that she was not ill enough to qualify for an enhanced rate. The family appealed the decision, but before receiving a tribunal date Belinda Taylor died aged just 44, leaving four children. Three months after she died, the award was made to the family. That is the reality of the Budget that was passed by the Government. It hits the poorest in our communities. I ask the Minister to think again and to take the message back from all these good people on both sides of the Committee that austerity is not working.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
Mae wedi bod yn bleser gwasanaethu o dan eich cadeiryddiaeth, Mr Hanson. Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd i fy Nghyfaill gwir anrhydeddus, Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru am ei ddatganiad agoriadol a’i gyfraniad allweddol, ac hefyd i’n Hysgrifenyddion Seneddol Preifat, fy Nghyfeillion anrhydeddus yr Aelodau dros Sir Drefaldwyn a dros Brycheiniog a Sir Faesyfed.
Rydw i newydd orffen fy mis cyntaf fel Is-Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru ac rydw i’n croesawu’r cyfle i ddathlu’r garreg filltir hon trwy gloi trafodaeth ddiddorol yr Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig. Hoffwn ddiolch i’r Aelodau anrhydeddus am gymryd rhan yn y drafodaeth hon. Mae’n amlwg i mi ein bod ni i gyd am gael y gorau i Gymru. Rydym ni i gyd am weld Cymru fwy llewyrchus ac, yn anad dim, rydym ni i gyd am weld Cymru sy’n addas ar gyfer y dyfodol.
Gan mai dyma’r tro cyntaf i fusnes seneddol gael ei gynnal yn Gymraeg, rydw i am barchu’r Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig a thraddodi cymaint o fy araith â phosib yn Gymraeg. Fodd bynnag, gan fy mod i’n ymgyfarwyddo o'r newydd â’r iaith hyfryd hon, dydw i ddim yn teimlo’n ddigon hyderus i draddodi’r araith gyfan yn Gymraeg. Gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau anrhydeddus yn deall os byddai’n troi i ymateb yn Saesneg.
(Translation) It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for his opening statement and key contribution to this fascinating debate. I also thank our Parliamentary Private Secretaries, my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and for Brecon and Radnorshire.
I have completed my first month as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I welcome the opportunity to celebrate that milestone by closing our interesting discussions in the Welsh Grand Committee. I thank hon. Members present for taking part. It is clear that we all want the best for Wales. We all want to see a more flourishing and prosperous Wales and, above all, a Wales that is fit for the future.
As this is the first time that parliamentary business has been undertaken through the medium of Welsh, I want to respect the Welsh Grand Committee by giving as much of my speech as possible in Welsh. However, as I am currently reacquainting myself with this wonderful language, I do not feel confident enough to deliver my whole speech in Welsh. I hope hon. Members will understand if I break off and respond in English.
I grew up in Anglesey, as hon. Members know, and I learned Welsh as a second language—my family do not speak Welsh. I am slightly concerned because—I must confess—I stood for the old Gwynedd County Council in the 1990s. I was not successful.
Stuart Andrew
The Conservative party.
I translated my leaflet into Welsh because I thought it was important to have it in both languages. I had it checked by Councillor Goronwy Parry, who was a Conservative councillor in Anglesey, and much to my surprise, he said that most of it was all right. At the last minute, however, I thought I would be clever and put a slogan on the front that said, “A local man for local needs”. Knowing that the word for need is “angen”, I thought I had my Welsh correct, but I put, “Dyn lleol am angau lleol”. Hon. Members will know that that means, “A local man for local death”. That is why I will stick to English for the rest of my speech, if I may.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales touched on some remarkable points in his opening statement and I want to convey how significant they are for Wales. With my roots firmly in Anglesey, I welcome the north Wales growth deal and I am delighted that formal negotiations have begun. I look forward to working with local partners to ensure that we agree on a deal that is right for the whole of north Wales.
The Budget delivers for Wales through a range of commitments, such as the fair funding settlement for the Welsh Government, a city or growth deal to cover all parts of Wales, an increase in rail infrastructure investment, further work on sector deals and the development of cross-border opportunities.
We have shown that Wales is open for business. There has been a positive response to the planned abolition of the tolls, and I am looking forward to that building new links between the south of England and the south of Wales. The Budget not only helps to shape Wales but helps every individual by saving them money by abolishing tolls and freezing fuel duty and by providing them with extra funds by increasing the personal allowance and the national living wage.
References have been made to two people who I, too, want to comment on. When my Welsh was much better, I used to spar with Rhodri Morgan on Welsh-language politics shows. He was always a most courteous man, and very kind to a very young person. I will also offer my congratulations to Jack Sargeant on his election last night; I wish him well in the job that he is doing.
I want to touch on the economy. We have heard mention of the north Wales growth deal, and the tributes and compliments paid to Ken Skates. I am yet to meet him, but I plan to do so. I have written to him to say that I am keen to meet him to see how we can work together to progress the north Wales growth deal. It is important and I look forward to that constructive engagement and co-operation. I have already met the leaders of the north Wales growth deal, Councillor Aaron Shotton and Councillor Dyfrig Siencyn. We had a very constructive meeting and I look forward to working with them in the future.
I am acutely aware, and hon. Members have mentioned, that we must ensure that the growth deal is as beneficial to north-west Wales as it is to north-east Wales. As someone who grew up in Anglesey but then moved and lived in Wrexham, I can see the qualities of both those areas, and I look forward to working with them. Equally, we must get on with the mid-Wales growth deal. I look forward to working with hon. Members so that we can build on the successes of the Cardiff and Swansea deals and maximise opportunities presented by the toll changes.
We talk about the corridors of power in this Parliament, but I hope that north, mid and south Wales will become the true corridors of power for England and Wales. A big part of that will be improving connectivity, particularly broadband, and I am acutely aware of the need for us to spread that out further. It is good news that 95% of premises in Wales are connected, but we have to do more for rural areas in particular.
I want to talk about universal credit, which a number of Members have raised. It is important that we recognise that the benefits system was in need of some major changes. The hon. Member for Arfon talked about that very sensibly. We have to make sure that people do not get themselves trapped on benefits. I do not mean that in the sense of some political language that people may use. Genuinely, it cannot be right that somebody who works a minute over 16 hours is in danger of losing all their benefit. That is the idea behind this. In the Budget, we listened to the concerns people raised and we brought about changes to make it a better system. As far as I am concerned, as we roll this out we should continue to learn lessons from the people we work with, and we will continue to do so. It is important to recognise that unemployment has come down in Wales by 73,000 since 2010. We have brought in a national living wage, and the personal allowance is helping 61,000 Welsh workers out of tax altogether. We should celebrate that. Those figures relate to 2017-18 and compare favourably with just two years ago.
I now want to come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Swansea East about child burial fees. I spent most of my life before coming here working in the children’s hospice movement, and I am acutely aware of the really difficult time that parents go through when they lose a child. I have not been blessed with the fortune of being a father myself, but I have seen the real difficulties that families go through. While cross-Government work is looking at the support that can be offered to bereaved parents, by simplifying the payments and so on, on a personal level I would like to meet her to see what I can do going forward.
I am conscious that I have about a minute left. I will finish by saying that, yes, there has been talk about austerity and about the payments for Wales, but let us not forget why we are in this position in the first place. [Interruption.] I have 30 seconds—I had better shut up! I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I look forward to having many more debates with them in the future, when I hope my Welsh will be much improved and I can speak even more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the matter of the Autumn Budget as it relates to Wales.
Autumn Budget as it Relates to Wales (Morning sitting)
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Bore da pawb. Rwyf am siarad Saesneg i ddechrau. I am going to speak in English to explain the House rules and give some information about the translation equipment. It may help if I remind Members that this session will run until 11.25 am. We shall meet again at 2 pm, and the debate on the motion will continue until 4 o’clock. I have no power to impose a time limit on speeches, but I ask Members, and particularly the Front Benchers, to curtail their speeches if possible, so that everyone has an opportunity to speak.
Under the resolution of the House of 9 January, Committee members may speak in Welsh and English, but I ask that points of order are made in English, for the sake of the official record and for technical reasons. Everyone should have translation equipment. Channel 0 is for whatever is being said in English or Welsh, and channel 1 is for the translation. Please switch off the equipment if you are not using it to listen, because there will be a little feedback if everyone has it on. I am now going to do a test in Welsh.
Dwi am wneud prawf yn Gymraeg i wneud yn siwr bod yr offer yn gweithio yn iawn. Ydy popeth yn iawn? Da iawn. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Galwaf ar yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i symud y mesur.
(Translation) I am going to test the equipment to ensure that everything is working properly. Can everyone hear me? Excellent. Thank you. I call the Secretary of State to move the motion.
Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru/the Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Diolch Mr Cadeirydd. Cynigaf,
Bod y Pwyllgor wedi ystyried Cyllideb yr hydref mewn perthynas â Chymru.
Mr Owen, diolch am y cyfle i agor y drafodaeth heddiw. Mae’n bleser gwasanaethu o dan eich cadeiryddiaeth unwaith eto. Rwy’n falch o fod yn siarad gyda chi i gyd heddiw yn yr iaith Gymraeg. Mae’r iaith yn bwysig i mi, yn bwysig i’r gymuned rwyf yn ei chynrychioli ac yn ganolog, yn amlwg, i hanes a diwylliant Cymru.
(Translation) I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the matter of the autumn Budget as it relates to Wales.
Thank you, Mr Owen, for allowing me to open the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am proud to speak to the Committee in the Welsh language, which is important to me and to the community that I represent and is integral to the history and culture of Wales.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Wnaiff yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ildio?
(Translation) Will the Secretary of State give way?
Alun Cairns
Os gai wneud bach mwy o dro.
Rwy’n gwybod bod llawer o Aelodau ar y Pwyllgor heddiw wedi ymgyrchu ac wedi galw am y newid hwn ers blynyddoedd, ac hoffwn gydnabod bob ymdrech gan bob aelod. Mae heddiw yn ddiwrnod hanesyddol i’r Senedd ac i Gymru ac, yn uniongyrchol, hoffwn sôn am y Gweinidog dros Swyddfa’r Cabinet a Changhellor Dugiaeth Caerhirfryn, a wnaeth gefnogi’r alwad drawsbleidiol a ddaeth ar y pryd.
Mae’n bwysig ein bod yn dod at ein gilydd yma, yn fforwm yr Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig, ac mae’n bleser agor y drafodaeth hon trwy drafod Cyllideb yr hydref mewn perthynas â Chymru. Hoffwn amlinellu’r gwaith mae’r Llywodraeth yn ei wneud i sicrhau ein bod yn mynd i’r afael â’r heriau economaidd mewn ffordd sy’n codi’r economi ym mhob rhan o’r Deyrnas Unedig, gan gynnwys Cymru. Dyna pam y bydd y mesurau yng Nghyllideb yr hydref—fel y cynlluniau i wella cysylltiadau rheilffyrdd yng Nghymru, buddsoddi mewn bargeinion dinesig a thwf, a chyllid ychwanegol i Lywodraeth Cymru—yn rhoi rhagor o bŵer gwario i Gymru a fydd yn rhoi hwb i’r economi leol ac yn galluogi Cymru i ffynnu.
(Translation) Let me make a little progress.
Many Committee members have campaigned for this change for many years, and I pay tribute to every Member’s work. This is a historic day for Parliament and for Wales. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster backed the cross-party call for this change. It is essential that we come together in the forum of the Welsh Grand Committee, and it is a pleasure to open this debate on the matter of the autumn Budget as it relates to Wales.
I want to outline the work that the Government are doing to ensure that we meet economic challenges in a way that increases prosperity in all parts of the UK, including Wales. The measures in the autumn Budget, such as plans to improve Welsh rail links and to invest in city and growth deals, and of course the additional funding for the Welsh Government, will provide Wales with greater spending power, which will bolster the local economy and enable Wales to thrive.
Susan Elan Jones
Rwyf yn ddiolchgar i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ac yn ddiolchgar hefyd ddaru’r Llywodraeth newid ei meddwl ynglŷn â defnydd yr iaith Gymraeg yn y Pwyllgor yma. A ydy’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn meddwl bod hynny, efallai, yn arwydd bod y Llywodraeth yn barod i newid ei meddwl, er enghraifft, ynglŷn â’n haelodaeth o’r undeb tollau? Mae hynny’n hynod o bwysig i ni.
(Translation) I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and to the Government for changing their mind on the use of the Welsh language in the Committee. Does he believe that that is a sign that the Government are willing to change their mind, for example, on our membership of the customs union, which is very important to us?
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn ddiolchgar am yr ymyrraeth gan y Foneddiges anrydeddus. Mae’r hen rheolau wedi bod yn eu lle dros ddegawdau ac roeddwn felly yn falch iawn bod y Llywodraeth yma wedi cefnogi’r newidiadau a ddaeth ar lefel drawsbleidiol.
Ni all y Llywodraeth weithredu ar ei phen ei hun i gyflawni’r newidiadau sydd eu hangen ar Gymru. Dyma pam rwyf am bwysleisio fy awydd i gydweithio’n agos gyda Llywodraeth Cymru er budd Cymru. Rwy’n annog Llywodraeth Cymru i ddefnyddio ei phŵerau ei hun a’r Cynulliad i gyflawni buddiannau economaidd tebyg i Gymru.
Rwyf yn edrych ymlaen at drafodaeth ddiddorol a bywiog heddiw yma yn y Pwyllgor.
(Translation) I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The orders have been in place for decades, so I was pleased that this Government supported the changes that came about on the basis of cross-party support.
This Government cannot act alone to deliver the changes that Wales needs, so I reiterate my desire to work closely with the Welsh Government in the best interests of Wales. I urge the Welsh Government to use their powers and the Welsh Assembly’s powers to deliver similar economic benefits to Wales.
I look forward to an interesting and stimulating debate.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about the Welsh Government using their functions to their economic benefit. One way that he could use his powers would be to secure the tidal lagoon at Swansea by working with the Welsh Government on the financial offer that they put to the Prime Minister. That will bring real economic prosperity across south Wales and beyond.
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn falch bod y Bonheddwr anrhydeddus wedi gofyn y cwestiwn. Fel rwyf wedi dweud yn y gorffennol, byddem yn hapus i weld y cynllun yn mynd yn ei flaen, ond mae’n rhaid inni ddangos gwerth am arian. Ni fedrwn gefnogi’r cynllun heb brofi gwerth am arian. Mae fy swyddogion, yn ogystal â swyddogion yr Adran Busnes, Ynni a Strategaeth Ddiwydiannol—BEIS—a swyddogion Llywodraeth Cymru, wedi cwrdd. Mae Pwyllgor Dethol Materion Cymreig wedi gofyn am dystiolaeth gan Brif Weinidog Cymru. Yn amlwg, wnawn ni ddal ati i gydweithio i geisio dangos gwerth am arian. Rhaid hefyd gofio mae’r Llywodraeth hon a roddodd ganiatâd cynllunio wedi’r etholiad yn 2015, sydd yn dangos ein bod ni’n awyddus i’r cynllun llwyddo, ond ni ddylem ei gefnogi heb brofi gwerth am arian, oherwydd ein trethdalwyr a’n cymunedau ni byddai’n cefnogi’r cynllun, gyda’r pergygl bod y gost yn llawer mwy iddyn nhw na beth sydd yn cael ei gyflawni mewn llefydd eraill.
(Translation) I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that question because, as I said previously, I would be very happy to see that project go ahead. Obviously, however, we must test its value for money, because none of us would wish to support that funding without it being proved good value for money. I have considered this with officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and in the Welsh Government, and the Welsh Affairs Committee has asked to take evidence from the Welsh First Minister. We will continue to work together to test the value for money of the plan. We must also bear in mind that it was this Government who gave planning permission for the project after the 2015 election, which shows that we are eager to see it succeed. However, we do not believe we should support it if there is no value for money. Taxpayers and our communities will support this project, but not if it is not good value for money and the cost will be higher than what has been achieved in other countries.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Swansea tidal lagoon is supported not only in the Swansea area but right across Wales? It is an advanced technology that could be of enormous benefit to the British economy, and it would also be welcomed in north Wales where a large tidal lagoon has been proposed for the coast in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. Will my right hon. Friend speak in very strong terms to his colleagues in BEIS about this matter?
Alun Cairns
Out of courtesy, I will respond to my right hon. Friend in the language in which he raised the issue. Of course we would like this project to happen and I recognise the enthusiasm for it, but I am sure that he would not want any project to go ahead that does not prove to be value for money. Many claims have been made about the technology and the export potential, and about the regeneration of the economy that the tidal lagoon would provide, but I am sure he would want the Government to scrutinise those claims appropriately and establish whether the project is genuinely value for money. We must not forget that our constituents will be asked to support it, and if they support this project over other projects that might be better value for money, there is a risk of higher energy costs.
Mr David Jones
I understand fully that the benefits or otherwise of the project must be scrutinised, but how long is that scrutiny likely to take?
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend will recognise that this is a dynamic environment and costs in the energy industry are changing at various stages. Indeed, there has been a significant change in energy costs since this project was first proposed.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember as acutely as I do the debates about the merits and demerits of the Cardiff bay proposals in the ’80s and early ’90s. I am sure we all accept the need to make an economic case and to ensure value for public money, but does he accept that the message that the tidal lagoon proposal sends about a commitment to renewable energy and to the industrial base of Wales is very strong? That must be taken into account when making the economic assessment of the proposition.
Alun Cairns
I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point. Ultimately, however, the project must prove to be value for money because otherwise taxpayers will risk paying more than they would for an alternative source of energy, in addition to pushing up consumer prices. Two years ago, we were considering the crisis in Tata Steel, which is adjacent to the proposed site for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. One of Tata’s core concerns was the rising cost of energy. It is not in anyone’s interest for a project to go ahead that risks driving up energy costs. It is therefore only right that we scrutinise this project to establish whether it provides value for money, as is believed.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Hon. Members mentioned delay. There is a chance that the UK could become a world leader in this technology, and if we delay this project we will miss out. We missed out on wind power, but we have a chance with tidal. Four of the six potential sites for lagoons are in Wales, so Wales could become a world leader. The Secretary of State should see the vision and develop the vision.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is on the record as saying that it is worth paying over the odds for paying for a scheme of this type. If we are paying over the odds, at what level do we stop? What is he prepared to ask his constituents to pay? How much is he prepared to ask his constituents to add to their electricity prices to support such a scheme? I ask him to think long and hard about this. How much over the odds is he prepared to pay?
Chris Ruane
Is the Secretary of State aware that we paid over the odds for nuclear power in the 1950s and 1960s, and that in the long term the investment was paid back? Paying over the odds in the initial period will have a long-term payback. We will get energy from this project for the next 125 years, and we will be able to time that energy to the minute. I believe that it is worth investing in, even if it is over the odds in the short term.
The Chair
Order. May I say two things? First, if hon. Members are patient, they will get the opportunity to make lengthy speeches themselves. Secondly, if you are not using the translation system, can you switch it off, please, because there is feedback going through the system?
Alun Cairns
I am not sure that nuclear is the comparison I would make as a previous long-term decision, but that is an interesting contribution none the less.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Buasai’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn annog Prif Weinidog y Cynulliad i ddod o flaen y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig i esbonio’r cynnig a wnaeth i’r Llywodraeth? Ar hyn o bryd, dydy e ddim yn barod i ddod a dydw i ddim yn deall pam.
(Translation) Would the Secretary of State encourage the First Minister to appear before the Welsh Affairs Committee to explain the proposals he has made to the Government? At the moment, he is not willing to come, and I do not understand why.
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn ddiolchgar i fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus am godi’r pwynt. Yn amlwg, dydw i ddim yn gwybod pam nad yw Prif Weinidog y Cynulliad yn fodlon rhoi tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Dethol. Yn amlwg, byddai hynny’n cryfhau’r sylwadau sydd wedi eu gwneud a, hefyd, yn rhoi mwy o fanylion ynglŷn â’r gefnogaeth mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn fodlon rhoi. Yn amlwg, rwyf yn awyddus i gydweithio’n agos gyda Llywodraeth y Cynulliad, fel yr ydym wedi gwneud gyda chymaint o wahanol gynlluniau dros yr amser rwyf wedi bod yn Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a’r rhai sydd wedi bod o’m blaen.
(Translation) I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I do not know why the First Minister of the National Assembly is not willing to give evidence before the Select Committee. Obviously, that would strengthen the comments that have been made, and would give further clarity about the support that the Welsh Government are willing to give. I am eager to collaborate with the Welsh Government, as we have done on many schemes during the period that I have been Secretary of State.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Rwy’n gallu rhannu rhai o’r pryderon ynglŷn â’r model contracts for difference. Mae’n ffordd ddrud iawn o ariannu prosiectau fel hyn ac mae’r pris, yn y pen draw, yn cwympo ar y defnyddwyr. Pam nad yw’r Llywodraeth yn edrych ar model o ariannu cyfalaf uniongyrchol? Yn y pen draw, mae pobl yn talu naill ai trwy brisiau ynni neu drwy trethi. Byddai’n llawer rhatach i bobl dalu trwy eu trethi na thrwy brisiau ynni.
(Translation) I share some of the concerns about the contracts for difference model. It is a very expensive way of funding such projects, and the ultimate price will fall on the consumer. Why are the Government not looking at a direct capital funding model? People pay either through energy prices or through their taxes, and it is far better that they pay through taxes rather than energy prices.
Alun Cairns
Yn amlwg, pa bynnag ffordd mae unrhyw brosiect neu gynllun fel hyn yn cael ei ariannu, mae’n rhaid bod trethdalwyr yn cefnogi’r peth. Dyna’r pwynt sydd yn cael ei wneud, felly mae’n rhaid ein bod yn profi gwerth arian unrhyw fath o gynllun, a byddwn yn tybio bydd yr Aelod dros Ddwyrain Caerfyrddin a Dinefwr yn cefnogi’r peth. Mae’n rhaid ein bod yn cefnogi gwerth yr arian a gwerth unrhyw gynllun a dyna wirionedd y peth yn y pen draw.
Yn ei ddatganiad o’r Gyllideb, nododd fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus y Canghellor gynlluniau i sicrhau cynnydd o £1.2 biliwn i gyllideb Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae’r cynnydd yn y cyllid yn cynnwys, am y tro cyntaf, mwy na £65 miliwn dros y tair mlynedd nesaf o ganlyniad i wella fformiwla Barnett o ryw 5%, a gytunwyd yn fframwaith cyllidol Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae hyn yn addasu grant bloc Llywodraeth Cymru i adlewyrchu’r ffactor seiliedig ar anghenion a gytunwyd yn ei fframwaith cyllidol.
Mae’r drafodaeth ynghylch cyllid Cymru wedi bodoli ers datganoli—ac ers degawadau—a’r Llywodraeth hon sydd wedi rhoi sicrwydd ariannol tymor hir i Gymru. Ar hyn y bryd, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn cael £120 am bob £100 cymaradwy sydd yn cael ei wario yn Lloegr.
(Translation) Evidently, whichever way a scheme such as this is financed, taxpayers must support it. That is the point. Therefore, we must test the value for money of any such scheme, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman will support that. That is the truth of the matter.
In my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget statement, he set out plans to increase the Welsh Government budget by £1.2 billion. The increased funding includes, for the first time, more than £65 million over the next three years resulting from the 5% Barnett formula boost agreed in the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework, which adjusts the Welsh Government block grant to reflect the needs-based factor, as agreed by their fiscal framework.
Many hon. Members will know that that discussion about the Welsh budget has taken place since devolution and has gone on for decades. This UK Government have given long-term financial security to Wales. The Welsh Government receive £120 for every equivalent £100 spent in England.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Mae’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn gwneud pwynt diddorol iawn. Wrth gwrs, mae yna ryw gynnydd wedi bod yng nghyllideb Llywodraeth Cymru, ond a yw e’n hapus, fodd bynnag, gyda sut mae’r cynnydd yna’n cymharu gyda’r cynnydd yng nghyllideb yr Alban, neu hwnnw yng nghyllideb Gogledd Iwerddon yn sgil y gytundeb rhwng Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig a phlaid yr Unoliaethwyr Democrataidd?
(Translation) The Secretary of State makes an interesting point. Yes, there has been an increase in the Welsh Government budget, but is he happy about how that compares with the increase in Scotland or Northern Ireland, given the deal between the UK Government and the Democratic Unionist party?
Alun Cairns
Yr unig ffordd gallaf ymateb yw trwy gyfeirio at beth ddywedodd Llywodraeth Cymru a Gerry Holtham ar y pryd. Dywedodd Gerry Holtham ei fod yn “setliad teg iawn”, ac fe wnaeth Llywodraeth Cymru eu hunain gyhoeddi, yn y Cynulliad, y byddai’r fargen hon yn darparu cyllid tymor hir teg i Gymru. Dyna beth ddywedodd Gweinidogion y Cynulliad ym Mae Caerdydd.
(Translation) I can only go back to what the Welsh Government and Gerry Holtham said at the time. He said it was a very fair settlement, and the Welsh Government said in the Assembly that the deal would provide fair, long-term funding for Wales. That is what the Assembly’s Ministers said in Cardiff Bay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about the needs of Wales. A couple in my constituency are moving into a property. As a result of the move from employment and support allowance to universal credit, they will be £169 a month worse off, and they will be hit by the bedroom tax. Has not the Budget done absolutely nothing for that couple, and indeed for many of my other constituents?
Alun Cairns
The best way out of poverty is to encourage people into work and to progress within a work environment. Universal credit has been transformational in that. I point the hon. Gentleman to the data: unemployment in his constituency and others across Wales and the whole of the UK has fallen by close to 50%, depending on the community, and the greatest effect is being felt in areas where universal credit is being rolled out.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There are two responses to that. First, the jobs referred to are often, I am afraid, zero-hours contract jobs and very insecure. They are not the jobs where people can build a life, whether by taking out a car loan or indeed having a mortgage. Secondly, and worse still, we talk of jobs as a route out of poverty, but the Government have driven in-work poverty up to record levels.
Alun Cairns
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points. The working environment is changing, and that is exactly why today the Government published our response to the Taylor review, which recognises the further rights we need to give workers to protect those who find themselves in what they consider to be vulnerable situations. That is an example of the Government responding to concerns raised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give credit to Matthew Taylor and the work he did on the report.
Yn unol ag argymhellion Comisiwn Holtham, a’r hyn y cytunwyd arno yn y fframwiath cyllidol, ni fydd y swm y soniais amdano—sydd yn cael ei roi yn y grant bloc dan fformiwla Barnett—byth yn disgyn yn is na £115. Dyma’r cyllid gwaelodol—“funding floor”—mae rhai wedi bod yn galw amdano ers degawdau, a’r Llywodraeth yma sydd wedi cyflawni hynny. Yn unol â’r cytundeb hwn, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn gallu tyfu’r economi, denu buddsoddiadau newydd, cynnal eu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus a chefnogi pobl sydd yn gweithio’n galed ar hyd a lled Cymru.
Ar ôl datganoli treth stamp ar dir a threthi tirlenwi ym mis Ebrill, yn ogystal â chyfraddau treth incwm yng Nghymru y flwyddyn nesaf, bydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn gallu codi mwy o’u cyllid ei hunain trwy’r trethi hyn. Bydd hyn yn gwneud Llywodraeth Cymru, a’r Cynulliad yn gyffredinol, yn llawer mwy atebol i’r bobl maent yn eu gwasanaethu. Am y tro cyntaf, yng Nghyllideb yr hydref fe wnaeth Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig addasu grant bloc Llywodraeth Cymru i ystyried hyn, gan roi rhagor o gyfrifoldeb i Lywodraeth Cymru dros y bobl maent yn eu gwasanaethu. Fel ddywedais ynghynt, wnaeth Gerry Holtham gefnogi’r newid a wnaeth Llywodraeth Cymru dderbyn y newid a’i groesawu ar y pryd.
Mae Cyllideb yr hydref yn cynnwys mesurau penodol a fydd o fudd uniongyrchol i Gymru. Yn ogystal â pharhau i gefnogi’r bargeinion dinesig ar gyfer Caerdydd ac Abertawe trwy fuddsoddi £615 miliwn dros yr 20 mlynedd nesaf, cyhoeddwyd yn y Gyllideb bod Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn croesawu cynigion ar gyfer bargen twf i ganolbarth Cymru ac y byddai’n dechrau trafodaethau ffurfiol ar gyfer bargen twf i ogledd Cymru.
(Translation) In accordance with the Holtham Commission’s recommendations, agreed through the fiscal framework, the sum given via the block grant under the Barnett formula will not fall below £115. Some have called for that funding flow for decades, and it is this Government who have delivered on those calls. In accordance with the agreement, the Welsh Government have the means to grow the Welsh economy, to attract investment, to maintain public services and to support hard-working people across Wales.
Following the devolution of stamp duty land tax and landfill tax from April, in addition to the Welsh rate of income tax next year, the Welsh Government will be able to raise more of their own funding through those taxes. That will make the Welsh Government—and the Assembly in general—much more accountable to the people they serve.
For the first time, in the autumn Budget the UK Government adjusted the Welsh Government’s block grant to take that into account, giving the Welsh Government further responsibilities and making them more accountable to the people they serve. As I said earlier, Gerry Holtham supported this change, and the Welsh Government accepted and welcomed the change at the time.
The autumn Budget also includes specific measures that will be of benefit to Wales. In addition to continuing to support the Cardiff and Swansea city deals by investing £650 million over the next 20 years, the Budget announced that we as a UK Government are open to proposals for a mid-Wales growth deal. We will also begin formal negotiations for a north Wales growth deal.
Ben Lake
Ar fargen twf canolbarth Cymru, un o’r pethau rwyf yn siwr y bydd y tri ohonom sydd yn cynrychioli etholaethau yng nghanolbarth Cymru yn dweud yw cysylltedd—connectivity. Mae dirfawr angen i wella ar hyn yng nghanolbarth Cymru ac rwyf yn fawr obeithio y bydd modd cynnwys hyn yn y fargen yma.
(Translation) On the mid-Wales growth deal, one of the issues for the three of us who represent constituencies in mid-Wales is connectivity. We truly need to make improvements to that in mid-Wales and I hope that it can be included in the growth deal.
Alun Cairns
Rwyf eisiau tynnu cymunedau at ei gilydd: yn amlwg cymunedau o Geredigion ac o Bowys, ond hefyd rwyf yn gobeithio bydd cyfleoedd i rai o’r siroedd yn Nghymru ac ar yr ochr arall i gydweithio er mwyn denu buddsoddiant newydd i’r ardaloedd ac er mwyn cefnogi’r economi. Mae hynny’n golygu y byddai pob rhan o Gymru yn cael budd o’r gefnogaeth leol a phenodol y mae bargeinion dinesig a thwf yn ei chynnig. Ac mae hyn, wrth gwrs, ar ben y fformiwla Barnett newydd sydd wedi ei chytuno.
(Translation) I am very much in favour of bringing communities together, whether they be the communities of Ceredigion or of Powys, but I am also eager to give opportunities to some of the counties of Wales—and those on the other side of the border too—to work together to attract new investment into those areas and to support the economy. Our policy means that every part of Wales will benefit from the local, targeted support offered by the city and growth deals. That is above the new Barnett formula that has been agreed.
Susan Elan Jones
Rydym yn croesawu bob cyhoeddiad am fargen twf gogledd Cymru, ond byddwn yn ei chroesawu’n fwy pan fydd yn digwydd. Pryd mae’n mynd i ddigwydd?
(Translation) I welcome any announcement on a north Wales growth deal, but I will welcome it more when it happens. When will it happen?
Alun Cairns
Rydw i’n falch fod y Foneddiges anrhydeddus wedi gofyn y cwestiwn. Y peth sydd wrth wraidd y cynlluniau twf a’r bargeinion dinesig yw bod y grym yn nwylo’r awdurdodau lleol a busnesau lleol. Felly, rydym yn rhoi cyfle at ei gilydd ac, yn amlwg, yn gobeithio bydd y Foneddiges anrhydeddus yn fodlon cydweithio gyda’r cymunedau a’r busnesau er mwyn eu bod yn cyflawni’r cynlluniau ac i ddod â realiti i’r broses wrth ei bod yn datblygu.
Fel Aelodau Seneddol o bob cwr o Gymru, mae’n bwysig ein bod i gyd yn rhan o’r broses hon. Felly, rwyf yn falch iawn y llwyddodd gymaint ohonoch i ymuno â Swyddfa Cymru cyn y Nadolig i glywed yn uniongyrchol gan ein partneriaid lleol ynglŷn â’u cynnydd yng ngogledd Cymru. Yn amlwg, mae angen mwy o waith i gefnogi’r gwaith da sydd wedi mynd o’i flaen.
(Translation) I am glad that the hon. Lady asked that question. What lies at the heart of the growth and city deals is that the power lies in the hands of local authorities and local businesses, so we are giving them an opportunity to come together. We hope that she is willing to work with communities and businesses to achieve the deals and to make them a reality as they develop.
It is important that Members of Parliament from all parts of Wales are part of the process. I was therefore delighted that so many of the Members present were able to join us before Christmas to hear directly from local partners on the progress that they are making in north Wales. Obviously, we need more work in that regard to support the good work that has taken place already.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Mae angen i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol fod yn effro i’r perygl o weithio’n drawsffiniol: y bydd yr ardaloedd tlotaf, sef yr ardaloedd yn y gorllewin, o hyd yn olaf yn y dewisiadau. Rydym wedi cael yr un profiad gyda chysylltedd, lle mae dechrau gyda’r prif drefi yn golygu bod y cymunedau pellaf i ffwrdd yn cael eu anghofio erbyn y diwedd.
(Translation) The Secretary of State must be alive to the dangers of working on a cross-border basis: that the poorest areas—those in the west—will be left behind. That is the same problem we have had with connectivity, which started in the main towns, so the most remote communities were ultimately forgotten.
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn falch iawn fod y cwestiwn yna wedi cael ei ofyn. Rwyf yn deall y peryg ac yn ymwybodol o’r sensitifrwydd. Mae’n rhaid bod y partneriaid lleol yn ymateb i hyn, er mwyn bod setliad gan bawb. Os nad yw pawb yn gytûn, yn amlwg, bydd y bargen dinesig a’r bargen twf ddim yn cael cefnogaeth gen i na’r partneriaid lleol eraill. Mae’n rhaid fod pawb yn gytûn yn y broses. Rwyf yn awyddus i weld busnesau ledled y rhanbarth a thu hwnt yn hybu'r bargeinion hyn, gan adeiladu ar gryfderau'r ardaloedd—pob ardal—gweithio'n drawsffiniol a rhoi hwb i'r economi lleol.
Roedd y Gyllideb hefyd yn cydnabod bod angen gwella ein rhwydwaith rheilffyrdd, gan roi hwb i gysylltiadau a gwella teithiau i gwsmeriaid ar y trenau mwyaf diweddar.
(Translation) I am very glad that that question was asked. Obviously, I understand the risk, and I am aware of the sensitivity that arises. Local partners must respond to that to ensure that the settlement is for everyone, because if everyone is not agreed, obviously the city or growth deal would not be supported, whether by me or by other local partners. Everyone must be agreed on the process. I am keen to see businesses across the region and from further afield driving the deals, building on the strength of the regions—that is all regions, cross-border too—and boosting the local economy.
The Budget also recognised the need to see further improvements to our rail network, boosting connectivity and delivering better journeys on the newest trains.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
What possible justification can the Secretary of State give for the breaking of a promise to electrify the railway line—
The Chair
Order. I hate to interrupt, but will the hon. Gentleman either put his headphones on or take them off, because of the feedback? I am taking advice from the technicians.
Wayne David
What possible justification can the Secretary of State give for breaking the promise to electrify the railway line from Cardiff to Swansea?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, but he will be fully aware of the calls by the Public Accounts Committee, which is formed on a cross-party basis, for every element to be reviewed case by case for value for money. Projects that were not deemed to be value for money because there would be no improvement, such as the time to be delivered between Cardiff and Swansea, did not justify the additional sums of money made available. Under the current proposals, it will be the same trains travelling on the same track arriving at the same time as would have been the case under electrification that went the whole way to Swansea or stopped in Cardiff.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
When the previous Tory Prime Minister, David Cameron, said how transformational that project would be and committed to it, he was wrong, was he?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that when that commitment was made, the intention was to use electric-only trains rather than bimodal trains.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The former Secretary of State for Transport also categorically stated in the House of Commons that the valleys lines would be electrified by the end of 2018. There is absolutely no prospect of that happening, is there? Why do Conservative politicians keep making promises that they know they have no prospect of fulfilling?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that responsibility has been passed over to the Welsh Government, with additional money being made available by the UK Government for that scheme. I suggest that he puts that question to his colleagues in Cardiff Bay, because the former Transport Secretary would have been repeating the claims and the comments that had been made by politicians in Cardiff Bay.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that there are new proposals on the table for the straightening of the line to Cardiff and Swansea to reduce the journey time by half an hour, alongside Swansea metro, will the Secretary of State look positively at those ideas as part of a wider city deal? Given that Wales has 6% of the track line and only about 2% of the investment in railway infrastructure, he should be standing up for Wales, rather than sitting down and thinking about his job before he thinks about Wales.
Alun Cairns
In the first instance, I would say that of course we will look at whatever project comes forward. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of demands that have been made. The First Minister made positive statements about a Swansea parkway station earlier this week in the Assembly, and there are demands coming from some community leaders in Swansea about such a station. Those are issues that we are happy to look at, and the Chancellor talked about proposals of that sort.
If any other project comes forward, we will happily look at it, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 13 years of Labour Government only 3 miles or 12 miles of track were electrified—there is a debate about that and we are not sure which, but I will happily give the benefit of the doubt and say that it was 12 miles. I also remind hon. Members that Wales was left as one of those nations, along with eastern European nations such as Moldova and Albania, with not a single track of electrified railway.
Alun Cairns
Mr Owen, gyda’ch cytundeb, ildiaf i’r anrhydeddus Aelod dros Dwyrain Caerfyrddin a Dinefwr.
(Translation) With your permission, Mr Owen, I will give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr.
Jonathan Edwards
O ystyried hoffder y Llywodraeth Prydeinig o drenau dau-danwydd yng nghyd-destun rheilffyrdd Cymru, gallaf gymryd mai trenau dau-danwydd bydd yn rhedeg ar HS2, HS3 a Crossrail 2?
(Translation) Given the Government’s liking for bimodal-fuel vehicles for Welsh railways, may I assume that bimodal trains will be running on HS2, HS3 and Crossrail?
Alun Cairns
Rwy’n siwr bydd y Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn cefnogi edrych ar unrhyw brosiect i ddefnyddio’r dechnoleg orau posib ar gyfer cyflawni’r gwariant a’r gwerth arian sydd ymhob prosiect.
Gaf i symud ymlaen, Mr Owen? Rydym wedi gwella’r cysylltiad yng ngogledd Cymru, gan roi budd i bobl ar ddwy ochr y ffin. Bydd gwasanaethau uniongyrchol o ogledd Cymru i Lerpwl ar gael am y tro cyntaf mewn degawdau, diolch i’r buddsoddiad o £16 miliwn i’r Halton curve. Nawr rydym yn darparu prosiect ail-signalu gwerth £50 miliwn i uwchraddio rheilffyrdd gogledd Cymru. Byddai moderneiddio prif linell rheilffordd arfordir y gogledd yn rhoi hwb sylweddol i gysylltiadau trafnidiaeth y rhanbarth. Mae ein rhaglen moderneiddio Great Western, gan gynnwys ein buddsoddiad o £5.7 biliwn mewn trenau IEP o'r radd flaenaf, yn torri 15 munud oddi ar yr amseroedd teithio o dde Cymru i Lundain.
(Translation) Obviously, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be supportive of any project that will use the best possible technology to achieve the expenditure and the value for money that all projects require.
May I move on? We are improving connectivity for north Wales, benefiting people on both sides of the border, and direct services from north Wales to Liverpool will be possible for the first time in decades. That is thanks to our £16 million investment in the Halton curve. We are now delivering a £50 million re-signalling project to upgrade north Wales’s railway, and modernising the north Wales coast main line would be a significant boost to the region’s transport links. Our Great Western modernisation programme, including a £5.7 billion investment in new, state-of-the-art IEP trains, will cut journey times from south Wales to London by 15 minutes. At the Budget—
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn fwy na hapus i ildio, ond rwyf hefyd yn gwbl ymwybodol o’r amser sydd yn cael ei gymryd.
(Translation) I am happy to give way, but I also feel very aware of the time that is being taken.
Jessica Morden
If the Secretary of State is serious about improving cross-border connectivity between parts of my constituency and Bristol and beyond, can he get the Department for Transport to improve those cross-border rail services that take my constituents to Bristol, Bath and beyond to work? They are woefully inadequate.
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn falch iawn i ymateb yn bositif. Mae’r ymgynghoriad yn mynd yn ei flaen ar hyn o bryd ynglŷn â franchise Great Western Railways a pha fath o fodel y dylem gydweithio i’w sicrhau, ac rwyf yn argymell bod y Foneddiges anrhydeddus yn ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad. Rwyf eisiau gweld y cysylltiadau gorau posib rhwng Caerdydd, Casnewydd, Bryste a llefydd y tu hwnt yn gyflym ac yn effeithiol, er mwyn iddynt addasu at y cyfleoedd newydd a ddaw yn y rhanbarth sydd yn datblygu wrth i ni gael gwared o’r tollau ar bont Hafren. Hoffwn hefyd dalu teyrnged i’r Foneddiges anrhydeddus am ei hymgyrchu i gael gwared o’r tollau.
(Translation): I am very happy to respond positively. The consultation is under way on the Great Western railway franchise and the type of model that we should be collaborating to get. I recommend that the hon. Lady responds to that consultation. Obviously, I want to see the best possible connections between Cardiff, Newport and Bristol, and further afield. They should be quick and efficient for us to grasp the new opportunities that will arrive in a region that is developing, as we get rid of the tolls on the Severn bridge. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her campaigning to remove those tolls from the bridges.
Alun Cairns
Hoffwn fwrw ati i orffen yr araith rhywfaint a byddaf yn ildio yn nes ymlaen. Mae fy Ffrind gwir anrhydeddus Canghellor y Trysorlys hefyd wedi amlinellu gwaith ar gyfer y dyfodol i lunio cynigion ar gyfer cynlluniau rheilffyrdd posib eraill ar hyd a lled rhwydwaith Cymru. Roedd ein strategaeth ddiwydiannol yn sail i gyhoeddiadau’r Gyllideb ac rydym yn awyddus i adeiladu ar y bargeinion a gyhoeddwyd ar gyfer y sectorau deallusrwydd artiffisial, lle mae Casnewydd yn rhagori; gwyddorau bywyd, lle mae Cymru eto ar flaen y gad, gyda nifer o ddatblygiadau cyffrous ac arloesol; a’r diwydiant cerbydau yng Nghymru, sy’n gartref i Toyota, Ford ac Aston Martin.
(Translation): Let me make some progress and I will give way later. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has outlined further work to develop proposals for other potential rail schemes across the Wales network. Our industrial strategy was a basis of the Budget announcements. We are keen to build on the sector deals on artificial intelligence that were announced, where Newport excels. In life sciences, Wales is at the forefront of several exciting and pioneering developments. In the automotive industry, Wales is home to Toyota, Ford and Aston Martin.
Ben Lake
Ar y nodyn hwnnw, crëwyd cryn dipyn o gynnwrf cwpl o wythnosau yn ôl pan ddatgelwyd y pwerdy gorllewinol. Wrth gwrs, roedd yn siomedig i ni yng Ngheredigion mai gorllewin Lloegr yr oedd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Gymru yn cyfeirio ati. O ran deallusrwydd artiffisial, eto dyma gyfle ar gyfer cynllun twf canolbarth Cymru. Mae Prifysgol Aberystwyth yn ganolfan arbenigol, felly byddai’n dda gweld unrhyw fesurau sydd gan y Llywodraeth i geisio ysgogi hyn.
(Translation): On that point, a few weeks ago there was quite some excitement when the western powerhouse was announced. It was unfortunate for Ceredigion that the Secretary of State referred only to south-east Wales and the south-west of England. On AI, there is an opportunity for the mid-Wales growth deal. Aberystwyth has great expertise in that area, so it would be good to see any proposals from the Government to encourage that development.
Alun Cairns
Rwyf yn ddiolchgar am y pwynt sydd wedi ei wneud a byddwn yn gobeithio y bydd Prifysgol Aberystwyth a phartneriaid lleol yn dod at ei gilydd er mwyn defnyddio’r arbenigedd lleol i dyfu’r economi a denu mwy o fuddsoddiad. Mae hynny’n swnio’n syniad cyffrous iawn o ran y fargen i dyfu’r economi.
Mae disgwyl i hyn fod o fudd i Gymru mewn sawl ffordd. Bydd yn cryfhau Cymru o ran ymchwil ac arloesi ac yn rhoi hwb i gysylltedd 5G ar gyfer busnesau bach a chanolig hanfodol Cymru. Fe gyhoeddwyd hefyd y bydd cronfa her yn cael ei sefydlu i drawsnewid y diwydiannau adeiladu, amaethyddiaeth a chynhyrchiant. Fel rhan o’n cynllun i hybu arloesi, rydym wedi ymrwymo i wario £2.3 biliwn ychwanegol ar ymchwil a datblygu ledled y Deyrnas Unedig, yn ogystal ag £21 miliwn pellach i ehangu Tech Nation dros y pedair mlynedd nesaf. Mae disgwyl i fusnesau digidol gael budd o’r ganolfan Tech Nation yng Nghaerdydd.
Rydym hefyd yn edrych ymlaen at ddatblygu cyfleoedd twf trawsffiniol ymhellach. Mae hyn i’w weld yn fwyaf amlwg yn ein hymrwymiad i ddiddymu tollau’r bont Hafren erbyn diwedd y flwyddyn, fel y soniais gynt. Mae hyn yn rhoi neges bwerus i fusnesau, cymudwyr a thwristiaid bod Cymru ar agor i fusnes. Bydd y polisi yn cryfhau'r cysylltiadau rhwng cymunedau ac yn helpu i drawsnewid rhagolygon economaidd de Cymru a de-orllewin Lloegr, gan greu coridor twf sy’n ymestyn o Geredigion, yr holl ffordd trwy Abertawe, Caerdydd a Chasnewydd i Fryste, Caerfaddon a thu hwnt. Bydd yr ymrwymiad hwn yn arbed tua £115 y mis i gymudwyr sydd yn teithio bob dydd. Ni fydd rhaid i gludwyr dalu £20 am bob lori sy’n cludo nwyddau chwaith. Bydd hwn yn newid mawr i’r tirlun economaidd ac yn cynnig cyfleoedd newydd i dde Cymru.
Bythefnos yn ôl, bum yn cynnal uwchgynhadledd yn y Celtic Manor yng Nghasnewydd, lle daeth partneriaid lleol at ei gilydd i drafod y cyfleoedd a fyddai’n dod yn sgil diddymu'r tollau. Roedd y digwyddiad yn llwyddiant ysgubol: daeth dros 350 o fusnesau a ffigyrau amlwg o Gymru a de orllewin Lloegr at ei gilydd i drafod ac ystyried y cyfleoedd newydd. Roedd 90% o’r rhai a oedd yn bresennol yn teimlo y byddai diddymu’r tollau yn rhoi hwb i'w busnes, ac roedd 97% yn teimlo y byddai diddymu’r tollau o fudd i Gymru. Mae hyn yn ddechrau partneriaeth gyffrous a hir-dymor ymysg diwydiant, academia, cymdeithas sifil a busnes. Gyda’n gilydd gallwn chwarae rhan allweddol yn y gwaith o hybu cynhyrchiant a ffyniant ledled y Deyrnas Unedig, lle bod Cymru i gyd yn elwa.
Roedd y Gyllideb hefyd yn amlinellu amrywiaeth o bolisïau ar gyfer y Deyrnas Unedig gyfan a fydd o fudd i Gymru. Rydym yn rhewi'r dreth danwydd am yr wythfed flwyddyn yn olynol, gan arbed bron i £9 i’r gyrrwr cyffredin yng Nghymru pan fydd yn llenwi ei gar. Rydym yn codi'r cyflog byw cenedlaethol, a fydd yn rhoi £600 o godiad cyflog blynyddol i weithwyr llawn-amser yng Nghymru. Rydym yn cynyddu lwfansau personol, bydd o fudd i fwy na 1.4 miliwn o bobl yng Nghymru. Bydd elusennau ledled Cymru yn elwa o dros £660,000 o gyllid LIBOR, gan gynnwys Gofal a Thrwsio Gogledd Ddwyrain Cymru, sy'n rhoi cyfleoedd gwaith a hyfforddiant i gyn-filwyr.
Mae Cymru mewn sefyllfa dda i fanteisio ar y cyfleoedd a ddaw yn sgil gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Cymru oedd y wlad wnaeth dyfu gyflymaf yn y Deyrnas Unedig yn 2016 a Chaerdydd oedd y brifddinas wnaeth dyfu gyflymaf. Ers y refferendwm, mae cwmnïau wedi dangos hyder yng Nghymru trwy fuddsoddi ynddi. Yn 2016-17, cafodd dros 2,500 o swyddi newydd eu creu trwy 85 o brosiectau yng Nghymru, o ganlyniad i fuddsoddiad mewnol.
(Translation): I am grateful for that point. I hope that Aberystwyth University and local partners will come together to use the expertise available locally, to grow the economy and to attract further investment. That sounds like a very exciting idea for the growth deal.
It is expected that Wales will benefit in many ways. Wales’s research and innovation will be boosted, as well as 5G connectivity for Wales’s vital small and medium enterprises. It was also announced that an innovation fund will be established to drive agriculture and productivity. As part of our innovation drive, we have committed to spend an additional £2.3 billion on UK-wide R&D, in addition to £21 million to expand Tech Nation over the next four years. Digital businesses in Wales are set to benefit from the Tech Nation hub based in Cardiff.
We look forward to further developing cross-border growth opportunities. That is most obvious in our commitment to abolish the Severn tolls by the end of the year, which I mentioned earlier. That sends a powerful message to businesses, commuters and tourists that Wales is open for business. This policy will strengthen the links between communities and help to transform the joint economic prospects of south Wales and the south-west of England, creating a growth corridor that stretches from Ceredigion through Swansea, Cardiff and Newport, to Bristol, Bath and further afield. This commitment will save the average commuter about £115 a month, and hauliers will no longer pay £20 for every truck transporting goods. It will make a profound change to the economic landscape and will offer new opportunities for south Wales.
Two weeks ago, I hosted a summit at Celtic Manor in Newport, which brought together local partners to discuss the opportunities arising from the abolition of the tolls. The event was a remarkable success. It was attended by more than 350 businesses and leading figures in Wales and the south-west of England, who all came together to discuss and consider the new developments. Some 90% of the attendees felt that their businesses will be boosted by the abolition of the Severn tolls, and 97% felt that the removal of the tolls will benefit Wales. It was the start of an exciting long-term partnership with industry, academia, civil society and business. Together, we can play a key role in driving productivity and prosperity across the whole of the UK, and all of Wales will benefit.
The Budget also outlined a range of UK-wide policies that will benefit Wales. We are freezing fuel duty for the eighth successive year, and the average driver in Wales will save nearly £9 every time they fill up their car. We are increasing the national living wage, which will deliver a £600 annual pay rise to full-time workers in Wales. We are increasing the personal allowance, which will benefit more than 1.4 million people in Wales. Charities across Wales—including Care & Repair North East Wales Ltd, which supports training and employment opportunities for veterans—will benefit from more than £660,000 of LIBOR funding.
Wales is well placed to seize the opportunities presented by exiting the EU. In 2016, Wales was the fastest-growing nation in the UK, and Cardiff was the fastest-growing capital city. Since the referendum, companies have shown their confidence by investing in Wales. In 2016-17, more than 2,000 new jobs were created through 85 projects in Wales as a result of inward investment.
Wayne David
Does the Secretary of State agree that business confidence would be increased massively if businesses had some sort of idea of what the Government are trying to negotiate in the Brexit negotiations?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are in negotiations, and he would not expect us to show our hand during that process. I would point to the significant inward investment—the UK is the leading place for attracting inward investment in Europe, which demonstrates the confidence business is showing in the economy—and the uplift in economic growth last quarter.
Geraint Davies
More than 60% of Welsh trade goes to the EU. The 48% of people who voted to remain are in favour of the customs union and the single market, as are a portion of the people who voted to leave. Given that the majority of Welsh people are in favour of being in the customs union and the single market, will the Secretary of State fight for a soft Brexit?
Alun Cairns
It is far too simplistic to say that 60% of Welsh exports go to Europe, because supply chains are far more complex than that. The Welsh Government concluded that 80% of Welsh exports go to the rest of the United Kingdom, which demonstrates the complexity of the position. Therefore, maintaining the integrity of the single market is important.
Chris Elmore
In relation to the Secretary of State’s point about inward investment and jobs, one of the areas that is not growing is the car industry at the Ford plant in Bridgend, due to Jaguar Land Rover’s ending its contract early. One of the real concerns is that that is not linked to Brexit; it is about commercial decisions that I accept Ford has to make. It puts significant numbers of jobs at risk for people in my constituency. If we are not in a customs union, trade tariffs on car production could risk closing Ford. That is not scaremongering, before the Secretary of State accuses me of that; it is a real issue, which Ford is raising at the highest levels of Government in the UK, including the Welsh Government.
Alun Cairns
In the first instance, that is factually inaccurate. The contract is not being ended early; it was the natural end of the contract. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that the Welsh Government and the UK Government are working together closely. Just over a week ago, I met the Assembly Cabinet Secretary for Finance to discuss how we can continue to work together and where officials can be part of a joint taskforce. That measure was requested and supported by the trade unions, and I was keen to respond positively to it.
The Aston Martin investment is just a short distance away, and that demonstrates the confidence that the industry has in the south Wales economy, with 700 jobs from one project, as well as the greater opportunities for the future that have been created. We take Ford very seriously, which is why we continue to work together with the unions, the Welsh Government and the UK Government, as well as Ford, to seek a positive outcome.
Mae’r ffigyrau hyn yn dangos bod Cymru’n parhau i fod yn gyrchfan atyniadol ar gyfer buddsoddiad tramor, gan roi hwb gwerthfawr i’r economi a chreu miloedd o swyddi.
Erbyn hyn, mae gan ein gwlad lwyfan aruthrol i adeiladu arno dros y misoedd nesaf wrth inni wneud cynlluniau i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, creu cysylltiadau cryfach gyda phartneriaid rhyngwladol a denu mwy o fuddsoddiad o farchnadoedd sy’n dod i’r amlwg.
Mae’r Gyllideb hon yn amlinellu pecyn grymus o fesurau a fydd yn helpu i lunio economi Cymru fel ei fod yn addas ar gyfer y dyfodol.
(Translation) These figures demonstrate that Wales remains an attractive destination for overseas investment, and that provides a valuable boost for the economy and creates thousands of jobs. Our country now has a tremendous platform to build on over the coming months as we make plans to leave the EU, and to forge stronger relations with international partners and attract more investment from emerging markets. This Budget outlines a powerful package of measures that will help to shape Wales’s economy into one that is fit for the future.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and on behalf of the Labour party I welcome all Members of Parliament for Wales to the first Welsh Welsh Grand Committee. It is great to be here, and it is my first Welsh Grand since being appointed shadow Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to disturb the hon. Lady. Members are taking their headphones off but leaving them switched on, and the sound circulates around the room and causes feedback. If Members are not using their headphones, please can they turn them off?
Christina Rees
Thank you, Mr Owen.
It is great to be here. There have only been two Welsh Grand Committees in almost four years since July 2014. If a day is a long time in politics, four years is an age. I will not even try to articulate the changes that we have seen in that time, or say what the world looked like back then, except to say that Boris Johnson was still claiming credit for the London Olympics, David Cameron was still pretending to have a long-term economic plan, a European referendum was Nigel Farage’s dream, and Donald Trump was a rich but harmless reality TV star.
In real terms, we have seen positive changes to Wales’s representation in Westminster—three new Labour MPs are standing up for Wales as a result of the snap general election last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) won back her constituency, overturning the narrowest Tory majority in the UK of 27 votes with a thumping 3,269 majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), my phantasmagorical Parliamentary Private Secretary, won back Cardiff North from the Tories with a majority of 4,174, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) returned to the green Benches, winning back the seat that he held from 1997 and lost by 237 votes in 2015. We are so pleased that he came back in 2017 with a majority of 2,379, after a two-year sabbatical promoting mindfulness around the world. I am so grateful that Mr Statistics, as he is known, agreed to be my shadow Minister.
Christina Rees
I consider myself chastised, Mr Owen, and I am sorry to have incurred the wrath of the Chair.
Since the last Welsh Grand we have a new Secretary of State for Wales—he is rapidly approaching becoming the longest serving Welsh Secretary over the past eight years. I teased the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales during Welsh questions, so I shall move swiftly on before Mr Owen gives me the evil eye again.
We are here today to discuss the autumn Budget of 22 November and its impact on Wales. A famous Welsh Labour politician once said that politics is the “language of priorities”. That sentiment is never better displayed than in the setting of a Budget. Considering what Wales got out of the autumn Budget, we would be forgiven for thinking that this might be a brief sitting. I want to describe how a transformative Government Budget could be created, in the right hands. A Budget can be progressive and social. It can articulate investment in vital public services, demonstrate support for key industries and ensure that money is spent to benefit the many, not the few.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment about the Tory Government’s lack of investment in communities? I am referring to the closure of local Department for Work and Pensions centres, including the proposed closure of the pension centre in Cwmbran. That is taking jobs out of communities.
Christina Rees
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is happening not only in his constituency but throughout Wales.
The famous Labour politician I mentioned was of course Nye Bevan, who knew that politics, power and responsibility come down to one thing: priorities. It is in their Budgets that Governments reveal their priorities. The autumn Budget revealed that Wales is not one of the UK Tory Government’s priorities. In the right hands, a Budget for Wales could deliver investment and the greatest good for the greatest number: money for the NHS, local government, education, and skills; investment in projects to tackle youth homelessness and to improve air quality; support for small businesses and business rate relief; funding to promote our language, which is a cornerstone of our culture, and for a growth in the use of Welsh in schools and colleges across the country; and a 21st century schools capital investment programme, investing not only in facilities but in our children’s future. That is a Budget. That is what a Budget can achieve when power is put in the right hands for Wales.
Of course those are not just warm words or hopeful rhetoric. They are the commitments of a Welsh Labour Government budget published less than a fortnight ago—a radical, progressive budget for the many, not the few. However, the Welsh Labour Government are working with one hand tied behind their back. Why? Because the failing Tory UK Government continue to press on with their futile and unnecessary austerity measures, impose cuts on the Welsh Labour Government’s block grant, and let Wales down.
Welsh Labour called on the Chancellor to end austerity and fund the Welsh Labour Government properly, enabling them to invest further in Welsh public services. He failed to do that. We demanded that he provide new funding to lift the public sector pay cap in Wales, which is hitting public sector workers year after year. He failed to do that. The autumn Budget—the Chancellor’s first since the change of pattern—shows once again the contempt and disregard that the UK Tory Government have for Wales. It is a shameful catalogue of missed opportunities, shot through with a callous disregard for the communities and people in Wales most in need of support.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend accept that, given that Wales is the poorest part of western Europe and we are going to lose convergence funding, it is appalling that the Welsh Government’s block grant should be cut by 5%—£900 million—at a time when we need to invest in education, rail and productivity and lift our opportunities rather than crush them?
Simon Hoare
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and her colleagues for keeping the seats they picked up in June warm until we pick them up next time. She has been very good at explaining how her party would spend and spend—one can only assume it would be by taxing and taxing, and borrowing and borrowing. Does she not accept that one of the first duties of the UK Treasury is to try and make sure that we live within our means, balance our books and set the framework for economic growth to deliver the taxes to pay for the services?
Christina Rees
Eight years of cuts and where has it got us? Your policies have driven up the debt. I really do not see where you are coming from.
Chris Bryant
Is not there another point? If the Government keep on trying to run the state on the cheap, they will end up spending more because they have to buy in agency workers in the NHS and schools, and pay consultants to do work that could have been done in-house. It is a complete and utter false economy that they have been running all these years.
Christina Rees
I really cannot add to that—my hon. Friend put it so well and I totally agree. That was my opinion on Budget day. I wonder if I could be persuaded differently by Conservative Members by the end of this Welsh Grand Committee today. The way things are going so far, I do not think I will.
Let me demonstrate the appalling attitude to Wales shown by the UK Tory Government through a budget that embodies this disdain. More than half of the new funding announced for Wales will have to be paid back to the UK Tory Government. Two thirds of the additional capital funding is made up of a form of funding called financial transactions, which must be repaid to the Treasury. There are also restrictions on what it can be spent on. The Welsh budget has experienced year on year cuts as a result of the UK Tory Government’s ongoing ideological programme of austerity. There is an ongoing battle between the social democratic values of the Welsh Labour Government versus the neoliberal ideology of the UK Tory Government.
Even with these small increases in funding, our budget will still be 5% lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11, which is equivalent to having £900 million less to spend on public services in Wales. If we exclude the financial transactions funding, which we will have to pay back, our budget will be 7% lower, or equivalent to £1.1 billion less by 2019-20.
Wales has been let down elsewhere too. The Welsh Labour Government have repeatedly called on the UK Tory Government to fully fund a pay rise for all public sector workers. The UK Tory budget was a missed opportunity to do just that. The Welsh Labour Government have called on the UK Tory Government to invest in key infrastructure projects in Wales, including the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which has been mentioned before, and rail, but the Chancellor once again turned his back on Wales. The only feedback we have had on the tidal lagoon is the vague point about value for money that was trundled out again last week and today, despite the UK Tory Government’s independent Hendry review recommending its support as a no-regrets decision. The Secretary of State has told us that Welsh Labour Government and UK Tory Government officials met to discuss the tidal lagoon, but what about the UK Tory Government decision-makers? When are they going to front up and put up? The Secretary of State knows that the Welsh Labour Government have pledged millions to support the Swansea bay tidal lagoon.
The UK Tory Government have cancelled the electrification of the main line from Cardiff to Swansea, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). None of their explanations for doing so make economic or environmental sense. If the UK Tory Government had kept their promise to electrify the main line from Cardiff to Swansea, we would not have needed bimodal trains, which are heavier because they need to carry both sources of power, making each journey more expensive. The heavier trains increase wear and tear on the track, the buffet car has been taken out to make 130 more seats, and so on.
There has been no devolution of air passenger duty to Wales. Last week at Wales questions, the Secretary of State failed once again to answer a question put by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about devolving airport taxes. Building on the excellent work of Visit Wales, the Welsh Labour Government would be able to use the control of air passenger duty to support and promote Welsh tourism. Anyone who visits Wales will agree that it is spectacularly beautiful.
If I were being magnanimous––I am a very gentle, understanding person––I could mention something that the Tories did include for Wales in their Budget. They announced that the Severn bridge tolls will be scrapped by the end of next year, following an immediate cut to various charges. What they did not tell us is that the drop in toll prices is merely down to the removal of VAT, because legislation, rather than political priorities, dictates that VAT cannot be charged once the bridges have been brought back into public ownership. Who is to say that the Tories will not break yet another promise and fail to remove the tolls, even though it is difficult to do a U-turn while driving on the Severn bridges?
We urge the UK Tory Government to pause and fix universal credit, which is creating appalling poverty, debt and desperation for families across Wales. They choose not to, instead tinkering around the edges of a broken system. We ask the UK Tory Government once again to join Welsh Labour and support business, infrastructure and innovation, for on each and every one of these, Wales has been let down once again. On the crucial issue of the north Wales growth deal, after sustained pressure from Welsh Labour MPs and the Welsh Labour Government, the Chancellor indicated that discussions would begin to take the project forward. I am pleased to hear that that is going to happen today.
Mr David Jones
I have hesitated to intervene, but the hon. Lady is being less than fair. Was not the pressure on the Chancellor exerted by the all-party parliamentary group on Mersey Dee North Wales, which is chaired by her colleague, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas)? That is a cross-party group and it was that group that applied the pressure.
Christina Rees
That group deserves some credit and I fully respect that the group has been moving things forward.
Ben Lake
Rwy’n ofni na wnaf i wneud llawer iawn o ffrindiau gyda’r hyn sydd gennyf i’w ddweud. Mae’r Foneddiges anrhydeddus yn gwneud pwyntiau cywir iawn. Un o’r pethau mae’n cyfleu yw pa mor anwastad yw gwariant Llywodraeth Prydain ar draws Cymru yn ddaearyddol. Mae rhaid, er tegwch, pwyntio at ffigyrau Llywodraeth Cymru yn ddiweddar, sydd yn dangos bod eu cynlluniau nhw ar gyfer gwariant 2017-18 yn cyfrifo at £102 y pen i’r boblogaeth yn y canolbarth a gorllewin Cymru o’i gymharu â £380 y pen i’r rheiny sydd yn byw yn ne-ddwyrain Cymru. Mae yna fai ar y ddwy ochr.
(Translation) I doubt that I will make many friends with what I am saying, but the hon. Lady is making some interesting points. One thing that comes across is how uneven UK Government expenditure is across Wales geographically. In fairness, we must also point to the recent Welsh Government figures, which show that their plans for expenditure in 2017-18 account for £102 per capita of the population in mid and west Wales, compared with £380 for those living in the south-east. There is blame on both sides.
Christina Rees
I am sure the Welsh Government are looking at every area of Wales to increase prosperity, and making every effort to do so.
Susan Elan Jones
I am interested by what the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, but he should remember that, around that time, there was a coalition between Labour and Plaid Cymru. There is much consensual working in the Assembly, which I welcome. He should be careful before firing his darts.
Christina Rees
I totally agree with my hon. Friend and I thank her for speaking in English, which takes me less time to understand. [Interruption.] I am not going to respond to that. I can imagine what it meant, but I am not going to respond.
As with every Tory pledge, the devil will be in the detail, and we await the detail for the north Wales and mid-Wales growth deals.
The UK Tory Government’s claims of an extra £1.2 billion for Wales are pure smoke and mirrors. The truth is that the real uplift to the Welsh budget is significantly smaller. In 2022, after nearly 12 years of UK Tory Government rule, UK GDP is forecast to be £41 billion, or 3%, lower than previously predicted. The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecast for each of the next five years. That means that Wales will be significantly worse off than previously thought. That will have an impact on tax receipts, which will be £26 billion lower by 2022, there will be higher borrowing, and less funding will be available for public services.
All that is a direct product of the UK Tory Government’s ideological commitment to the failed and damaging policy of austerity. Despite eight years of Tory austerity, continued cuts to the block grant of more than £1 billion in total and the UK Tory Government continually letting Wales down, the Welsh Labour Government continue to do a remarkable job. They have led the way on sprinklers, plastic carrier bag charges, free bus passes and prescriptions, and opt-out organ donation. Our Welsh Labour Government continue to protect and invest in frontline services, and continue to work to protect our communities against the cruellest excesses of UK Tory Government cuts. That work will be much harder following November’s weak and desperate Budget from a UK Tory Government who simply do not care about Wales. At the end of the day, there is a saying in Wales: “Cymru yn arwain, eraill yn dilyn.”
Jonathan Edwards
Mae’n anrhydedd enfawr i wasanaethu dan eich arweinyddiaeth chi, Mr Owen, yn enwedig yn siarad, am y tro cyntaf, yn iaith y nefoedd. Rwyf yn gobeithio y bydd yr egwyddor yma yn cael ei ymestyn i Bwyllgorau eraill y Tŷ yma—er enghraifft, y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig dan arweinyddiaeth yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros Fynwy.
Rydym yn cyfarfod i drafod Cyllideb enbyd o siomedig. Roedd dadansoddiad y Swyddfa Cyfrifoldeb Cyllidebol, a ddaeth yr un adeg â’r Gyllideb, yn wirioneddol ddiflas, gyda rhagolygon wedi eu hisraddio ar gyfer buddsoddi gan fusnes, cynhyrchedd a thwf economaidd—a hyn am yr ail Gyllideb yn olynol.
Mae’n glir bod yr athroniaeth o gywasgu ariannol ymledol—expansionary fiscal contraction—a ddilynwyd gan y Trysorlys ers 2010 wedi methu yn llwyr. Holl bwynt llymder a thorri yn ôl ar fuddsoddi cyhoeddus oedd y dylsai fod wedi arwain at gynnydd enfawr mewn menter a buddosddi preifat.
Ynghyd â’r toriadau mewn buddsoddiad seilwaith, y gwrthwyneb sydd wedi digwydd, fel y gwnaethom ni rybuddio dro ar ôl tro—a hyn oll gyda’i gilydd yn arwain at lefel cynhyrchedd cronig. Yn wir, lefelau cynhyrchedd cronig y wladwriaeth Brydeinig oedd prif stori y Gyllideb.
(Translation) It is a huge privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, particularly while speaking the language of heaven for the first time in the House. I hope that this principle will be extended to other Committees of the House, such as the Welsh Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Monmouth.
We meet today to discuss the dreadfully disappointing Budget. The OBR’s analysis was truly depressing: for the second Budget on the bounce, it downgraded forecasts for business investment, productivity and economic growth. The philosophy of expansionary fiscal contraction pursued by the Treasury since 2010 has completely failed. Austerity and cuts to public investment were supposed to lead to a bonanza in private enterprise and investment—that was the whole point—but of course, as we consistently warned, the reverse happened, together with cuts in infrastructure investment. All that led to chronic productivity levels—indeed, that is main story for the UK.
The chronic productivity challenge that the UK faces was the major issue in the Budget. The situation that we find ourselves in was of course totally foreseeable.
Y canlyniad yn y pen draw yw bod y Trysorlys wedi colli ei dargedau dyled gan filltiroedd. Roedd hyn i fod dan reolaeth erbyn 2015—bwriedid iddo fod yn brosiect bum mlynedd—ond mae’n edrych fel petai cywasgu ariannol pellach am barhau tan ddiwedd y ddegawd nesaf. Ni fydd haneswyr economaidd y dyfodol yn garedig iawn i’r Llywodraeth Brydeinig.
Rydym yn gwynebu cenhedlaeth goll o ran safonau byw, gyda’r wasgfa fwyaf ers rhyfeoloedd Napoleon yn debyg o barhau tan o leiaf 2025, yn ôl y Resolution Foundation. Mae’r sefyllfa yma wedi cael ei greu, wrth gwrs, gan y cwymp mewn sterling.
(Translation) The end result was that the Treasury missed its debt and deficit targets by a country mile. That was all supposed to be under control by 2015. It was supposed to be a five-year project, but it looks like further fiscal contraction will now continue until the end of the next decade. Economic historians of the future will not look kindly on the UK Government. We face a lost generation in terms of living standards. According to the Resolution Foundation, the biggest squeeze since the Napoleonic wars is likely to continue until at least 2025. Of course, that came about as a result of the collapse of sterling.
According to economists, the collapse in the currency represents the least successful devaluation in history. Unlike the devaluation in China, which was driven by the People’s Bank of China to make the manufacturing sector competitive, the devaluation of sterling was a direct result of markets betting against the currency, which does not reflect well on what will happen following Brexit. The fact that there has been no export boom following the devaluation of the currency—as well as the fact that the currency has not rebounded after more than a year of promises, and with the British Government outlining their position on Brexit—does not bode well for the future.
Simon Hoare
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that manufacturing output and exports are at their highest for a decade?
Jonathan Edwards
The export boom that would be expected from a 20% devaluation in sterling has not occurred. That is the factual reality of the situation. The fact that the currency is not rebounding, despite the British Government apparently outlining what they want from the Brexit negotiations, indicates that the markets are betting against the British Government.
Chris Bryant
One of the biggest mistakes that the coalition Government made in 2010 was cutting capital budgets. That meant that we did not have the infrastructure in place that we need for a modern economy. That has hit productivity across the whole country.
Jonathan Edwards
Mae’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn gwneud pwynt cywir iawn a byddaf yn dychwelyd i’r pwyntiau hynny yn hwyrach yn fy araith.
(Translation) The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, and I will return to the issues he raises.
Liz Saville Roberts
A fyddai fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus yn cydymdeimlo gyda ffermwyr fyddai’n disgwyl gyda’r bunt wan y byddai defaid o faint bach yn gwerthu’n dda ar y cyfandir? Nid dyma’r neges a glywaf gan fy ffermwyr i ym Meirionydd.
(Translation) Does my hon. Friend sympathise with farmers who would expect smaller sheep to sell well on the continent, even though that is not the message that I am hearing from farmers in Meirionnydd?
Jonathan Edwards
Mae hynny’n wir. Roeddwn yn darllen rhywbeth ddoe bod disgwyl y bydd pris defaid, yn enwedig, a chig yn syrthio’n ddifrifol os mae Cymru’n ffeindio’i hunan y tu allan i’r undeb tollau. Mae’r peryglon ar gyfer y sector amaethyddol, sydd yn ein gwynebu yn y dyfodol agos, yn beryglus iawn. Mae ein arweinydd seneddol yn codi pwynt dilys iawn.
(Translation) That certainly is the case. I was reading something yesterday that said that the price of sheep, and of meats in general, is expected to fall significantly if Wales finds itself outside the customs union. The risks for the agricultural sector in the very near future are huge. Our parliamentary leader raises a very valid point.
Susan Elan Jones
Rwyf yn cytuno gyda’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn llwyr wrth iddo sôn am yr argyfwng ym myd ffermio, ond ydy e’n meddwl hefyd ein bod yn sôn nid am ffermio’n unig ond hefyd am yr economi wledig gyfan ar ôl Brexit? Mae hynny yn drychinebus, i fod yn onest.
(Translation) I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the crisis in agriculture. Does he believe that we are talking about not only farmers, but the broader rural economy, as a result of Brexit? This truly is a crisis, is it not?
Jonathan Edwards
Mae’r Foneddiges anrhydeddus yn codi pwynt hollol sylfaenol. Mae amaeth yn ganolog i’r economi wledig. Os yw amaeth yn dioddef, bydd sectorau eraill yn dioddef, megis twristiaeth a phob math o sectorau. Gallen i fynd i fewn i araeth hir iawn am beth sydd angen gwneud i amddiffyn ein sector amaethyddol, ond dwi’n credu byddaf yn mynd ychydig y tu allan i gwmpas y Gyllideb. Rwyf wir yn credu bod Brexit yn bwynt mor ganolog y dylai’r Uwch Bwyllgor yma gwrdd eto yn fuan iawn i drafod polisi’r Llywodraeth. Credaf mai hwn, o bell ffordd, yw’r prif her sy’n ein gwynebu.
(Translation) The hon. Lady raises a fundamental point. Agriculture is a focal point for the rural economy. If agriculture suffers, other sectors will suffer, such as tourism and others. I could make a lengthy speech about what needs to be done to protect our agricultural sector, but that might be outside the scope of the Budget. I truly believe that Brexit is such a fundamental point that this Welsh Grand Committee should meet again very soon to discuss the Government’s policy. That is the major challenge facing the Government.
The Chair
Mae’r Llywodraeth wedi clywed y cais. Cariwch ymlaen os gwelwch yn dda.
(Translation) I am sure that the Government will have listened to your words. Please carry on.
Jonathan Edwards
I ddychwelyd i’r Gyllideb, mae’r Deyrnas Gyfunol—y wladwriaeth Brydeinig—wedi disgyn o’r pedwerydd i’r chweched safle yn nhabl economaidd y byd. Mae wedi colli’r raddfa credyd A driphlyg a dyma’r economi sydd bellach yn perfformio waethaf yn y G7. Mae’r eurozone—sy’n cael ei ddifenwi mor aml yn y lle yma—yn tyfu ar raddfa y gall economi Prydain ond freuddwydio amdani. Bu i’r economi Gwyddelig yn y trydydd chwarter, flwyddyn ar flwyddyn, dyfu 10.5% y llynedd, lle mae economi Cymru yn gwynebu tyfiant anemig iawn.
Y gwirionedd yw, fel dywedodd yr Aelod anrhydeddus dros y Rhondda, ar ôl y chwalfa yn 2010 ni aethpwyd i’r afael â’r diffygion strwythurol. Beth ddigwyddodd i’r addewid i ymdrin ag anghydraddoldebau cyfoeth sectorol a daearyddol? Dyna beth oedd George Osborne yn siarad amdano dro ar ôl tro yn 2010. Maent yn gronig bellach, ac yn gwaethygu. Does dim rhyfedd nad yw Aelodau’r Meinciau gyferbyn bellach yn sôn am eu slogan y cynllun economaidd hir-dymor: mae’r economi yn gwynebu anawasterau difrifol yn y tymor byr i ganolig.
Wnaf i ddim disgyn i’r demtasiwn o feirniadu Llywodraeth Prydain eto fyth am ddewis y llwybr Brexit mwyaf economaidd niweidiol. Digon yw dweud fod y strategaeth y cytunwyd arni ymlaen llaw o adael y farchnad sengl a’r undeb tollau yn cael ei gofnodi mewn hanes fel gweithred o hunan-niweidio economaidd hollol ddideimlad. Nid dim ond ein masnach gydag Ewrop sy’n cropian at ddibyn trychineb. Os bydd y Deyrnas Gyfunol yn gadael yr undeb tollau, bydd cytundebau masnach newydd yn cael eu trafod gan Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol yn hytrach na’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. O ystyried dibyniaeth anghymesur y Ddeyrnas Gyfunol ar wasanaethau ariannol a phŵer lobi Dinas Llundain, mae gwir bosibilrwydd yr aberthir buddiannau diwydiant gweithgynhyrchu ac amaethyddiaeth Cymru er mwyn cael triniaeth mwy ffafriol i fuddiannau Dinas Llundain.
(Translation) To return to the Budget, the UK has fallen from fourth to sixth in the global economic tables; it has lost its triple A credit rating and is the worst-performing economy in the G7. The much-maligned eurozone is growing at a rate that the British economy can only dream of. In the third quarter last year, the Irish economy grew 10.5% year on year, whereas the Welsh economy faces very anaemic growth. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, following the 2010 crash we did not tackle the structural deficiencies. What happened to the pledges to address sectoral and geographical wealth inequalities? George Osborne talked about that consistently in 2010, but they are now chronic and getting worse. No wonder Conservative Members are no longer parroting their slogan “long-term economic plan”. The truth is that the economy faces serious problems in the short to medium term.
I will resist the temptation to criticise once again the British Government for choosing the most economically damaging Brexit path. The predetermined strategy of leaving both the single market and the customs union will go down in history as an act of callous economic self-harm. It is not just our trade with Europe that will be perilously close to disaster if UK leaves the customs union: new trade deals will be negotiated by the UK Government rather than the EU, and given the UK’s disproportionate reliance on financial services and the power of the City of London lobby, there is a real prospect that the interest of Welsh manufacturing and agriculture will be sacrificed to gain more favourable treatment for the City of London.
Trade negotiations are a bargaining process, a negotiation between two sides. There is no doubt in my mind, looking at the personnel in the Department for International Trade, that their priority in these negotiations will be ensuring maximum access for the London financial sector to the markets of other countries. What will they want? They will want access to our food sector, of course. That will be the obvious trade-off.
A prime example of that is what happened with Chile. There is a European Union trade deal in place at the moment, and despite our protestations that leaving the customs union would result in those third countries wanting to renegotiate their arrangement with the UK, what did the British Government say? “No, it’ll be all the same; it’ll be the status quo, no problem. Nothing will change.” What did Chile want? It wanted enhanced access to our food markets. That is a foretaste of what is facing key sectors of the Welsh economy in Brexit Britannia.
Fel y gosodwyd ym mhapur diweddar Llywodraeth Cymru ar gytundebau masnach, llawer o ardaloedd tlotaf Cymru yw’r rhai sy’n dibynnu fwyaf naill ai ar weithgynhyrchu neu’r diwydiant amaethyddol—ardaloedd sydd debycaf o golli eu gwarchodaeth wrth i Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol ffarwelio â hwy wrth chwilio am gytundebau masnach.
(Translation) As was set out in the Welsh Government’s recent paper on trade deals, many of the poorest areas in Wales are the most dependent on either manufacturing or the agricultural industry—areas prime for the UK Government to negotiate away their protections in search of trade deals.
I must make the point that the Welsh Government’s statement on trade yesterday was deeply disappointing, with the First Minister refusing to ensure that the Welsh Government would have a full say in what trade deals were signed in future. The reality that Wales will face as a country is that Wallonia, a region of Belgium, will have greater say over European Union trade deals than Wales will have within the British state over future UK trade deals—
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has got a bit ahead of himself and thinks he has been given the second debate on Brexit and the European Union. We need to stick to the Budget.
The Chair
I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea West is going to intervene on the Budget.
Geraint Davies
On the Budget’s implications for agricultural trade, is the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr aware that the World Trade Organisation struck down and penalised the EU when it said it would not allow hormone-impregnated beef into the EU? Still, the EU has resisted hormone-impregnated beef. Does he not think that, if we stand alone against the United States and it wants to impose hormone-impregnated beef on Welsh consumers, with the WTO behind it, we will have to like it or lump it?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The hon. Member for Caerphilly and I were in the United States a few years ago, and we had a very interesting discussion with the food lobby there. I guarantee that it carries a lot of weight, and that is a clear indication of some of the problems we will face in future.
I shall return to the Budget.
Mewn polisi ariannol y mae’r perygl arall. Mae polisi ariannol hynod lac gan y Banc Canolog wedi cynnal yr economi ers 2010, a bydd oes yr arian rhad yn diflannu’n raddol wrth i gyfraddau llog gychwyn ar eu taith tuag at normaleiddio.
Yn ystod y cyfnod hwnnw, daeth twf economaidd i ddibynnu fwyfwy ar wariant gan ddefnyddwyr fel canran o GDP. Bydd methiant i ail-gydbwyso oddi wrth economi a gynhelir gan ddyled cartrefi yn rhwystr sylweddol yn y blynyddoedd i ddod.
(Translation) Monetary policy is another danger. The ultra-loose monetary policy of the central bank has sustained the economy since 2010, and the area of cheap money will gradually be removed as interest rates begin their journey to normalisation. During that period, economic growth has become even more reliant on consumer spending as a percentage of GDP. Failure to rebalance from an economy sustained by household debt will be a significant barrier in years to come.
Personal debt is reaching the level it was at before the great crash of 2008. That should be of great concern to us all.
Mae dirwasgiadau yn dueddol o ddod bob degawd, sy’n golygu, naw mlynedd wedi chwalfa ariannol fawr 2008 ein bod yn nes at ddiwedd y cylch na’i gychwyn. Nid yw’r methiant i neidio’n ôl yn sydyn o’r chwalfa fawr ac i ail-gydbwyso yn sectoraidd a daearyddol, na dibyniaeth yr economi ar beiriant cynnal bywyd polisi arianyddol yn argoeli’n dda at y dyfodol.
(Translation) Recessions tend to come each decade, which means that nine years after the great financial crash of 2008, we are far nearer the end of the cycle than its beginning. The failure to rebound sharply from the great crash, the failure fundamentally to rebalance sectorally and geographically, and the reliance of the economy on the life support of monetary policy do not bode well for the future.
The failure to rebound quickly from the great recession, the failure to rebalance sectorally and geographically, and the decade-long dependence on the life support of ultra-loose monetary policy do not bode well for the future.
O ystyried graddfa’r her, nid yw’r Mesur Cyllid yn addas. Cyn ymdrin â rhai o gymalau’r Mesur hwn, carwn ganolbwyntio ar rai o’r darpariaethau sydd, ysywaeth, ar goll.
Mae model economaidd y Deyrnas Gyfunol a ddilynwyd ers degawdau gan holl bleidiau sefydliad San Steffan wedi ei seilio ar hyrwyddo gweithgarwch a chyfoeth yn Llundain a de-ddwyrain Lloegr. Dylai’r anghydraddoldebau daearyddol o ran cyfoeth fod yn destun cywilydd i wleidyddion San Steffan. Mae naw o’r deg rhanbarth tlotaf yng ngogledd Ewrop yn y wladwriaeth Brydeinig yn ogystal â’r un cyfoethocaf. Yn anffodus, wrth gwrs, mae gorllewin a gogledd Cymru ymysg y tlotaf. Dylai’r Trysorlys fod yn ceisio ymdrin â’r record gywilyddus hon, ac eto does dim yn y mesur cyllid hwn fydd o ddifrif yn mynd i’r afael â’r heriau o’n blaenau.
Efallai mai un o ganlyniadau Brexit fydd y bydd cwmnïau ariannol Dinas Llundain yn adleoli i Baris, Frankfurt a Dulyn. O ystyried hynny, dylai Llywodraeth Prydain ymateb drwy ganolbwyntio ar sectorau economaidd eraill, yn enwedig gweithgynhyrchu. Dylai hyn arwain at symud y pwsylais ymaith o dde-ddwyrain Lloegr i’r cenhedloedd a’r rhanbarthau.
Yn anad dim, dylai Cymru gael y grym cyllidol i lunio ein heconomi ein hunain. Mae’n warthus fod gan yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon setliad cyllidol a threthiannol llawer gryfach na Chymru. Oherywdd hyn, bydd economi Cymru dan anfantais sylweddol. Dydw i methu deall pam nad yw gwleidyddion o’r pleidiau Unoliaethol a bleidleisiodd o blaid rhoi mwy o bwerau i’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn barod i ddarparu ar gyfer ein cenedl ni ein hunain.
Hyd yn oed os ydym yn rhoi i’r neilltu yr anghydraddoldebau cyfansoddiadol, mae’r sefyllfa yn golygu fod Llywodraeth Cymru yn llai abl i ymyrryd yn ein heconomi. Os mai Brexit caled fydd hi, dylid datganoli portffolio cyfan o drethi, gan gynnwys treth teithwyr awyr, treth ar werth a threth gorfforaeth.
Dylai buddsoddi mewn seilwaith gael ei wasgaru’n fwy cyfartal ar draws y wladwriaeth Brydeinig.
(Translation) Considering the scale of the challenge, the Finance Bill is in no way fit for purpose. Before addressing some of the measures in the Bill, I will concentrate on some provisions that are sadly missing. The UK economic model, which has been followed for decades by all the establishment parties in Westminster, is based on promoting activity and wealth in London and the south-east of England. The geographical wealth inequality should be a matter of shame for Labour and all politicians in Westminster. Nine of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe are in Britain, as well as the richest. Unfortunately, west Wales and north Wales are among the poorest. The Treasury’s overriding aim should be to address that shameful record, but nothing in the Finance Bill will seriously get to grips with the challenges facing us.
One consequence of Brexit might be the relocation of London-based financial companies to Paris, Frankfurt or Dublin. Given that, the British Government should focus on other economic sectors, and manufacturing in particular. That should shift the focus away from London to the nations and regions.
First and foremost, Wales should be empowered to create its own economy. It is disgraceful that Scotland and Northern Ireland have stronger financial settlements than Wales. Given that, the Welsh economy will be at severe disadvantage. I cannot understand why politicians from Unionist parties vote in favour of giving more power to Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are unwilling to do so for our own nation. Putting aside the constitutional imbalances, that means that the Welsh Government are less able to intervene in our economy. If we are to have a hard Brexit, a portfolio of taxes should be devolved, including air passenger duty, VAT and corporation tax.
Infrastructure investment should be more evenly spread across Britain. Why should Welsh taxpayers’ money be spent on English projects?
Chris Bryant
We had a vote last week on what we will do about the Palace of Westminster, where lots of people were anxious about us spending so much money in London. Is there not a really important thing we could do for every region of the United Kingdom? After Brexit, we will not have the skills in this country to complete the work on one of our biggest infrastructure projects, so should we not set up a parliamentary apprenticeship scheme so that people can gain those skills in Wales, with every constituency in Wales having someone working on the project here?
Jonathan Edwards
Mae’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus yn codi pwynt dilys. Ces i ddim y cyfle i wneud y pwynt yma yn ystod y ddadl, ond yn bersonnol byddwn i wedi moyn symud y Senedd allan o Lundain. Rydw i’n credu byddai hynny wedi bod yn symbol o’r angen i ddatganoli’n economaidd y Wladwriaeth Brydeinig. O ystyried bod y penderfyniad bellach wedi cael ei wneud—rwy’n llongyfarch y Bonheddwr anrhydeddus ar ennill ar ei welliant—dylem nawr fanteisio ar y cyfle i sicrhau bod y buddsoddiad hynny yn cael ei wasgaru ledled y Wladwriaeth Brydeinig. Rwy’n credu bod yna job wirioneddol i’w wneud ar hynny, ac rwy’n edrych i’r Bonheddwr anrhydeddus i gynnig arweiniad, o ystyried mai fe sydd wedi arwain y ddadl i aros fan hyn—dyna job fach iddo fe dros y blynyddoedd nesaf.
(Translation) The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. I did not have the opportunity to make this point during the debate, but I wanted to move Parliament away from London, because that would be a symbol of the need to devolve the British states economically, too. Given that a decision has been made—I congratulate him on getting his amendment to that motion through—we should take every opportunity to ensure that that investment is spread across Britain. There is a real job to be done there, and I look to him to give leadership on that over the next few months, given that he has led the debate for remaining here.
Liz Saville Roberts
Ar destun yr ardoll brentisiaethau, onid yw’n amser i ni gael mwy o eglurdeb ynglyn â chwmnïau gyda’u prif swyddfeydd tu allan i Gymru a gyda gweithwyr o Gymru, a’r arian sydd yn cael ei drosglwyddo o’r Trysorlys fan hyn i Gaerdydd? Yn enwedig, mae’r ardoll o 0.5% yn cael ei chodi ar gyflogres pedwar Heddlu Cymru, ond nid yw hynny o ddewis Llywodraeth Cymru ac nid ydyw’n cael ei rhoi tuag at hyfforddiant yr heddlu.
(Translation) On apprenticeships, is it not time for us to get greater clarity on businesses that are headquartered outside Wales but have workers from Wales, with respect to the money that is transferred from the Treasury to Cardiff? In particular, the levy is raised on the four police forces of Wales, which can apply to their wage packets, but it does not come under the responsibility of the Welsh Government and it does not reach the police’s training budgets.
Jonathan Edwards
Mae hynny’n bwynt hollol deg o ran prentisiaethau plismona. Yn sicr, bydd Aelodau ein plaid ni yn ei godi yn y ddadl ar Lawr y Tŷ prynhawn yma. Y cwestiwn sylfaenol yw: pam y dylid gwario arian trethdalwyr Cymru ar brosiectau yn Lloegr tra bod Llywodraeth Prydain yn gwrthod buddsoddi mewn prosiectau Cymreig ac mewn gwirionedd yn torri addewidion megis trydaneiddio’r rheilffordd i Abertawe? Rydym ni wedi clywed lot yn barod am y pwnc hynny yn ystod y ddadl.
Os yw Llywodraeth Prydain eisiau codi cynhyrchedd mewn ardaloedd daearyddol sydd yn perfformio’n wael, rhaid iddynt ailgyfeirio buddsoddiad i’r ardaloedd hynny yn hytrach na lluchio popeth at Lundain. Mae pawb bellach yn cytuno bod buddsoddiad estynedig, tymor hir mewn seilwaith yn un o ragofynion llwyddiant economaidd. Os edrychwn ar fuddsoddiad o’r fath dros y degawdau aeth heibio, yr hyn a welwn yw cyfran anghymesur o fuddsoddiad o’r fath yn mynd i Lundain a de-ddwyrain Lloegr. Gallwn edrych ar HS1, lein y Jiwbilî, lein Victoria, Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2, yr M25 a HS2. Ni fu buddsoddiad cyffelyb yn unrhyw wlad na rhanbarth arall o’r Deyrnas Gyfunol. Pam? Oherwydd nifer o ffactorau, gan gynnwys agwedd Lundain-ganolog y pleidiau Unoliaethol. Gall hefyd fod oherwydd y modelau economaidd a ddefnyddir wrth werthuso buddsoddiadau o’r fath.
O ystyried y swyddi sydd wedi eu canoli yn Llundain, mae’r elw tymor byr ar bob punt a fuddsoddir mewn seilwaith yn debygol o fod yn uwch yno na mewn rhannau eraill o’r wladwriaeth Brydeinig. Mae hyn yn ei dro yn arwain at sbiral lle mae symiau cynyddol o fuddsoddiad trafnidiaeth yn mynd i Lundain, ac yn eu tro mae’r rhanbarthau tlotaf yn mynd a’r sbiral tuag at i lawr. Mae yma wers inni yng nghyd-destun Cymru. Fel dywedodd fy Nghyfaill anrhydeddus dros Geredigion, mae’r buddsoddiad gan Lywodraeth Cymru wedi’i anelu’n fwyfwy at Gaerdydd a’r de-ddwyrain yn hytrach na chael ei wasgaru ar draws ein gwlad.
Yn 2015-16, yr oedd gwariant cyhoeddus ar drafnidiaeth yn £973 y pen yn Llundain o gymharu â £444 yng Nghymru. Petai lefel y gwariant yng Nghymru yr un fath ag yn Llundain, buasem yn derbyn £1.6 biliwn yn ychwanegol y flwyddyn i’w fuddsoddi. Mae’r anghydraddoldebau cyfoeth mor ddifrifol yn y wladwriaeth Brydeinig fel y dylid anfon swyddogion y Trysorlys i’r Almaen i ddysgu gan yr Almaenwyr sut y gwnaethant ymdrin ag anghydraddoldebau cyfoeth daearyddol yn dilyn cwymp wal Berlin.
(Translation) That is an entirely fair point. Members of our party will return to that point on apprenticeships in policing in this afternoon’s debate on the Floor of the House. The fundamental question we must ask is why Welsh taxpayers’ money should be spent on English projects while the British Government refuse to invest in Welsh projects, and renege on promises such as the electrification of the main line to Swansea. We have heard much about that already. If the British Government want to raise productivity in low-performing areas, they must redirect investment into those areas, rather than throwing everything at London.
It is widely agreed that sustained long-term investment in infrastructure is a prerequisite of economic success. In recent decades, a disproportionate amount of that investment has been made in London and the south-east of England, such as that on HS1, the Jubilee line, the Victoria line, Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2, the M25 and HS2. There has been no comparable investment in any other country or region of the UK. Why? It is due to a number of factors, including the Unionist parties’ London-centric approach. It may also be because of the economic models employed in evaluating such investments.
Given the concentration of employment in London, the short-term return on every pound invested in infrastructure is likely to be higher there than in other parts of the UK. That, in turn, leads to a spiral, in which ever-increasing amounts of investment in transport go to London, and the poorest regions spiral downwards. I believe there is a lesson there for us about the Welsh context. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion made the point that Welsh Government investment is targeted more and more at Cardiff and the south-east, rather than being spread across the nation.
In 2015-16, identifiable public expenditure per capita was £973 in London, compared with £444 in Wales. If the level of spending in Wales were the same as it is in London, we would receive an extra £1.6 billion per annum for investment. The wealth inequalities are so important that Treasury officials should be sent to Germany to learn how it went about addressing the geographical wealth inequalities following the fall of the Berlin wall.
Essentially, Germany made a strategic decision to deal with the wealth inequalities in the reunified Germany, which was based on operating aids and tax incentives for the poorer regions, and the deliberate redirection of foreign direct investment into the poorer parts of the state.
Yn niffyg hynny, rhowch inni yng Nghymru yr arfau i fwrw ymlaen â’r dasg o adeiladu ein gwlad ein hunain, oherwydd dengys hanes nad yw aros am Lywodraethau San Steffan—o ba bynnag liw—i gyflawni pethau ar gyfer Cymru yn debyg o ddelio â’n problemau. Mae Cymru wedi dioddef nid yn unig o ddiffyg sylw a buddsoddiad gan Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol ond o flerwch llawer Llywodraeth Lafur yng Nghymru a’u hanallu i gyflawni. Mae eu hymdrech ddiweddaraf i greu strategaeth economaidd yn rhyfeddol am ei bod heb unrhyw ddangosyddion perfformiad allweddol i fod yn ganllaw i’r sawl sydd i fod i weithredu’r strategaeth ac i alluogi’r gweddill ohonom i fesur pa mor llwyddiannus yw’r strategaeth.
Roedd y Gyllideb yn wan iawn. Ystyriwn y gwyliau treth stamp. Dywedodd Pwyllgor Dethol y Trysorlys, Swyddfa Cyfrifoldeb y Gyllideb a’r Sefydliad Astudiaethau Cyllid y bydd polisi’r Llywodraeth o roi gwyliau treth stamp, y buont mor uchel eu cloch yn ei gylch, yn gwthio prisiau tai i fyny o ryw 0.3%, gyda’r rhan fwyaf o’r cynnydd yn digwydd eleni. Yn y Gyllideb, neilltuwyd £3 biliwn yn ychwanegol i gynllunio am Brexit. Felly yn hytrach na £350 miliwn yr wythnos i’r gwasanaeth iechyd, yr ydym yn gwario yn agos i £58 miliwn yr wythnos ar fiwrocratiaid y wladwriaeth Brydeinig—ac nid ydynt hwy, hyd yn oed, fel petaent yn rhoi’r atebion mae’r Llywodraeth eisiau eu clywed i’r cwestiynau nad oeddent eisiau eu gofyn.
Er iddynt gynnig rhyw godiad pitw o £2.8 biliwn i’r gwasanaeth iechyd yn Lloegr dros y tair blynedd nesaf, mae hyn yn edrych fel rhywbeth rhy fach yn rhy hwyr, gan ystyried y storïau yn y wasg dros y misoedd diwethaf. Yng nghanol argyfwng y gaeaf, gwelwn effeithiau tan gyllido cronig yn y gwasanaeth iechyd yn Lloegr. Mae’n amlwg na allwn ymddiried yn y Ceidwadwyr i ofalu am y gwasanaeth iechyd yn Lloegr. Fodd bynnag, dyw record Llafur yng Nghymru ddim llawer gwell. Fel gyda’r rhan fwyaf o bethau, maent yn siarad digon o eiriau teg yn San Steffan, ond lle maent mewn grym, mae’r stori yn wahanol iawn.
Mae’r newidiadau i’r credyd cynhwysol—universal credit—a chynlluniau i wneud i ffwrdd â’r cyfnod cychwynnol o saith diwrnod i hawlwyr pan na fuasent wedi bod yn gymwys i gael budd-daliadau, a lleihau’r cyfnod aros presennol o chwech wythnos i’r rhan fwyaf o hawlwyr i bump wythnos, i’w groesawu. Ond mae hyn yn gyfystyr, mewn gwirionedd, a rhoi plaster ar goes sydd wedi torri. Mae’r ffordd ddi-drefn y cyflwynodd y Llywodraeth y credyd cynhwysol, a’r modd y gweinyddir cynlluniau lles yn ehangach, yn gywilyddus. Mae ymwneud â chwmnïau preifat mewn lles yn anfoesol ac yn anghyfrifol. Ni ddylai cwmnïau fel Capita elwa o drueni pobl eraill. Rydym yn croesawu’r dreth ar werthiannau a gynhyrchir yn y Deyrnas Gyfunol a fydd yn effeithio ar fusnesau digidol mawr fel Apple a Google. Ond unwaith eto, fodd bynnag, gwyddom fod y Torïaid yn gwrthwynebu llawer o newid yn strwythur ein sustem dreth, sydd ar hyn o bryd â thyllau dianc sy’n caniatáu osgoi gwerth £13 biliwn mewn trethi, a pheidio â thalu mwy fyth. Doedd dim ymrwymiad penodol i gynyddu cyflogau gweithwyr y sector cyhoeddus, y rhewyd eu cyflogau—ac a gapiwyd wedyn ar 1%—ers 2010. Diolch i chwyddiant, mae hyn yn golygu fod cyflogau nyrsys wedi eu torri mewn gwirionedd o 14%. Mae Cymru yn dal i dderbyn llai y pen na Llundain. Yn anffodus, mae’r blaid Lafur yn methu gwneud yn iawn am y cam yng Nghymru, er fod ganddynt y pwerau i wneud hyn, fel mae’r Llywodraeth SNP wedi llwyddo i wneud yn yr Alban.
Mae Cymru’n dal yn derbyn llai y pen na Llundain. Yma mae rhai o gymunedau tlotaf Ewrop ac mae toriadau enfawr mewn cyllid o ganlyniad i Brexit. Mae’n her sylweddol i sectorau allweddol ein economi. Ac eto, mae’r Canghellor yn dewis defnyddio ystadegau fyddai’n fwy addas i un o fysiau mawr coch yr Ysgrifennydd Tramor i honni y bydd cynnydd o £1.2 biliwn yng nghyllid cyhoeddus Cymru o Gyllideb yr hydref. Roedd yn ddiddorol iawn yn ystod cyflwyniad yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol: wnaeth e ddim defnyddio’r ffigwr hynny yn benodol yn ei araith, gan ei fod yn gwybod, fel dywedodd arweinydd Aelodau Seneddol Cymreig y blaid Lafur yma heddiw, bod dros hanner yr arian hwnnw yn fenthyciadau—neu fiscal transactions—y bydd yn rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru dalu yn ôl.
Doedd dim sôn am drydaneiddio’r rheilfyrdd, sydd wedi ei ganslo er yr addewid a roddwyd; dim sôn am y morlyn llanw ym Mae Abertawe, a dim golwg ohono yn y Gyllideb; a chyllid i wasanaethau datganoledig rhyw £750 miliwn yn is nag ar ddechrau’r ddegawd. Dyna record y Llywodraeth Brydeinig pan mae’n dod at Gymru. Mae stori’r Gyllideb hon yn hollol glir: nid yw San Steffan yn becso am Gymru.
(Translation) Failing that, give us in Wales the tools to move ahead with the job of building our own country. History demonstrates that waiting for Westminster Governments of whatever colour to deliver for Wales is unlikely to address our problems. Wales has suffered not only from the UK Government’s lack of attention and investment, but from successive Labour Governments’ ineptitude in Wales and their inability to deliver. The latest effort to create an economic strategy is remarkable in that the strategy is without any measurable key performance indicators to guide those who are to implement it and enable the rest of us to gauge how successful its implementation is.
Let me turn to some specific aspects of the Budget, which was very weak. The Treasury Committee, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that the Government’s policy of a stamp duty holiday, which they were so vocal about, will push house prices up by 0.3%, and that most of the increase will come through this year. The Budget provided £3 billion to plan for Brexit. Rather than the £350 million for the health service that we were promised, we are spending almost £58 million per week on bureaucracy in the British state. The bureaucrats are not even providing the answers that the Government want to hear.
The minute increase of £2.8 billion for the NHS in Wales is too little, too late, given the stories in the press in the past few months. The winter crisis has shown the impact of the chronic underfunding of the NHS in England. It is clear that we cannot trust the Conservatives to take care of the NHS in England. However, Labour’s record in Wales is not much better. Labour Members speak warm words in Westminster, but when they are in power the story is very different indeed.
The changes to universal credit, including the plan to do away with the initial period of seven days in which claimants cannot receive payments and the reduction of the waiting time from six weeks to five weeks for most claimants, are to be welcomed, but they amount to putting a plaster on a broken leg. The chaotic way in which universal credit was introduced and the way that welfare is administered more generally is disgraceful. The involvement of private companies is immoral and irresponsible. Companies such as Capita should not benefit from the misery of others. We welcome the introduction of a tax on sales generated in the UK, which will affect companies such as Apple and Google, but we know that the Tories are opposed to making changes to our tax structure, which contains loopholes that allow for the avoidance of £13 billion of taxation.
The Budget contained no specific commitment to increase public sector pay, which has been frozen and capped at 1% since 2010. Thanks to inflation, that means that nurses have had a real-terms cut to their salaries of 14%. The Labour party, unfortunately, has not put that right in Wales, as the Scottish National party Government managed to do in Scotland, despite having the power to do so.
Wales still gets less per capita than London. It has some of the poorest communities in Europe, and there are huge cuts to budgets as a result of Brexit, and significant challenges to crucial sectors of our economy. Yet the Chancellor chooses to use statistics that would be more appropriate for one of the Foreign Secretary’s red buses, to claim an increase of £1.2 billion in the Welsh budget emerging from the autumn Budget. It was interesting that the Secretary of State did not use that figure during his opening remarks, because he knows that, as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales said here on behalf of Welsh Labour MPs, more than half of that is fiscal transactions that the Welsh Government will have to repay.
There was no mention of the electrification of rail, which has been cancelled, despite the pledge that was given; there was no talk of the tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay, and no sign of that in the Budget either; and funding for devolved services is lower by some £750 million than it was at the beginning of the decade. That is the record of the British Government with respect to Wales. The story of the Budget is clear: Westminster does not care about Wales.
The Chair
Galwaf ar Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig.
(Translation) I call the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Owen, am fy ngalw heddiw. Rwyf eisiau siarad ychydig am waith y Pwyllgor. Yn amlwg, mae’r Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig yn gyfrifol am graffu ar bolisïau sy’n cael eu heffeithio gan y Gyllideb. Ers i mi ddechrau yn 2010, mae’r Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig wedi cymryd diddordeb mawr yn y sefyllfa gyda phont Hafren. Rydym wedi clywed tystiolaeth gref bod effaith y tollau yn ddrwg iawn ar yr economi yn ne Cymru. Rydym wedi profi fel Pwyllgor fod maint incwm o’r tollau yn llawer mwy na’r gost o gynnal a chadw, a gwnaethom alw ar y Llywodraeth i’w lleihau. Felly, roeddwn wrth fy modd gyda’r penderfyniad ar ôl y Gyllideb i gael gwared ohonynt yn gyfangwbl. Rwyf yn talu teyrnged i Ysgrifennydd Cymru am ei rhan yn y penderfyniad. Gobeithio y bydd hefyd yn derbyn, gyda llaw, bod y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig wedi cael effaith da ar y penderfyniad. Bydd y penderfyniad yn cael effaith arbennig o dda ar yr economi gyfan yn yr ardal, ond buasai’n well o lawer pe buasai Llywodraeth Llafur Cymru yn gallu dechrau’r gwaith ar ffordd osgoi’r M4.
Ar bwnc trafnidiaeth, mae’r Ysgrifennydd wedi tynnu sylw at y polisi yn ymwneud â’r rheilffyrdd. Mae’r Pwyllgor newydd orffen cymryd tystiolaeth ar y penderfyniad i drydanu’r rheilffordd rhwng Llundain a Chaerdydd. Rydym wedi clywed bod rhywun wedi gwneud camgymeriadau mawr a sylfaenol. Does neb wedi cyfri’r nifer o dwnelau na phontydd. Roedd rhaid iddynt newid y math o drenau a, hyn yn oed, y math o drydan. Felly, mae costau wedi mynd trwy’r to ac mae’r ffigyrau gwerth am arian yn ofnadwy. Mae’n rhaid i mi ddweud, pan ddechreuon ni’r ymholiad, gofynnais i’m hunan pam wnaeth y Llywodraeth ddim trydanu hyd at Abertawe. Ond yn y diwedd, roeddwn yn gofyn i’m hunan pam wnaeth y Llywodraeth ddechrau yn y lle cyntaf.
Mae amaeth yn rhywbeth sy’n bwysig i’r mwyafrif ohonom yng Nghymru. Mae Brexit yn agos at galon bob un ohonom hefyd. Felly, roedd yn naturiol bod y Pwyllgor wedi edrych ar effaith Brexit ar ffermwyr. Rwyf yn hollol hyderus y bydd y sector amaeth yn ffynnu yn yr hir dymor. Ond yn y byr dymor, pe buasen ni’n tynnu allan heb rhyw fath o gytundeb masnach, mae’n bosib bydd rhai sectorau amaeth yn gwynebu heriau. Mae llawer o gytuno am y ffordd ymlaen. Mae’r undebau wedi galw ar y Llywodraeth i gadw yr un lefel o daliadau ac mae’r Llywodraeth wedi cytuno. Mae’r undebau yn meddwl ei fod yn bwysig i gael rhyw fath o fframwaith taliadau ledled Prydain ac mae pawb yn cytuno gyda nhw, er bod angen i ni drefnu sut y bydd Seneddau ledled Prydain yn dweud eu dweud.
Y peth pwysig yw’r sefyllfa o ran mynediad i’r farchnad sengl. Pe buaswn yn gallu cael cytundeb, byddai gennym sefyllfa business as usual, ond pe buaswn ni’n tynnu allan ac yn masnachu o dan rheolau’r World Trade Organisation, bydd rhai sectorau’n gwynebu heriau, ac yn enwedig y sector cig oen yng Nghymru. Pe buasai hynny yn digwydd, mae’n rhaid i ni ail-edrych ar y sustem o daliadau a sicrhau bod yr arian yn cael ei ddosbarthu mewn ffordd deg.
Os yw hynny’n digwydd, dylem ail-edrych ar y system daliadau a sicrhau bod yr arian yn cael ei ddosbarthu yn deg. Dydw i ddim am fynd tu allan i gylch gwaith y Pwyllgor, ond rydw i’n hollol o blaid Brexit ac yn edrych ymlaen at gymryd yn ôl rheolaeth dros ein ffiniau, ein harian a’n deddfwriaeth.
Diolch i chi, Mr Owen, ac i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol am ganiatau i ni ddefnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg wrth galon San Steffan. Mae hyn yn nodweddiadol o’r parch mae’r plaid Geidwadol wastad wedi dangos tuag at yr iaith Gymraeg. Os gallaf gynnig gair o feirniadaeth adeiladol, yn fy marn i rydym ni yn gwario efallai gormod o arian ar gyfieithu dogfennau swyddogol mewn i’r Gymraeg—nid oes unrhywun yn mynd i’w darllen yn y Saesneg na’r Gymraeg. Rydym hefyd, yn ardaloedd fel Sir Fynwy, yn gwario llawer o bres ar ddysgu’r iaith i blant nad oes gennyt unrhyw ddiddordeb o gwbl ynddi.
Ar yr un pryd, mae llawer o grwpiau o oedolion yn ein cymunedau sydd eisiau dysgu’r iaith Gymraeg. Yn fy marn i, mae ychydig o eiriau o Gymraeg ar y strydoedd werth mwy na filoedd o eiriau o Gymraeg mewn dogfennau nad oes unrhywun yn mynd i’w darllen. Effallai dylem ail-edrych ar sut rydym yn gwario yr arian.
A gaf fi ddiolch i aelodau presennol a chyn-aelodau y Pwyllgor Materion Cymreig? Pryd bynnag mae aelodau newydd yn ymuno, mae’n ymddangos i mi eu bod nhw’n cael eu harwyddo rhywle arall yn syth—gydag eithriadau, yn amlwg. Rydw i’n edrych ymlaen at weithio gyda nhw tra rydw i’n parhau fel Cadeirydd.
(Translation) Thank you for calling me, Mr Owen. I want to say a little about the work of the Committee. We are responsible for scrutinising policies affected by the Budget.
Since I took on my role in 2010 the Welsh Affairs Committee has taken a great interest in the situation regarding the Severn bridge. We have heard strong evidence that the impact of the tolls is detrimental to the economy of south Wales. The Committee has proved that the scale of the tolls is far greater than the cost of maintenance. We called on the Government to reduce them, so I was delighted with the decision taken post-Budget to abolish them entirely. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Wales for his part in it. I hope he will accept that the Committee had some impact on that decision, which will have a particularly positive effect on the whole economy of the area. However, things would be far better if the Welsh Labour Government could start work on the M4 relief road.
On the issue of transport, clearly the Secretary of State has highlighted rail policy, and the Committee has just concluded its evidence gathering on the decision to electrify the line between London and Cardiff. We have heard that fundamental mistakes were made. No one counted the bridges and tunnels; the types of trains, and even the type of electricity, had to be changed, and therefore costs have gone through the roof and value-for-money figures are dreadful. When I started the inquiry I asked myself why the Government did not electrify all the way to Swansea. Ultimately I asked myself why they had started the whole project in the first place.
Clearly, agriculture is an important issue for most of us in Wales, and Brexit is also an issue close to each of our hearts; so it was natural that the Committee decided to look at its impact on farmers. I am entirely confident that the agricultural sector will grow in the long term, but it is possible that in the short term, if we were to withdraw without some sort of trade deal, some agricultural sectors would face significant challenges. However, there is a great deal of agreement on the way forward. The unions have called on the Government to retain the same level of payments, and they have agreed. The unions believe that it is important to have some sort of cross-UK payments framework, and everyone seems to be in agreement, although we have to sort out how Parliaments across the UK will have their say on that.
What is important, of course, is the situation in relation to the single market, and access to the single market. If we could achieve agreement we would have some sort of business-as-usual scenario, but if we were to withdraw and trade under WTO regulations some sectors, clearly, would face challenges—particularly the lamb sector in Wales. If that were to be the case, we would have to review the system of payments and ensure that the funding is distributed fairly. Now I do not want to go beyond the remit of this debate, but I am entirely in favour of Brexit and I look forward to taking back control of our borders, our money and our legislation in this country.
May I thank you, Mr Owen, and the Secretary of State for allowing us to use the Welsh language at the heart of Westminster today? It is characteristic of the part that the Conservative party has played in the development of the Welsh language. If I may give a word of constructive criticism, in my view we are spending too much money translating official documents into Welsh when no one is going to read them in Welsh or in English. We spend a great deal of money in areas such as Monmouthshire teaching children who have no interest in the language. Simultaneously, there are many adult groups in our communities who do want to learn and use the Welsh language. In my view, a few words of Welsh on our streets are worth thousands of words in documents that are unlikely to be read. Perhaps we should review the way we spend money on the Welsh language.
I thank you, Mr Owen, and current and former members of the Welsh Affairs Committee. It appears to me that once someone actually joins the Committee they are signed up elsewhere, so I thank them and look forward to working with them while I continue as its Chair.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Mae’n bleser arbennig cael annerch yn iaith y nefoedd am y tro cyntaf yma yn San Steffan. Mae hyn wir yn achlysur hanesyddol, gan ei fod nawr yn bosib cymryd rhan mewn dadl mewn iaith heblaw Saesneg am y tro cyntaf am 800 mlynedd. Mae hyn yn gwbl briodol, achos siaradwyd Cymraeg ar draws Prydain ymhell cyn i Senedd San Steffan a’r Saesneg fodoli. Tu allan i Gymru, nid oes dealltwriaeth bod enwau dinasoedd mor bell i’r gogledd a Chaeredin a Glasgow yn dod o’r iaith Gymraeg yn wreiddiol.
Roeddwn i hefyd eisiau siarad yn y Gymraeg heddiw fel teyrnged i’r diweddar Rhodri Morgan, fy rhagflaenydd fel Aelod Seneddol dros Orllewin Caerdydd a chyn-Brif Weinidog Cymru. Dyma’r Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig cyntaf ers ei farwolaeth sydyn mis Mai diwethaf. Yn y 1990au roedd Rhodri yn arloeswr, yn gwthio i newid y rheolau fel bod yr iaith Gymraeg yn gallu cael ei defnyddio pan oedd yr Uwch Bwyllgor Cymreig yn cwrdd yng Nghymru. Petai ef yma heddiw, rydw i’n siwr y byddai ganddo ambell hanesyn difyr i’w ddweud wrthym yn y ddwy iaith.
Mae’r ddadl heddiw ynglyn â Chyllideb hydref diwethaf a’i heffaith ar Gymru. Wrth gwrs, mae ychydig o arian ychwanegol i Gymru o ganlyniad i’r fformiwla Barnett, ond y broblem sylfaenol yw’r diffug gweledigaeth pan mae angen uchelgais. Mae arnaf ofn mai dyma ganlyniad cael Prif Weinidog gwan a Changhellor sydd gyda chymaint o gyffro â thïm rygbi Lloegr ar ei waethaf. Rydw i’n gobeithio na fyddai’n dyfaru y geiriau yna ar ôl y gêm yn Twickenham dydd Sadwrn yma.
Cyn Cyllideb yr hydref, ysgrifennais at y Canghellor ynglyn â dyfodol ariannol S4C. Dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf, mae S4C wedi wynebu torriadau ciaidd gan y Llywodraeth hon. Byddai mwy o dorriadau yn peryglu safon y gwasanaeth. Ysgrifennais at y Canghellor ar ôl clywed y gall S4C wynebu torriad o £9 miliwn dros y tair mlynedd nesaf. Gofynnais am addewid na fyddai'r fath doriad yn digwydd. Yn eu hymateb, dywedodd y Llywodraeth eu bod, a dwi'n dyfynnu
“wedi ymrwymo i ddyfodol darlledu Cymraeg ac i gefnogi'r gwasanaeth gwerthfawr mae S4C yn darparu.”
Er hyn, bron i ddeufis ar ôl y llythyr gan y Trysorlys, a bron i ddwy flynedd ers datgan yr adroddiad annibynol am S4C, mae’r adolygiad dal heb gael ei gyhoeddi. Mae hyn yn annerbyniol.
Rwyf yn galw ar y Llywodraeth unwaith eto i gyhoeddi'r adolygiad annibynol ac i gynnig cyllid teg i S4C. Mae arnaf ofn, Mr Owen, bod y celfyddydau yn cael eu gweld fel rhywbeth hawdd i'w torri. Mae'r Llywodraeth Lafur yng Nghymru yn ceisio amddiffyn Cymru rhag effeithiau llymder Torïaidd. Fodd bynnag, heb ddigon o arian, mae hon yn dasg anodd iawn. Mae S4C yn allweddol i'r dyfodol ac i gyrraedd y nod o gael miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg erbyn 2050.
Mae blynyddoedd o lymder wedi methu. Roedd pwrpas i fod i’r toriadau: i waredu'r diffyg ariannol erbyn 2015. Dywedodd y Llywodraeth y buasai’r llymder werth y boen. Buasai plentyn wedi ei eni yng Nghymru yn 2010 wedi gallu mynd i’r ysgol, gorffen yn y brifysgol a dechrau ei deulu ei hun erbyn i’r Llywodraeth gwblhau hyn. Dywedodd y Llywodraeth y buasai’r ddyled wedi mynd cyn i’r plentyn hwnnw ddechrau’r ysgol gynradd. Mae hyn yn fethiant llwyr oherwydd uniongrededd ariannol hen ffasiwn. Nid gormod o wario ar ysgolion ac ysbytai Cymru achosodd ein problemau economaidd yn 2010. Cawson nhw eu hachosi gan gamblo anghyfrifol gan fancwyr barus. Nid yr ateb oedd i dorri gwariant mewn ffordd mor giaidd fel ei fod yn anafu'r economi, ond i fuddsoddi—mewn ffyrdd, tai, ysgolion, colegau, prifysgolion, ysbytai, isadeiledd digidol ac egni glan—i greu cyfoeth yn y dyfodol
Felly, edrychwn mewn gobaith—os nad mewn disgwyliad —i’r Canghellor golli ei lysenw Spreadsheet Phil ac i ddatgan cynllun o adferiad cenedlaethol a fyddai’n helpu adeiladu Cymru’r dyfodol mewn partneriaeth gyda Llywodraeth Cymru a busnesau, llywodraeth leol a chymunedau ac yn y blaen. Efallai byddai'n dangos hyder drwy gefnogi prosiect y morlyn llanw yn Abertawe, neu roi gyllid ychwanegol i drydaneiddio'r brif linell drên i Abertawe, neu helpu i greu'r metro yn Nghaerdydd a'r Cymoedd, neu helpu i adeiladu'r tai sydd eu hangen i greu swyddi a chartrefi. Yn lle, yr hyn a gawsom oedd tincran gyda'r ymylon. Mae Cymru angen—ac yn haeddu —gwell gan y Llywodraeth hon a'r Canghellor hwn.
Rydym nawr yn gwynebu perygl Brexit, ac mae’n ddrwg gen i bod Cymru wedi pleidleisio dros adael, er na wnaeth Caerdydd hynny. Dyma fy apêl at Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru heddiw: peidiwch a bodloni â bod yn llefarydd dros uniongrededd ariannol; peidiwch a bodloni ag eistedd wrth fwrdd y Cabinet yn mwynhau’r olygfa. Brwydrwch, brwydrwch a brwydrwch unwaith eto dros fuddsoddiad yng Nghymru a dyfodol teg i bawb yng Nghymru.
(Translation) It is a pleasure, Mr Owen, to be able to address you in the language of heaven here in Westminster for the first time. This truly is a historic occasion as it is possible to speak in a debate in a language other than English for the first time in 800 years. This is entirely appropriate, since Welsh was spoken across Britain long before the Westminster Parliament or the English language existed. Outside Wales, it is not widely understood that the names of cities far north such as Edinburgh and Glasgow come from the Welsh language originally.
I also wanted to speak in Welsh today as a tribute to the late Rhodri Morgan, who was my predecessor as MP for Cardiff West and the former First Minister of Wales. This is the first Welsh Grand Committee meeting since his sudden death last May. In the ’90s, Rhodri was a pioneer in pushing to change the rules so that the Welsh language could be used when the Welsh Grand Committee met in Wales. I am sure that if he were here today he would have several amusing anecdotes to tell us in both languages.
This debate relates to last autumn’s Budget and its impact on Wales. There is some extra money for Wales as a result of the Barnett formula, but the fundamental problem is its lack of vision at a time when ambition is needed. That is the result of having a weak Prime Minister and a Chancellor with all the excitement of the English rugby team—I hope I will not regret that comment after next Saturday’s match at Twickenham.
Before the autumn Budget I wrote to the Chancellor regarding the future funding of S4C. Over recent years, S4C has faced brutal cuts from this Government, and any further cuts would endanger the quality of the service. I wrote to the Chancellor expressing concern after hearing that S4C could face cuts of up to £9 million over the next three years. I asked for a promise that no such cut would take place.
In their response, the Government said that they were
“committed to the future of Welsh language broadcasting and supporting the valuable service S4C provides”.
However, almost two months since that letter from the Treasury, and more than two years since the independent review of S4C was originally announced, the review has still not been published. That is unacceptable.
Today, I yet again call on the Government to publish the independent review and to offer S4C fair funding. I am afraid that, all too often, culture and the arts is seen as cuttable. The Welsh Labour Government are trying to shield Wales from the effects of Tory austerity. However, without enough money, that is a very difficult task. S4C is crucial to the future and to reaching the goal of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050.
Years of austerity have failed. All of the cuts were meant to be for a purpose—to pay off the deficit by 2015. The Government said that the cuts would be worth the pain. A child born in Wales in 2010 could have gone to school, finished university and started a family of their own by the time the Government achieve that. They said the debt would be gone before that child started infant school. That is a complete failure, and it is due to old-fashioned financial orthodoxy.
The fact is that it was not too much spending on Welsh schools or Welsh hospitals that caused the economic problems of 2010. Rather, they were caused by irresponsible gambling by greedy bankers. The answer was not to cut spending so savagely as to hurt the economy, but rather to invest for wealth creation in the future—in roads and rail, housing, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, digital infrastructure and clean energy. We therefore looked hopefully, if not in expectation, for the Chancellor to lose his “Spreadsheet Phil” soubriquet and to announce a plan for national renewal that would help to build the Wales of the future, in partnership with the Welsh Government and business, local government and communities and so forth.
Perhaps, we thought, the Chancellor would show confidence by announcing his support for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project, or by giving additional funding to electrify the main line to Swansea, or by helping to create the metro in Cardiff and the valleys, or by helping to build the houses we need to bring jobs and homes. Instead, we got tinkering around the edges.
Wales needs and deserves better from the Government and from the Chancellor. We now face the danger of Brexit, which I am sorry to say that a majority in Wales voted for, although not in Cardiff. My appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales is to not be content to be a mouthpiece for economic orthodoxy and to not be content to sit at the Cabinet table, admiring the view. Rather, fight, fight, and fight again for investment in Wales and for a fair future for everyone in Wales.
Mr David Jones
Mae’n bleser eich gweld chi yn y Gadair, Mr Owen. Mae’n dda hefyd bod Aelodau Seneddol yn cael y cyfle i siarad yn yr iaith Gymraeg yn San Steffan am y tro cyntaf, os dymunant wneud hynny. Yn siarad yn bersonnol, yn anffodus dydw i ddim yn teimlo’n ddigon cyfforddus yn yr iaith Gymraeg i wneud araeth drwy gyfrwng yr iaith, ond mae’n dda cael clywed cymaint o bobl yn siarad yr iaith bore yma.
(Translation) It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Owen, and it is good that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to speak the Welsh language in Westminster for the first time, if they so choose. Speaking personally, unfortunately I do not feel sufficiently comfortable in the Welsh language to make a speech, but it is good to see so many people speaking Welsh here this morning.
It is good to have the opportunity, after a short interval, to debate the impact of the Budget statement on Wales. For constituency reasons, I wish to focus on the impact of the Budget on north Wales, because I believe that two particular announcements in the Budget and the Red Book were of considerable importance. We must consider north Wales economically as part of the greater north-western economic region. Within the boundaries of north Wales, we have important economic elements. Wylfa nuclear power station will soon, we hope, be developed as Wylfa Newydd. We have two great universities at Wrexham Glyndŵr and Bangor, and we have important manufacturing hubs at places such as Abergele, St Asaph, Wrexham, and, of course, Deeside, which is one of the most important manufacturing areas in the United Kingdom.
Those economic areas are hard by a border that is political and administrative, but in reality completely invisible to those who live around it. The northern powerhouse initiative of the former Chancellor, George Osborne, is also of great importance to the people of north Wales. It was therefore good that, in his 2016 Budget, he announced the north Wales growth deal, which was intended to provide for north Wales access to some of the benefits of the northern powerhouse. We also saw under him the reopening of the Halton curve, and although that stretch of railway line is just one and a half miles long, its economic importance to north Wales cannot be overestimated. It will link north Wales with Merseyside and, importantly, with John Lennon airport. I am not at all embarrassed to give due credit to George Osborne, who I believe did a great amount for the north Wales economy.
Geraint Davies
Airbus is massively important for north Wales, Wales and the UK. Its chief executive has said that it is crucial that we have a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard Brexit, and that we remain part of the customs union, which George Osborne would agree with. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with him on that as well?
Mr Jones
I recognise the importance of Airbus not just to the regional economy of north Wales, but to the whole United Kingdom economy. It is the biggest manufacturing facility. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views on Brexit. I happen not to share them, and I believe that Airbus has a great future after Great Britain has left the European Union.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman talked about an invisible border between England and Wales, and its importance to the regional economy. That is what we have seen in south Wales between Cardiff and Bristol and elsewhere. Currently, we have an invisible border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Does he agree that, if a hard border is introduced with customs checks and so on, it will be extremely detrimental to the economy in both north and south Wales? Ferry services have already been opened between Spain and Cork, specifically to circumvent the UK in the event of Brexit.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman is aware of the Government’s position on the border with Ireland, and I will not be tempted into discussing Brexit when we are here to debate the Budget. This is an issue of importance to my constituency and north Wales, so I hope he will forgive me if I am not tempted to debate the pros and cons of Brexit on this occasion.
I was pleased to see the Chancellor announce in the Budget that he was pushing forward with the north Wales growth deal. That will be greatly welcomed by Members of all parties, not least by the all-party parliamentary group on Mersey Dee North Wales, which is very ably chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham, and on which you are a very active participant, Mr Owen. The APPG has done a great amount to focus the attention not just of Westminster but the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff on the unique circumstances of north Wales and the reason why north Wales and the north-west of England need to be more closely bound together economically. That is why the two Administrations should work closely together.
I was very pleased to see that announcement in the Budget—it shows that the Chancellor is taking forward the good work of his predecessor. I must also pay tribute to the current responsible Welsh Minister, Ken Skates, who has been a breath of fresh air. Let me be blunt. There was a strong feeling in north Wales that his predecessor did not understand the needs of the region and, I am bound to say, cared little about it. Ken Skates has taken to his task extremely well. He works well with the United Kingdom Government. He is not tribal and, for that reason, is indeed a breath of fresh air.
David T. C. Davies
May I take the unusual step of also praising Ken Skates?
David T. C. Davies
I very much hope that is not held against him but I put on record that he is a man of principle.
Mr Jones
I agree wholeheartedly. He has been extremely enthusiastic and held meetings with Members of Parliament. I am very hopeful that, as long as he is the responsible Minister, we will see some advance in the north Wales growth deal. I look forward to progress in the months ahead. As deputy chairman of the all-party group, I can say that it will work closely with both the Wales Office and the Welsh Assembly Government.
Another announcement made in the Budget Red Book was on transport infrastructure in north Wales. The truth is that we are over-reliant on road transport in north Wales. The roads are becoming increasingly crowded and are in dire need of upgrade. Frankly, they are being used because the rail infrastructure in north Wales is so poor, having been neglected by successive Administrations over many years, and needs to be upgraded.
I was pleased to see the announcement of the long-overdue upgrade of the north Wales coastline, and the announcement that the Department for Transport is providing funds for examining the business case for the upgrade of the Wrexham to Bidston line. North Wales MPs will fully understand the importance of that infrastructure—the railway line links the two new enterprise zones at Deeside and Wirral Waters.
The problem with the line, as you will know, Mr Owen, is that it is not continuous all the way to Liverpool. To get to Liverpool from Wrexham or anywhere south of Bidston, it is necessary to change trains at Bidston. The long-term ambition of Merseyrail is electrification of the whole line, of which every north Wales MP would approve. The importance of that infrastructure is that, if we are to obtain the maximum synergy between the two enterprise zones at Wirral Waters and Deeside, we need to ensure that transport links are good and that they improve. There are about 1 million cross-border commutes in that part of north Wales every month. People are divided by a political border that, at the moment, fragments transport, planning and service provision, and acts as a drag on economic growth.
The local authorities and businesses in north Wales have started to address the issue. They have established the Mersey Dee Alliance, which does a tremendous amount of work in focusing attention on the needs of this important part of the national economy and ensuring that Governments pay due attention to them. I was pleased to be present at the meeting a few weeks ago between members of the Mersey Dee Alliance, the Growth Track 360 initiative and the Secretary of State for Transport, when they pressed the case for the improvement of that piece of infrastructure. It is clear that the Secretary of State for Transport listened carefully to what they had to say, because that meeting was followed very shortly by the Red Book announcement that there would be a concentration on the upgrade of the line.
I suggest to north Wales colleagues that they continue to support the work of the Mersey Dee Alliance and the Growth Track 360 initiative. We have the potential to double the size of the north Wales economy by 2015—the ambition of the alliance is to double it from £25 billion to £50 billion. That can be done if there is close cross-party working in this place, and close working between the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. We are in something of a sweet spot. We have people in both Administrations who get it and who understand the needs of north Wales. The fact that the United Kingdom Government get it is underlined by the provision of the upgrades, transport improvements and studies in the Budget. We in north Wales have a lot to look forward to and I welcome those Budget announcements.
Susan Elan Jones
Mae’n bleser mawr i ddod i’r Pwyllgor hwn heddiw ac i allu defnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg.
(Translation) It is a great pleasure for me to come to this Committee today and to be able to use the Welsh language.
I will not surprise my colleagues too much by saying that I will make the bulk of my speech today in Welsh. I am conscious that I have something like two and a half minutes before this session breaks. I want to say a few words in English in case a producer on “Newsnight” is listening and wondering how we are coping with the hindrance of having a bilingual Welsh-English debate, or in case a journalist from The Guardian is chewing away somewhere at their lentil sandwich and wondering whether they should be writing another article about minority rights or documenting the plight of those to the west of Offa’s Dyke who have the temerity to want Wales to be a truly bilingual nation. I make the point in jest: I have nothing against “Newsnight”, The Guardian or even lentil sandwiches, but I do have something against the media and academic commentators, especially those who declare themselves on the left or centre left, when they speak up for every other minority language and culture and downright denigrate our Welsh language and culture. Our language and culture belongs to everyone. I say that as someone who comes from a family where some members speak Welsh and others do not. All I ask of those wonderful progressives who traipse our land, if they really do believe in equality and diversity, is for similar respect and that they treat us in that vein.
Mae symboliaeth ddwfn i’r ffaith y gallwn ddefnyddio'r Gymraeg yn y ddadl hon ac yn y pwyllgor hwn heddiw. Yn y lle hwn ganrifoedd maith yn ôl fe benderfynwyd na fyddai'r Gymraeg yn iaith swyddogol i Gymru. Ond yn y lle hwn hefyd, yn 1967, gyda’r diweddar Cledwyn Hughes fel Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru, fe basiwyd y Ddeddf Iaith Gymraeg gyntaf. Yn y lle hwn hefyd, nid yn unig gallwn ddefnyddio’r iaith Gymraeg yn ein Pwyllgor, ond gallwn ddweud yn wir yn ein Huwch Bwyllgor Cymreig bod yr iaith Gymraeg yn un o’n hieithoedd swyddogol yn y lle hwn. Felly, mae’n ddiwrnod pwysig iawn i ni gyd. Mae gennym bwynt pwysig i’w ystyried: y Gyllideb. Dros Gymru a Phrydain gyfan, rwyf yn credu fod gennym rai o’r gweision cyhoeddus gorau yn y byd: y bobl sy’n dysgu yn ein hysgolion, y bobl sy’n gweithio yn ein hysbytai, ein diffoddwyr tân a’n heddlu, y bobl sy’n gweithio yn ein lluoedd arfog, ac eraill hefyd.
(Translation) There is deep symbolism, of course, to the fact that I can use the Welsh language in this debate and this Committee. In this place, so many years ago, it was decided that the Welsh language would not be the official language for Wales. In 1967, the first Welsh Language Act was passed when the late Cledwyn Hughes was the Secretary of State for Wales. Not only can we use the Welsh language, but we can truly say that Welsh is one of the Welsh Grand Committee’s official languages. It is therefore a very important day for us all.
We have an important topic before us today: the Budget. Throughout Wales and all of the UK, we have some of the best public servants in the world—the people who are teaching in our schools, the people who are working in our hospitals, our firefighters, our police officers, the people working in our armed forces and others.
Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2018
Draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018.
Mel Stride
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
Let me begin by addressing the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations. The Government are committed to a welfare system that is fair to the taxpayer while maintaining our protection for the most vulnerable in society. As in previous years, we are legislating to ensure that the guardian’s allowance and the disability elements of child tax credit and working tax credit increase in line with the consumer prices index, which stood at 3% in the year to September 2017. The draft regulations will maintain the level of support for disabled children in receipt of child tax credit, disabled workers in receipt of working tax credit and children whose parents are absent or deceased. Increases to these rates are part of the Government’s wider commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
The draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations will make changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance fund if required. These changes will take effect on 6 April 2018. Re-rating will increase the national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds in line with inflation to protect taxpayers from rising prices. Before I deal with the substance of the draft regulations, I draw the Committee’s attention to their fiscal significance: they will enable the collection of £130 billion in national insurance contributions, which will work directly to support our national health service, pensioners and people who have been bereaved.
Let me outline the changes to employee and employer NICs, commonly referred to as class 1 NICs. The lower earnings limit of £6,000 for class 1 NICs—the level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance—will rise in line with inflation to £116 a week. Employees will have to pay class 1 NICs at 12%. The primary threshold of £8,424—the level of earnings at which class 1 NICs have to be paid—will rise with inflation to £162 a week. The upper earnings limit is the level at which employees start to pay class 1 NICs at 2% on all earnings above a certain income tax threshold; the Government have committed to aligning this threshold with the UK’s higher income tax rate of £46,350. Employers have to pay national insurance at a rate of 13.8% above an earnings level called a secondary threshold. This threshold will rise with inflation to £162 a week, as it has been aligned with the primary threshold for employees since April 2017.
The Government are committed to reducing the cost to businesses of employing young apprentices and young people. The level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employers’ contributions will rise from £866 to £892 a week.
The self-employed pay class 2, 3 and 4 NICs. Class 2 NICs provide access to contributory benefits for the self-employed, such as the state pension. The weekly rate of class 2 NICs to be paid will rise in line with inflation to £2.95, a flat rate for all the self-employed. The small profits threshold—the level of profits at which the self-employed have to pay class 2 NICs—will rise with inflation to £6,205 a year. The self-employed currently pay class 4 NICs at a rate of 9% on profits above £8,044 a year; that limit will now rise with inflation to £8,424. They also pay 2% above what is known as an upper profits limit; that limit will rise from £45,000 to £46,350 a year. The rate for class 3 contributions, which allow people to voluntarily top up their national insurance record, allowing access to contributory benefits, will increase in line with inflation from £14.25 to £14.65 a week.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecast annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, during 2018-19. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
I trust that that is a useful overview of the changes that we are making to bring rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer into line with inflation.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair today, Sir David.
I am grateful to the Minister for what was indeed a useful overview of the changes. As he explained, the first set makes it possible to increase certain tax credit and child benefit rates as well as the guardian’s allowance rate. Those changes were prefigured in the Budget, as were the changes to national insurance contributions that we have been talking about—the annual re-rating of NIC rates, limits and thresholds—and provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance fund.
I want to speak briefly about both sets of regulations. As to NICs, given the impact of inflation on incomes, which has been compounded by an exceptionally long period of sluggish wage growth, we support moves to ensure that NIC thresholds are increased in line with changes in the consumer prices index. Of course thresholds for the best-off people will be increasing by much more than inflation, with the Government’s commitment to increase the top band threshold eventually to £50,000. We feel that that is a move—along with many other Government changes to the tax system, and particularly to income tax—that should not be prioritised now. However, on their own terms the threshold increases in the regulations, at least for NICs, appear sensible.
The same applies to the increases by CPI in the Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018. As the Minister explained, those cover the disabled worker and severe disability elements of working tax credit, the disabled and severely disabled child elements of child tax credit, and the guardian’s allowance. Of course, something of great concern is what the Minister did not talk about: the elements that are not being uprated, which is the majority of them.
The regulations fail to cover any other elements of working-age social security support that come under the aegis of the Treasury and HMRC. Given that those elements have been frozen at their 2015-16 rates until 2020, the practical impact of the freeze is predicted to be a 5% fall in the value of social security support for some of the poorest families in Britain by 2020. Coupled with additional cuts to tax credits and the lower levels of support available through universal credit, that is pushing large numbers of people in Britain into poverty—especially children.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has noted that the social security freeze is the
“single biggest policy driver behind rising poverty, hitting families in and out of work”.
The freeze has also been criticised by the End Child Poverty coalition. I was disturbed to hear from the coalition that now almost a third of children in my constituency are growing up in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also recently noted that the Government’s changes to social security, including the freeze, have left many families ill-prepared for another economic slowdown, should there be one.
The Minister suggested that those changes somehow, overall, protect the most vulnerable in society, and I find that difficult to understand. I normally find him persuasive on many issues, but on that matter I am afraid we cannot concur, because the most vulnerable in society are unfortunately being badly let down. In the circumstances, the regulations should be condemned for what they leave out—adequate support for struggling families to make ends meet. Often the people concerned are not those seeking work; they are among the growing number who are in work but living in poverty.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her observations, and especially for her broad support for the measures that we are bringing forward today.
On the issue of the thresholds and the potential benefit to higher earners as a consequence of upratings in the future, of course at this stage we are not at the £50,000 limit, so that is not a debate for today. A second point I want to make, on the issue of looking after the most vulnerable, is that we are doing a number of things from a Treasury perspective outside the benefits system, which were announced at the Budget, including a national living wage increase of 4.4%. That is well above inflation, something that the hon. Lady understandably referred to. That will begin in April. Of course, the increase in the personal allowance will take even more people out of tax, as well as providing a tax break for more than 30 million people.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The saving from the social security benefits freeze was estimated to be £3.5 billion, but because of increased inflation it is now estimated, according to the Library figures that we have obtained, to be £5.2 billion. Does the Minister think that the Government need to continue the benefit freeze under those terms?
Mel Stride
When looking at the impact of inflation on potential savings such as the hon. Gentleman describes, we have to bear in mind that many costs are going up for the Government as a consequence of increased levels of inflation. It is not simply something that can be looked at in isolation.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. Is he aware that analysis by groups such as the Women’s Budget Group has shown that any benefits, particularly for the worst-off families, that might have come through the increase in the personal allowance and the national living wage are cancelled out by the social security changes? When those changes are taken into account, people’s incomes have been falling. Furthermore, the very worst-off families often do not benefit from the changes, because they are simply unable to accrue enough hours to reach the threshold in the first place.
Mel Stride
As I have been explaining, the national living wage increases and the rise in the personal allowance are clearly elements of this. We are also now rolling out universal credit, which will increasingly make sure that work pays. We believe that that is the best way out of poverty and the best way to improve living standards. To make some broader points, as a responsible Government we need to balance the costs of benefits with the compelling need to look after and support the most vulnerable in our society. I argue that that is why today’s measures effectively exempt from the freeze the categories of individuals whom we are discussing today, who are indeed among the most vulnerable in our society.
Between 2008 and 2015, jobseeker’s allowance rose by about 21%, child tax credits by about 33%, but earnings by only about 12%. The total spend on benefits in 1980-81 was £30 billion in real terms. By 2014-15, that had risen to £96 billion. We have to place this debate within the context of that overall fiscal framework.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very happy to talk about how the overall balance of benefits has changed over time. The most significant difference between the 1980s and now, when we look at the overall balance of social security, is the gigantic increase in housing benefit that has occurred over the period, particularly over the last seven years. We have seen a radical increase in the cost of housing, which has left many families struggling when their wages have not been increasing. That is the major difference.
If we were to look at a pie chart of social security in those two periods, housing benefit has driven most of the change—certainly not increases in support for unemployed people, where the amount of support that people get in relation to wages has fallen precipitously. It has fallen more in the UK than in most comparable countries. I am very pleased to put the debate in that context; it is important that we do so, and remind ourselves that changes in the overall burden of social security payments have often been the result of a failure to deal with structural problems, such as the arguably overheated housing market that we have at the moment.
The Minister mentioned increases in different tax credits and JSA. I do not believe that they have been above inflation. Certainly, unemployment support has gone down substantially. The element of JSA that is linked to contribution-based national insurance has substantially decreased over time. It is simply not the case that we are moving towards a more contributory system. Most analysts would suggest that we have actually had a residualisation over recent years.
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be short. I think that was about three interventions.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Sir David. We might be in danger of discussing matters that diverge quite far from the instruments themselves. To deal with the point raised by the hon. Lady, one of the most telling statistics in all of this is that in 2013—the latest year for which these figures were available—this country had the largest percentage of GDP spend on family benefits, including child benefits, of any country in the OECD. In the context of the economic challenges that we face, we need to be fiscally prudent at the same time as growing our economy, as we are. As the hon. Lady will know, we are near record levels of employment. We have the lowest level of unemployment for over 40 years, we have reduced the deficit now by three-quarters, and we go into the coming period after the Budget on the back of 19 consecutive months of growth. So there are many things that are driving up in the direction of improving living standards.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister will also be aware that our record on helping the vulnerable is something to be proud of. The Minister has talked about reducing income inequality but we must also remember that many foundations—including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—suggest that we have reduced relative poverty as well. There is always more to be done, but together with very low unemployment we can be proud of the fact that we have helped the vulnerable in society, whilst accepting that there is still more to be done.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he will know that prior to the very recent figures, which still show that the level of income inequality is the lowest since 2010, it was the lowest in 30 years.
Mel Stride
I know that the hon. Lady is itching to tell me about it excluding housing and raise various points, but it is a recognised measure within the Gini coefficient. I do believe that this Government have a record of which they can be truly proud. There is more to be done, but I think we can all agree on these measures, to the extent that they are relieving measures for particular categories of individuals whom we all, on both sides of the Committee, seek to support. I hope that on that basis we can approve these measures.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT TAX CREDITS AND GUARDIAN’S ALLOWANCE UP-RATING ETC. REGULATIONS 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018.—(Mel Stride.)
Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The purpose of the draft regulations is to make registering to vote anonymously more accessible for those who need it most. The regulations provide for changes to the parliamentary and local electoral registers in Northern Ireland, and those changes would apply to electors at parliamentary, Assembly and local government elections. It is important that the changes are applied UK-wide, and similar legislation for England and Wales and for Scotland is being debated and considered in Committee today.
As the local government electoral registers are a devolved matter in Scotland, the Scottish Government are proposing similar changes in the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday marked 100 years since legislation was introduced to give some women the right to vote in the UK. That was the first step to equal franchise in the UK, but the journey to maximise electoral registration continues. For some people, the fear of having their name and address on the electoral register is a barrier to registering to vote and engaging in democracy. It seems fitting today to debate changes that make it easier for vulnerable individuals to exercise their democratic rights, which were passionately fought for 100 years ago.
Anonymous registration was first introduced in Great Britain by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, but it was not extended at that time to Northern Ireland. Instead, section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 gave the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the power to make equivalent provision for Northern Ireland by Order in Council under section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—something with which you are deeply familiar, Mr Hanson.
Chloe Smith
Very good—we are in good hands today, Mr Hanson, with your expertise in the Chair.
The Secretary of State’s power to make provision for anonymous registration in Northern Ireland was used for the first time to make the Anonymous Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 2014. That extended many of the anonymous registration provisions in place for England, Wales and Scotland, and it is linked to a series of statutory instruments which amend the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 and which, taken together, implement the system of anonymous registration in Northern Ireland that applies to parliamentary, Assembly and local elections.
The scheme protects those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register—for example, victims of harassment or stalking, as well as some witnesses in criminal court cases. It is not available to those who simply want to keep their name and address private. Someone can register to vote anonymously if they can show that their safety, or the safety of someone else in their household, would be at risk if the electoral register contained their name and address. This is known as the safety test. An applicant must provide evidence that demonstrates that they meet the safety test to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The evidence accepted is prescribed in legislation as either a live court order, or an injunction from a set list of orders and injunctions, or an attestation, which is a signed statement certifying that the applicant’s safety would be at risk if the register contained their name or address. It can be made only by professions listed in the legislation as qualifying officers, such as a superintendent of police or a director of social services.
About two years ago, Mehala Osborne, with the support of Women’s Aid, started a petition to make anonymous registration more accessible for those who need it most. As a result, the Government announced in September 2016 that they would look closely at whether the current system of registering anonymously to vote could be improved, to make it easier for survivors of domestic abuse to register safely to vote. The Government consulted on potential changes to improve the accessibility of the anonymous registration scheme with domestic abuse charities, the electoral community, including the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, bodies representing potential attesters and others. The responses that the Government received were broadly positive, and the Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland has been particularly keen to see the provisions implemented. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), for all his hard work and passion to help make the changes a reality. The regulations make sensible changes that make the scheme more accessible for those who need it most.
Turning to the detail of the changes, the draft regulations update the list of court orders and injunctions that can be provided to the chief electoral officer as evidence, to demonstrate that an individual’s safety would be at risk. As evidence, applicants would be able to use female genital mutilation protection orders, made under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. They would also be able to use domestic violence protection orders, made under the Crime and Security Act 2010 or when they are brought into force in Northern Ireland, the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. Those are new and relevant orders that were not in place when the anonymous registration scheme came into force.
The draft regulations will broaden who can provide attestations that an individual’s safety would be at risk. The seniority required for an attestation from a police officer would be lowered from the rank of superintendent to the rank of inspector. That will make it easier for applicants to obtain an attestation. Inspectors are, of course, frequently in contact with survivors and well qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety. Medical practitioners registered with the General Medical Council, and nurses and midwives registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, would also be able to act as attesters. Again, those professionals are frequently in contact with survivors of domestic abuse and qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety.
Managers of refuges for those escaping domestic violence will now be able to act as attesters. That is important. All individuals who are resident in a refuge would then have easy access to an individual who can attest to the fact that their safety is at risk. Refuge managers are specialists in their field and well placed to attest whether an individual’s safety is at risk. They are in direct and sustained contact with domestic abuse survivors and are approachable, which helps to increase accessibility for those seeking to use the scheme.
The changes do not place a statutory duty on anybody to provide an attestation. However, the regulations widen the group of individuals qualified to attest, should they choose to do so. Overall, the changes ensure that the evidence required to register to vote anonymously reflects the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse. As I mentioned, the Government have consulted on the draft regulations with the Electoral Commission, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, representative bodies of newly qualified attesters and Women’s Aid. There is general agreement that the changes being brought forward are desirable to ensure that those whose safety would be at risk, if their names and addresses appeared on the register, are able to engage in our democratic system.
I would like to dwell on a few comments made within that consultation. We heard from Women’s Aid that they strongly welcomed the changes made by the statutory instrument, saying that,
“the proposed new measures send out a clear message to all survivors of domestic abuse: that their voices matter, and their participation in politics matters”.
I think we should all agree with that. The draft regulations make sensible and proportionate changes to the wider registration system, making it easier to register to vote without a name and address appearing on the register. That may be a small thing, but it makes a big difference. It means the freedom to live ones life and cast one’s vote to make a choice.
As Mehala Osborne said:
“Survivors in the future will not be denied their voice and democratic right to vote.”
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is 100 years since the Representation of the People Act 1918. As we all know, that was a crucial step forward in the emancipation and empowerment of women. Yesterday we marked the centenary of property-owning women over the age of 30 and some university graduates winning the right to vote. We are reminded that the fight for equality is always a journey and this is part of the next step forward in that equality for women.
That was just one of many steps for women and, 100 years later, the struggle for equality continues. There are still far too few women in Parliament and women still face discrimination in the workplace and in everyday life. As the Minister outlined, the purpose of this legislation is to give survivors of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland a voice in our democracy. The issue of domestic abuse concerns us all. Many of us will know somebody who has experienced some form of domestic violence. National figures show that one in four women experience domestic violence at some point in their life, and every week two women are killed by a current or former partner. The draft regulations are desperately needed.
Sadly, although we are here today to discuss changes to the system of anonymous voter registration, I cannot ignore the wider context of the Government’s cuts agenda and its impact on women. As someone who was for many years a trustee of a Women’s Aid organisation, I have seen at first hand the amazing work that women’s refuges do to turn around women’s lives, and often the lives of their children too. However, women’s refuges have seen their budgets slashed by nearly a quarter over the past seven years and, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to boost funding for women escaping violent partners, that is a continued blight up and down the country.
Turning specifically to anonymous voter registration, it cannot be right that survivors who have faced the physical, emotional and psychological impacts from abuse are then silenced in our democratic process. Why? Because it is too dangerous for their names and addresses to be listed on the electoral register and too difficult, at the moment, for them to register anonymously.
As the Minister explained, under existing legislation, domestic abuse survivors must provide a court order or have their application supported by a senior independent witness, such as a high-ranking police officer, in order to appear anonymously on the electoral roll. These proposals will add doctors, nurses and refuge managers to the list of people who can be an attester and will lower the rank of police officers, from superintendent to inspector, authorised to perform that function.
It is vital that every eligible voter is able to participate in our democracy, which is why the Opposition very much welcome the proposals. I put on the record my thanks to Women’s Aid, which has been at the forefront of shaping and co-ordinating responses to domestic violence and abuse for more than 40 years, including this legislation. However, it is clear that the measures do not go far enough. Survivors still have to re-register to vote anonymously year on year, and those who move home often have to repeat their applications. For many survivors, anonymity is a matter of life or death, and women are often on the run from domestic abuse for the rest of their life.
We support Women’s Aid, which has called on the Government to use the Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill to pass legislative changes to make survivors’ anonymous voter registration valid indefinitely, so that they can vote in safety for life. Will the Minister outline the Government’s position on that proposal? What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Home Office about it? I recognise that she is new to her post, so that might take some time.
Chloe Smith
I welcome the opportunity to put on record the technical reason why the draft regulations go as far as they do and not as far as some have publicly argued for. There are a number of reasons why the draft regulations do what they do, which is to extend the evidence basis, but not the amount of time for which a person can be on the register.
First—I suspect, technically, most importantly, although rather boringly—the provisions on yearly renewal are in primary legislation and cannot be addressed through secondary legislation. That is the straightforward reason why the draft regulations do what they do. I think the Committee will be aware that primary legislation space is somewhat limited in Parliament at present, and while I hope I have given the Committee a firm understanding of how important these matters are, we thought it better to do what we can in secondary legislation, rather than pinning everything on a piece of primary legislation.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I want to push my hon. Friend a little bit more, if I may. Is she saying that, in principle, if the Government were able to find the time—I appreciate that time is scarce at the moment—they would be interested in pursuing changes to primary legislation in order to make renewals a simpler, more up to date and altogether more streamlined process?
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend kindly leads me on to the other two reasons I wanted to offer, which are matters of principle. First, when this scheme was originally introduced, Parliament’s intention was to support individuals with a current risk, rather than necessarily an historical risk. That is the difference between a one-year registration, which ought to be renewable, versus an indefinite registration. That is the question of principle that we are dealing with: should this be about those who face a current risk, as opposed to some form of historical risk?
I note that there is difference between the three statutory instruments we are debating today—I do not know whether other hon. Members beyond the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and me will be reconvening to debate the draft regulations for Scotland, and for England and Wales, on top of these for Northern Ireland—but it is the case that attestation in Northern Ireland lasts for five years, so our discussion is coming on to matters related to England, Wales and Scotland, which we will debate later in the day.
To complete the set with a third reason why we think that yearly renewal is appropriate in those other parts of the United Kingdom, electoral registration officers have a very important duty to maintain the accuracy of their registers, so there is an argument that if and when electors change their address the register needs to be updated. That is another argument for the concept of yearly renewal—or, renewal at all and, for the other parts of the UK, yearly-in this policy area. I have no doubt that we will return to the issue in the Committees on the other related draft regulations, because it is more appropriate to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Let me say a word about refuges more broadly, because the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood raised the issue. In Committee, we all share the desire to see refuges working well to support victims. My colleagues in the Home Office are looking very closely at the matter. In Northern Ireland, refuges are funded by the Northern Ireland Department for Communities, through the Supporting People programme, administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I will therefore go into no further detail now, because it is a devolved matter. Suffice it to say that my colleagues, including the Home Secretary—who addressed the House yesterday on a range of issues to do with this year’s celebration, which we ought to be having, of women and their right to vote—are well aware of the need to support refuges well.
In closing off—I hope—the Committee’s questions, I note that the draft regulations apply to men as well. We talk principally perhaps about women when we think about refuges, but let us not forget that men too can be victims of domestic abuse. It is important to put on the record the fact that the regulations will be in place for all survivors of domestic abuse. With that, I hope that I have answered the questions that have been asked, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) regulations 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to continue to serve alongside any hon. Members who are joining me for this marathon consideration of three statutory instruments in one day.
The purpose of the regulations is to make registering to vote anonymously for UK parliamentary elections in Scotland more accessible for those who need it most. They will also strengthen the integrity of the electoral register, and improve the registration system for electors. To give a little context, the draft regulations amend the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. The changes will cover the parliamentary electoral registers. As local government electoral registers are a devolved matter in Scotland, the Scottish Government are proposing similar changes in the Scottish Parliament. It is important that the changes are applied UK-wide, and similar legislation for England and Wales and Northern Ireland has been, and will be, debated and considered in Committee today.
Yesterday marked 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the right to vote in the UK. That was the first step to the equal franchise in the UK, but the journey to maximise electoral registration continues.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
This may be completely irrelevant, but you will be the judge of that, Ms McDonagh. Does the Minister know that the Americans gave such emancipation some two and half years after Britain? I thought that the Committee should note that.
The Chair
As Chair, I will be generous and broad in my interpretation of what is in the scope of the legislation.
Chloe Smith
Thank you, Ms McDonagh, and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that we may be seen as a pioneer. Let us hope that today we can all come together regarding this piece of the electoral system, and agree that we should press on further, which is what we are doing today.
Today’s legislation is about the fear of having one’s name and address appear on the electoral register, and how that can be a barrier to registering to vote, and therefore engaging in democracy. It seems fitting this week to debate changes that make it easier for vulnerable individuals to exercise their democratic rights. Anonymous registration was first introduced in Great Britain by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which amended the Representation of the People Act 1983 and provided for the overall structure of the scheme. The scheme protects those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register—for example, victims of harassment or stalking, and some witnesses in criminal court cases. An applicant must provide their local electoral registration officer with evidence that demonstrates that their safety would be at risk. The evidence accepted is prescribed in legislation as either a live court order or injunction from a set list of orders and injunctions, or what is known as an attestation. That is a signed statement certifying that the applicant’s safety would be at risk if the register contained their name or address. It can be made only by professionals listed as qualifying officers, such as a police superintendent or a director of social services.
About two years ago, Mehala Osborne, with the support of Women’s Aid, started a petition to make anonymous registration more accessible for those who need it most. As a result, the Government announced in September 2016 that they would look closely at whether the current system of anonymously registering could be improved to make it easier. The Government consulted on potential changes to improve the accessibility of the scheme with domestic abuse charities, the electoral community, bodies representing potential attesters and others. The responses that the Government received were broadly positive. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Minister for the Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), for his hard work and passion in making the changes a reality. The instruments make sensible changes, which make the anonymous registration scheme more accessible for those who need it most.
Turning to the detail, the draft regulations update the list of court orders and injunctions that can be provided to an ERO—an electoral registration officer—as evidence to demonstrate that an individual’s safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the register. As evidence, applicants will be able to use domestic violence protection orders made under the Crime and Security Act 2010 or the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, once that is in force. They will also be able to use female genital mutilation protection orders made under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Those are new and relevant orders that have been created since the anonymous registration scheme came into force.
The draft regulations will also broaden who can provide attestations that the individual’s safety would be at risk. The required seniority for a police officer will be lowered from the rank of superintendent to the rank of inspector, which will make it easier for applicants to obtain an attestation. Police inspectors are frequently in contact with survivors and will be well qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety. Medical practitioners registered with the General Medical Council and nurses and midwives registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council will also be able to act as attesters. Those professionals are again frequently in contact with survivors and are qualified to assess the level of risk.
Managers of refuges for those escaping domestic violence will also be able to act as attesters. Anybody who has been supported by a refuge would then have easy access to somebody who can provide the attestation. Refuge managers are specialists in their field and we think they are well placed to make the attestation. They are also in direct and sustained contact with domestic abuse survivors, making them approachable for those looking to use the scheme.
The changes make sure that the evidence required to register to vote anonymously is more reflective of the experiences of survivors of abuse. The Government have consulted on the draft regulations with the Electoral Commission, the Scottish associations of administrators, representative bodies of the newly qualified attesters and Women’s Aid. There is general agreement that the changes being brought forward are desirable to ensure the safety of those who would be most at risk, and to help them engage in our democratic system. Women’s Aid strongly welcomes the changes that the statutory instrument makes, saying that the proposed new measures send out a clear message to all survivors of domestic abuse that their voice and their participation in politics matter.
The statutory instrument also makes further changes to the wider registration system, with the aim of improving electoral registration processes for the citizen and making it easier and more effective for EROs to administer. They also seek to improve the integrity of the system and the accuracy of the electoral register, by addressing two recommendations made in Sir Eric Pickles’s review on electoral fraud. In addition to Sir Eric’s recommendations, the incremental changes have been identified through extensive consultation with the electoral community—those on the coalface running elections and services. They put the citizen first and will help EROs to provide modern and efficient registration services.
The first proposed change addresses recommendation 14 in the Pickles review. It adds a statement to the paper application form that states that persons who are not eligible electors are ineligible to register to vote and that, in relation to nationality, applicants may be required to provide additional information, or otherwise checks may be carried out by the ERO against Government records. The change seeks to enhance the deterrent against applicants providing false information in respect of their nationality. It reminds the applicant that an ERO can and will seek further information to corroborate the information provided, where they may have concerns.
The second proposed change addresses recommendation 12 of the Pickles review. It adds a statement to the paper application form that informs applicants that their application may be delayed if they do not provide previous addresses at which they have ceased to reside within 12 months of the date of their application. That change aims to minimise the number of incomplete applications being submitted on paper forms. The provision of an applicant’s previous address is one of only two ways that an out-of-date and redundant entry can be removed from the register with only one source of evidence, and thus it serves as an important way to maintain the accuracy of the electoral register.
The third proposed change expands the number of sources of information that can be used by EROs to remove deceased electors from the electoral register. Where they have not been able to obtain a death certificate or a registrar notice, they will be permitted to use one of four further sources of evidence to support the decision to remove a deceased elector: information from a close relative, a canvass form, a care home manager or other local records. I hope the Committee agrees that using such information is an appropriate response to avoid unnecessary distress for the relatives of any deceased elector. It balances the need for evidence with the sensitivity of providing a service to the citizen that they would expect at such a difficult time, and it again helps EROs maintain the accuracy of the register.
Detailed consideration has been given as to whether that could increase the risk of fraud as part of the registration system, but we think that will be minimal. EROs are already required to use current sources of information before using the information sources permitted under the regulations. Also, EROs must be satisfied that the information they have received is accurate, and where they have any concerns at all they remain able to seek additional sources of information to support their decision.
The final proposed change to the registration system streamlines and simplifies correspondence that EROs are required to send to electors. These changes are designed to reduce the cost of the registration system and provide greater discretion to EROs to tailor their approach based on the needs of electors. This saving will be achieved by requiring additional information to be included in a first notification to an elector that their entry on the register is under review. That then allows the sending of a second notification, of the outcome of the review, to become discretionary. The regulations also make sending a notification of changes to an elector’s open register preference discretionary. That streamlines the process and brings it in line with other public and private services.
In summary, the draft regulations make sensible and proportionate changes to the wider registration system, in addition to this important change, in this centenary year, of being able to support survivors of domestic abuse. Making it easier for someone to register without their name and address appearing on the electoral register may appear a small thing, but it makes a big difference. It means the freedom to live their life, to cast their vote and to make their choice. As Mehala Osborne said:
“Survivors in the future will not be denied their voice and democratic right to vote.”
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms McDonagh. This is my first time doing anything like this on the shadow Front Bench, so please bear with me.
The Representation of the People Act 1918, as we all know, was a crucial step forward for the empowerment of women. Yesterday, as we marked the centenary of property-owning women over 30 winning the right to vote, we were reminded that the fight for equality is indeed a journey. That was just one of many steps for women, and 100 years later the struggle for equality continues. There are still too few women in Parliament, and women still face discrimination in the workplace and in everyday life. It has been a slight shock for me, coming into this kind of working environment after working, as a primary school teacher, with wonderful women for a long time, to see the discrimination that still exists in some workplaces.
As the Minister outlined, the purpose of this legislation is to give survivors of domestic abuse in Scotland a voice in our democracy. Domestic abuse is an issue that concerns all of us. I am sure that many of us here today will know somebody who has experienced some form of domestic violence. National figures show that one in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in her life, and two women every week are killed by a current or former partner. Sadly, although we are here to discuss changes to the system of anonymous voter registration, we cannot ignore the wider context of this Government’s austerity agenda. Women’s refuges have seen their budgets slashed by nearly a quarter over the past seven years, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to boost funding for women escaping violent partners.
Turning to anonymous voter registration, it cannot be right that survivors who have faced the physical, emotional and psychological impacts of abuse are then also silenced as participants in our democratic process. Why does that happen? Because it is too dangerous for their name and address to be listed on the electoral register, and it is too difficult for them to register anonymously.
As the Minister explained, under existing legislation domestic abuse survivors must provide a court order or have their application supported by a senior independent witness, such as a high-ranking police officer, to appear anonymously on the electoral register. The proposals outlined today will add doctors, nurses and refuge managers to the list of people who can act as an attester and will lower the rank of police officer authorised to perform the function from superintendent to inspector.
It is vital that every eligible voter is able to participate in our democracy, and that is why the Opposition very much welcome the proposals. I thank Women’s Aid, which has been at the forefront of shaping and co-ordinating responses to domestic violence and abuse for more than 40 years, including this very legislation. However, it is clear that the measures do not go far enough. Survivors will still have to re-register to vote anonymously year on year, and those who move home will have to repeat their application. For many survivors, anonymity is a matter of life and death, and often women are on the run from domestic abuse for the rest of their lives. We support Women’s Aid, which has been calling on the Government to use the Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill to pass legislative changes to make survivors’ anonymous voter registration valid and indefinite, so that they can vote in safety for life. Will the Minister outline the Government’s position on that proposal? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Home Office?
The Minister has also outlined proposals to expand the data sources available to registration officers to enable them to remove entries from the register as a result of death. That is a sensible measure, but it is disappointing that the Government are focusing their energy on removing people from the electoral roll while refusing to use the same data-sharing techniques to address the millions of voters who are missing from the electoral register. The Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to increase voter registration and turnout. That is why we have called on the Government multiple times to examine the use of Government data to automatically place eligible electors on the electoral roll.
In conclusion, 2018 cannot be a year for complacency. As we celebrate the last 100 years of democratic change, we should be looking for progressive and radical solutions to address this country’s democratic deficit.
The Chair
Am I missing anyone else who wants to make a contribution? I call Mr Sheppard.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I rise briefly to associate the third party with the contextual remarks of the Minister and the shadow Minister that recognised not only the advances we have made to our democracy in the past century, but that there is always more to do. For our part, we welcome the proposals and wish to offer no opposition to them. They are a valuable step in the right direction, and I know that the Scottish Government agree with them and will be making regulations of their own to be effective on the same day, so that the totality of the electorate and elections are included in the advance.
Chloe Smith
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. First, I thank both the hon. Members who have spoken for their support and that of their parties for the measures. I am delighted that we all agree on the importance of doing this and are united in getting it done. I will answer a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I welcome her to her place, and I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on many issues as time goes on.
I want to make a general point on refuge funding, which is where the hon. Lady began her remarks. It is important to note that responsibility for refuges is devolved for Scotland. For England and Wales, I can confirm that the Government have put aside a £20 million fund to support refuges. That will create more than 2,200 bed spaces and support more than 19,000 victims. That is important and valuable in the context of the concerns that she expressed. She will know that the most recent consultation on how refuges can be supported through the housing system has only recently closed and the Government will be looking at all the evidence submitted.
The hon. Lady asked whether the regulations could go further, in allowing for indefinite registration instead of the need to renew annually. I want to put on record the Government’s view, because that fair question has been asked outside as well as inside this place. The Government are, of course, mindful of the long-term risks that can be faced by domestic abuse survivors and I understand that in certain cases it might be difficult to return to completing paperwork every year.
I will offer three thoughts on the reasons behind our approach. The first is technical and most applicable. Provisions on yearly renewal are in primary legislation and could not be tackled by the regulations before us. The Committee will recognise that work on primary legislation is at a premium in this Parliament so, regrettably, we have had to focus on what can be achieved through secondary legislation.
Secondly, I think the intention of Parliament at the time of the scheme’s introduction was to support individuals with a current risk, as opposed to an historical one. That is a point of principle rather than practicality. To be able to attest or provide evidence more regularly, or at all, as opposed to indefinitely, is important because it points to the existence of a current risk to an individual, rather than one in the past that might no longer be current.
The third reason is that EROs have a duty to maintain the accuracy of their registers. That is an underpinning duty within the democratic system. To lack an opportunity to check people with anonymous registration could make that duty more difficult. Yearly renewal supports EROs’ ability to keep accurate records of who resides where, even if that information is anonymous when the public part is issued.
The final point raised by the hon. Lady concerned deceased electors. She thought it disappointing that we were focusing on removing rather than adding electors. I will say to her gently that we are talking about dead electors. It is important for the accuracy of the register to remove deceased electors; I hope the Committee agrees. The Government want to see accurate and complete registers.
Laura Smith
I just want to say that in my speech and notes it definitely states that I agree with removing deceased people. My point was about putting more people on the register. I would like to put that on the record.
Chloe Smith
I was confident that was the case. I am confident that the Committee is in full agreement that we want EROs to maintain an accurate and complete register. To explain those terms, the second, completeness, is what the hon. Lady is talking about. All those who are eligible to register are registered. That is the other of the twin aims of electoral registration.
I am delighted to report that accuracy and completeness are both at high levels—higher than when I previously held this role. We have seen those go up since introducing individual registration. I also point the hon. Lady to a document published just before Christmas by my predecessor about further democratic engagement and the ways in which we can ensure that those who belong to groups that might traditionally have been under-registered, such as some disabled people who, for various reasons, might have found it difficult to tackle the registration system, are able to take part.
We are setting out ways to welcome everybody who is eligible to register on to the registration system, which is very important. In that spirit, I return to the measures before us, which are about accuracy and completeness. Overall, it is about a sense of justice that those who have faced abuse should not lose their right to vote and we are making it easier for them to register.
Question put and agreed to.
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (Second sitting)
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome the Committee back to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before anyone asks the question, the two microphone recording devices are not spies or anything else; they are in fact Hansard picking up voices from that end of the Committee Room, so they are perfectly legitimate.
Schedule
Parental bereavement leave and pay
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 10, in the schedule, page 2, line 22, at end insert
“, including arrangements for taking the entitled leave at different points within the period specified in subsection (6).”
This amendment would ensure that regulations on parental bereavement leave provide flexibility on when the entitled leave can be taken.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) Provision under subsection (4)(a) must secure that an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section will not be required to be taken consecutively and may be taken in blocks of one day at a time.”
This amendment would allow flexibility in the parental bereavement leave arrangements.
Amendment 3, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “52 weeks”.
This amendment would extend the period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks.
Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “26 weeks”.
This amendment would extend the minimum period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 26 weeks.
Patricia Gibson
I wish to speak in support of amendment 10, because it is important that there be flexibility on when parental bereavement leave is taken. The loss of a child, if it is anything, is hugely traumatic. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. Going on as far as possible as though the death is not real will be a reaction that helps some parents to cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term.
Other people cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. There is no right or wrong way to do so. I fear that if the amendment is not accepted, we will in effect, even if we do not wish to, be saying to bereaved parents, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your bereavement leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that, as set out in the Bill.” I honestly think we can do better.
It is not appropriate or desirable to set an early timeframe as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need of leave only some months later, when the enormity and the reality of the loss have truly sunk in. Others may prefer a phased return to work instead of taking the leave in one set block.
Much of the discussion that I have seen on the Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness, and it is true that far too many children are lost in that way. Far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by an unforgiving disease against which the child has few or no resources to defend itself. There is no doubt that to watch a child go through that—to watch your own child go through that—is beyond heartbreaking and beyond horrific, but we cannot forget that many children also die in a variety of other circumstances.
The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic when the parent had no idea when they last saw their child that that would be the last time they saw their child alive. There may be a car accident or some other horrific accident. A child is knocked down perhaps, and in a moment a family is destroyed by grief and the random cruelty of events.
I therefore believe that flexibility is needed not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way and in their own time, but because, depending on the circumstances, there might be a fatal accident inquiry following the death or, in England, a coroner’s inquiry. There might be a court case and perhaps even a trial. There might be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. It should be remembered that not all bereaved parents will necessarily take any or all of this leave, but they must have the option, and the option must be flexible. I fear that if it is not, bereaved parents who work for the minority of employers who are not as sympathetic as we might wish them to be might face losing their job as well as their child. Bereaved parents need the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully, as we try to put on the statute book the best Bill possible for parents.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument on making leave arrangements more flexible and I have much sympathy with it. Certainly, we heard such arguments from many different sources, including people who have been bereaved who contacted us through social media. Many charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care, Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives and the National Bereavement Alliance also made the point that the period of 52 days was too short and they wanted longer. That was for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Lady outlined, such as autopsies and inquests, which can often happen well beyond those first 52 days.
There are substantive reasons why we might want to look at a longer timescale. We need to strike a balance, of course, between the needs of the employee and the understanding of the employer. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that we expect these to be the minimum standards that employers might follow. It would be sensible to consult further on those measures.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
That is certainly something I gave due consideration to when drafting the first incarnation of the Bill. I have huge sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made about flexibility. We have heard lots of very good representations from charities and different organisations in the field, but we have not heard from business. We have always said that we have to be fair to business and to those who have suffered this tragic loss.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a good point: we need to engage with all the stakeholders in the consultation to ensure we get it right. I heed the calls of many hon. Members, especially the hon. Members for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who have made such points in previous debates.
If the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran agrees to withdraw the amendment, I ask that she and other hon. Members work closely with officials and the Department to feed into the consultation, which will be held later this year to consider some of these points in more detail, including the period in which leave may be taken and how flexibly it may be taken. I am very sympathetic to a longer period, but I ask that we deal with it in that way.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. It is right that flexibility be given. Having listened to those comments, another consultation seems like a frustration. This is quite a simple ask. Grief can affect people in many different ways. It can manifest and culminate at different times for different people depending on their support network, what has happened to them and their child, and the delay of the trauma.
As noted in amendment 11, it is crucial that the parent or carer should not have to take those days concurrently, but could use them as they wished, in agreement with their manager. That is where we would achieve balance: the right would exist, but a manager would have to agree to those times.
When I was a team manager, one of my members of staff found out that her daughter had diabetes. We worked week by week on what the needs of the child were for getting to grips with that disease. That is where the balance could come. It is not too much of an imposition, just an ask for some flexibility.
Flexibility would undoubtedly be beneficial for the employer, because the employee would not just take a two-week block within two months of the trauma, after which they would be expected to return to work. The time could be used as a phased return, as has been mentioned, or stored up for when a particularly bad period arose, which would otherwise probably, and understandably, be taken as a sick day by that employee. I therefore think that this is a very reasonable amendment.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for kindly giving way on her very last word. Does she agree that this is quite a large change? We are introducing one of the best workers’ rights in the world, so it will be a big change for business and will therefore come as somewhat of a shock. We want this to be an absolute bare minimum that businesses provide, so it is therefore really important that we take the business community with us and absolutely sell why this is such an important thing to do and why, as she rightly says, it will be beneficial to their businesses. That is why consulting is probably the right way forward.
Laura Pidcock
I know that all this comes, as we mentioned last week, from a place of anxiety of wanting to make sure the Bill passes with ease. I have to politely disagree: I am not sure that this would be a massive shock to business. When I was a manager of a team, albeit within a charity, I still had to make sure that there was enough money in to pay the wages. We very much had to operate like a business.
I hope the new legislation never has to be used, but where it does the entitlement will still be two weeks’ bereavement leave. That is not a considerable time in people’s working lives. Using the time flexibly would have positives for the employer because members of staff, if they were unable to use the entitlement, would often have to call in sick because they were so down and were unable to come in to work.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for introducing the Bill. This is my first opportunity to speak on it. I know it has so much support from across the House.
My amendment 20 would extend the period in which parental bereavement leave must be taken from at least 56 days to 26 weeks. That is an important extension, for many of the reasons that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about. There are particular days and events that happen, such as inquests, and it may be very important for a parent to be able to attend an inquest relating to their child.
As people will know, I speak from personal experience. The inquests relating to my own son were carried out very quickly—in fact, within 24 hours of his death—but I did not get the results for more than two months. That was the time at which I found out the cause of death. It took two months for me to get that information, which effectively flagged it up as a streptococcal infection, whereas it had been assumed that it had been sudden infant death syndrome. That pointed very strongly to the actions of the midwives, who had not picked it up. I then had to raise issues with the NHS hospital trust in relation to how it had reacted to various telephone calls and things that I had made prior to my son dying. That flexibility, and extending that period, is really important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has already praised Elliot’s footprint, Bliss, Together for Short Lives, the National Bereavement Alliance and the Rainbow Trust. They all make incredibly important points, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. It simply cannot be predicted how events will play out, and therefore that flexibility over when the leave may be taken is incredibly important. I am conscious that many parents qualify for bereavement leave through statutory parental leave, but for those who do not, this is a really important protection.
Grief comes in waves, and we do not know when it will hit us. I had a child who was also bereaved, because she had lost her brother. Support for a sibling is there in other legislation, where parents are entitled to ask for flexible working or to take time off. Again, the flexibility of knowing that leave can be more than a day and that people can devote their attention and time to coping with grief suffered by other family members, rather than their own grief, is really important. More than that, it helps fathers, who may find going back to work a comfort.
Sometimes, being able to go back to one’s job quite quickly gives people security and routine, which perhaps allows them to cope with grief in a different way at a slightly later stage. It also means that parents can stagger arrangements, so that mum can be at home at one point and dad at others. The amendment would introduce a degree of flexibility, which, to an extent, covers issues that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Durham, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran both spoke about. This is an important amendment that would add to the legislation, and I urge my hon. Friends and the Minister to consider it because of the extension of time that it would bring to parents.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I warmly commend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for proposing this Private Member’s Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester, who proposed a similar Bill in the last Parliament. I am glad to see that the Bill has finally got Government support. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to his post—we have had an exchange in the Chamber only this afternoon.
I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 10 in the name of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I also support amendments 11 and 20 in the names of the hon. Members for North West Durham and for Eddisbury. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran set out, we in the SNP believe that this is fundamentally a good Bill. We welcome it, although we feel it could be strengthened to go even further.
Before speaking to the amendment, I pay tribute to Shaun Walsh of Together for Short Lives and Priyanka Patel of CLIC Sargent, who were both kind enough to brief me about the Bill and other issues, particularly those relating to children’s palliative care. I have been fortunate to visit CLIC Sargent’s social work team at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, in my constituency.
Broadly, my interest in the Bill stems from two reasons. First, I have a longstanding interest in children’s palliative care policy. I declare an interest, as my mother is a children’s palliative carer for Icare Scotland. My second reason stems from my personal experience of becoming a father. Originally, my wife Roslyn and I were led to believe that having children would be very difficult, if it was possible at all. In February 2015, after some blood tests, we were told that Roslyn was in fact 19 weeks pregnant, and that due to her Type I diabetes it would be an incredibly complex pregnancy. Essentially, every time my wife injected insulin, which is required to keep her alive, our baby grew bigger; and as a result, so did his chances of dying. A couple of weeks later we were called in to Southern General Hospital and told that, due to the increasing size of our son, we had to brace ourselves for the possibility of a stillbirth. It was the hardest conversation we have ever had with anybody in the medical profession and as a married couple; it felt as though a train had hit us.
In the end, our son Isaac was born, almost two months premature and significantly overweight. He spent the first two weeks of his life in intensive care at Southern General Hospital, before moving on to special baby care. The doctors, nurses and staff at Southern General could not have been more loving and supportive. I know that all of us in this room have nothing but admiration and respect for the national health service staff who look after us. Many Members of this Committee have already shared their own deeply personal experiences of losing a child and I am incredibly mindful of the fact that our wee boy pulled through. For that I am nothing but thankful to God. It was during the darker times of being told to prepare for a stillbirth, and when Isaac was whisked away to intensive care after his birth without us, that we were left in shock and contemplating what losing a child could be like, on every level possible—be that practical or emotional. It is for that reason that we have come together on the Committee to ensure that a good Bill becomes an even better law.
Amendment 3, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would extend the period within which bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks. The rationale behind the amendment is to give more flexibility to parents who lose a child. Through my fundraising work with children’s hospices across Scotland, I have had the opportunity to visit Robin House in Balloch and meet parents whose children have a life-shortening or life-limiting condition. I have also spoken to families who have experienced the loss of a child. One of the clear messages and asks they have of us as policy makers and legislators is to allow more flexibility in when they can take bereavement leave.
My friend, Maria McGill, the chief executive of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, often speaks of the importance of marking a child’s birthday and other such anniversaries, which is a significant part of the grieving process. If the Committee agrees to the amendment, parents would have more flexibility in the first year, rather than the first month or two, following their child’s death. In the grand scheme of things it would not cause a lot of difficulty to employers, but it would make a massive difference to families who have experienced bereavement.
The amendments in this group seek to make a good Bill and a better law. I ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and all right hon. and hon. Members, to support amendment 3 in particular.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
Thank you for your continued chairmanship of this important Committee, Mr Gray. As I was listening to hon. Members debate these issues, I was thinking about how in this Committee it feels like we are never more than a word away from a tear. The palpable emotion we all feel in the room is powerful. I strongly commend all hon. Members who lay themselves bare by talking about their personal experiences; I know it is not easy at all.
From the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, it is easy to see the pain that remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury introduced me to this issue when she spoke so movingly in the Chamber, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Colchester. Even last week, we saw the emotion of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) when, in the debate on the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, she spoke about the loss of her child.
As you know, Mr Gray, my wife is seven months pregnant. We are overjoyed at that prospect, although Mrs Griffiths is getting slightly more uncomfortable and is daunted by the imminent arrival of Griffiths Jr. This debate makes us think about things we do not want to contemplate, and it is brave of hon. Members to lay themselves open to that. As Members of Parliament, we have little privacy these days. We regularly feel as though our every movement is laid bare to the public—we cannot even fall asleep in a hotel without someone taking a picture and putting it on Twitter.
To the point of the matter, I understand what colleagues are trying to achieve in the amendments. The period of time in which leave is taken, which amendments 3 and 20 seek to address, is key to getting the framework right. The time needed by each individual will vary according to their own way of dealing with the grief that comes from the loss.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, there is a balance to be struck, and I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester when he says that we need to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty. I believe his approach to the Bill has been always to mirror existing provisions in legislation so that we do not create precedents, to ensure a smooth passage for the Bill. That is the right approach. It eliminates a lot of difficulties that might be the unintended consequence of what we agree in Committee. It also makes it easier for officials, business and the general public to understand the marrying of rights. In that respect, I agree that maintaining the suggested timeframe of at least 56 days, to maintain consistency with the other provisions, is a sensible approach.
However, I recognise that it would not be right if sticking to 56 days meant that the provision in this Bill did not do what we intend it to. The reason we are here today is to ensure that the leave suits and supports the bereaved parents and allows them what they need to grieve properly. For that reason, it is absolutely correct that we consult on this matter.
I know that the hon. Member for North West Durham would point to the fact that this is yet another consultation; pursuant to my urgent question earlier we had some exchanges on the merits or otherwise of consultation, but I want to be clear with members of the Committee about what the consultation is. It is our intention to launch the consultation in May, and I make a pledge to the members of the Committee that if they agree to it, it will report before Third Reading of the Bill, so that all members of this Committee and all Members of the House will be able to assess the consultation and see the range. Even in this room today we have a range of different views about how long the time should be.
We want to get it right and ensure that the time we put on the face of the Bill is the right time. Within that consultation, we will be able to talk to all the groups that have been mentioned today, and others, to get a proper understanding of the best timescale in which to deliver this.
Laura Pidcock
I know we are not talking about new clause 2, because that is gone and it would be terrible, but last week there were assurances that following the Taylor review, which is relevant to the amendments we are talking about now, it would respond to a lot of the concerns contained in new clause 2. Now there is a suggestion that there will be a consultation on this group of amendments. If the consultation comes back and says that, yes, flexibility is needed and it needs to be over six months rather than two months, will the Minister give us assurances now that the Government will accept those consultation findings?
Andrew Griffiths
I am sure the hon. Lady will accept that, obviously, I cannot write a blank cheque. If the consultation came back and suggested something that was simply unworkable or impracticable, of course I could not commit to that. What I can commit to is that the process will be open and transparent, and that all hon. Members will be able not only to contribute, but to see the evidence that is presented. It will be open and transparent.
David Linden
Given what the Minister is saying about the consultation process, will he give us a timeline on that, particularly for those members of the Committee who have been asked to withdraw amendments?
Andrew Griffiths
As I say, we will launch the consultation in May and it will report well in advance of Third Reading. If, at Third Reading, hon. Members are not satisfied with what we have agreed to on the consultation, they will be able to table amendments and we can have the debate on the Floor of the House. We can have a Division, and the whole House in its entirety can decide which of those dates—
The Chair
Order. To clarify, if the Minister will forgive me, I think he means on Report rather than at Third Reading.
Andrew Griffiths
“Elders and betters” is the phrase that springs to mind.
Clearly, at that stage hon. Members will be able not only to question me, as the Minister at the Dispatch Box, about the content of that consultation, but if they so wish, to table their own amendments and make their case to the House. I think that is the most equitable way for us to proceed and it shows an understanding of the real and positive intentions behind the amendments tabled today. I am just getting some divine inspiration; I need to clarify something I said. The consultation will actually be launched on Third Reading in May, so the Government’s report will be published before the Bill completes its passage through the House. I hope that is clear, and that I have clarified my position.
The Chair
Order. If the consultation is launched on Third Reading, it is not possible for its outcome to be considered before the completion of the Bill’s consideration. I suspect that the Minister means the Bill’s passage through both Houses.
Andrew Griffiths
That is exactly what I mean. I also commit to revisit this, and to see if there is a way that we can publish the consultation earlier and allow it to report before Third Reading. I will do my level best and I will talk to officials and see if that is possible. I want as wide a consultation as possible.
Patricia Gibson
For clarity—I ask the Minister to forgive me if he has already said this—is he saying that although he will not accept the amendments today, he is not closing the door and is vowing to return to them?
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. I want to make sure that we get this right. We have already heard that we have a number of different views on the number of days, so I want to allow everybody to consider, in a very calm way, the best advice possible and to come to a definitive decision about the days. I am closing nothing down. I am saying that all these options are on the table, and I am happy to consider all of them, should they be recommended by results of the consultation.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see a fellow west coast Scot in the Chair, Mr Gray.
Gavin Newlands
Hear, hear. I thoroughly commend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for bringing forward a very commendable Bill, which Scottish National party Members have no problem whatever in supporting.
I will speak briefly to amendments 3 and 10 in the names of my hon. Friends and me. However, before I do, I am pleased to hear that the Minister is in listening mode. Given the exchange that just took place, I urge him to try to bring that consultation forward, so that we in the elected body can perhaps influence those decisions. Obviously, the SNP does not have any Members in the House of Lords, so we would like to influence the Bill on this side of its passage, if at all possible.
Gavin Newlands
Well.
I pay tribute to all Members who have shared their experiences of the tragic loss of a child, and who are using those painful experiences to make such a traumatic and tragic period just a little bit easier for those who follow them. Sadly, just under a fortnight ago, along with hundreds of others in Renfrew, I attended the funeral of little Layla Greene, who at just three years old was one of the latest victims of the scourge of childhood cancer. The Minister was obviously correct earlier on. Her parents had been told that she had weeks and months to live, so as a community we fundraised to help make memories for Layla and her family. Sadly, she was only to live for just one more week, but we will continue to fundraise in her memory.
Anything that we can do to reduce any unnecessary stress on families such as Layla’s is not only something that we should do but something that we must do. I speak to amendments 3 and 10 not only because I think they are the right thing to do, but because of my experience as both an employer and a friend. I obviously cannot speak as powerfully, or share deeply painful and personal experiences, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and others have.
Similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East, my interest in this issue stems from a close-run thing. My wife had to give birth to my oldest daughter six and half weeks prematurely, by emergency caesarean. We were the lucky ones because thankfully, they are healthy, but since then I have been interested in trying to advance these issues.
Having said that, unfortunately I have shared the pain of friends who have had to go through this experience. One of those friends was an employee. I struggled to separate my roles of friend and boss. I was somewhat constrained in the paid support that I could technically offer within the company’s employment regulations at the time. I could offer her as much unpaid leave as I saw fit at my discretion, but ultimately, that does not pay the bills.
In many ways, if we are honest, two weeks is a totally inadequate period of time in which to recover from the death of a child sufficiently to return to work. I tried to find ways around it, whether through holiday pay or sick pay, which from memory was £85 a week—it is not much more now. She was signed off for periods as well, although she did not want to do that. Financial distress is the last thing that anyone needs on top of the most traumatic experience of their life, so the premise of paid leave is a very good thing.
To address the flexibility issue raised in amendments 10 and 3, I would say that people deal with trauma in different ways. No one will ever forget such a traumatic experience, but I am told by my friend that after a time, it was possible to compartmentalise, to work and to concentrate on the job at hand. Others will go through periods of struggling to cope after returning to work and might need time off as a result. Flexibility about the period in which people can take any leave might suit a lot of parents in this situation.
As has already been outlined, another reason is to ensure that paid leave can be taken around significant dates. For example, my friends visit the grave marker at specific points every year. Anything that helps to make those difficult journeys that bit easier is to be welcomed.
The compassionate leave policy at my old employer has significantly improved, and that is the case at many employers in the UK now, but it is our job in Parliament to ensure that everyone is covered appropriately.
David Linden
In the light of what the Minister has said, and of the consensus and good will on both sides of the Committee—this is the first time I have served on a private Member’s Bill Committee, although I have served on Government Bill Committees before—I will not press amendment 3. I look forward to the Minister coming back with the consultation.
Patricia Gibson
As has already been said this week and last week, we are all treading very carefully on broken glass. We are terrified to do or ask for the wrong thing, in case it upsets the whole apple-cart. I draw comfort from the fact that the Minister is not saying no. From what I understand, he is saying not yet.
Patricia Gibson
I am really hopeful that we are still in the process of shaping the final Bill, and I draw great comfort from my sense that the Minister and everybody here wants this to be the best Bill possible. There is nothing to be gained by passing a Bill with which we and bereaved parents are not happy. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Linden
I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule, page 2, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert—
“(a) at least two weeks’ leave, and
(b) at least one day’s leave for the day on which the child’s funeral takes place.”
This amendment would ensure that the minimum period of parental bereavement leave is two weeks plus an additional day for the day of the child’s funeral.
I will not detain the Committee for too long. Amendment 2, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would provide two weeks’ paid bereavement leave and one additional day dedicated for the child’s funeral. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, which has lobbied me and countless other hon. Members to table the amendment.
When I spoke to amendment 3, I referred to the sheer range of circumstances faced by parents. Amendment 2 was tabled in the knowledge that if the death of a child is unexplained, for example, there can be a longer period between death and burial or cremation. In Glasgow, there have been delays in post mortems due to hold-ups with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Amendment 2 would give a bit more flexibility and acknowledge that the day of the funeral can be particularly stressful, busy and difficult. The funeral is in itself a milestone in the grieving process and should, in our view, be treated differently and more flexibly. To conclude, a number of charities, including CLIC Sargent, allow for an additional day for the funeral. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee.
Kevin Hollinrake
The point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East is well made. What employer would ever refuse to allow a parent time off for their child’s funeral? Clearly, most employers will not; we know that through the research we have done. Nevertheless, we accept that we need to do more, because we accept that some employers are not reasonable and not compassionate.
I have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Clearly, in law all employees are allowed a day one right to take reasonable leave in whatever circumstance. These measures in the Bill are in addition to that basic right. We have said a number of times in this Committee that this is a signal to employers; it does not give all the answers for employers. People’s needs are different in such circumstances.
This is such a personal issue that we expect employers to be compassionate and considerate. We expect them to give the bereaved parents of a child time off for the funeral. Putting that into legislation would be difficult at this point, because of the fragility of private Member’s Bills. I politely ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment and, at this point, we will leave it at two weeks.
Laura Pidcock
Forgive my ignorance—I have not been in the House that long. I cannot imagine anybody objecting to this provision, so I am not sure how not allowing it at this stage would scupper it at other stages. I ask that question humbly. Why would allowing it now make things difficult further along the line?
Kevin Hollinrake
The difficulties would be in redrafting legislation and ensuring consideration of the needs of employers. There are issues with HMRC to do with how payments are made and the ability to look at a single day, rather than two single-week blocks or a two-week block. It makes things more complicated for both the provisions and the regulations. I go back to the point about employers—the Bill is a signal to employers, although I absolutely accept what the hon. Lady is saying. Would any reasonable employer giver their employee time off for a funeral? The answer has to be yes.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is intervening on the hon. Member for North West Durham.
Laura Pidcock
Thank you, Mr Gray. It is all getting a bit confusing.
Let me say a few tiny words in response to that answer. I understand that it would take a very brave employer to come forth and say that they would not agree with this. I also think we have to bear in mind that although this is painful to every single individual, we are talking about a minority of people who will have a child who dies, and a minority of employers who would be abusive by not allowing a day off for a funeral, so this is about small numbers.
Will Quince
The vast majority of employers are rightly compassionate enough to give their staff a day’s leave for a funeral. That is paid, ordinarily, at their full pay rate. If this measure is included in the Bill, the danger is that that would only be at the equivalent of statutory paternity or maternity pay, so we might actually be penalising the people we are trying to protect.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for that important point. We want to ensure that we get the best deal for bereaved parents and that through all these deliberations we come out at the end giving as much support as possible. There are unintended consequences, as he has pointed out, that we need to take into consideration.
It may help the Committee if I explain that consultations with employers’ groups took place last summer. Those groups indicated that the majority of their members already had a bereavement leave policy in place. That is great; we are all very pleased about that. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that two thirds of businesses that responded already provide bereavement leave—that would be at the full pay that my hon. Friend alluded to—and that 40% give five days paid, and 25% give three days paid. Businesses also often provide more generous unpaid leave entitlement. At the discussions, employers’ groups also gave reassurances that employers welcome the introduction of the Bill.
Patricia Gibson
I just wanted to suggest to the Minister that if employers are already quite generous and understanding in such tragic circumstances, it shows that there is a recognition that such space should already be provided by the law, rather than employers having to make up policy for their own businesses. As a Parliament we should be taking a lead in saying that we recognise that employers, on the whole, realise and understand that this has to be done, so let us enshrine it in law because we all seem to agree. If there is the odd rogue employer that does not—you know?
Andrew Griffiths
What we would not want though is a situation where employers say that they do not need to have a policy in place because there is already a statutory requirement. In other areas, such as maternity, there is a statutory pay period and some businesses enhance that, but the vast majority do not. We need a consultation to properly understand, because I would hate for this to be the minimum and for that to be what is expected, rather than businesses stepping up to the plate and offering the generous terms that they already do. The hon. Member for North West Durham is itching to—
Andrew Griffiths
I was about to say that the hon. Lady is itching to intervene, but actually she was just itching.
We all know too well that the realities of bereaved parents are sometimes very different. The fact is that those who work for less accommodating employers need this Bill the most. I understand the point that is being made. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton also pointed out existing leave provisions, which are already helpful and should not be ignored. The Bill will provide an important statutory minimum that employers must adhere to, giving key legal protections to parents who suffer a tragic loss. This policy sets an important benchmark without preventing employers from enhancing it if they wish. We know that the majority of employers try to do the right thing.
I hate to use the defence that I have used at other times during this debate, but a consultation is being held. This will be part of the consultation, which will report before the end of the Bill’s passage. With that in mind, and bearing in mind the points that have been made, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
David Linden
I find myself in a difficult position. I am minded to press the amendment to a vote, but it would be the first time I have divided the Committee, which in the light of my earlier comments is not something that I want to do. A lot has been said about the fragility of the Bill and the difficulty of getting it through Parliament, but one thing that has not been acknowledged is that we are in a two-year Parliament, so it is not as if we have to get the Bill passed before Prorogation in March.
Antoinette Sandbach
I hear the note of concern in the hon. Gentleman’s voice, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised a valid point: a parent may well be in a better position in which they already have an entitlement to a paid day without it being taken out of their leave. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether that is a valid argument that should be addressed.
David Linden
That is at the forefront of my mind, but as the hon. Member for North West Durham said, we seek to protect the very small number of people who could be exploited in the situation. On that basis, I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Patricia Gibson
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule, page 2, line 35, leave out from “means” to end and insert
“a son or daughter of any age”.
This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement leave, to a son or daughter of any age.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert
“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Amendment 14, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert
“, or in full time education, or both”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.
Amendment 19, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert
“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Amendment 7, in schedule, page 9, line 18, leave out from “means” to end and insert
“a son or daughter of any age”.
This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement pay, to a son or daughter of any age.
Amendment 13, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert
“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Amendment 15, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert
“, or in full time education, or both”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.
Amendment 18, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert
“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Patricia Gibson
Previous discussions in this Committee have made me fearful of asking for much, but amendments 6 and 7 are really important. They refuse to put the loss of a son or daughter on a sliding scale of grief, which I know is not the intention behind the Bill, but I fear may be its unintended consequence. The loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing, no matter how old they are. It is clear from our sittings last week that we all understand that it is against the natural order of events for any parent to bury their own child. We have the opportunity to recognise that in the Bill. I am sure that no Committee member would accept or even suggest that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21 or 23.
Amendments 14 and 15 address the Bill’s distinction between offspring who are and are not in full-time education. Such distinctions are artificial, and I do not think that they are appropriate in the context of the death of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that the Bill’s focus—its starting point—is parents, not the circumstances or the age of the child lost.
When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion becomes more academic—the older they are, the more likely it is that their parents will be retired anyway and will therefore not be covered by the Bill. But imagine losing a daughter aged 24 who has a young child of her own and is perhaps even bringing up that child on her own. As the Bill stands, her bereaved parents will not have the support that the Bill could offer, even though there may be 1,000 reasons why they will need bereavement leave, given the support that their grandchildren may need.
The parents of, say, a son aged 25 years old would not be covered by the Bill. Let us say that that son is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile area, doing a tour of duty in an area of instability. Do his parents not deserve to be covered by the provisions in the Bill, because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment.
Will Quince
This question was always at the forefront of our minds in preparing and drafting all incarnations of the Bill. The hon. Lady raises a very good question about why we focus on an arbitrary limit—18, in this case, although I think we are coming on in a moment to amendments that consider that in more detail. The question that I would pose back to her is: why then stop at parents? Why are we not including spouses? She rightly raises the example of a 25 or 28-year-old. In such instances, a spouse would be equally traumatised by the death as a parent.
Patricia Gibson
I would not want to diminish in any way the loss of a husband or wife, but the Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. It is entirely different. I do not pretend to judge whether one grief is worse than the other, but it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to bury a husband or wife. That is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody expects to bury their own children. A child is a person’s investment in the future. I really do not see the equivalence; otherwise, we could have a Bill about bereavement, not a parental bereavement Bill. It is a parental bereavement Bill because we, as a Parliament, recognise the particular circumstances of someone burying their own son or daughter. I hope that I have answered the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.
I really hope that the Minister and the whole Committee will reflect on this matter, and consider my amendment a worthy addition to the Bill. As I said last week, the benefits, both social and emotional, will surely outweigh any financial costs, which I really do not think will be significant in terms of overall Treasury spend. The Minister will no doubt want to correct me on that.
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady says she does not think it will be significant. Does she have any evidence or figures to back up her amendment?
Patricia Gibson
I would simply refer the Minister to what I said last week: we know that people who lose sons or daughters are eight times more likely than their peers to divorce. We know that there is a social cost of divorce. There is also a cost to the Government in terms of economic activity if people fall out of the workforce because they are not coping. That is why support is so important at that critical stage of vulnerability and grief.
Laura Pidcock
I asked the Library to do an academic exercise on extending the entitlement to those between the ages of nought to 40, which would pull in 29,918 people, based on the figures for nought to 18. Obviously, that is a very crude exercise, and not incredibly accurate, but it gives us some idea that it is not a huge increase. Of course, not all 40-year-olds who die will have parents in employment.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Lady for that very helpful intervention. I already said that the older the son or daughter is when they die, the more likely it is that the parents will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will know far better than I that there is a social cost, and a financial cost to the Treasury, when families break down. There is a cost to the country when people become economically inactive. We are talking about £140 per week, not lottery wins.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
My understanding is that one of the reasons for having a fairly arbitrary age range was to recognise that, at that point, the parents are the sole people responsible for that individual. However, beyond the age of 18 it is not completely unreasonable to think that the person would have a spouse, a partner or other individuals who would also take on responsibility for them, perhaps in funeral planning arrangements.
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to say what he is perhaps arguing for, although I am not: that those who do not have a significant other or spouse should be covered by this Bill, no matter what age they are. He is suggesting that they would have somebody else to make the arrangements for them.
It is perfectly possible for somebody to be over the age of 18 and to be responsible for themselves, but not to have a significant partner to take on that responsibility. That is a huge assumption. Many people live on their own; we know that single occupancy is rising, even amongst young people. It is at record levels. We cannot assume that people are always attached. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the example I gave, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility: a young man or woman serving as a British soldier in foreign lands facing a traumatic and awful death, and the impact that would have on the parents if that soldier were over 18 and did not have a significant other. These are the situations we need to think about if we are trying to get this Bill right.
Given the economic cost to the country of family breakdown, the Bill should cover people who are not married or in a significant relationship. The reason why it is called the Parental Bereavement Bill is that we are talking about parents and the unnatural experience of having to bury your child. That loss is not tempered if your child is older; I do not see a distinction there.
David Linden
In response to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, I should say that the national health service does not stop treating people at 18 for teenage cancer. There is an issue of consistency here. The NHS does not recognise at just 18. Is my hon. Friend aware of that?
Patricia Gibson
That is an important point. Maybe it is a failure in myself, but I do not understand why the issue should be about the age of 18 or financial dependency. This is ultimately a Bill about grief—about losing a son or daughter. The focus is on parents, not the financial circumstances or marital status of the person who is being buried. I cannot get my head round that. It is difficult to choose, but perhaps of all the amendments this one means the most to me because it is making a statement about the enormity of the loss of burying a child, and how that goes against the natural order.
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. She rightly says that the amendment would make a statement, but passing this Bill in itself would make a far greater statement. It has taken a long time to get to this position and my worry is that her request to increase the cost sixfold compared with the Treasury’s current modelling will kill this Bill; the Government would have to withdraw their support, and we would move into the next Parliament. It could come back, but I would feel sad if there was such a delay just because of this amendment.
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman brings me back to earth with a bump; as everybody knows, nobody wants to be responsible for signing this Bill’s death warrant. I do feel strongly about this issue, but I will not do anything to jeopardise the Bill: the important thing is to get it on the statute books—if we have to have a bunfight later, we can.
I urge everybody to reflect on the value of this issue. I am an eternal optimist: if every single one of us agreed to the amendment, I would hope that the Treasury would look at it and say, “Well, this is the right way to go,” because of the weight of that agreement. Maybe I am an eternal optimist. I am walking on glass; I will not do anything to destroy the Bill. However, I would be very sad if the measure was not in the Bill—if not today, then at the end of the process. That is all I have to say.
Kevin Hollinrake
Like everybody in the room, I was moved by the fine speech and impassioned words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. A family that includes one of my closest friends lost their daughter, sister, niece and granddaughter in the most horrific of circumstances only a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time with them through that process. Their child was 30, and their grief was no different from how it would have been at any other point in that child’s life. I quite understand what the hon. Lady is saying.
I have children either side of the line: a 21-year-old and 20-year-old, and a 14-year-old and 10-year-old, so I can see it from both sides. If I look at my own children—I would never want to contemplate the circumstances—there is a slight difference in dependency; I feel more responsible for the ones under 18. The hon. Lady spoke about everyone in the room, and we were all moved by what she said, but it is not just everyone in the room we have to consider. It is sad to say, because these things are not about money, but we have to consider the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for North West Durham cited some interesting figures that I was not aware of, but on a raw calculation the amendment would increase the cost to the taxpayer five or sixfold—the cost would go from £2 million up to about £12 million. Despite the fact that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the statutory pay, there is a cost to employers because they have to cover the time off for the person. That is £1.4 million or £1.5 million, and it would go up to £15 million. Members may well argue—I might well agree—that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the grief that might be mitigated by the changes, but the amendment would mean going back to the drawing board and talking to the Treasury. It would fundamentally and fatally stop the Bill in its tracks, and we might not have time to bring it forward again.
I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that the Bill is a signal to employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said. That is key. The Bill does not do everything we would expect. I would expect any employer to give someone as much time off as they needed on full pay. That is what we have done in our business. With the Bill, we are trying to send a signal to the small minority of employers that are not compassionate, fair or understanding.
We have had a lot of engagement already with charities. None of them has said, “There should be no limit.” Some have suggested a slightly higher limit in certain circumstances, but no one has suggested having no limit, although we should not take that as read. That is an interesting point on some of the feedback we have had.
We have to consider employers in terms of cost and logistics. Members have understandably tabled a number of amendments. The hon. Member for North West Durham has tabled one on lifelong disability, and there are many different ways in which the legislation could be changed to improve it or to cover different circumstances. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talks about children in full-time education. There are problems with the cut-off point and how the legislation would cater for that. The amendment would complicate the legislation.
I understand why Members have tabled the amendments, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of them, but given the fragility and complexity of taking a private Member’s Bill through this House and the other place, I politely and respectfully ask them to withdraw their amendments so we can move the Bill forward.
Laura Pidcock
I just want to point out that the Library said in bold that these are “very crude” figures on the extension of age—otherwise it might not provide me with any research ever again. It has been pointed out before that not all those parents of children between nought and 40 would be in employment, so there would be some mitigation there. Perhaps an exercise can be done to work out on average how many people who die are of working age and have parents in the workforce, but that is not for now.
This strikes at the morality of the Bill. It has been mentioned that the Bill is about the tasks that need to be carried out after the death of a child or in that grieving period, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran—I do not want to sound like a broken record—that this is about the recognition of grief, not just tasks, although grief can be exacerbated and it can be more difficult to heal and recover if people are not able to do the tasks that are part of the journey to recovery. I also agree that a child never ceases to be a child in their parents’ eyes.
I want to make a political point in what has, so far, not been a very political Committee: it seems so hard to get such things through the Treasury. We are scrabbling around, arguing and making the case for a 60-year-old worker to have two weeks off if their child is 30, but it seems so easy for the Treasury to do other things at the stroke of a pen. That is not the fault of the Bill or necessarily of this Government, but it seems that the system values some things much more than others, including employment rights.
Antoinette Sandbach
This is a very important Bill. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have pointed out, this is the first time that an extension in this area has been considered. There is an argument that goes, “If the parents, why not the siblings? And if the siblings, why not the aunts and uncles or other close family members?”
Much like my hon. Friend, I have reservations, but I do not want to jeopardise the Bill because the principle that it sets out is so important. There is no doubt that if one of my sisters died, I would be devastated. We have to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities, which is very difficult to do in relation to grief.
Laura Pidcock
The point has been well made that the Bill is about parental bereavement. Back-Bench Members may want to introduce Bills about other forms of grief, but we are concentrating on parental bereavement in all its forms. I would imagine that when a child dies, grief is pronounced, raw and painful irrespective of age. My intention is for those people to be included—not, of course, at the expense of the complete destruction of the Bill.
Amendment 12 recognises that some people have to care for dependent children for much longer than 18 years—I am sure my father would argue that I am still dependent, and I am 30. Full-time carers have to care for their children because they have a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency. I urge hon. Members to support amendment 12 if they cannot support amendment 6.
Will Quince
I will speak to amendments 14 and 15. One of the hardest elements of the Bill is the definition of a child. Amendments 14 and 15 would define a child as a person under the age of 18 or in full-time education, or both. These are probing amendments and I do not intend to press them to a vote, for all of the reasons that I have set out in our previous sessions.
In my ten-minute rule Bill, I defined a child as a person under the age of 18, in compulsory full-time education, or both. I think my amendments are fundamentally flawed, because they say, “in full-time education, or both” but of course somebody can go back to full-time education at a later stage—they could be a mature student. Somebody in their 30s, 40s or 50s could be caught under the scope of the amendments, and that is certainly not the intention.
What I want is to get us all talking about where we should set the legal definition. The hon. Member for Glasgow East referenced teenagers in his points about teenage cancer, but of course teenagers are pre-18 and post-18, because someone who is 19 is also a teenager. The age of 18 is the point at which we all accept that there is a legal responsibility for dependents, and it is also when we can leave full-time education. However, as we all know from our days at school, people can be old for their class—they could be 18 and still in secondary school doing their A-levels. We have to consider that.
I hope the Minister can take the amendments away and look at them. There is that element of “compulsory” —those who are still at school; that would not catch people who are at university. However, there is an argument for doing so, because many students are still wholly dependent on their parents. There is also the issue of apprenticeships and so on, which are not necessarily compulsory post-18; nevertheless, students are on a relatively low income, so will be dependent on their parents. They are often living at home.
I hope the Committee will consider the amendments in more depth, so that we can work out what the right age is. Certainly, considering compulsory full-time education might be one of the potential solutions.
Antoinette Sandbach
I shall speak to amendments 18 and 19, which would add the words
“or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”
The Bill applies to children under the age of 18, for all the reasons raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. Amendments 18 and 19 would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave and pay to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
From my own experience with the children’s hospices that work in my area, they have a cut-off of around the age of 25 for those with disability or illness—they are classified as still entitled to attend the children’s hospice as opposed an adults’ hospice up to that point.
Therefore, there should be an extension to cover disability and dependency. We know that the care offered by parents to those with a disability or a recognised dependency is very often very high, and they will have provided extensive love and support to their child. There are many parents who have children with a disability or a lifelong dependency who, sadly, do not make it to the age of 25. I question whether my amendment should be limited to 25 for such cases—
Laura Pidcock
How about the hon. Lady supporting my amendment, which does not cap this at 25?
Antoinette Sandbach
I saw the hon. Lady’s amendment and given that the Minister is consulting on a number of matters, I hope he might consider extending the consultation to the amendments. Where there is a high level of recognised dependency, the bond between parent and child is very high, largely because parents in the main, although it is often women who do this, have been carers at a level not necessarily offered in other circumstances.
I am not saying that the grief is any less, but that level of contact with the child will extend beyond the age of 18, whereas in other circumstances many children will have left home and be living independent lives. This is a probing amendment, but one the Government would do well to address, because I suspect there will be easily-available figures from Government data for the number of people covered. The Minister should be able to find that information fairly easily, although there might be implications for that extension.
Andrew Griffiths
This has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I draw the Committee’s attention back to the first speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I think he used the phrase “do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
Members new to the House might not realise that this is the third time that an hon. Member has tried to take through a Bill on parental bereavement leave. The first attempt by Tom Harris was unsuccessful, as was the next by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. This is the first time not only that such a Bill has got to this stage, but that any Government have given it backing.
Many Members will say it is outrageous that in 2018 we do not have those rights in statute. I would agree, but the reality is that we do not. There are many reasons for that, given by many Governments of many colours and of different make-up, and for why such a Bill has been resisted. We have an opportunity this time to get a Bill across the line. I politely say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that, although I understand his desire to press his amendment, he will risk the passage of the Bill if it is used as a Christmas tree on which to hang all our aspirations.
The Bill provides the minimum that we would like to see for bereaved parents in this area, but we need to get it on the statute book. We can have as many lofty aspirations as we wish and we can desire to set the bar as high as we like, but we need to make this real. Various Governments of various colours have been unable to commit to do that, and this is the first time that a Government have committed to support the legislation and make it law. I politely and gently encourage hon. Members to think about that before they decide to press amendments that could risk the Bill’s potential.
To speak to the substance of the amendments, where to draw a line on age was always going to be difficult. I recognise why hon. Members suggest the dates they do. A lost life is always terrible, even more so when a child has not had the chance to live to adulthood. The loved ones who survive that child are left rebuilding and coping in a way that is difficult to imagine for those of us who are fortunate enough never to have been in that position.
Amendments 6 and 7 propose to extend this provision to parents of children of any age. The Bill applies to parents of children under the age of 18. Much as I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and would like the Bill to cover parents of all children who have passed away irrespective of age, to do so would have financial implications that cannot be ignored. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Exchequer estimate that the annual cost of statutory bereavement pay would be between £1.2 million and £2 million, with a best estimate of £1.77 million. The estimated cost to business––the employer––is £1.45 million and we estimate that, as drafted, the Bill will cover 5,600 parents.
The hon. Member for North West Durham sheepishly proposes the numbers in the Library note that she has received, and I do not disagree with those: she estimates 29,000 parents for children up to the age of 40. Look at the magnitude of the change from 5,600 to 29,000, when the cost is £2 million for the lower figure. We see how the cost of the Bill suddenly begins to increase dramatically. I urge caution, because there are other things to consider when we look at the Bill’s viability and future. The broader the Bill’s coverage, the more it will cost both the state and employers, in terms of absence costs. I therefore believe that the right balance is to ensure that parents of children up to the age of 18 are covered by the Bill.
I do not for one second underestimate the devastation of a parent losing a child at any age. I look to my own experience. My Auntie Ann had a seriously mentally and physically handicapped daughter called Margaret, who died at the age of 56. She had never been out of a wheelchair in her life, and my Auntie Ann was by then a widow in her late 70s. She was absolutely devastated by the loss of Margaret. As a family, we had always assumed that Auntie Ann would go and we would make provision to care for Margaret. The shock when Margaret was diagnosed with cancer and died very quickly hit the whole family. I do not for one minute underestimate the loss of a child at any age, but, for the sake of securing the Bill, I think we have to draw a line.
Laura Pidcock
I do not wish to use the other side’s argument against myself, and perhaps I could have done this in a slightly different way, but the point has been made that there might be someone who has only their parents to sort out all the arrangements after that person’s death. Does the Minister acknowledge that that may be the case with someone who has had a lifelong dependency on their parents and that that requires consideration?
Andrew Griffiths
I understand the hon. Lady’s premise. I understand that, looking from the outside, it is easy to make bespoke cases for bespoke situations. All those are valid and have strong reasoning behind them, but I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester: we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Unfortunately, we have to draw a line in the sand.
Patricia Gibson
The words that we started out with at the beginning of this process—perfect must not be the enemy of good—ring in all our ears, I am sure. I know that the Minister and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton understand that all anybody wants is to make the Bill the best that it can be. Absolutely nobody wants to kill it. It is important—we know it is fragile—that this Bill can proceed to the Chamber as soon as possible. However, I know the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that in the light of what he has said and the fragility of the entire process, we will withdraw—not happily, but we will do it—amendments 6 and 7, but when the Bill reaches the Floor of the House, and I hope to God it does, some of the amendments will resurface. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 12, in the schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert
“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.—(Laura Pidcock.)
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Will Quince
I beg to move amendment 25, in the schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert
“(see also section 80EE for the application of this Chapter in relation to stillbirths)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in the schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths
In this Chapter—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”
This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.
Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 4, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement leave to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.
Amendment 27, in the schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.
Amendment 28, in the schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert
“(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 29, in the schedule, page 10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
“171ZZ15 Application in relation to stillbirths
In this Part—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”
This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.
Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 10, line 41, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement pay to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.
Amendment 30, in the schedule, page 11, leave out line 3.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Will Quince
It seems greedy to table so many amendments on such an important subject: the inclusion of bereaved parents of stillborn babies. The amendments are probing because I want the Committee to give the subject due consideration. For Members who are not aware, a stillbirth is defined as a child stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy. Anyone who suffers a stillbirth after 24 weeks is entitled to full maternity or paternity leave in the same way that any parent that loses a child who is technically born, who draws breath, is entitled to the same statutory paternity or maternity leave.
As the Bill is drafted, the parents of babies that draw breath would be entitled to statutory parental bereavement leave in addition to their statutory paternity and maternity leave, whereas the parents of stillborn babies would not. The Bill by its nature must have arbitrary cut-offs. We have just debated eligibility in terms of definition, and to some extent this is no different. There is currently a disparity between parents of a child who drew breath and those of a child who did not. Luckily, parents of all babies, whether stillborn or those who die neonatally, would be entitled to those rights afforded at present as part of the statutory maternity and paternity; the discrepancy is between a stillbirth and a live birth. There is a piece of work to be done on including parents of stillborn children, because at the moment there is an unfairness between them and those who lose a child neonatally.
There would be a financial implication from including parents who suffer a stillbirth as well as those who suffer a neonatal death, but it is worth considering nevertheless. For parents who lose a child neonatally, some would say, “Why should they get statutory paternity leave, because they are already entitled to their maternity or paternity rights?” I would argue that it would be bolted on in any event, but do not forget that a lot of parents—men in particular—may take paternity leave and lose their child after those two weeks. It is therefore right that fathers in particular should be entitled to those additional two weeks, and it should also be afforded to mothers in addition to their maternity leave. We should seriously consider including those parents who suffer a stillbirth in the scope of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am not entirely clear about the protocol, so I will ask your advice, Mr Gray. At various stages of the Bill, we have heard moving stories about lives lost of both children who have lived and those who were stillborn. Of course, many of those stories have come from members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Banbury and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made an impassioned contribution. If I may, I would like to listen to further remarks before I make my contributions and we decide on any amendments.
Patricia Gibson
I will be brief. Scottish National party Members have tabled amendments 8 and 9, but I begin by agreeing with everything the hon. Member for Colchester said. There should not be any differentiation between stillbirths and babies who are lost to their parents shortly after birth.
We tabled amendments 8 and 9 because we too are concerned about stillbirth. As the hon. Gentleman said, stillbirths are currently covered by maternity and paternity leave, but will the Minister respond with thoughts on when and why regulations regarding stillbirths will need to be made under the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out? I ask him—I am really probing him—in the schedule, page 4, line 30, to leave out “may” and insert “must” so that we can all be assured that, as the hon. Gentleman set out eloquently, the relevant regulations to ensure provision for cases of stillbirth are every bit as robust as those for the death of any other child covered in the Bill.
We all know—many in the room know to their cost—that a stillbirth is every bit as traumatic as losing a child at any other age. It casts a shadow over bereaved parents for the rest of their lives. I think it is essential, as I hope we all do, that all aspects of employment law that the Bill covers take full cognisance of that, for the sake of the thousands of parents bereaved in this particular way every year.
Andrew Griffiths
I hope I can give some comfort to the Committee. I begin by echoing the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and pay tribute to those who have had the strength and courage to share with us some very moving experiences. Any death is difficult to comprehend, and stillbirth is no different.
My hon. Friend included in the Bill a power to extend the entitlement to include the parents of stillborn children, and explained, very clearly, the rationale for doing exactly that. I have thought about this long and hard, and I am supportive of the rationale and the position. The reasoning, to my mind, was clear, coherent and sound. I just add that, by including stillbirth—which affects 3,300 children a year—more than 6,000 additional parents will be covered by the provisions in the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester was right to ask whether a line should exist in terms of the provision for a child who has been born still and a child who has taken a single breath and then died. What a conundrum, what a decision—to differentiate between the griefs of a parent whose child has taken a breath and one whose child has not. I speak as somebody who is eagerly awaiting that first breath. I cannot imagine the anguish and devastation that would come.
My hon. Friend was right to recognise that in asking that question. He did not have the answer, and therefore a delegated power was the most sensible option—I understand that. However, amendments have been tabled, and we have had the chance to further debate this, and I thank my hon. Friend in particular for the constructive way in which he has engaged with me, as the Minister, on the Bill, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton.
I have to say that the Government have changed their mind, and I have changed my mind. We have come to the point where we agree with my hon. Friend’s conclusion. Whether parents take time off is not a decision for any of us in this room to take; it is to be made by those in that position at the time. If they require the time, they should have the option to take that time. If they do not require that time, they do not have to take the time off. Following the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton to accept the amendment, the Government accept it as well.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very grateful to the Minister for his consideration. This is something that we have discussed much in our deliberations, both with Committee members and in the House at various stages.
Stillbirth was first brought to my attention because of my constituents Annika and James Dowson—my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Eddisbury are very aware of their case—and their little daughter, Gypsy. They said they had never heard their baby cry, which must be a desperate state of affairs for anyone who has been through those tragic events. They directed their grief into a very positive campaign to raise money to fund a bereavement suite at Scarborough hospital. It is tremendous to see the resilience and determination that people show in these circumstances; I am not sure I could do the same.
Luke and Ruthie Heron are also constituents of mine. Their little son, Eli, was brought into this world at 23 weeks and six days. He lived for two days. He was stillborn. Had he not lived for those two days, it would have been defined as a miscarriage. This is being discussed in relation to legislation going through the House at the moment. I have constituents who have experience of this.
I am delighted that the Government have agreed to support the amendments. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was the first hon. Member to table an amendment on the matter. I am sure that the Government’s support for the other amendment is a purely technical decision, not a political one—it is about drafting. They have done a tremendous job of ensuring that we get the legislation right, so that we do not suffer any negative consequences later on. I ask the hon. Members for North Ayrshire, for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North not to press their amendments and instead to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester.
Will Quince
I place on record my huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. It is actually a bit of a surprise that the Government support my amendment, which I tabled relatively speculatively because there was a debate to be had. However, the fact that the Government have accepted the argument will be of huge benefit to the parents of the circa 3,000 children who are stillborn every year in this country. I hope that that number will go down year on year; the all-party group on baby loss is certainly working on that. I thank the Minister for his support and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for her amendments, which are in a similar vein to mine and would have largely the same effect. We are all on the same page, so I thank all hon. Members for their cross-party support.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendments made: 26, in schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths
In this Chapter—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”
This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.
Amendment 27, in schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”.—(Will Quince.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.
David Linden
I beg to move amendment 4, in schedule, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12.
This amendment would remove the condition that an employee needs to be with an employer for a continuous period of 26 weeks in order to receive parental bereavement pay.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in schedule, page 6, leave out lines 15 to 21.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 4.
David Linden
We are coming to the end, so I will not detain the Committee for long. The amendments, which I tabled with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for North Ayrshire and Arran, address how long someone needs to have been with an employer to fall within the scope of the Bill. I understand the position of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that employment eligibility provisions for bereavement pay should mirror those for paternity pay and leave. However, today of all days, when the Government’s response to the Taylor report has acknowledged that people are in precarious and short-term work, I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on reducing the eligibility requirement.
It strikes me that rather than introducing a provision that mirrors existing legislation, we have a unique opportunity not just to send a message, but to give ultimate protection, including to people who have not been with their employer for a continuous 26-week period. The Committee has already discussed cut-off points. We know that a number of things can happen to children; in the event of a sudden death, it would be a crying shame if the parent had been with their employer for 25 weeks and six days. I ask the Committee to accept our amendments.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for why the circumstances he describes are different from most others. However, consistency is important from an employer’s perspective and certainly from a legislative perspective. Of course, grief cannot be measured in pound notes, but part of our responsibility when introducing legislation is measuring the cost. His amendment would mean our having to revisit the cost and impact for the taxpayer and the employer.
The hon. Gentleman put his case well. The proposal in the Bill is, in any case, a minimum signal; we would expect an employer to be just as sympathetic to someone in this situation in their first 26 weeks of employment as afterwards. We would expect employers to be sympathetic, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic to the most important task, which is getting the Bill through the House.
Laura Pidcock
I want to echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East and probe a bit further on this issue. I am obviously not going to talk about the Taylor review, but we want to think about day one rights. I am still not clear who will qualify for what. Were the amendment agreed, it would provide an exceptional right that could not be applied to other bits of legislation. I completely understand why holiday has to be accrued, but the provision is exceptional.
To ground the Committee, the right would apply to such a small amount of people in the grand scale of the population. It seems morally absurd that someone employed for 24 weeks, 18 weeks or even four weeks could not qualify. No one plans for their child to die. People take a job in the good faith that they can do that job. It would be remiss of us not to include the amendment. That is my feeling.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton again for his comments on the amendments. I agree with the points he made. It is right that the Government maintain a consistent approach across employment rights, because that reduces familiarisation costs for employers and ensures that they are operating within a framework they understand. Let us keep it simple and straightforward.
The hon. Members for Glasgow East and for North West Durham are right. They mentioned the Taylor review. I am proud that this Government are trying to enhance the protections for workers and their eligibility to rights within the workplace. We are looking at day one rights within the work of the Taylor review. Taylor is looking at extending the break-in-service provisions from one week to four weeks, but the 26-week qualifying period will remain. Within Taylor we are consulting and looking to bring forward greater rights, but when dealing with this Bill it is important that we do not reference a Bill that is behind us in the sausage machine. We have to have consistency now. We can only be consistent with the legislation as it stands; we cannot look over the horizon at what might be coming.
Gavin Newlands
I understand the Minister’s point, but can he clarify one thing for me? A situation not dissimilar to this happened before I came to this place. If an employee happens to work for 15 years for one employer without a single day off—they are an exemplary employee—and then seeks to advance through employment elsewhere and works for that new employer for 25 weeks, they would not fall into the scope of bereavement leave. Another employee, who has been in employment for 27 weeks with an entirely blemished record—perhaps they have received verbal warnings or taken days off here and there without permission—would be covered by the Bill. Will the Minister clarify that that that would be the case?
Andrew Griffiths
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he also must understand that there are costs involved with all these things. While in an ideal world—funds permitting—we would wish to extend all these kinds of benefits to allow greater access, we have to cut our cloth. While I understand his point, the qualifying periods are long established for many of these benefits. I hope he understands that.
In my capacity as the Minister responsible for small business, I keep on getting speeches that say I am the small business Minister. I told the Secretary of State for Wales that he was better qualified for that title than I, but he did not see the joke either. Because I talk to organisations such as the FSB on a daily basis, and to small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country, I am particularly aware and conscious of, and attuned to, the effects that these amendments may have on small business. I think everybody in the room will be attuned to those too.
David Linden
I have listened to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton have said. At this stage, after consultation with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for North Ayrshire and Arran, I will not press amendments 4 and 5. We may return to this on Report, but for the purposes of getting the Bill through Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Linden
I beg to move amendment 1, in the schedule, page 7, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
“(1) Statutory parental bereavement pay is payable at an employee’s full rate of pay.”
This amendment would remove the power to set in regulations the rate of parental bereavement pay. Instead, the employee would be entitled to parental bereavement pay at their full pay rate.
We come to the last amendment in this Bill Committee. I know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, we have all been walking on glass to try to get to this point, and I will be brief. Amendment 1 would set statutory parental bereavement pay at the full rate rather than 90%. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, with which I have worked closely on this amendment. If hon. Members have not already seen it, I recommend the document “Cancer Costs: The financial impact of treatment on young cancer patients and their families”. There is a copy in the Library.
Currently, as we know, the Bill makes provision for parental bereavement leave pay to be the statutory flat rate or 90% average earnings, whichever is lower. We know from reading the report that having a child with cancer costs parents and they often struggle to meet those costs, particularly for funerals. Therefore it is my belief, and that of CLIC Sargent, that they should be entitled to full pay. I am particularly keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I guess this is probably more of a probing amendment, but it is just to say that we recognise that the exceptionally traumatic circumstances of the death of a child are really challenging. We often focus on the emotional aspect of that time, but particularly in the case of families where a child has had a life-shortening or life-limiting condition, there are costs to be borne after that as well. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee for amendment 1.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemen’s submissions and the opportunity to debate this matter fully. As drafted, the Bill allows the rate of parental bereavement pay to be set in regulations at a fixed or earnings-related weekly rate. This secures the flexibility to change or increase the rate of pay in the future. Of course, the main aim of the Bill is to ensure that bereaved parents who need time away from work are able to take that time without fear of suffering detriment from their employer as a result. A survey has shown that businesses that responded already provide bereavement leave and most of these companies offer more generous terms than we are stipulating in this Bill, as we have said a number of times before.
As I was asked before, I will not revisit all the arguments I made before about trying to move this Bill forward as much as we can in its original form, to prevent the need for us to go back and revisit some of the calculations that inevitably have to be made to determine effects on the taxpayer and employers, which clearly are important considerations. In the interest of consistency and cost, and also continuity, in that we would like this Bill to continue its progress through this Committee and through the other stages that it needs to go through, to get through the House as quickly as possible, I politely and respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Laura Pidcock
I shall be brief. I probably will not speak again, so I want to place on record again my thanks to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for this Bill and the passion and discipline that has been shown to try to get it through Parliament. I agree that something is better than nothing—for those in the grieving period, £148.98 is definitely better than £0 in a week—but I want to place on record that we must acknowledge that for the lowest paid, taking that time, just like going on to statutory maternity pay, has a financial impact and that exacerbates the difficult situation people may already be in. We also have to acknowledge that in the worst case situation, some people might not actually take that entitlement at all, because they could not afford the impact on their pay in that week. We have to acknowledge that, however brilliant the premise and skeleton of this is, it will exclude some people on the lowest pay for financial reasons.
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a good point about mirroring existing legislation in order to make the familiarisation process for employers more straightforward. We have heard that time and time again throughout this Bill. It is an important point and one I agree with. Managing bereavement in a workplace is not an easy task, so keeping it simple, stupid, is a good mantra. The Bill should be viewed as a base-level right for those who find themselves in this position. My hon. Friend said quite clearly that this Bill does not prevent employers from enhancing their offer, if they would like to make full pay. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this amendment should not be pursued and that the hon. Member for Glasgow East is content to withdraw it.
David Linden
I have listened to what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Minister have said. On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment. This is probably the last contribution that I will make in this Committee. I found serving on this Committee a challenging experience for a number of reasons, but I want to pay tribute to all members of the Committee. This has been an incredibly difficult topic to go through and on the whole it has been done with a degree of courtesy on all parts. I look forward to the Bill returning to the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 28, in the schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert
‘(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 29, in the schedule, page 10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
‘171ZZ15 Application in relation to stillbirths
In this Part—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.’
This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.
Amendment 30, in the schedule, page 11, leave out line 3.—(Will Quince.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 10 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
European Free Trade Association
(6 years, 10 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 Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the European Free Trade Association.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, and to see so many colleagues from across the House here so early on a Wednesday morning, when there are so many Select Committees and other things going on.
We all know that this country voted to leave the European Union, and we accept that result. However, what that referendum did not say was how we should leave the European Union. That is what today’s debate is about. One of the great myths of that referendum was that this country also voted to leave the single market and the customs union. It did not. Leaving the European Union was the only option on the ballot paper. How we leave the European Union is the most difficult challenge facing this country, and it is up to us, the Parliament of this country, to decide how we do it.
I think both sides of the House agree that we need an exit and a deal that allow us to trade freely with our former partners and to sign new free trade agreements, and that provide a level of economic certainty to businesses and economic and security certainty to our citizens. I want to discuss an option I think should have wide appeal across the whole House—indeed, it was consistently supported by Brexiteers prior to and during the referendum debate.
There are a number of misconceptions about the European Free Trade Association that need to be addressed. Those misconceptions, I say frankly to those on my Front Bench, were repeated by one Minister last week. It was not the Minister who is answering the debate, but the level of miscomprehension in evidence was concerning.
Crucially, EFTA membership gives the opportunity to have, but does not automatically entail, membership of the single market. It does not envisage political integration. It is economically motivated. EFTA does not issue legislation or establish a customs union, and decisions are made by unanimity.
If we examine EFTA, there are three distinct benefits to the UK as we leave the European Union. It brings significant free trade benefits. On joining EFTA, we would automatically become part of the free trade area between the current EFTA four—Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland—which covers trade in most goods and services and eliminates tariff barriers. In addition, we would be able to benefit from the free trade agreements they have already signed with third countries. We should not underestimate that; EFTA has 27 free trade agreements covering 38 countries and 900 million customers.
In text and context, many of those agreements are more modern than some of the deals the EU is signing with third countries now. Some of the analysis, certainly around services, would suggest that some of the free trade agreements being signed by EFTA and some of its existing free trade agreements are a much better fit for the UK economy than some of the EU’s, and are more comprehensive. For example, EFTA has a free trade agreement with Singapore and Hong Kong—two incredibly important markets for the United Kingdom, and areas without a completed EU deal.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Did he see the recent coverage in The Daily Telegraph noting that South Korea, and possibly other nations with which we have trade deals through the EU, would be looking to use our exit to potentially renegotiate the terms? Does he agree that, were we in EFTA, it would surely be in our favour that EFTA has trade deals with those countries, which would make the process far simpler for us?
Stephen Hammond
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to make a point in a moment about some of the Government’s ambitions regarding their Trade Bill.
Joining EFTA would be a significant help when it comes to making up for the loss of EU free trade agreements. It would demonstrate to the world that the United Kingdom is not leaving Europe as it leaves the EU, and it would highlight our commitment to global trade. Joining EFTA does not in any way stop the Government’s plan to negotiate a deep and special bespoke arrangement with the EU. Indeed, if that is the Government’s ambition and they wish to achieve it, they should consider joining EFTA, because it would greatly assist that goal by framing it within an institutional set-up that the EU is familiar with.
The negotiations on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement show how difficult and time-consuming a UK-EU deal could be. CETA took seven years. It was the most ambitious EU free trade agreement so far negotiated, and the Government’s stated ambition is to go some way beyond it. The chances that they will be able to fulfil that ambition without a framework that the EU is familiar with strikes me as laudable but potentially difficult to achieve.
The EFTA court, the surveillance authority, the council and secretariat are all institutions understood and trusted by the EU, with well-established systems for information access and consultation. They can be used as part of any future UK-EU deal, to strengthen our commitment and avoid creating new institutions.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
As a fellow London MP, I am sure the hon. Gentleman receives numerous representations from constituents on EU citizens and financial passporting rights. Those people probably think the best course of action would be not to leave at all. Since that is not realistic, will he do all he can to exert pressure on the high command of his party and his namesake the Chancellor—sadly, he is not in the high command anymore—to ensure we have a pragmatic, not a purist Brexit? That way, if the arrangements are ready-made, some of the bumps can be avoided.
Stephen Hammond
I see the hon. Gentleman also wishes to intervene. If he does so at this stage, maybe I could answer both points.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he is making a powerful speech. Is it not the case that the European economic area option ticks many of the leave boxes—no European Court of Justice jurisdiction, the ability to control the inward flow of immigration and the ability to strike trade deals with third countries—but also delivers the certainty that business is so desperately calling out for, because it is a well-established, well-understood agreement that has existed since 1993, but with no ever closer union built into it? Is it not by definition the form of Brexit that ticks the boxes in line with what the vast majority—we might call it the silent majority—of the British people want in this debate?
Stephen Hammond
In response to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), it is, of course, not my decision who is in the high command, but I understand her sentiments. I absolutely hear her point about financial services. That is why I was very pleased to see the Government taking the initiative and offering unilateral passporting to financial services. Of course, that will work to the greater benefit only if we are able to ensure that the European Union agrees the terms as well, but it was a good start. I wholeheartedly agree with her that the Government’s commitment on EU citizens must be made real and be part of the deal.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is absolutely right. In terms of my hon. Friends who are Brexiteers—a few of them are in the Chamber today—I was discussing with one of them last night that the EFTA arrangements are something we can build a consensus around in this country. That is a sensible option, suiting both sides of the argument, and I would welcome any of the pragmatic leavers, including a number who advanced this case during the referendum, joining the cause and arguing for EFTA.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
This is a really important debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. I completely agree with his point that EFTA is understood by all parties; that is one of its great strengths. Does he agree that its true strength, and the one that could be the basis for our negotiations and unite all parts of the debate, is the fact that it has great flexibility within it?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it has great flexibility. That is why I am putting it forward. There is not only one option. I had a chunk in my speech about what one colleague said in response to the question last week from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), which cited the Switzerland option. Of course, that still allows for bilaterals, and some of those are still available, but there is a panoply of options within the EFTA arrangements.
There is some misconception about whether we would be welcomed back into EFTA, and I make the point that it is not only a flexible arrangement but one we would be welcomed back into.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. Is it not the case with EFTA that it does not have the pooling of sovereignty that is currently a big issue in our relationship with the European Union? Most importantly, it affords the flexibility of excluding agriculture and fisheries. We all know that the CAP does not fit well with our large farm structures and that the common fisheries policy has proved very contentious. Those two important industries would benefit from greater flexibility.
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend is completely right. I am grateful to her for making that point, because such points need to be heard loud and clear so that the misconceptions can be fought off.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I was a bit concerned when the hon. Gentleman referred to pragmatic Brexiteers and pointed at me; I may be pragmatic, but I would certainly not call myself a Brexiteer. I am interested in his suggestion that the UK would be welcomed into EFTA. Can he give us his basis for that? Three expert witnesses appeared before the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday—I understand three more will appear today—and all of them thought it extremely unlikely that the four EFTA members would want the UK to join, partly because the UK’s population is about four times bigger than the current total population of EFTA, and there would be significant concerns about upsetting the balance of EFTA. What indications has he had from the four Governments of the current EFTA countries that they wait with open arms to welcome the United Kingdom in?
Stephen Hammond
I apologise if I, with a sweeping hand gesture, put the hon. Gentleman into the Brexit camp, which he does not wish to be in; that was certainly not my intention. I have had lunch with the president of the EFTA court, and I had lunch with the ambassador to the United Kingdom of one of those countries yesterday, but let me quote the Norwegian ambassador to the EU:
“We would maintain an open-minded stance in the event of an application for EFTA membership. Overall, it is in Norway’s interest to maintain as close trade policy cooperation with the U.K. as possible”.
There is a lot of scaremongering about this point, yet it is clear from speaking to any of the ambassadors that the reality is that they would welcome our application.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he propose EFTA membership as a transitional or a permanent state?
Stephen Hammond
I certainly see EFTA more as a potentially permanent state, rather than transitional. I know a number of my Brexiteer friends would probably see it as more of a transitional arrangement, but I see it as potentially long term, partly because of the point I have been making—that membership in no way undermines the Government’s ambition to secure a long-term, bespoke deal with the European Union. There is nothing within the EFTA structure that would prevent that. Given that our ambition is to be global Britain, we should take every opportunity we can to be so, and EFTA will fulfil those ambitions and objectives.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is, as I think he alluded to, a cultural element to this as well? The UK is making it quite clear that, while we may be leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe. This would send an absolutely clear statement of that, and that we are still very much European and very much committed to our friends and neighbours in Europe.
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend and I must be of the same mind, or he must have read or have had foresight of my speech. I was going to make the same point in a few moments’ time, but given he has made it for me, I shall cut my speech down. He is, of course, absolutely correct.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and strong case for EFTA and the EEA. Does he agree that there is a fundamental issue at stake: that the kind of potential end state he talks about, and indeed many of the others we have debated, show that there are many options for how we leave the EU? There is not just one way. That is the real issue at stake. Unfortunately, there are some in this place who would like to close the debate down and say there is only one alternative and no others. In fact, there are many ways in which we could go forward, and it is up to us as a country and as a Parliament to choose.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not always agree with him, but he is absolutely right on this matter. That is why it is important that there is a consensus from us, as a Parliament, when speaking to the British people, pointing out that there are a range of options. We should not close any of them down as we look for the best solution for this country.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is implicit in what my hon. Friend says that he is against our remaining in a customs union. Switzerland, which is in EFTA, is outside a customs union and has the freedoms that go with that. Do I take it from my hon. Friend’s speech that he accepts that we should leave the customs union?
Stephen Hammond
First of all, nothing in EFTA implies a customs union; there is no customs union with EFTA. That myth is being perpetrated. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Switzerland is not in a customs union, and nor are any of the other EFTA members. I accept that we are likely to leave the customs union, but as he will know, it is the Government’s stated policy, in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House and Florence speeches, that the possibility of a customs union is left open. Nothing has changed in terms of Government policy, so I am entirely in line with Government policy on that.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
On that point, it is also clear that the first-stage agreement that we reached in December, concerning the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, must imply the maintenance of a form of customs union. What form that might take is clearly open to some level of debate, but as my hon. Friend may agree, it is quite explicit that it must follow that there is regulatory alignment to prevent the need for customs checks.
Stephen Hammond
As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend makes the point rather better than I can. It is absolutely clear that that is implicit and, based on the evidence we heard in the Treasury Committee, explicit in what the Government signed or agreed to at the end of phase 1 of the negotiations in December.
EFTA provides a great deal of flexibility, as we have explored in a number of interventions. It keeps open the option of joining the EEA agreement, which I think would be the right thing to do. However, it must be right that, as we leave the EU, we keep our options open. I say to the Minister in all sincerity that there is a lack of clarity over exactly what type of deal the Government want. We talked about CETA and beyond, and as I said a moment ago, CETA is the most advanced trade agreement that the EU has yet signed with a third country. I understand that the Government want to go beyond that, but the clock is ticking, and in trying to spend a huge amount of time carving out a middle ground between CETA and the EEA, the chances are that we may end up with nothing at all, or with something well below the Government’s ambitions.
It seems to me that an EFTA-style EEA relationship—the Norway option—could be achieved rapidly and will go much further than CETA goes at the moment. That is a route we could pursue for the UK’s best interest, and it must not be allowed to be dismissed without proper analysis and consideration.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. First, with regard to CETA, one reason why that kind of relationship would not be appropriate for the UK is that CETA substantially covers goods, whereas 80% of our economy is services. Secondly, as he may come on to, one of the objections raised to our being part of EFTA, and using that as a way of accessing and being part of the EEA, is that we would be a rule receiver as opposed to a rule maker. Does he agree that it is wrong to say that EEA and EFTA members have no influence on the rules that apply? Does he also agree that if we want to access the single market, we will have to comply with its rules, and that we are more likely to be able to frame those rules if we are part of the EEA, through EFTA, than if we are sitting outside and simply accessing the single market through a free trade agreement?
Stephen Hammond
I of course agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am about to make exactly those points, because it is important that they are made loud and clear. As he will know and will have observed, I have spent a lot of time in the Chamber over the last two years making the case for services, which is one of our biggest tax generators. The public services that we all enjoy will not be able to be funded in the same way if we do not protect those services. As he will have wanted to point out, the EFTA arrangement covers services in many cases, whereas CETA, for instance, does not. That is a clear issue that the Government will have to confront.
The EFTA-EEA framework is motivated purely by the economy and not the pursuit of a political objective such as ever closer union. It is crucial that people remember that. The EEA would give the UK the same access to the single market as it has now for most goods and services. It is an off-the-shelf, already tested model that would provide businesses and our citizens with the most certainty that we can give them as we leave the EU. Yes, we would be subject to EEA regulation, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) pointed out, it does not cover the controversial common agricultural and common fisheries policies or justice and home affairs. From the outset—to allay the concerns of some of my hon. Friends—we would have control of those policy areas.
Stephen Hammond
I will just finish the point, because it is relevant to what the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) said. He is of course right: regardless of any deal with the EU that we choose to do, domestic businesses hoping to trade with the EU and the rest of the world will have to comply with what are often called laws but in reality are trading standards, and most of those are international trading standards, so there would be no change there.
Daniel Zeichner
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a further advantage of the EEA-EFTA arrangements is access to EU programmes such as Horizon 2020 and Erasmus, which is of crucial importance to science and research and the universities sector?
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman has clearly read the EFTA arrangements correctly. I concur with him.
Kevin Hollinrake
Can my hon. Friend also confirm that EFTA/EEA does not cover taxation, so we would have an independent VAT policy, for example, if we joined EFTA/EEA?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend has clearly also read the EFTA agreement and arrangements, and he is of course correct. There is no principle of direct effect with EEA-EFTA membership. As he has pointed out, that means that all laws must be approved by domestic legislatures. The UK would participate in drawing up proposed EEA legislation by serving on relevant committees. That is more of an input than is currently planned by the Government for their transition or implementation period—call it what you will. And certainly EFTA would have more of an influence collectively over the process with the United Kingdom as a member. We would regain our seats on global regulatory standard-setting organisations, on which much of EEA law is based, and ultimately we would retain a right of reservation.
This would all be supervised by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA court, not the EU institutions. That would preserve for the Government the red line of avoiding ECJ jurisdiction.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. I am sorry that I cannot stay for the full duration of what I anticipate will be an equally excellent debate. Has he explored whether it is possible for any arrangement that we come to with the European Union by way of a free trade agreement to be in effect docked? If we join EFTA, it could be docked in EFTA and therefore the EFTA court could have some role in relation to that agreement, which, again, gets away from any of the concerns that many right hon. and hon. Members have about the ECJ.
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend is of course a lawyer and I am not, but I have had conversations with the president of the EFTA court, Mr Baudenbacher, and he would agree that her interpretation is correct and what she describes would be possible. That is only one opinion, but it is that of the president of the EFTA court and therefore it clearly carries some weight and some merit.
The EFTA court has made divergent decisions from the ECJ on numerous occasions. In fact, because the EFTA court deals with cases more quickly, it often hears the novel cases first, and in some cases the ECJ follows the EFTA court. The EFTA court’s rulings are only advisory domestically, so it cannot overrule our sovereign court, the Supreme Court. Again, the point is that we would be heavily involved in influencing.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that one reason why many people voted to leave the European Union was that they wanted the UK to take back control? He has just brought up the very important word “sovereignty”, which for many people in the debate is at the heart of why they voted the way they did in June 2016; many people wanted to go back. Of course, the UK was a founding member of EFTA in 1960, so does he agree that the EFTA-EEA arrangement would meet the test of looking back to a day when we were happy with our relationship with the European Union and, of course, the UK would take back control?
Stephen Hammond
My right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, is right. One great virtue of what we are talking about today is that we are looking at where the UK is at its best, in that we are looking at the economics rather than becoming obsessed with ideology about some of the political points. This proposal solves many of the legal arguments and gives economic certainty to businesses and citizens, which is clearly what the House wants.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I thank him for his generosity in taking so many interventions. Can he clarify that his position is to join EFTA in order to remain or be part of the EEA, or does he contemplate being part of EFTA without EEA membership?
Stephen Hammond
One point that I am making is that there is a range of options for us as a Government and a country to consider. Personally, I would argue for the EFTA-EEA arrangement, which I think gives us a huge number of advantages. It gives some certainty to British business. It allows us to do what the Government want to do in having a bespoke EU-UK deal and would allow that to be negotiated in a timely way. It would give us advantages in relation to free trade. We will not be in “the” customs union. If we chose to do so, we could establish “a” customs union. It seems to me that the EFTA-EEA arrangement is absolutely a good place for the United Kingdom to start as we leave the EU. Whether that is the choice of the House, if it comes to be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons, is another matter. My point is that there is a range of options. Personally, I will argue for the EFTA-EEA arrangement; I think that is the best arrangement.
Let me deal with the point that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) may have wished to come on to—I am getting close to the end of my remarks, Mr Gapes, but you will have noticed that I have taken a fair number of interventions so that colleagues can be heard.
Understandably, free movement of people will be a concern for many, notwithstanding the fact that EU migrants are net contributors to our economy and that the last set of figures available—official statistics—showed that net EU immigration was down to about 9,000 a year. It is true that, under protocol 15 and articles 112 and 113 of the EEA agreement, EFTA states can suspend free movement of people on a reciprocal basis. It is important to remember that. Some will say that that is only theoretical, but it is important to remember that the European Commission agreed, during the pre-referendum negotiation, that the UK would be justified in applying the proposed emergency brake for similar reasons. Therefore, the protections enshrined in articles 112 and 113 of the EEA agreement would undoubtedly apply should we choose to join EFTA, because the precedent has already been set.
As for EU budget contributions, which would be another concern, they would of course be subject to negotiation, and we have already conceded the concept of paying for access if we deem that to be in our interest. The EFTA-EEA countries make a financial contribution to the EU in two ways. They contribute, first, towards European cohesion efforts and, secondly, towards the programmes in which they participate. The House of Commons Library has been frequently quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the House to justify their position, so I would guide people to the Library’s estimate that if the UK were to join the EFTA-EEA arrangement, the contributions to the EU would be 25% less than any contribution that we make now or would make during any transition period.
The concern has been expressed that the current EFTA members might have reservations about one of the big G8 economies joining. However, as I said in response to an intervention, the indications that I have had, from quite powerful authorities, are that we would be welcome in EFTA. It would be a chance for EFTA to be renewed and revitalised, with better prospects and new aspirations for arrangements with other countries. The argument that the EU is trying to tell Norway not to move forward—as we have seen from what the Norwegian ambassador to the EU has said—may be a bit of a game and role play, but the reality is that the United Kingdom would be welcomed back into EFTA.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government keep open the option of re-joining EFTA. I see no reason why it would not fulfil the Government’s ambition. It provides the Government with the flexibility they say they require—and I agree—in negotiating to get the best deal for Britain, but I remind hon. Members that there is nothing in EFTA membership that seems to go against any of the plans the Government have set out so far.
Finally, in a national crisis—and this is a national crisis—the British political class has always had the ability to put aside ideology, reach a national consensus and act in the national interest. Surely that is in the ability of this generation’s political class. We must be able to stand up and show that we can match our forefathers. We should be seeking to build that national consensus and achieve the best outcome for Britain. It is abundantly clear to me that there is no model that will satisfy all sections of the British public. I believe—I have said this many times—a no-deal scenario would be bad for our economy. However, this approach would fulfil the result of the referendum. It would satisfy a large—I think overwhelming—majority of the British public and perhaps, importantly, this House of Commons, and go a long way to healing the divisions that were there. I recognise that EFTA is not a universal panacea, nor does it have all the benefits of membership of the single market and the customs union, but I believe, and I hope this whole House believes, that Britain’s negotiating position and its economic position post-Brexit will be improved by joining EFTA.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Before I call Back Benchers, I would like to make clear that I have to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. We have very limited time if all three Front Benchers are to get their full time and we are to give Mr Hammond time to make a brief comment at the end. I implore you to be brief, minimise your interventions, and if you have already intervened, please do not intervene again if you can avoid it. Hopefully, I will be able to call all those who are indicating they wish to speak.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Gapes. We normally sit side by side on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, so the roles are slightly changed this morning. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber.
I say to the Government, at this time of national crisis and debate, it should not really be for Back-Bench Members of Parliament to have to bring debates to Westminster Hall on so critical a matter. If it is about taking back control, Parliament should be debating this every single day of every single week, so that the public can have a real view about where we are heading as a country in exiting the European Union. We are clearly no longer in a debate about staying in the EU; instead, we are talking about the least worse option when we leave.
The hon. Gentleman’s arguments clearly demonstrate that EFTA is one of the options the Government could choose to ensure we have the least worse exit from the EU. Whether it is leaked, not leaked, written, not published or whatever, the Government’s analysis shows that this is the least worse option, so why would they not take it? I have consistently said in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall, and indeed in newspaper articles, that whether one agrees with these arguments or not, the fact that the Government have taken them off the table shows that their direction is towards a place that will fundamentally damage the UK economy for generations to come. It is also clear to anyone who follows this debate in any kind of detail that the goals, aims and objectives the Government have set themselves when leaving the European Union are completely and utterly incompatible—incoherent—with the red lines they have set themselves.
A trade deal with the European Union. Maintaining tariff-free, frictionless access. Ensuring the issues around Northern Ireland are resolved. Achieving regulatory harmonisation. Staying in European programmes such as Erasmus and Horizon 2020—Edinburgh University has issued its annual report, the back pages of which show where it gets its research funding from, and there is page after page showing tens of millions of pounds that come from the European Union. If the Government want to achieve all of those objectives—I have no doubt that they do—I suggest they reach out, keep everything on the table and say to Parliament, when taking back control, that the best way to achieve all of those objectives is through EFTA, the EEA, a single market or a customs union. Whichever way we want to look at it, let us keep those options on the table and have those arguments.
EFTA is important because it is about economic integration between its members. The EEA allows that economic integration between the EFTA members and the European Union. That seems to me to be very similar to the Prime Minister’s goals and objectives in both her Lancaster House and Florence speeches. We want free, frictionless trade. We want regulatory harmonisation. We want goods and services to be included, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) said. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, this is not CETA, but is it CETA plus plus plus, which the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union mentioned a few weeks ago?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the problem the Government have got themselves into is that instead of keeping all the options open, the Prime Minister is having to respond to the extremists in her own party on a reactionary basis and close off options, exactly when we should be exploring the possibilities of all the options and the best way forward for the country?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. This Government are not looking at the best possible option for exiting the European Union. They are trying to resolve a decades-long problem in their own party, which is now raising its ugly head again, as we have seen in the newspapers in the last few weeks. I firmly believe that many senior members of the Government and influential Members on the Government Back Benches would rather see the UK fall off a cliff, to achieve their ideological goals and take control of their own party, than do what is in the best interest of the country.
I will wrap up, because I am aware others want to speak. EFTA is the ninth largest trading partner in the world in goods and the seventh largest in services. It is the third largest trading partner with the EU in goods and the second largest in services. If that deal was put on the table to the United Kingdom by Michel Barnier today, we should bite his hand off to take it. It is on the table, it is here and it is ready made. The Government would be committing a massive dereliction of duty if they did not at least consider the option of staying in EFTA.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. Last week at DExEU questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), challenged me to table a debate on EFTA. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for having the considerable foresight to have already done so. I know that he and others have been at the forefront of the push to get EFTA onto the Government’s agenda. I listened carefully to his contribution and share most—in fact all—of his perspective. His timing could not have been better, because it is vital that we have an evidence-led debate on this subject and on the broader subject of the UK’s relationship with the EU.
The main focus of my remarks will be the transition and how best to manage our departure, should a deal not be achieved before Brexit day. At the end I will address EFTA membership in the longer term and how this can be in our national interest. I will be brief, because I have discussed this recently. If hon. Members wish to know my thoughts in more detail, they can check the Hansard record of the debate on 22 January.
The Government do not have much time left to strike a deal, as Michel Barnier reminded us all yesterday. The time is coming when the Government must make tough choices, and those need to be based on evidence rather than on ideology—particularly an ideology that can be seen at the fringes of our party. The Government are also delaying several key pieces of work that will prepare us for the world post being in the EU. The road haulage Bill has been delayed, and the immigration White Paper has been delayed and may not be published until the end of the year.
I have consistently called for Ministers to be given the time that they need to think through their decisions. This is, as others have said, one of the most complex tasks the country and its Administration have faced in decades, and the timeframe for making decisions should reflect that, but under the current arrangements, we will have to restructure our entire relationship with the world in just a couple of years. Roy Jenkins once compared Tony Blair’s approach to winning high office to that of a museum curator carrying a Ming vase across a polished marble floor. I cannot help but think that Ministers may sympathise with that image as they hold on to something as precious as the democratic choice of the public while having to deliver Brexit in a manner that does not harm the economy, wear away at the social fabric of this country or damage our standing abroad. To do that, I ask Ministers to make up their minds on all the best available options, and to respect the wishes of all our constituents, not just either the 52% or the 48%.
There are considerable merits of EFTA for a longer transition period. I support the Government’s ambition for a deep and enduring partnership with the EU. Given our shared history and geography, it would be wrong to adopt CETA wholesale. To propose an entirely new arrangement is ambitious, but I welcome that ambition. Our partnership must be deeper than the EU has with any other third party, and it must include a deal on services, which make up almost 80% of our economy and are therefore essential to our prosperity.
I am aware of the pressure that the Government are under to strike a deal soon, and this is where the first benefit of EFTA should become apparent. If we were able to expedite rejoining EFTA it would provide a soft landing should the Government fail to strike a deal before the deadline. Currently, failing to strike a deal would see us ejected from the EU with no alternative to WTO terms. EFTA should be that alternative. Last week’s Treasury estimates, which are the best data we have at this point, suggest that WTO terms would cost us 8% of GDP growth over the next 15 years.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. To take her back to her earlier comments on a transition: is she proposing this scenario as a transition or a permanent state?
Antoinette Sandbach
It is the option that gives us the leeway to negotiate. It is an important staging post. Given the severe impacts that the WTO alternative would have, it is a safe harbour, if I can put it that way, with all the benefits that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has already outlined.
The reality is that if we do not take advantage of the opportunity that EFTA membership would give us, we are facing a cost of 8% growth in our GDP. That is a very significant cost that will have a significant impact on tax revenues and employment prospects in this country. By comparison, EEA membership through EFTA would allow us to recoup 6% of that lost growth, which is important for the Government to consider. I note that this month the UK Trade Policy Observatory has published an important briefing paper on the sectors most vulnerable to Brexit, looking at the different options. Perhaps those who are not convinced by the Treasury analysis can look at independent analysis—although I think the Treasury analysis is independent—published by a third source.
EFTA also allows the Government to meet their existing commitments, particularly around having no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It seems to me, from the provisions in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the agreement made in December, that that is a crucial ambition that we need to step up and achieve. We need to examine whether EEA membership and continuing membership of the customs union is the only way to deliver that promise. Even if it is not, it gives us the time to look at what other options are available.
I listened with interest to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord Bridges in the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill last week that transition needed to be a bridge to the future, not a gangplank into thin air. EFTA offers that bridge: a graduated transition that sees us leaving the EU, regaining control of swathes of policy areas, but retaining the vital trading and economic links that have built up between the UK and Europe, until a better deal can be struck. I know that some Members are concerned that this is a route to allow mischievous remainers to get back into the EU, but that is not correct: it is not the intention. Leave won; some leavers still need to get used to that. Those who have fought for decades to secure our departure from the EU have far more to fear from a badly executed Brexit than they do from using EFTA to bridge any potential gaps.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, I think that the long-term benefits of EFTA will become clear should we apply to rejoin, as I hope we will. He has already outlined the potential market access to more than 900 million people. From a sovereignty perspective, EFTA decisions require unanimity; we would still have the power of our veto. We would take back control of farming and fisheries. We would be rid of ever closer union and there would be no prospect of the single currency. EFTA would address a huge part of the public and political concern about the EU, while still allowing the UK to benefit from the single market.
I do not want to revisit the details I discussed a fortnight ago, but I do want to add two points. I have faith in the Prime Minister’s ability to strike a deal, but if we do not reach agreement with the EU regarding the Irish border, EFTA would allow us to extend the existing commitment we have made into the longer term. The breathing room that EFTA arrangements provided would strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand in negotiations. In the event of no deal, the UK faces significant detriment from WTO terms.
EFTA offers a route that will allow Ministers to respect the referendum result, our commitments on the Irish border and the needs of our economy. In a number of areas, it would allow considerably greater freedom of action than we currently enjoy. It would ensure that the most complex parts of our negotiation with Brussels—the issue of the Irish border—is resolved in the short term, and it would provide more time to create a bespoke solution. It allows us to minimise the risks of no deal and strengthen our hand in negotiations. If Ministers disagree so vehemently with the Treasury analysis, what are their own assessments of the impact of no deal? What deficiencies do they identify in not only the Treasury analysis, but much of the analysis by independent think-tanks that are external to the UK civil service?
EFTA constitutes the best arrangement for a plan B in the unlikely event that plan A fails. I believe that it is a good deal for Britain in the longer term, and ask that colleagues rethink this issue and recognise how EFTA can offer us a safer, more secure route out of the EU and into the world.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I will be very brief so the other two speakers have a chance to get in.
From the conversations I have had across East Renfrewshire in recent months, people are increasingly fed up. They do not want to hear any more about a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit, a red, white and blue Brexit, a “Brexit means Brexit” Brexit or even a “Brexit means Breakfast” Brexit. It is time for practical, workable solutions to be put forward in the national interest. They do not want ideology. If we have to give it a name, they want a “smart Brexit”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) put it in a recent article.
We must be pragmatic, sensible and honest about the situation that faces us. Should we be optimistic? Yes, we can be and we should be, but that optimism has to be grounded in reality. It is far too simple an argument to say that the Germans need us to buy their cars and the French need us to buy their brie so it will all be great.
Just as Government contingency planning for all scenarios must cover a no deal, it must also cover us entering EFTA with the EEA bolt-on. I simply ask that that option is not taken off the table. Let me be clear, that is not necessarily a final destination—although we should not rule that out—but a safe harbour or staging post that would give us a suitable and workable framework from which to work while the free trade agreement is thrashed out and formalised.
EFTA guarantees to people who voted leave that we are implementing their democratic will to leave the European Union. If anything, it finds that sweet spot in reflecting that the EU referendum result, although decisive, was not overwhelming. We will be in the single market but not members of the EU. We will leave the EU sensibly—even conservatively—if we recognise that trade is only one part of our integrated and co-operative relationship that needs to be unpicked.
In EFTA, from day one, we will be outside the broken CAP system and the hated common fisheries policy, which are totemic issues that lie behind the largely ignored but sizeable minority leave vote in Scotland. Any question of ever closer union would be gone; we would not be under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, as there is no direct effect and no supremacy of EEA law, and our membership dues would be significantly reduced. Freedom of movement can be dealt with flexibly within the EFTA system because, contrary to what is commonly asserted, Schengen is not part of the EEA agreement.
EFTA will also give us scope to form trade deals across the world from day one and to take advantage of the bloc’s existing FTAs while we create those bilateral agreements. Preferential access to EFTA’s markets while we finalise our new global trading relationships would provide a good basis for British business. Arguably, EFTA’s suite of trade agreements are a better fit for the UK than the EU’s, given our trading patterns, and they are more comprehensive. EFTA’s size and nimbleness as a bloc has allowed it to adapt its approach to free trade agreements to cover trade in services. EFTA would ultimately allow us to start our journey to our destination, while giving us the flexibility to ready ourselves for what may lie ahead.
If the referendum was not just about the economy but about increasing national sovereignty, I believe EFTA would tick that box too. That is why it is an option that also finds favour among many moderate leavers and it should not be dismissed out of hand by the Government. When we look back in 10 years’ time, we will not regret taking the time to get what was needed, but we will regret rushing to leave the European Union as quickly as possible to meet an arbitrary, self-imposed hard deadline.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I will follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) in being as brief as I can.
To my hon. Friend the Minister, I say that I, like most of my hon. Friends, want the Prime Minister to achieve a successful, bespoke deal, but the clock is ticking. To put it bluntly, levels of agreement are not optimal on the internal flank. I hope he can answer one question: if EFTA-EEA is such a bad idea, why are its four constituent countries among the richest and most successful on the face of the planet?
This is not project fear. We talk about hypothetical scenarios, such as what would happen if we left without a deal or under a soft or hard Brexit, but those countries are out there in the real world, not gazing at their navels, but negotiating trade deals and making a success of a trade bloc that we created with them in 1960. They have found a way to be sovereign countries, to deal with the huge behemoth of the European Union on their borders and to somehow retain that combination of prosperity, security and, yes, sovereignty.
Back in Westminster, we are in a hypothetical realm where we keep talking about all the possibilities that may emerge. If one were to be hypothetical and ask, “What deal could we possibly construct on which we could conceivably unite as a country?” it would have to do the following. It would have to please those on the Brexit wing by enabling us to negotiate our own trade deals from day one of leaving. EFTA does just that. For the Mayor of London, who wants us to stay in the single market, for the Scottish Parliament, which also wants us to stay in the single market, and for the many of us who think that that would be right for the City of London and services, we would have to stay in the single market. In EFTA-EEA, we stay in the single market. For everyone, there would have to be a control on unsustainable migration. In EFTA-EEA, we have the control that should migration surge again, article 112 and, importantly, article 113, which guarantees our right to negotiate free movement, would apply and have applied in practice in the real world.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The free movement issue is very sensitive. In the EFTA relationship, Liechtenstein has a cap on the total number of EU citizens it allows in each year. It is a much smaller country, but the principle is there.
James Cartlidge
Yes, the principle is there. The powers are there in black and white and they can be used unilaterally. There is simply no way to dispute that.
To return to the hypotheticals, from a Brexiteer point of view, we would want something that gives us visible signs of power back on day one. We would be out of fisheries, which is why Fishing for Leave supports membership of EFTA—it knows that next year, it could get power back for fisheries. We would be out of the common agricultural policy. We would be out of the serfdom of the ECJ and under the EFTA court.
I will finish by referring to the transition. Even as someone who campaigned for remain, I think the Government’s current proposal would mean a vassal transition where we had absolutely no control. To people in the Brexit camp, I say that surely the proposed transition, where we have literally no say in future laws, is far inferior to one where we go into EFTA next April, have powers back, and have the security of staying in the single market. That is the best transition, which would enable us to have a safe harbour to secure our long-term future, as other hon. Members have said.
A range of continental lagers are available, but if Carlsberg did an off-the-shelf, last-minute Brexit deal that pleased everybody, it would probably look an awful lot like EFTA-EEA.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is nice for a leaver to make just a brief contribution—perhaps you have heard enough from leavers, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who made a powerful case from his point of view in relation to EFTA.
My view is that we should get behind the Government. We on this side of the Chamber should certainly be supporting the Prime Minister and the Government. To say that this is a Brexit-dominated Government, when the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the excellent Minister were remainers, paints an unfair picture. I think the Government are working in the interests of all the British people.
The Government decided to delegate the decision about whether we remain in or out of the European Union to the British people. There was a massive democratic process and we had the leave result. We are leaving in 413 days, so as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, the clock is ticking.
In the referendum, the British people voted to end free movement, not to spend billions and billions of pounds each year with the EU, and to make our own laws in our own country that will be judged by our own judges. Within all that, Parliament should debate what Brexit looks like—quite rightly—and this debate is part of that.
Mr Bone
I cannot, because I have very little time.
It is right that the Government are saying, “Hang on. We’re the fifth biggest economy in the world. We want to make a bespoke deal.” The Brexit Secretary has described the deal as Canada plus plus plus, but he is really saying that it is a bespoke model. From that point of view, how can people object? We are in a unique situation. We already have a free trade arrangement with the European Union. It sells us £80 billion more of goods than we buy from it, so it is in its interest to have a deep and special relationship.
In conclusion, I hope the whole House will get behind the Government to achieve what must be in the British interest: a bespoke deal and a special relationship with the European Union. I urge my Conservative colleagues to stop carping at the Prime Minister, to get behind her and to support the Government, not vote against them. They should argue their case and let the Government take us out of the European Union in the best possible way in 413 days’ time.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to begin the winding-up speeches. Scotland’s preferred option was not to leave the European Union at all. It is dangerous to conduct this debate on the basis that all the arguments have been lost. I sympathise with a great deal of what hon. Members have said today, but their starting point seems to be, “We have now lost the argument—we are in for a hard Brexit and for coming out of the customs union and the single market, but let’s see how much we can salvage.” It is not too late for the Government to come to their senses and decide not to leave the single market or the customs union.
It is important that we continue to compare the benefits and disadvantages of EFTA membership not with the hard Brexit that we are heading for, but with where we are now. As hon. Members have said, we had a referendum over membership of the European Union but nobody in the United Kingdom has ever voted in a referendum on the single market or the customs union, so none of us has the right to say that we know how people feel about our membership of them.
I must remind hon. Members of the likely economic impact. Some have decided that the economic forecasts are not worth the paper that they are written on. Presumably they think the billions of pounds it costs to run the Department that produces those forecasts are not worth it either, so I look forward to the Estimates debate in a few weeks’ time—I can think of a big saving to our spending on the Treasury. The Scottish Government’s paper “Scotland’s Place in Europe” indicates that over the 10 years after Brexit, GDP in Scotland is likely to fall by £11 billion a year and public spending is likely to fall by £3.7 billion a year, on top of any reduction imposed from Westminster. That is twice Scotland’s total expenditure on further and higher education, which demonstrates the scale of economic damage that we face.
The UK Government say that they have not done any impact analysis, but they have done analysis of the impact, which is not the same thing. I have not yet seen those papers in their Fort Knox establishment on Parliament Street, so I can only quote from what has already been put in the public domain. The Buzzfeed papers show that the Treasury think that at best we will see a 2% reduction in economic growth, even if we remain in the single market, and at worst we could face an 8% reduction, which would be a recession like none that we have ever seen or ever want to see. We are talking about a serious threat to the economic and social wellbeing of these islands.
I recognise that membership of EFTA—if we are allowed in, although it is still not guaranteed that the four existing members will want us to join—would not be as bad for us as falling off the cliff edge, but it would still be significantly worse than where we are now. I hope that all hon. Members who have argued for EFTA today will not accept that the argument about full membership of the single market or the customs union has been lost. EFTA countries are not in the customs union; we heard evidence from several witnesses in the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday about what that means for Switzerland. In some ways, the Swiss position appears to be closest to what the Government want, because officially it does not include free movement of people, although in practice it pretty much does.
Heidi Alexander
I understand the note of caution that the hon. Gentleman articulates about EFTA, but I also understand that Scottish National party policy is to remain in the single market. If his party does not favour remaining in the European economic area by staying in EFTA, how does it propose to remain in the single market?
Peter Grant
As I said, our best option is to respect the wishes of the 62% not to be dragged out of the European Union, but if that option is taken off the table—
Peter Grant
I note that Scottish Conservatives want to pooh-pooh the idea that 62% of the population of Scotland can just be ignored. My concern about EFTA is not that I do not like what it offers, but that it does not offer nearly as much as we have now. In particular, it does not involve membership of the customs union.
Switzerland does not have what it regards as a hard border with the European Union. Apart from its border with Liechtenstein, it is completely surrounded by land borders with EU countries, but most people travelling in and out do not notice anything like a hard border. Nevertheless, it estimates that approximately 2% of vehicle traffic is stopped and searched. Applying that model to the only land border that the United Kingdom will have with the European Union would result in 200 stop-and-searches a day near the border on the island of Ireland. That is simply not acceptable, and it cannot be allowed to happen.
Even the most favourable—or least unfavourable—scenario for leaving the customs union is likely to create significant security problems in Ireland. It is not just about having a hard border. We have an agreement on all sides that there will be no infrastructure on the Irish border, but it is very difficult for somewhere inside the customs union to have a border with no infrastructure whatever with somewhere outside it. There will be significant repercussions for the whole of Ireland if the United Kingdom leaves the customs union.
Peter Grant
I really do not have time.
Those repercussions are among the reasons—they are possibly the single most pressing reason—why we have to persuade the Government that they have got it wrong. The unilateral and politically motivated decision to leave the customs union was a mistake, but there is still time for it to be rectified. There is still time for the Government to accept that they got it wrong and that they do not have a referendum mandate to take us out of the customs union or the single market.
I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that the four EFTA countries are among the wealthiest in the world by GDP per capita. It is not only EFTA countries that are in the top 15 or 16, and certainly above the United Kingdom; so are Luxembourg, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Denmark, none of which are in EFTA but all of which are in the single market. Membership of the single market and the customs union may be a factor, or it may be that all the countries I mentioned and all four EFTA countries have the status of being small, independent, modern European nations—perhaps that is what we should be looking at, but that is an argument for another day.
I must sound a final word of caution. Although hon. Members have referred favourably to the Norwegian and Swiss situations, we were told yesterday in the Exiting the European Union Committee about the Swiss People’s party, which is a bit like UKIP with a Swiss accent but is the biggest single party in the Swiss Parliament. It has initiated the process of calling a referendum—a popular initiative, as the Swiss constitution describes it—to extricate Switzerland from EFTA and pull out from agreements with the European Union. Although a lot of countries originally saw EFTA or the European economic area as part of an accession process to get from nowhere to full membership of the European Union, it appears that there is a big danger of the hard right in Switzerland treating EFTA as a way of cutting its links with the European Union. So let us be careful: we may think that the minority in this House who want a hard Brexit will be satisfied and let things lie if we somehow persuade the Government to go for EFTA, but it will not be long before they seek to follow the Swiss example. They will agitate for a referendum as they did before, not on leaving the European Union this time but on the hardest of all hard Brexits.
As I have said before, and as I think the vast majority of hon. Members believe, a hard Brexit would be economically and socially calamitous for the people of these islands. It is still not too late for the Government to give a guarantee that they will not go for that kind of Brexit. They should not simply say that they want to join EFTA, but go further and say that they want to remain in the single market and the customs union—not for two or three years after we leave the European Union, but for as long as we possibly can.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition and to see you in the Chair, Mr Gapes. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on securing this debate and on the considered way in which he framed the issue.
The Labour party has continually made clear that we want to seek a deal with the European Union that secures all the benefits of the single market and the customs union and that involves no diminution of the EU-derived rights—employment rights and equality rights—health and safety standards, and environmental protections and standards that we currently enjoy.
Jobs and the economy must be the Government’s priorities in the next phase of the negotiations, so it is absolutely right that Parliament debates in detail the pros and cons of any and every means of potentially securing a departure from the EU that protects both. I echo what many hon. Members have said in the debate this morning: every option must be kept on the table.
It reflects poorly on the Government that Back Benchers have to bring Ministers to Westminster Hall and have only an hour to speak on issues of this importance. We should be debating the pros and cons of European Free Trade Association arrangements and other arrangements in great detail on the Floor of the main Chamber; that we are not doing so is a missed opportunity.
I very much welcome the attempt by the hon. Member for Wimbledon to convince the Conservative party to ditch the ideological baggage, and to drag with him the Government and the small group on the Government Benches who favour—for ideological reasons—the hardest of departures from the European Union.
There are misconceptions about EFTA, and they need to be challenged. We need to have an honest debate about what the trade-offs and the compromises involved in an EFTA arrangement, or other arrangements, would be. However, all options must be considered and, as other hon. Members have said, nothing should be taken off the table.
In the brief time I have available to me, I will sound a few notes of caution about the trade-offs when it comes to EFTA, or at least examine some of them. I will start with the transition period, because a number of different views have been expressed this morning about whether EFTA would apply in the transition or afterwards and about the variants that it might cover.
I fail to see how EFTA could work in terms of a transitional arrangement, and that is for two reasons. The first is that, as we have argued for some time, the Government must pursue transitional arrangements on the same basic terms as those that apply now, which includes membership of the single market and the customs union, and would involve the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is supported by businesses and trade unions, and—if people pay any attention to what the European Commission has been saying on the EU27, they will know this—it is also the only option that is available. I cannot see how EFTA, as a transitional vehicle, could be realistically negotiated.
Even more importantly, an EFTA transition would in a sense entail what the Government—and we agree with them on this—have explicitly sought to avoid. Businesses and individuals do not want two points of transition towards the end state. They do not want a situation whereby they would depart the EU and go on to EFTA terms, and then go on from EFTA terms to the final end state of a bespoke deal.
James Cartlidge
What the hon. Gentleman talks about as a transition is not really a transition; it is an extension of existing membership, and there is no point in trying to deny that. EFTA can be a transition in this sense—that we go into it, as others have said, as a safe harbour. However, he seems to be ruling out the idea that, once we are in EFTA, there would ever be any further change, when it would clearly be in our national interest to look at how we might, for example, strengthen co-decision making or consider divergence within parts of the single market. The point is getting to a safe position to do that. That is what a transition is—not an extension of our existing membership.
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree, because I do not see a transitional arrangement on those terms as an extension of membership; we would lose our voting rights and our representation in the European Parliament. However, that is the only transitional arrangement on offer, and the one that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is not a serious possibility. Also, as I have said, it would involve two points of disruption for businesses and individuals. For that reason, we favour a transition on the same basic terms as now. However, if we are talking realistically, and we are talking about a post-transitional arrangement, EFTA membership is clearly something that the Government should consider.
I will just probe a bit of the argument that the hon. Member for Wimbledon made in terms of there being a range of viable options open to the UK within EFTA, each of which warrants consideration. It is difficult to see what would be gained by EFTA membership alone. I take the point that obtaining it would secure for us access to the EFTA free trade area and the four EFTA states, as well as participation in trade agreements with the 27 countries in the EU, but in no way would that make up for the loss of trade that would come from losing the 50 preferential trade deals that the EU has with third countries or the many other trade deals that it is negotiating. Moreover, EFTA membership alone would not secure for the UK preferential access to the EU internal market.
In the same way, it is difficult to see how the Swiss model, or a variant of it, would work for the UK. As hon. Members will know, Switzerland has only partial access to the EU’s internal market. We must also consider services, the future of which is integral to our country. I know that the hon. Gentleman has real concerns about them, and we both do, because of our constituencies. Services are covered only to a limited extent by the Swiss model. Crucially, Swiss bilateral agreements do not provide for cross-border access in financial services. So it is difficult to see how the Swiss arrangement would work for the UK, notwithstanding the issues that it has in terms of its sustainability or the length of time that it has taken to negotiate.
Stephen Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, laying out the range of options I said were available and making the point about all their pros and cons. However, I think it was pretty clear from my speech that I think that the EFTA/EEA arrangement, which is what I argued for consistently throughout my speech, is the option, one, that I prefer and, two, that the Government should look at.
Matthew Pennycook
In a sense, the hon. Gentleman reinforces my point, which is that the realistic debate that we should be having is about the EEA/EFTA option. I do not think that the other options are particularly practical or desirable, for a variety of reasons, so that option—the EEA/EFTA one—is what we should concentrate on.
When it comes to the EEA/EFTA model, the Opposition recognise that it undoubtedly has a range of advantages.
Kevin Hollinrake
Earlier in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the customs union. Is it the Opposition’s policy that we must remain in the customs union?
Matthew Pennycook
The Opposition’s policy is that a full customs union with the EU remains on the table; it should be an option that we explore, and I will come to the reasons why.
Despite the advantages that EFTA provides, it also has some inherent limitations. One of the most serious, which we have to grapple with if we are going to seriously consider and debate the advantages of the EEA/EFTA model, is what it would mean for the border in Northern Ireland. Unless that model is complemented with a customs union or customs arrangement of some kind, I do not necessarily think that EFTA alone would solve the problem in Northern Ireland.
That is because the agreements that the EFTA members have struck with third countries involve the collective dropping of tariffs. I do not think that those agreements can be supplemented with a customs union or customs arrangement in a way that would solve the problem in Northern Ireland. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) mentioned agriculture. There are issues within EFTA where there is explicit freedom to diverge, which I think makes the Northern Ireland border situation complicated, and it is certainly not clear that it would be solved by straight-up EFTA membership.
In addition, there are the concerns that have been raised about freedom of movement and payments into the EU budget. Neither of those issues is insurmountable, but we need to have a really honest debate about how we would reconcile the concerns that were raised in the referendum, and that undoubtedly lay behind the vote in the referendum, and the economic conditions that are required in the country going forward.
There are also very practical reasons why the EEA/EFTA option could be challenging. It is clear to me that the majority of the legal opinion on this shows—Professor Baudenbacher would say this himself—that the UK ceases to be a member of the EEA when we leave the EU. We cease to be a contracting party; article 1.26 of the EEA agreement says that very clearly. It is not clear—this needs further explanation—whether we could seamlessly join EFTA in a way that allows us to remain a member of the EEA agreement continuously. As a number of hon. Members have said, there are also real questions about whether the EFTA states—in particular, Norway—would be happy to have us join.
Matthew Pennycook
Well, they might be. I think there is a range of opinion out there about it; I have spoken to a number of different people with different views. The hon. Member for Wimbledon said that he had spoken to the ambassador and the professor himself. I note the comments of the Norwegian Prime Minister in August last year, when she said that the UK joining EFTA, even for a temporary period, would be a “challenging and costly” undertaking. Again, those concerns are not insurmountable, but we need to grapple with how realistic this option is and, in particular, with whether EFTA’s institutions—especially its court—could cope with the volume of cases that would land in them if the UK was to join EFTA.
All of that speaks to a wider point, which is that the four EFTA economies are very different from the UK economy. The size of the EFTA countries and the nature of their economies make UK membership of EFTA a challenging prospect.
All of that needs to be debated, and it cannot be debated in an hour and a half in Westminster Hall. The EFTA option should not be taken off the table, but there are real reasons why the Labour party believes that a bespoke deal following a transitional arrangement on basic terms should be what we are aiming for, and therefore EEA/EFTA would not be our first preference. However, as I say, the key point is that that option should not be taken off the table. In the end, it is up to Parliament to decide, which is why it is so important that we have a meaningful vote—
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Is the hon. Member bringing his remarks to a conclusion?
Matthew Pennycook
I am.
The issue should be for Parliament to decide, and this option should not be taken off the table. The Government need to give serious consideration to it or at least to provide time for debates about the pros and cons to allow us to explore why—if they have—they have ruled it out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on securing this important debate on the European Free Trade Association, to which I am delighted to respond. I note that he beat our hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in securing this debate, but as my hon. Friend and colleague at DExEU, the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), said in the House on 1 February, a number of colleagues have suggested EFTA membership as a possible option, and it is important that we debate it.
Although we recognise the benefits of ensuring continuity in our relationships with the EFTA states, we do not plan to seek membership of EFTA, for four key reasons. First, EFTA membership in and of itself does not deliver any market access to the EU. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out, there are some misconceptions. It is important to delineate the difference between the EFTA agreement and the EEA. EFTA is a trading bloc between four European countries: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Three of them participate in the EU’s single market through the EEA agreement, while Switzerland participates in some areas through a series of bilateral arrangements with the EU. As such, joining EFTA does not say anything about our future economic partnership with the EU.
Those calling for us to join the EFTA need to be more specific, as my hon. Friend was, about whether they mean joining the EEA, or attempting to copy the Swiss agreement, or negotiating a different bespoke agreement. The Prime Minister has been clear that participation in the EEA agreement would not work for the UK because it would not deliver on the British people’s desire to have more direct control over the decisions that affect their daily lives, and it would mean accepting the continued free movement of people, which both the Conservative and Labour manifestos pledged to end at the last election. Switzerland, on the other hand, has a patchwork of agreements with the EU that fall short of the ambitious economic partnership we are seeking. Neither model strikes the balance of democratic control and mutual market access we want for our future partnership with the EU.
Secondly, our ambition as a global trading nation goes beyond the scope of EFTA’s existing free trade agreements with third countries. Leaving the EU offers us an opportunity to forge a new role for ourselves in the world, to negotiate our own trade agreements and to be a positive and powerful force for free trade. Alongside new FTAs, we are also committed to achieving continuity in our existing trade and investment relationships with third countries by transitioning the EU’s free trade agreements. It is worth noting that EFTA’s network of preferential trading arrangements falls short of our ambitions.
Thirdly, EFTA membership means accepting free movement between EFTA members—that principle is underpinned through the legal framework of the EFTA convention. While we do not regard the referendum result as a vote to pull up the drawbridge, it must be a priority to gain control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe.
Finally, while we want to maintain our deep and historic relationships with EFTA states, the UK is in many ways different from those countries, as the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) pointed out. Our population is around 65 million, while the EFTA states together make up roughly 14 million people. In 2015, the EFTA bloc’s collective GDP amounted to £710 billion as compared with the UK’s £1.9 trillion. The UK’s participation in EFTA would fundamentally change the nature of that group and would not be an appropriate model for our future relationship with the EU or those countries.
Antoinette Sandbach
Some have proposed that EFTA should be a plan B in the event that the Government do not achieve the ambitions they are outlining, instead of WTO rules. What does the Minister say to that?
Mr Walker
We are absolutely focused on achieving a deep partnership between the UK and EU. Of course we need to look at our contingency plans, and I am sure Ministers will take note of this debate in that regard, but we want to focus on achieving a partnership that in many ways goes beyond the EFTA arrangements we have discussed.
Mr Walker
No, I need to make a little progress because I have got quite a lot to try to cover.
Membership of EFTA alone does not automatically guarantee UK access to the EU single market, and EFTA states have the different trading relationships I have described. In this debate, most people have spoken about the EEA and EFTA. The EEA, which is sometimes referred to as the Norway model, would mean the UK having to adopt automatically and in their entirety new EU rules over which we would have little influence and no vote. As the Prime Minister has said, such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. It would also involve continuing to pay substantially into the EU budget.
Chuka Umunna
Does the Minister not accept that if we are to do the free trade agreement that he and his colleagues in government keep talking about, we are going to have to comply with European standards anyway? We have much more chance of having some influence—albeit, I accept, not a vote—if we do so through EFTA and EEA membership. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has been clear he is arguing for that.
Mr Walker
The Government are ambitious about the extent of the trade agreement we can do with the EU. The EU has a number of trade agreements with other countries where there is mutual recognition and regulatory alignment, but not the absolute harmonisation of rules. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s argument.
I will not be able to cover all the comments, so I want to focus a little more on international trade. Members have asked why we do not plan to rejoin EFTA as a way of continuing our trading relationships with its members and trading with the wider world through the adoption of its existing free trade agreements. As I have already stated, EFTA has a network of 27 free trade agreements as compared with the EU’s 40 FTAs. While many of those agreements significantly overlap, EFTA agreements still focus on traditional areas of market access and therefore tend to be less comprehensive and more goods-focused than those of the EU. It is also notable that some EFTA FTAs specifically exclude trade remedies that the UK may seek to have as part of our independent trade policy. The UK is in many ways different from those countries.
Paul Masterton
Is the point not that by joining EFTA, we can roll into the existing EFTA trade agreements and agree a new bilateral trade deal at the same time? We would be protected while striking out our own trade deal.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is certainly true that a number of the EFTA states have those bilateral arrangements, but it is important to note that even if EFTA members were to welcome us back—as the hon. Member for Glenrothes pointed out, that is not a certainty—we would not have immediate or automatic access to their 27 FTAs. Our entry into each one would need to be negotiated individually with the third countries involved. That process would take time, with no guarantee of success. EFTA is not an off-the-shelf model that would deliver ready-made trade deals, as some have suggested. Instead, as I said earlier, leaving the EU offers us an opportunity to forge a new role for ourselves in the world: to negotiate our own trade agreements and to be a positive and powerful force for free trade. As Members know, we are committed to delivering continuity in the EU’s existing trade relationships with third countries.
Mr Walker
I will not right now. We want continuity, rather than the replacing of agreements with their mostly shallower EFTA counterparts. We are already in discussions with third countries over how to put the arrangements in place upon exit, and I will come back to that point.
Mr Walker
I cannot give way right now because I have to cover a few more points.
Another important drawback of EFTA membership is that it requires free movement between its members. A number of Members have touched on that. It is true that Liechtenstein has a derogation from the principle of free movement of people under the EEA, but Members will agree that the UK is in many respects different from Liechtenstein, which is a country with a population numbering less than most of our constituencies—in 2016, the population totalled some 37,000. It is also worth noting that in 2016 more than a third of Liechtenstein’s population were not Liechtenstein citizens.
We of course want the UK to remain an open and tolerant country. It is important to note that the Prime Minister has written to EFTA citizens and EU citizens to assure them that we want to reach agreements that protect their right to achieve settled status in the UK.
Finally, I reiterate that there can be no question of our ties of friendship with our EFTA friends and neighbours, nor of our commitment to them. Taken together, the EFTA bloc of states is our third largest export partner in goods and services after the EU and the USA—that is larger than India and China combined. We receive 5% of our imports by value from them, making EFTA our fourth largest import partner. Norway and Iceland were also founding members of NATO. I reassure Members that we are seeking to maintain our excellent relations with EFTA states, with whom we have long-standing cultural and economic ties, as well as crucial trading relations. The Prime Minister wrote specifically to EFTA nations.
I do not have a great deal of time to go into the implementation period, but it is important to note, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, that we are seeking only one set of changes. It is crucial that business does not face two sets of changes. With that, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon the floor for a chance to respond.
Stephen Hammond
I thank the Minister for his response. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I of course support the Government’s ambition to have a bespoke deal. Nothing I have set out this morning would in any way prevent that. The Minister, whom I regard as a thoughtful politician, will understand that I am disappointed by his response. Although this Chamber has had the chance to consider the motion, the feeling I detect from the Chamber is that the whole House would like to have a chance to reflect on the matter. I therefore say to the Minister that I have decided to provide that by tabling later today a number of amendments to the Trade Bill to be debated on Report. That will give the whole House the opportunity to discuss EFTA on the Floor of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the European Free Trade Association.
Agriculture GCSE
(6 years, 10 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
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the introduction of an agriculture GCSE.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, I think for the first time. As Members may recall from previous debates, my professional background is in agriculture; I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My background and experience have naturally made me a passionate advocate for UK farming. British agriculture is the essential foundation of the UK food and drink industry, which as our largest single manufacturing sector employs one in eight people and contributes more than £100 billion to the economy each year, including through a growing volume of exports. Farming also plays a vital role in protecting our environment, maintaining and conserving the land, soil and landscapes that make up our precious natural heritage.
So why a GCSE in agriculture? One of the foremost functions of our education system is to equip young people with the necessary skills to contribute to the social and economic life of our country. I firmly believe that, given the significance of agriculture to our economy, environment and society, the education system should ensure that the younger generation are able to flourish in the sector, and should give them the option of doing so at the earliest possible opportunity by offering an agricultural GCSE in schools across England and Wales.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Bearing in mind that the average age of farmers in the UK is approaching 60, does he agree that a new lease of life is needed and that the GCSE will give those who are perhaps not from a farming background but who have a love of the land the opportunity to gain an understanding and to get involved in farming? We in Northern Ireland have done that so far.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have not quite reached the farmer’s average age yet, which is around 59 at the moment. I was going on to mention that Northern Ireland already has a GCSE in agriculture, which started in 2013.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I really hope the Minister will answer this when she responds later: why is it good enough for GCSEs to be provided to young people in Northern Ireland, but not in North Herefordshire?
Julian Sturdy
It is up to the Minister to respond to that, and I hope she does, but I do not want to see a GCSE in agriculture only in North Herefordshire. I want to see it in England and Wales and perhaps Scotland as well.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
We do not have a national 5 in agriculture in Scotland, so it would be a positive move to introduce it there and to get further behind apprenticeships as well, so that students have room to develop from national 5 into an apprenticeship when they leave school.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valuable point.
My support for the agriculture GCSE is based on two central arguments: first, the course would offer great benefits to GCSE pupils in helping to equip them for a skilled and fulfilling career that agriculture can offer; and secondly, it would support the farming sector by providing a better and larger pool of young, educated and skilled workers. I have already mentioned Northern Ireland. It is important to re-emphasise that Northern Ireland has had a GCSE in agriculture since 2013. I could not get the figures, but I would be interested to know what the take-up has been in Northern Ireland.
Bill Wiggin
My hon. Friend will find that 17 schools already offer the GCSE in Northern Ireland, with an average of 10 students per class. Agriculture, horticulture and animal care is the fastest growing degree subject, with an increase in applications of 117%, so clearly the demand is there.
Julian Sturdy
I am glad my hon. Friend has brought those figures to this debate. I can always rely on him to bring facts to the table. It is also worth mentioning that there is an opportunity for those who are privileged enough to have the advantage of taking an IGCSE qualification in agriculture offered by Cambridge Assessment, but it is clear that opportunities are limited to a small cohort of students in the UK, so I do not think that that really qualifies. We have to make sure that it is offered right across the board.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he envisage the GCSE being provided in secondary schools or will he broaden his remit to encourage organisations such as the Duchy College in my constituency to provide the GCSE, so that the college can broaden its remit?
Julian Sturdy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important to ensure that all education facilities have the opportunity to offer a GCSE in agriculture. It should be available to all—that is the premise of the argument—and not a limited few.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way very briefly?
Julian Sturdy
Again, I entirely agree. I will go on to mention that this is not just about agriculture. The wider rural economy, the environment and food security link back to agriculture and food production.
I understand that the Department for Education has recently introduced changes to secondary qualifications and wants a time to allow those to settle down, but a model exists for how to design and teach the subject at GCSE level, which suggests it would be straightforward for the Government to make it available. Has there been any consideration of replicating the content of the GCSE syllabus available to those in Northern Ireland for students in Britain?
I have been sympathetic to an expansion in GCSE options for some time, but I was encouraged to argue for this more publicly by the intervention of the BBC “Countryfile” presenter, Adam Henson, who publicly called for the introduction of an agriculture GCSE in September last year. He said:
“You can get a GCSE in religious studies and business, so why not in agriculture?”
That is a fair question. A GCSE in agriculture has a strong claim to feature among current non-core science and mathematics options, which currently include geology, astronomy and psychology. Expanding the offer to include the option of a GCSE in agriculture would be a sensible and logical development of the Government’s welcome plans to expand the provision of vocational and technical education in order to create a better skilled and more productive workforce, enjoying higher wages and better living standards. That is recognised in the Government’s industrial strategy, which made the claim of
“putting the UK at the forefront of this global revolution in farming.”
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I am old enough to remember when there was an O-grade, or an O-level, in agricultural science in Scotland—I am substantially older than my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who is far too young to remember it. An agriculture GCSE has to be about food production and what the countryside is really about, as opposed to the countryside as a national park. The best thing that could come out of it would be that people connect again with food production and the countryside.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree that it is about connecting with food production, and ensuring that we understand where our food comes from, how it works in the chain, the environmental impacts, and how we manage production. I cannot say that I am old enough to remember the O-level; my year was the last to take O-levels, but I cannot remember having the opportunity to take that one. The point is that we have to ensure that we move forward, and the GCSE would be one way of doing that.
I am watching with interest the development of plans for T-levels, as a full technical alternative to A-levels, but if there is truly to be the parity of esteem necessary to boost the take-up of vocational and technical skills, the option of a vocational or sector-linked qualification needs to be offered to pupils as soon as possible, at the time they first select the qualifications that they will take—that is, at GCSE level. Have the Government considered the effects of boosting the number of students taking the agriculture, environment and animal care route from 2022 by introducing a dedicated pre-16 qualification?
In Parliament, we are all familiar with employers saying that schools do not do enough to prepare our young people for the world of work. Offering an agriculture GCSE would go some way to respond to those concerns, by allowing pupils to equip themselves for work at an early age. GCSE-age children could learn about a practical and essential subject, directly linked to a varied and dynamic field of employment.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been very gracious. As we move towards leaving the EU on 31 March next year, the opportunities for agri-food business to increase across the whole world are magnificent and large. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that now may be the time to focus on them? There are opportunities in farming here, and in exports overseas.
Julian Sturdy
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman; he makes the point very well. As we move forward with Brexit, now is the time to push the boundaries and take agriculture to new levels. To do that, however, we will need the skills base for the future, and we have to enthuse young people. A GCSE in agriculture gives us a real opportunity to do that.
Sadly, there is plenty of evidence that young people do not consider agriculture as a potential career path at the moment, which is unfortunate considering its vital role in the UK economy, and in addressing the huge global challenges of world hunger, food security and environmental conservation. Only 4% of UK workers would ever consider farm work or going into agriculture. Statistics show that about 20,000 students opt to study agriculture at university each year. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) said, that is a growing number, which is very encouraging. However, some 280,000 school leavers sign up for business-related degrees. Introducing agriculture as an option early on, at GCSE level, would give young people a chance to understand the huge opportunities that the sector offers them, and would do something to correct the imbalance.
The comparison with business studies in those statistics, along with Adam Henson’s comments that I quoted earlier, are important because it is essential that we remember that farming is a business, and therefore offers exactly the same opportunity for entrepreneurship and innovation as urban enterprises, as well as addressing huge environmental and humanitarian concerns. Moreover, it is a business sector that will be at the forefront of unfolding technological developments and exciting scientific advancements. A GCSE option would be a useful way of alerting school pupils and school leavers to those opportunities.
Agriculture is being, and will be, transformed by the fourth industrial revolution, and it is important to alert pupils and parents to the option of pursuing a career in a high-tech, high-skill industry, utilising the latest scientific innovations. School leavers entering the farming sector in the next few years could expect to use GPS technology to harvest wheat, to use driverless tractors, to use drones to deliver herbicides to weeds on a precision basis, to grow wheat with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and to use other new technologies that will drive up animal welfare, such as robotic milking parlours. The industry needs entrants with sound scientific understanding and applied skills.
In the next few decades, robotics, biotechnology, gene editing and data science will become increasingly established in the farming sector. Our country is home to some of the best agri-science research in the world, such as at Rothamstead Research in Herefordshire—
Julian Sturdy
Sorry, Hertfordshire—once again, I thank my hon. Friend for giving the correct details. Other examples include Fera Science, just outside my constituency in North Yorkshire, and Stockbridge Technology Centre in North Yorkshire. We should be trying to fire the imaginations of our young people by engaging them in the classroom with such examples as soon as possible, just as we try to inspire pupils with the achievements of British scientists and astronauts and the richness of British cultural and literary achievements in their science and English GCSE courses. The development of indoor vertical farming using hydroponics will also expand the opportunities for growing food in urban areas, which could make agricultural knowledge just as relevant to pupils in urban areas as in rural ones.
An agriculture GCSE would also encourage school- children to grapple in a practical manner with the huge practical, humanitarian and environmental challenge of global food security. The growth of the global population means that, as a world, we have to produce 70% more food over the next 30 years to keep pace with demand, and to ensure that people do not go hungry. Moreover, we have to do so in an environmentally sustainable way that makes the best use of our finite resources.
The challenge is as significant in its own way as that of climate change, and I argue that, like climate change, it should be included in school curricula. Putting an agriculture GCSE on the curriculum would also widen opportunities for students, by giving them the option to learn about a sector that relatively few of them will have knowledge of, or have considered as a career choice. The majority of farms are family businesses, mine being no exception, and the routes to getting involved if someone is not directly from a farming background can, sadly, be quite limited. That is to the detriment of both the sector and school leavers, who are restricted in their ability to get a taste of a sector in which they could well thrive.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, I was pleased to host the UK and Ireland delegates to the global agricultural summit here in Parliament last November. All the current entrants were university students. I was hugely impressed by their knowledge, their enthusiasm for the latest advances in agriculture and their desire to contribute solutions. However, what was most telling was that not a single one of them had a family background in farming. They had all been drawn to the sector by developing their own independent interest and research into agricultural questions. That certainly emphasised to me the capacity of agriculture to challenge and inspire young people, but I would also highlight that it is relatively rare for children to become independently interested in it, which reinforces the value of having the option at school so that they can make informed choices on the basis of a comprehensive array of available options.
As well as being of benefit to younger people, having an expanded pool of educated and enthusiastic young people would also be very useful for the sector and the wider UK food and drink industry. As has already been mentioned, the age of the farming workforce is ever increasing. Farming is challenging and changing. In the race to keep up with the pace, we need a high-skilled workforce entering the industry with applied capabilities and an awareness of the breadth of available opportunities. I commend the Government for pushing ahead with a substantial reform to post-16 education, but its effectiveness could be limited if measures are not introduced to expand the opportunities in secondary education to include a GCSE in agriculture.
I ask the Minister to look closely at this issue going forward. There is a great opportunity for our economy, as well as an opportunity to give young people the skills in what is, to me, an incredibly vibrant and exciting sector.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. He spoke passionately and emphasised the need for people—not just young people—to know about careers in all aspects of farming. He also mentioned agri-tech. In my role as Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, I have met a number of people in that sector about the opportunities. My hon. Friend and I have spoken at length before about grazing horses. This is a new subject for us to discuss, and I heard everything he had to say.
I am mindful that with apprenticeships and T-levels there is a tendency for the focus to be urban-based and for rural areas to be forgotten. I assure my hon. Friend, as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) —who has now left—my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for Angus (Kirstene Hair) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), that I will not forget that, because it is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer raised the issue of food production across the world and the international aspects of farming, which is equally important. It is also important that the sector gets the workforce it needs. He will be aware that a number of subjects taught at key stage 4 and earlier include some core knowledge about food production and the environment. Those have been recognised in the changes that have come about to GCSEs. There have also been a number of changes to GCSEs that make the content more rigorous. Whatever someone does after 16, it is critical to have a good foundation in maths, English and digital skills. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of understanding that farming is a business. Business skills are important, and such skills are predicated on a solid grounding.
In geography, for instance, pupils are expected to learn about changing weather, climate change, global ecosystems, biodiversity and resources, including an overview of how humans use, modify and change those ecosystems and environments in order to obtain food, energy and water. In the nutrition GCSE, pupils are required to understand the economic, environmental and socio-cultural influences on food availability. That is quite important. There is also content in some of the science GCSEs. I suspect that that will not be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, or indeed my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke with his usual passion, but material in the core reformed subjects provides a general background, which forms an important grounding in some of the knowledge needed to go on and run a business.
Schools can also do outdoor learning and there is a certain amount of freedom, which many schools use. I gather that there are more than 100 schools with farms in the UK, a fact I was not aware of. They bring pupils from both rural and urban areas to understand a little bit more about farming. Also, there is a City & Guilds technical certificate in agriculture for 16 to 18-year-olds, so some opportunities do exist. In addition, apprenticeships and T-levels—technical education that will be on a par with A-levels—will change the world. To some extent, it is in the hands of hon. Members to go out into their schools to highlight the opportunities that exist.
The first teaching of T-levels will start in September 2020, with the remainder launched in two phases in 2021 and 2022. The agriculture, environment and animal care route will be rolled out in the second phase, which gives it a degree of importance not afforded to all. The content of the T-levels will be decided by employers, professionals and practitioners, which will mean they have real market relevance and real currency within the sector. We are currently consulting on T-levels and I am sure the farming sector and the broader agri-tech sector will have input.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer is right that early introduction to the issues is important. I launched our careers strategy in December last year. The strategy recognises that young people’s interaction with work is absolutely critical—not just doing work placements, but employers coming into schools. There are now duties on schools to bring people in and there are clear benchmarks about what they have to achieve in terms of introducing young people to the wide range of careers and the routes to getting there. Entrepreneurial, talented new entrants are needed to encourage the next generation of farmers.
There has been wide-scale reform of apprenticeships. There will be some farmers who pay levies, but there are opportunities even for small and medium-sized enterprises. Apprenticeship standards for land-based service engineer and land-based service engineer technician are already live and a number of standards are in development, including crop technician, farrier, poultry technician and stockperson. The Institute for Apprenticeships is working with employers to ensure that quality standards are high. I recently met some students in a school for young people with special needs. I was very impressed with the work that they are doing to encourage those children, who are going on to do level 2 apprenticeships in agriculture, farming and animal care. It is very impressive.
We want to make sure that the sector has the right skills, but what is absolutely critical is overcoming a not insignificant degree of parental and teacher prejudice about the options that are open for young people. It has been a pleasure to have this debate. I am sorry I did not have longer, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am on the case. It is very important that the tendency with these changes for an urban focus is spread out into rural communities. National Apprenticeship Week is coming up. He will have the opportunity—
Bill Wiggin
It is critical that we have an academic qualification for people in urban areas in this subject, rather than making them do apprenticeships that they cannot reach because they live in the towns.
Anne Milton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because it is also about attracting people back into the countryside. One of the issues for rural communities is that people leave and go elsewhere. There are high-level qualifications too—it is not just about levels 2 and 3; it is about levels 4 and 5. The degree opportunities were mentioned, and degree apprenticeships are really taking off. There is not much not to like—
Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention
(6 years, 10 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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
The debate is highly over-subscribed, so I will impose a time limit when Sarah Champion sits down. If hon. Members intervene on her—she says she is willing to take interventions—they will go down the order of speakers, because it looks like, even with a time limit, there will not be sufficient time to call everybody who has requested to speak.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered military detention of Palestinian children by Israeli Authorities.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this very important debate, Mr Stringer. I strongly welcome the fact that the Government addressed the issue of Palestinian child detainees during the third universal periodical review of Israel at the UN Human Rights Council two weeks ago. They recommended that Israel take
“action to protect child detainees, ensuring the mandatory use of audio-visual recording in interrogations with all child detainees, ending the use of painful restraints, and consistently fully informing detainees of their legal rights.”
That important statement signals a positive intent to engage constructively with this issue.
I called this debate in the same spirit: I want to support and encourage Israel to meet its international obligations regarding the rights of children. It meets them fully for Israeli citizens but, alas, does not do so for Palestinian children. To be clear, I am not making a judgment about the crimes Palestinian children are alleged to have committed or about Israel’s right to uphold the law. This debate is specifically focused on Palestinian children in military detention.
Two years ago, I secured a similar debate. I would love to tell the House that many of the issues discussed then have now been addressed, but sadly the situation remains largely the same. In March 2013, UNICEF published a report entitled “Children in Israeli Military Detention: Observations and Recommendations”, which concluded that
“the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing.”
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is there any evidence that the Israeli Government have taken any notice of the British Government’s request?
Sarah Champion
There is some evidence. I will come on to the recommendation that the Government made when the UK sent over some lawyers a number of years ago. I am grateful that the Minister is engaged in dialogue at the moment, and I hope he will update us on the current situation.
Last year, the authoritative west bank non-governmental organisation Military Court Watch found that, four years after the publication of the UNICEF report, only one of its 88 recommendations—No. 21, on access by lawyers to medical records—had been substantially implemented.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Military Court Watch reported that 79% of children detained in 2017 signed a confession or a statement in Hebrew. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the majority of those children would not have had a guardian or responsible adult with them, and that they probably would not have understood the language they were committing to?
Sarah Champion
I share my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will address that point. Arabic is an official language in the state of Israel, so why are the documents presented to children in Hebrew? I will let my hon. Friend draw conclusions.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Before the hon. Lady leaves Military Court Watch, will she give way?
Sarah Champion
That was quite a rude interruption. Please go ahead, though.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What evidence is there that NGOs such as Military Court Watch and other Israeli NGOs that perform this valuable function have themselves been subject to a measure of harassment at an official level?
Sarah Champion
I am afraid I cannot answer that, because I do not know the data. I hope that any organisation that is trying to speak on the basis of facts does not suffer harassment, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows, too often, when we put our head above the parapet, it gets shot off multiple times.
A year before the UNICEF report, a group of senior UK lawyers published an independent study entitled “Children in Military Custody”. Published in 2012 and funded by the Government, it found that Israel was in breach of at least eight of its international legal obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child and the fourth Geneva convention, due to its treatment of Palestinian children held in military detention.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. As she knows, Palestinian children as young as 12 are routinely taken from their homes in night-time raids, blindfolded, bound, shackled, interrogated without a lawyer or parent present and with no audio-visual recordings, put into solitary confinement and forced to sign confessions. These are children we are talking about. What part of that is not plainly and simply wrong?
Sarah Champion
It is hard to argue with my hon. Friend’s passionate intervention.
The UK report set out 40 recommendations on arrest, interrogation, bail hearings, plea bargaining, trials, sentencing, detention, complaints and monitoring. Military Court Watch stated last year that only one of the UK report’s recommendations—No. 33, on the separation of children from adults in detention—had been substantially implemented. The empirical evidence is clear: half a decade after the publication of the UNICEF and UK lawyers’ reports, which contained dozens of recommendations to bring Israel’s military system of detention of Palestinian children in line with basic international legal standards, there has been limited implementation by the authorities.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to take this opportunity to explain to the House why Israel uses military courts.
Sarah Champion
I can do, but that is quite a big topic. Because of the, in my opinion, illegal occupation, people have to go through a military system, rather than a civilian system. The unfortunate thing is that that is applied to the Palestinians, who rarely have parity with the Israelis.
Although I praise the Israeli Government for allowing the studies to go ahead, it is disappointing that that leading international democracy has largely not acted on the recommendations, which were made in good faith. I now turn to the specific areas I would like the Minister to focus on.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I was last in the west bank in November—I have declared that in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and I visited a family whose young son had been seized in the middle of the night and detained. He was in administrative detention. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in one respect, things have got worse since our last debate, because Israel has started using administrative detention—detention without charge for unlimited periods? That must be wrong on any basis.
Sarah Champion
Yes. That technique is not used often, but it is used. It allows the child to be held in detention without any charges being brought against them, and without their having the right to respond to the charges.
The prevalent practice of night-time raids by Israeli military personnel causes a huge amount of distress to children and their families. Inevitably, night raids on civilian population areas by any military tend to terrify those communities. After 50 years of use, they can become hugely debilitating. Although conducting night arrest operations reduces the potential for clashes with local residents, the practice cannot be said to be in the best interests of the child—a primary consideration under the UN convention on the rights of the child.
The UK report recommended:
“Arrests of children should not be carried out at night save for in extreme and unusual circumstances. A pilot study of issuing summonses as an alternative means of arrest should be carried out.”
UNICEF made similar recommendations. Following those recommendations, it was most welcome that Israel announced the introduction of a pilot scheme in February 2014, whereby summonses would be issued requiring attendance at police stations for questioning, in lieu of arresting a child at night. That was to be similar to the practice for Israeli children. Military Court Watch reports, however, that the use of summonses in lieu of night arrest has been very low. It found that 6% of the children affected in 2017 reported being served with a summons as an alternative to a night arrest; in 2016 the figure was just 2%.
Even in cases in which summonses are used, Military Court Watch identified a number of issues: in most cases, the summonses were delivered by the military after midnight; relevant parts of the summonses were frequently handwritten in Hebrew without Arabic translation; relevant information, such as the nature of the accusation, was missing; and no reference to the child’s legal rights was included in any of the summonses. Military Court Watch further reports that, in the 80 cases it documented in 2017, 65% of children still reported being arrested at night, in what are frequently described as terrifying raids undertaken by the military.
There is some good news, but overall, since the summons scheme has been in operation, it has been apparent that, first, it is infrequently utilised and, secondly, arrests in terrifying night raids continue to be the norm. Furthermore, the indications—yet to be confirmed—are that the pilot scheme may now have been discontinued altogether. Will the Minister therefore please request from his Israeli counterparts confirmation as to whether the pilot scheme is still operational? Will he also request data on the use of summonses since the pilot scheme was announced in 2014, and will he urge that children should not be arrested at night except in extreme and unusual circumstances?
Next I would like to speak about the right to silence. As we all know, the right to silence is an ancient and fundamental legal right, granting protection against self-incrimination. Significantly, that right is also enshrined in Israeli military law. When implemented properly, it provides vulnerable children with some protection against undue pressure during interrogations, which may lead to false confessions. Military Court Watch notes that 84% of children continue to report not being informed of their right to silence. It further notes that in the 16% of cases in which
“children were informed of this right, the manner and circumstances in which the information was conveyed raises serious questions as to whether the notification is sufficient.”
Another fundamental legal right is timely access to legal representation. International legal standards provide that interrogations should take place in the presence of a lawyer to protect against self-incrimination and to provide safeguards against potential ill-treatment or coercion. Israel’s highest court has confirmed the fundamental nature of the right to consult with a lawyer during the interrogation stage of an investigation.
In the 2015 update to its report, UNICEF noted that Israel’s military prosecutor highlighted that Israeli military order 1651, issued in 2009, provides a detainee with the right to meet and consult with a lawyer. Although military law is silent on when such a consultation should take place, it is accepted that it must occur before questioning, subject to limited security exceptions. As in many situations, however, there is a large gap between the law and what happens in practice.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend condemn the dangerous and short-sighted rhetoric of the President of the United States at the recent Davos conference, when he threatened to cut off Palestinian aid? Does she agree that, should that happen, the UK must ramp up its financial aid to Palestine so that Palestinians, especially children, do not pay for Trump’s fanatical world view?
Sarah Champion
I agree with my hon. Friend. As with the debate today, I think we forget that we put such statements on the public record, and they can have a direct and immediate effect. We hope that today’s speeches have a positive one, but in the case of Donald Trump, I can only say that he has had a very negative impact on the relations between the two countries.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
On legal representation, this geographical area has two separate sets of rules applied to it. Under the civilian code that applies for Israeli children, there is a requirement for a parent to be in attendance during interrogation, and an undertaking that interrogations not occur at night, but the same is not reflected in the military rules. Is it not a great shame that those rules could not be matched up?
Sarah Champion
I agree with my hon. Friend. There are many, many examples in which there is no parity. That is one of the things that I urge the Israeli Government to look at, because it is blatant discrimination and is not necessary.
Military Court Watch reports that, in the 80 testimonies it collected in 2017, 81% of the children reported not having access to a lawyer before interrogation. As a result, most children still consult a lawyer for the first time in a military court, after the critical interrogation phase is over. Given that context, the UK legal charity Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights has implemented a Know Your Rights campaign in partnership with Defence for Children International-Palestine to empower and educate Palestinian children in the occupied west bank to secure their basic rights if detained in Israel’s military detention system.
The campaign started in 2014 and is ongoing, due to the Israeli authorities’ continuing non-implementation of basic human rights and due process safeguards. I therefore ask the Minister to engage with the Israeli authorities to ensure, as a bare minimum, that: first, all children are, at the time of arrest, informed in their own language of their right to silence, and relevant documents are provided to them in that language; secondly, all children are able to consult a lawyer of their choice before their interrogation and, preferably, also during interrogation; and, thirdly, in order to ensure compliance, a breach of those principles results in the discontinuance of the prosecution and the child’s immediate release. I further ask the Minister to urge the Israeli authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) suggested, to allow a parent or guardian to accompany the child during questioning—a right afforded to Israeli children when questioned by the Israeli police.
Audio-visual recording of interrogations is a practical safeguard. The UNICEF and UK reports recommended audio-visual recordings of all interrogations of children. Such recordings provide an essential further safeguard against potential ill-treatment or coercion; they also provide protection to interrogators against false allegations of wrongdoing. One would assume that that would be a win, win outcome. Perhaps in response to the recommendations, the military authorities issued military order 1745 in September 2014, requiring the audio-visual recording of all interrogations of minors in the west bank. However, the order limited that protection to non-security offences, thereby rendering it largely redundant, as most offences involving Palestinian children, including stone throwing and protesting, are classified as security offences. I ask the Minister to urge the Israeli authorities to remove the security offence exception from the military order providing for audio-visual recording of detainees and to ensure that all interrogations of children are audio-visually recorded and the tapes made available to the child’s lawyer before the first hearing.
I will now say something about the prevalence of confessional evidence in the military court system, and the process by which those confessions are obtained. It is extraordinary and disconcerting that Israel’s military court system has a conviction rate of 95%, according to its own figures. Confessional evidence is central to securing convictions in that system, whether direct confessions or confessions by others. Effective scrutiny of those confessions is virtually impossible, due to the lack of basic legal safeguards to which I have already referred. There is compelling evidence that the lack of legal protections for Palestinian children is destructive of their safety and welfare. An expert psychiatric opinion from Dr Carmon, commissioned by Physicians for Human Rights Israel, considered the emotional and developmental factors that lead children to make false confessions during interrogations. The implications of such confessions should be understood by all of us. Dr Carmon says:
“The violent arrest process and psychological interrogation methods mentioned…lead to the breaking of the ability of the child or adolescent to withstand the interrogation and flagrantly violate his or her rights. These interrogation methods, when applied to children and adolescents, are equivalent to torture.”
Sarah Champion
Let me finish the quotation first—it might answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
“These methods deeply undermine the dignity and personality of the child or adolescent, and inflict pain and severe mental suffering. Uncertainty and helplessness are situations that can too easily lead a child or adolescent to provide the requested confession out of impulsiveness, fear or submission. It is a decision that is far from free and rational choice...These detention and interrogation methods ultimately create a system that breaks down, exhausts and permeates the personality of the child or adolescent and robs him or her of hope. These methods are particularly harmful to children and adolescents who live in poor, isolated populations, in a state of conflict, political tension, and/or severe social stress, such as the occupied Palestinian population. The harmful effects on children can also harm the society to which they belong.
Every child has the right to be a child, to his or her dignity, and to protection from all forms of violence.”
Sir Desmond Swayne
A retired Israeli soldier told me that the explicit instructions for night operations were to carry them out in such a brutal manner as to achieve exactly the effect that the hon. Lady refers to.
Sarah Champion
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman of making that point. I too have spoken to retired Israeli soldiers and have, sadly, heard similar tales.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I have witnessed the military courts in process. At the end of November 2017, 313 Palestinian minors were being held, so given the scale of the problem, not addressing it is likely to have longer term consequences for getting a proper and peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister gave an update on commitments the Israeli Government have made?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will remember that a year ago she and I both served on a delegation with Members from both sides of the House. She is quoting some horrific statistics and powerful testimony, but does she not agree that the terror experienced in military court by the kids who threw stones is often more powerful than the statistics in isolation? Sometimes people cannot get a grip on them. This debate should not be about the wider geo-political situation, but the wellbeing of children.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. That is what I want to focus on: we are talking about children. Regardless of the crime that they have or have not committed, they should still be treated with dignity and within the constraints of the law.
The arrest process and interrogation methods referred to by Dr Carmon were described in great detail in the UK and the UNICEF reports. It is deeply disturbing that two years after the release of the UNICEF report that concluded that ill treatment appears to be “widespread, systematic and institutionalised”, the UN agency issued an update that found
“reports of alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer, interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014.”
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In the light of what she says, would it not be appropriate for our Government to demand an independent inquiry from the Israeli Government into what is going on? That would help everyone.
Sarah Champion
The reality is that we are not in a position to demand. The purpose of this debate is to reach out a hand of friendship and to offer the skills and expertise that we have in this country on this topic, to work in partnership with Israel.
Although UNICEF is yet to release any further updates, reports issued by the US State Department, Military Court Watch and others indicate that the situation today remains substantially unchanged. It is worth recalling that the UK report noted that if the process of arrest and interrogation is occurring to a significant extent as described, Israel would be in breach of the absolute prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
As a bare minimum of protection, I urge the Minister to make representations to ensure that no child is subjected to physical or psychological violence, no child is blindfolded or painfully restrained, and no child is subject to coercive forces and threats. Any statement made as a result of torture or ill treatment must be excluded from evidence in proceedings. I ask the Minister to make inquiries to UNICEF about when the agency will release its next update, and to commend it on the important work it has done.
Two years ago, in a debate on the same subject, I referred to Israel’s policy of transferring Palestinian detainees—adults and children—from the west bank to prisons located in Israel, in violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention. International law classes this activity as a war crime. In UK domestic law, the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001 class this activity as a war crime. The latest data released by the Israeli prison service indicates that in 2017, 83% of adult detainees and 61% of child detainees were transferred and detained unlawfully. This practice affects approximately 7,000 individuals each year and it has continued for 50 years. Strikingly, however, Israeli military authorities informed UNICEF in late 2014 that they have no intention of changing this policy.
That rejection undermines the credibility of the international legal order, and therefore harms the security of us all. I have been to Ofer military court and spoken to parents. Because of the restrictions on movement and the requirement of permits to visit their children in Israel, some parents never get to see their children in prison. The unlawful transfer and detention of children in Israel is not just a legal issue but one of basic humanity. Has the Minister or anyone in his Department had any conversations that would shed light on Israel’s decision to explicitly reject the specific UNICEF recommendation? What further steps does he intend to take to encourage Israel to meet its international legal obligations on the transfer of prisoners out of occupied territory? Can the Minister ascertain how many UK citizens are currently involved, directly or indirectly, with the unlawful transfer and detention of Palestinian prisoners outside the occupied territory? What measures will he take in respect of those individuals in accordance with the law?
By now I am sure everyone is aware of the case of Ahed Tamimi, a now 17-year-old girl from the west bank village of Nabi Saleh. In December, she was arrested in the middle of the night after being filmed confronting and slapping Israeli soldiers in her village following the shooting of her 14-year-old cousin. Like all Palestinian female prisoners, Ahed has been transferred to a prison in Israel. The case is polarising: on the one hand, there are those calling for her immediate release; on the other, Israel’s minister for education calls for the military courts to impose a life sentence.
It is important that we all recall that Ahed is just one of more than 800 children arrested each year, according to the most recent data released by the military authorities. Most of these children are arrested in the middle of the night, frequently brutalised and systematically denied their legal rights. We need these children and their parents to have faith and confidence in a political solution and in due regard for the law. History has taught us that if politics and the law fail to meet the needs of the people, people turn to other solutions. The treatment of Palestinian children during arrest and detention is an issue that has been allowed to fester for too long and needs resolving. It concerns us all, because when Israel—our friend and a democratic state—breaks international law and obligations, it makes it that much harder to enforce them in respect of other countries around the world. Israel’s decisions have a global impact.
Two years have elapsed since the Minister’s predecessor explained to me and other MPs in this Chamber that the Government would fund the UK lawyers’ return to Israel to review progress on the implementation of their report recommendations. Allowing the UK lawyers to enter into constructive technical dialogue with their Israeli counterparts, where they can share the UK’s good practice, should expedite the implementation of the practical reforms that are urgently required to protect Palestinian children.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech about a lot of very complex issues. Before she sits down, will she tell us what role she envisages for non-governmental organisations and human rights organisations in some of the discussions that she thinks the Government could have with the Israeli authorities? She has talked a lot about the research they have done, but does she see a role for our human rights organisations in practical matters such as prison visits?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I have worked, as I am sure have many people in the House, with both Israeli and Palestinian organisations and international ones. They are trying to stabilise the situation and to help people come up with a practical solution that meets the needs of children and the broader needs in both countries.
I have asked many specific questions of the Minister. I know that a lot of people want to speak, so I understand that he may not be able to answer all my concerns here and now, but I would be most grateful if he wrote to me with his thoughts about those things.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to impose a three-minute time limit. The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), has kindly offered to give up three or four minutes of his time, so I will call him at about 3.34 pm.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let be start by giving some background. In 2011, in the face of riots, more than 3,000 arrests were made and more than 1,000 people were issued with criminal charges. Around half were under 21, and 26% were juveniles aged between 10 and 17. Some 21% were arrested for bottle or stone throwing. One hundred and fifty-eight male youths aged 16 or under were given custodial sentences. That is not a description of Israel; it is a description of the UK following the 2011 riots. Why has there been no Westminster Hall debate on the treatment of minors by the Palestinian authorities, the allegations of rape in Egyptian custody or the death sentences imposed on minors in Saudi Arabia?
John Howell
No, I will not.
The singling out of Israel ignores the fact that Israel faces extensive acts of terror on its territory. It ignores the fact that Israel has established military juvenile courts, shortened the period of initial remand, stressed the rights of minors, raised the age of minority to 18, enacted a statute of limitations for the prosecution of minors, given parents legal standing and strengthened legal representation for minors. It also ignores the co-operation of Israel in the light of the 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office-funded report. The British embassy in Israel said:
“We welcome Israel’s focus on the particular needs of this more vulnerable category of detainees”.
As far as I am aware, the pilot programme in the west bank to issue summons, easing the need to arrest at night, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred, continues. If Israel were to use civil courts instead of a military one, it would be accused of simply annexing the west bank.
Nevertheless, we must recognise that 30% of attackers against Israel—fuelled by intimidation that denies Israel the right to exist and glorifies terrorists and Nazi sympathisers—have been Palestinian minors under the age of 18. The majority were between 16 and 18. The youngest was an 11-year-old, who said after being arrested for stabbing an Israeli that he wanted to die a martyr.
Just over 300 minors are in custody after 400 violent, ideological terror attacks. That is not to be deprecated. The effect on wider civil disorder can be seen from the attack in Jerusalem on a 70-year-old Palestinian man who was mistaken for an Israeli. The use of minors in this way, driven by hate and incitement, is nothing more than the abuse of children.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give a full and clear indication of his interest?
John Howell
I referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which contains the fact that I went on a trip to the area.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate and on the comprehensive way in which she introduced it. I also commend the Minister and the Government for the leadership that they showed on this issue during Israel’s third universal periodic review at the UN Human Rights Council.
A range of bodies have made a number of core recommendations in the past six years that are relevant to the issue of military detention. The Foreign Office-commissioned “Children in Military Custody” report published in 2012 found that Israel was in breach of at least eight articles of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. In 2013, as my hon. Friend said, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern in a report that recommendations it made in 2002 and 2010 had been fully disregarded, and UNICEF published a report with 14 core recommendations, again reflecting concerns that had been raised time and again.
The Minister will know that the vast majority of those recommendations, the recommendations made in a debate in this place seven years ago and the recommendations made in the debate that my hon. Friend led just over two years ago remain unfulfilled. He will also know that in February 2016, a follow-up mission by UK lawyers to investigate the situation was cancelled because the Israeli authorities withdrew co-operation.
I know that the Minister cannot magically fix the world’s problems, even though I am sure he would like to try, but I ask him to do two specific things as a result of this debate. First, will he push for a thorough review of the implementation of the recommendations of the 2012 report commissioned by his Department, which should include seeking from Israel an assurance that it will facilitate a return mission so that those independent lawyers can assess whether, and if so how, things have changed since their first report and what will happen in the future? Secondly, will he follow through on the Government’s approach to Israel’s third universal periodic review last month? I would appreciate it if, as part of that, the Minister outlined how he intends to follow up on the recommendations I mentioned. The Government were absolutely right to call for Israel to put right these problems. The question is what is done about them.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing the debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a trip that I took to the region in 2016.
I believe in human rights for all people around the world, and Palestinian children are no exception. Israeli authorities, be they military or civilian, have a duty to uphold those human rights and to ensure that their justice system is fair and proportionate. The UK Government were therefore right to raise concerns with the Israeli authorities, and we should continue to engage with Israel to improve its practices. As ever, the ultimate solution to these problems is a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and I welcome the fact that this Government continue to advocate for both sides to return to the negotiating table and resume peace talks.
However, we should be careful not to fall into the trap of accepting the simplistic narrative of anti-Israel propagandists. This complex issue cannot be solved with a round of Israel bashing. The Palestinian Authority rules over a society where it is easy for a child to be led into accepting terrorist ideology. The Palestinian Authority—not Hamas, but the so-called moderates in the Palestinian Authority—name schools after terrorists, give them honours and pay them monthly salaries. At the same time, they delegitimise the existence of the state of Israel and the Jewish presence in the region, and deny the Jewish connection to much of the region’s history.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ross Thomson
No, I only have three minutes.
Is it any surprise, then, that some young Palestinians are becoming so radicalised that they are willing to engage in or incite terror? Since 2015, dozens of terrorist stabbings have been perpetrated by Palestinians under the age of 17. If we criticise Israel, we must also criticise the Palestinian Authority, whose security forces’ record with children leaves a lot to be desired. In that region alone, we must also criticise Saudi Arabia for executing children, Iran for executing people who were arrested when they were children, and Egypt for—according to Human Rights Watch—allegedly torturing children.
Yes, let us call for Israel to improve its practices and uphold the human rights of Palestinian children, but let us also acknowledge the complexities that Israel faces. Let us stand up for the rights of children worldwide. Let us also call for the Palestinian Authority to stop honouring terrorists and build a society where children are less easily radicalised. When we act with respect and consistency, we may find we get better results.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in such an important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing it.
It is important that this debate is grounded in, and based on, human rights for children. The glaring gaps in basic human rights protection for Palestinian children held in Israel’s military detention system damages respect for the international rule of law and creates an environment that enables routine ill treatment and lack of justice. As we have already heard, the majority of children are taken from their homes in the occupied west bank during the middle of the night. Heavily armed soldiers take the children away and several hours later they turn up in detention or interrogation centres alone, sleep-deprived, bruised and scared.
Interrogations tend to be coercive and include verbal abuse, threats and physical violence that ultimately result in a confession. Even if we argue that 16 to 17-year-olds are not children, which is incorrect, we must accept that any form of human rights abuse is abhorrent and should not be condoned in any way. Most Palestinian minors arrested by Israel claim to have experienced physical violence during detention. Recently the Defence for Children International Palestine detailed the scale of incidents and the type of abuse experienced by the Palestinian children whom they managed to speak to during around 60 visits to Israeli prisons in 2017.
Some 75% of children were subject to physical abuse, 25% were denied adequate food and 100% were denied the right to have their families at their interrogation. That is not something new. According to the latest data provided by the Israeli prison service, at the end of November, 313 children—I am talking about children—were held in military detention. Data for December 2017 have not been provided, but I suspect there will be a bit of a spike following Mr Trump’s decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
As a grandma and a mum, it shocks and disturbs me that people, never mind children, are treated in such an appalling way. Colleagues need to ask themselves whether they think it is acceptable to label a child as a terrorist, and I urge the Minister to use all his powers—
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate on a very important issue about which hundreds of my constituents in Edinburgh South West write to me on a regular basis.
In October 2016, I visited the west bank on a cross-party parliamentary delegation with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Human Appeal. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard. I visited the military court at Ofer. As a lawyer of 25 years’ standing, I was not impressed with what I saw there, because of the lack of due process and the lack of respect for basic human rights norms.
To give one example, we observed the trial of a young Palestinian man for allegedly throwing stones at a settler car. The man’s interrogator, who the defendant claimed had assaulted him during interrogation, was in court as a witness, with his gun casually slung in the back pocket of his jeans. It was claimed that the interrogation was conducted in Arabic and that alongside the statement an audio recording was taken. However, the audio recording was nowhere to be found, and the level of the interrogator’s Arabic was revealed to be insufficient to be able to obtain and record a fair and accurate statement. The only transcript of the interview was in Hebrew. In a fair trial in a democracy that respects the rule of law, that case would have been thrown out. It was not, and that is the gravamen of the issue here.
The issue is not about military law, because sadly the west bank is under a hostile occupation, and occupations require military law—although they are meant to be temporary, and this one has lasted 50 years. However, having military courts is no excuse for disregarding the proper rules of justice and legal safeguards, particularly for children, but also for adults. There should be proper accounting for the physical and mental maturity of the detainees and an awareness of the long-term consequences of actions on children. That is not the case for Palestinian children in Israel’s judicial system under military law in the west bank, and something needs to be done about it. I have been an MP for less than three years, and I remember when the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), whom I congratulate, secured a debate on this issue two years ago and we seem to be absolutely no further forward.
I know the Minister is an honourable man and that he takes his duties very seriously, particularly in this area. I am not speaking as a result of what I witnessed, but on behalf of hundreds of constituents who write to me about this matter regularly and feel passionately about it because they believe in human rights, due process and the rule of law. I look forward to hearing what the Minister is going to do about it.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), whom I know well and like a lot. The way in which she presented the debate this afternoon was in many ways consensual. She acknowledged there had been changes in Israel. However, I would take her to task on some of the things she did not say. The frustrating thing about debates on this subject is that they become divisive—you either believe in human rights or you don’t. On this particular issue, we have to understand not only what is happening on the ground, but the context in which Israel operates the military courts.
As the hon. Lady said, there have been some changes, such as establishing the juvenile military courts and piloting a programme of issuing summonses to minors instead of arresting them in their homes. Those are things we should encourage. I know the Minister will seek to encourage such things, but we should also understand that those are not simple things to implement in a hothouse part of the world.
Many people raise the issues that have been roundly denied and debunked, such as the issue of statements being made only in Hebrew, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). There have been plenty of examples of the improper conduct of investigations resulting in cases being thrown out, and any claim that a confession has been gained incorrectly results in an independent review, which is exactly as the process should be.
I do not have long to speak, so I will talk about context. There are a couple of things that the hon. Lady did not talk about. My hon. Friends the Members for Henley and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) mentioned earlier how children and juveniles are being used in the conflict. If it were in any other part of the world, we would call some of those people child soldiers and we would be concerned about how they were being wound up and forced towards violent behaviour.
Andrew Percy
No. I do not have time.
We must tackle the issue of Palestinian incitement as part of the debate, and the same goes for the lack of engagement from the west bank authorities for non-custodial sentences. We should also talk in these debates about what we can do as parliamentarians. I am proud to take a pro-Israel position. I am not anti-Palestinian—I consider myself to be pro-both—but those of us who take a more nuanced view on Israel should also talk about what we can do as parliamentarians, using our aid budget and all the rest of it, to bring people together, because that is the best way to bring an end to the conflict. I used to be a teacher and I know young people are quite positive and open-minded. Yes, there are concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, but things have happened, and we also have to remember the difficult context in which Israel is operating.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The detention and trial of a child is a tragedy whenever it occurs. However, I am concerned that this debate is symptomatic of the disproportionate and unfair focus on Israel that is all too prevalent in the media, international institutions and this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said—I congratulate her on obtaining the debate—this is the second debate in two years. However, we have not debated the fate, for instance, of child prisoners in Iran, where Amnesty International estimates there are at least 80 individuals on death row for crimes allegedly committed when they were under 18, or indeed the fate of others in Egypt, the Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Yemen, which have all sentenced juvenile offenders to death since 2010. Israel is, of course, a liberal democracy, and should be held to a higher standard than the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. We have also never discussed the fate of the 60,000 children locked up in juvenile detention facilities in the United States—many for truanting, under-age drinking or consensual sexual conduct—or the fact that, adjusted for size of population, 5.5 times more minors were arrested in 2015-16 in England and Wales than in the west bank by Israel.
None of that is to suggest that the plight of Palestinian children in the tragic conflict there is not important, but we must make clear our deep and continuing concern at the Palestinian Authority’s policy of inciting violence —a policy intentionally aimed at children and young people.
Joan Ryan
I will not.
We see that policy in the naming of schools and sports tournaments after terrorists; in the newly revised curriculum, which asks students, as a maths exercise, to calculate the number of martyrs in Palestinian uprisings; and in the countless examples of anti-Semitism that litter children’s TV programmes on official Palestinian Authority TV.
Joan Ryan
I will not, at this point.
We must register our deep and continuing concern at the Palestinian leadership’s attempt to recruit children into committing acts of violence. In December Fatah posted a photograph to its Twitter account of a young boy hurling rocks with a slingshot, together with a guide to how best to throw a rock. Let us remember that Yehuda Haim Shoham, one year-old Jonathan Palmer and three-year-old Adele Biton were all killed as a result of stones being thrown at cars they were travelling in.
Finally, it is important that we show our deep and continuing concern at the recruitment of children into Palestinian armed groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. As Child Soldiers International has stated:
“Children received military training and are used as messengers and couriers, and in some cases as fighters and suicide bombers.”
If we do not acknowledge and address those very serious issues, we run the risk of this debate being seen less as a matter of the welfare of Palestinian children and more as simply another opportunity to attack Israel.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is important to provide some context to the issue. Many things have been raised this afternoon, but I shall concentrate on just one. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) raised the case of 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi. We all know what has happened to her now that she has been imprisoned, but I wonder whether hon. Members know what she said on Facebook straight after slapping an Israeli soldier. Out of earshot of the soldier, Ahed turned to the camera and said in Arabic:
“I wish that everybody all over the world would unite, so we can liberate Palestine...Be it stabbings, martyrdom-seeking operations, throwing stones, everyone must do his part and we must unite in order for our message to be heard that we want to liberate Palestine”.
I know what “martyrdom-seeking operations” means, and I am sure many other hon. Members do; that is why she was charged with inciting violence on social media.
Dr Offord
I will not, at the moment.
I hope that the Minister shares my concern at the fact that a key part of that sad incident has gone largely unreported, and that such sentiments are a product of the hate-filled rhetoric of the Palestinian Authority, rather than being those of a 16-year-old child.
Dr Offord
No, thank you.
Ahed was 16 when she was arrested—[Interruption.] It is quite sad that some hon. Members find this amusing. I certainly do not. She was 16 when she was arrested in December. As far as I am aware, it is official Labour party policy to extend the vote to everyone over 16. Do Opposition Members believe that 16-year-olds should be held accountable for their actions or not? Whether it is stone-throwing, incitement to hatred or martyrdom operations—those are terrorist acts.
Dr Offord
I will not give way.
Those are terrorist acts. There is a judiciary in Israel, and it is better for politicians in this country, and indeed in Israel, not to involve themselves in the judicial process. As has already been stated, there have been occasions when cases were thrown out because the evidence was not there. We must leave Israel to decide its own future, live in peace and security, and have its own laws of the land. We do not need hon. Members who are taking part in this debate to tell Israel how to live its life.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is timely that you have called me to speak now, Mr Stringer, because I too want to speak about the case of Ahed Tamimi. I met her in her home at Nabi Saleh in November, a few weeks before she was arrested. She is an ordinary teenager who has not been groomed as has been suggested by some speakers. [Interruption.]
Paul Blomfield
Perhaps hon. Members will hear me out. She is an ordinary teenager living in extraordinary circumstances, to which we need to pay some attention.
Nabi Saleh, an ancient village nestling among the citrus groves on the hillside north of Ramallah, dates back hundreds of years. It was recently joined by the illegal Israeli settlement of Halamish, which has taken much of its land. Someone standing in Nabi Saleh can look across the valley to Halamish on the neighbouring hilltop and begin to understand the sense of grievance. Halamish is well irrigated, with swimming pools and a proper water supply, which come at a cost to the people of Nabi Saleh, whose water has been rationed to a few hours a week. At the bottom of the valley is a spring, which has traditionally served Nabi Saleh, but which was requisitioned by the settlement. That has led to weekly protests by the villagers over the past four years.
Last December, during a protest, Ahed’s cousin Mohammed climbed a ladder to look over a wall. A soldier immediately took aim and a bullet passed through Mohammed’s head. When the same soldier turned up in the courtyard of her home on a night raid at 3.30 am on 19 December, Ahed and a cousin went out and shouted at them. The BBC broadcast a film of the incident last week on the main news. The soldier pushed her aside, and in retaliation Ahed slapped him. It was for that that she was arrested and charged with assault. She has been in jail ever since—for the past seven weeks. She was 16 at the time of her arrest. She marked her birthday in jail and is now 17. Yesterday the case was due in court. It was postponed again and will be heard next Tuesday, so now is the time to act.
I know that the Minister knows the Tamimi family and has, like me, visited Nabi Saleh, and shares many of my concerns. In answer to questions, he has said that the Government have made representations. I should like him to outline what action the Government will take in the next week and to demand Ahed’s release. [Interruption.]
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I ask those in the Public Gallery not to intervene either vocally or by applause.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The failure of Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a two-state solution to their conflict has resulted in a disturbing situation, including what we are discussing today; but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved only by direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians —not by the Palestinian Authority’s incitement of young people to hate and kill, as is happening on the west bank today. Such incitement is specifically in breach of the Geneva conventions.
We must remember that 75% of the offences committed by Palestinian minors are violent crimes, including murder, attempted murder, shooting, making and throwing Molotov cocktails, and attacking soldiers. Thirty per cent. of assailants in the terror attacks of 2016 were under 18 years old. The youngest was 11. For example, in June 2016, 13-year-old Hallel Ariel was stabbed to death by Nasser Tarayrah, a 17-year-old Palestinian, who climbed into her home and stabbed her repeatedly in a frenzied attack in front of her younger siblings.
Such violence has been encouraged by the Palestinian leadership, in direct contravention of the Geneva convention, which specifically prohibits the recruitment and involvement of children in terrorist activities. Fatah recently tweeted a practical guide to show young people how to throw rocks, which were euphemistically called “stones”. That has resulted in the murder of young people, including Yehuda Haim Shoham, aged five months. The Palestinian Authority incites hatred towards Jews and Israelis. In its October issue, the Palestinian youth magazine, Zayzafuna, claimed that Mohammed sanctified the throwing of rocks at Jews. Terrorists are glorified. A recent report by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education—IMPACT-se—shows schoolbooks that glorify violence and martyrdom. The Palestinian Authority’s rewritten 2017 curriculum teaches children about its support for people who carry out terrorist attacks. In May 2015, a PA TV programme, “The Best Home”, showed a girl who recited a poem that called Jews
“barbaric monkeys who murdered Allah’s pious prophets.”
If young people are continually told that murderous terrorists are heroes, it is not surprising that they try to emulate them. Nobody can be content with the current situation, and all individual allegations of any injustice must be investigated. However, the answer is to negotiate peace, not to glorify hatred and violence by telling young people and children that murdering Israelis is justified resistance.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing it.
At the end of November 2017, 313 Palestinian children were held in Israeli prisons, and three out of four of them will have experienced violence during their arrest. The majority of children will be arrested in the middle of the night, when heavily armed police break into their homes and drive them to a military detention centre where they will be interrogated. Many report being beaten and abused after their arrest and while in detention. Children are often interrogated without their parents or a lawyer present. Under military law children can be held in detention for 90 days without seeing a lawyer, and as of this year two children are held under administrative detention, which is indefinite imprisonment without trial. Currently, more than 180 children are held in detention without having been convicted. Under the occupation, children can be held for one and a half years before their case goes to trial.
There are two legal systems in the occupied territories. If an Israeli settler is arrested, they will be tried under Israeli civilian criminal law; if a Palestinian is arrested, they are tried in a separate military court. Access to justice is segregated. A child’s nationality and ethnicity determine the type of justice that they receive under Israel’s occupation. After sentencing, nearly 60% of Palestinian child detainees are transferred from the occupied territories to the prisons of Israel, in violation of the fourth Geneva convention. That means that most will be unable to receive family visits, due to the freedom of movement restrictions placed on Palestinians and the long time that it takes to issue a visiting permit.
Marsha De Cordova
I will not.
If, step by step, we go through the journey of a child living under military occupation and what they will endure—the physical violence, the fear, the complete interruption of their life, and the huge swathes of time spent in detention—one thing become clear: this system is designed to repress, crush and intimidate generation after generation of Palestinians.
The military detention of children is a legal issue, and Israel is in breach of international law—namely the UN convention on the rights of the child and the Geneva convention. There is, of course, a deeper problem, because such detention is part of the cycle of humiliation and violence that characterises the continued illegal occupation of Palestine. That is a disgrace and should be condemned.
Finally, I wish to show my solidarity with Ahed Tamimi. Yesterday we celebrated the brave women in the UK who fought for their rights, often suffering the brutalities of the police and state as a consequence. Ahed Tamimi carries that flame forward for all young children such as her across the world—solidarity.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate all Members who have contributed to the debate, and especially the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her powerful and detailed speech. I will leave the Minister as much time as possible to respond to her concerns.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, this issue is of huge concern to many of our constituents. We are dealing with basic questions about the rights of the child and the importance of the global conventions that govern them, as well as with specific questions about the role and actions of the Israeli Government.
The SNP condemns the arrest, detention and prosecution of Palestinian children by the Israeli Government, and we are deeply concerned about the increase in the number of children who have been detained as a result of the escalation of tensions in the territory. Estimates for the number of cases vary, but they are clearly into the hundreds, and the reports of people’s experiences—night arrests, strip searches, blindfolds—are extremely concerning, as are reports of children being denied access to due legal process and lawyers. As the hon. Member for Rotherham said when opening this debate, such treatment is unacceptable on a basic human level, even before considering conventions and international human rights obligations.
Patrick Grady
I am not giving way.
Israel has ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child and the optional protocol on children and armed conflict, but it has been slow to incorporate the principles and provisions of the convention into its domestic legal system. In 2013, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child was clear that Israeli actions constituted
“violations of the rights of Palestinian children and their families, feed the cycle of humiliation and violence and jeopardise a peaceful and stable future for all children of the region.”
Constituents have raised with me the specific case of Ahed Tamimi, and the hon. Members for Rotherham, for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) all spoke about that case in different ways. In some ways that shows why this case has become symbolic—perhaps even metaphoric—for the broader conflict. It involves well-resourced, heavily armed and armoured soldiers on one hand, and, on the other hand a young, unarmed girl who is causing a bit of a nuisance and slapping those soldiers about. That has ended in her arrest, and the polarised views that that has caused. I agree that violence never solves anything, but a relatively minor incident has spiralled into something much bigger and triggered many further consequences and polarised perspectives.
Amnesty International, and others, are clear that the treatment of Ahed does not respect her human rights or fulfil Israel’s obligations under the UNCRC. Indeed, Amnesty says that nothing she has done can justify her continued detention, and it has called for her immediate release. It is clear from my mailbag, and from Members who have spoken in this debate, that the public want action from the UK Government, and for them to use their influence to call for action by the Israeli Government. I know the Minister does his best, and we are not expecting him to resolve a conflict that has been going on for decades, but it is important that the Government condemn in the strongest possible terms the mistreatment of children all around the world. They should also guarantee that UK funds will not support the military detention, interrogation, abuse or ill-treatment of Palestinian children. What dialogue are the Government having with the Government of Israel about how they intend to incorporate their obligations under the conventions into domestic law? More specifically, how will the Israeli Government take forward the recommendations in the various reports that have been referred to?
The SNP accepts that the Palestinian conflict is complex, and there are real sensitivities on all sides. However, the rights of the child are enshrined in international law and convention, and as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) said—these days I do not see her on the train heading south as often as I used to—children are the victims of conflict, not parties to it. The rights and dignity of children in conflict must be upheld and protected.
Some Members asked about children involved in conflicts elsewhere in the world. Of course we should look at that, and if Members want to secure a debate on the human rights situation in other countries, I know that other Members—I have taken part in enough such debates—will speak out and condemn the situation in those countries.
The Government of Israel have a duty to live up to the protocols and conventions they have signed, and if progress is to be made in reaching a peaceful solution, surely a starting point must include taking children out of the equation. It is clear that there is a global public outcry against the detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government must act, and the UK Government must use their influence to help bring that about.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
We have had a passionate and wide-ranging debate on an issue that affects children. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing it. She started her speech with an important statement when she said that she was not making a judgment on the alleged crimes that a Palestinian child may have committed, or on Israel’s right to act to uphold the law. This debate has been about the way that children have been treated by a democracy that is widely respected around the world as open, democratic, and subject to the rule of law.
My hon. Friend said that half a decade after the UNICEF and UK lawyers’ report was published, there has been limited implementation of its recommendations by the authorities, which I am sure we all agree is regrettable. She mentioned that there is another fundamental legal right that Palestinian children arrested by the Israeli authorities do not have: timely access to legal representation, which we would all agree is an important aspect of the rule of law in any nation. She also said it is both extraordinary and disconcerting that Israel’s military court system has a conviction rate of 95%, according to its own figures. We must then question whether justice really is being done.
My hon. Friend urged the Minister—I add my voice and that of Labour—that, as a bare minimum of protection, no child, whether in Israel, Palestine or anywhere else in the world, should be subjected to physical or psychological violence, blindfolded or painfully restrained, or subjected to coercive force or threats. That should be universal. I hope that Israel, above all countries in the world, would adhere to that.
We have heard powerful contributions from many right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has a strong record in upholding the cause of a Palestinian state living side by side with the state of Israel. He asked the Minister to press for a review of the recommendations of the 2012 report, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can offer us something on that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) said that we must criticise the Palestinian Authority if we criticise Israel on its treatment of children. Yes, of course we must, because this is universal. This is not just about Israel; it is about every country in the world that supposes itself to uphold the rule of law upholding the rights of the child, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) made a good speech, as did the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed to the context in which Israel operates its military courts and mentioned child soldiers. I suggest to him that the way in which children are treated by Israel in the Palestinian territories is rather different from the recruitment of child soldiers in parts of Africa we have seen in recent decades.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) rightly talked about the detention and trial of a child being a tragedy wherever it takes place, and she compared the situation in the occupied territories with that in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have had debates in this Chamber on human rights and especially the rights of the child in Iran. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) knows a great deal about the subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) set out the tragic case of Ahed Tamimi, who he met in Nabi Saleh, her own village. He made clear the context in which her arrest took place, which to me and others seemed a gross overreaction to her behaviour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) always makes a rational contribution to any debate on Israel and Palestine. She pointed out that 30% of terror attacks on Israelis are carried out by Palestinians under 18, and that the Palestinian authorities incite hatred against Israelis and Jews. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) made a powerful contribution.
I will be as brief as possible because we want to hear from the Minister, but from the official Opposition’s point of view, as in any debate on issues relating to Israel and Palestine, it is important to think about the context in which these children find themselves. I ask the Minister and hon. Members to consider this question: how much has changed since my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham introduced her first debate on this issue in December 2016 in Westminster Hall? Have things got better, or have they got worse?
We have heard about the 50 years of occupation of the Palestinian territories and the increasing expansion of settlements that are illegal under international law. We heard that there is no plausible ongoing peace process, and of course we know about Donald Trump’s attempts to help the situation as he sees it by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which has sparked the resurgence of tensions all over the region—not just in the occupied territories and Palestinian areas but in Jordan and other countries. There have also been cuts by the United States to United Nations Relief and Works Agency funding, which has jeopardised the schooling and healthcare of Palestinian refugees all across the middle east, including around 500,000 children who are being educated in UNRWA schools.
The prospect of a two-state solution, which I am sure every Member in the Chamber supports, seems to be increasingly far off. As hon. Members will know, the Labour party has a strong policy of recognising the state of Palestine as an attempt to help the process of a two-state solution. Back in November, when I visited the region with the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), we met Israeli and Palestinian politicians, who are struggling to engage with young people in the area. A generation is being badly let down by their own leaders.
Members have reflected on the numerous problems in the system that allow child prisoners to be kept. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was with us when we met children in the occupied territories last November. He referred to arrests, which are often made late at night, and often in Hebrew, which is traumatic for the families concerned. There is a disparity in the treatment of Israeli and Palestinian children in the way in which evidence is collected, and many other disparities between the treatment of settler children, who are Israelis under Israeli law, and Palestinian children, who are treated under military law.
Finally—I want to give the Minister enough time to respond to the many questions—there is a long-term problem in the increases in hostility between the Israel defence forces and Palestinian children under 18 years old. When I was in Qalandiya in November with the shadow Foreign Secretary, we heard first hand from a 14-year-old girl who had been arrested for posting critical comments on Facebook, having witnessed her brother’s arrest in the middle of the night. Those children are the future leaders of a Palestinian state. What future awaits people on both sides if they grow up to fear and despise their Israeli peers for the treatment they received? Following the 2012 report, will the Government commit to make funding available for another report? What progress has been made since 2016 to press the Israelis to allow those lawyers to make a return visit?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, the proposer of the motion has waived her right to reply, so the Minister has until 4 o’clock.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
Thank you, Mr Stringer. As a fellow Manchester man, it is as always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for initiating the debate and all colleagues who spoke. I will not be able to refer to each speech in the manner of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who did a remarkable job to cover as much ground as he did, but I will refer to what I can.
The hon. Lady made a comprehensive and forensic speech. I will take her up on the offer of responding to a number of questions by letter, which I am happy to make available to any colleague. I also thank her for referring right away to the United Kingdom’s position on the universal periodic review and to note what we have sought to do in this instance. Some very hard things have been said today. Colleagues speak for themselves and must justify their own words, but suffice it to say there is an element of truth in almost everything that has been said on both sides. That should be salutary to all of us. We are talking about incitement, killing, the death of children and the loss of land—in short, the catalogue of despair and misery that has haunted these lands for much too long. We set all that in that context.
Although I will devote most of what I say to the specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham of the rights of children, let me not ignore the issue raised by a number of my hon. Friends and by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), relating to incitement, and set my comments in that context right at the beginning. The UK strongly condemns the use of racist, hateful language that can stir up prejudice. We frequently press all sides on the need to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric. Israel and the Palestinian Authority need to prepare their populations for peaceful co-existence, including by promoting a more positive portrayal of each other. Engaging in or encouraging incitement and hateful action or language makes it more difficult to achieve a culture of peace and a negotiated solution to the conflict. We frequently press all sides on the need to refrain from those things; there are too many on each side to bring up individual occasions.
There has been a suggestion in the past of a trilateral forum in which Palestinians, Israelis and a third party can discuss specific incidents. I hope we might be able to return to that idea.
Alistair Burt
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind; there is a time limit and an awful lot to get through.
As I said in the House on 9 January, Israel’s treatment of Palestinian minors, particularly the practice of holding them in military detention, remains a human rights priority for this Government, as set out in the universal periodic review. Clearly, the whole situation is inextricably mixed up with Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, which is also why there are no civilian detention facilities. The situation will not be resolved until a settlement is negotiated that serves the interest of both sides. I will return to that later.
Children are entitled to special protections and due process under international humanitarian law. Those protections are reaffirmed in the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which Israel is a state party. Many of the issues raised today come fully within that convention. To take a phrase from its text:
“States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth”.
That covers quite a lot. I do not stint in making very clear that Israel needs to live up to what is in conventions that it signs. We are talking here about everybody who is responsible, and everybody who bears the need to respond to obligations, and that is one right there.
We recognise, as a number of Members said, that Israel has made some progress toward fulfilling those obligations. It has reduced the number of detainees aged between 12 and 14, increased the age of maturity from 16 to 18, established separate juvenile courts and enacted a special statute of limitations for minors. However, our assessment is that Israel is still falling short and needs to do more to safeguard vulnerable people in its care.
In 2012, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsored an independent report, “Children in Military Custody”, by leading British lawyers, as has been mentioned. It made 40 specific recommendations for protecting child detainees, including that Israel should make audio-visual recording mandatory in interrogations, that it should stop using painful restraints and that it should inform detainees fully and consistently of their legal rights. To our knowledge, Israel has only implemented one of those recommendations. We have repeatedly and publicly called on Israel to fulfil its international legal obligations, and I do so again today.
In answer to the question of what we can try to do about this, I raised our concerns during my visit to Israel last summer, and our ambassador in Tel Aviv raised the issue with the Israeli Justice Minister as recently as December. We have a regular dialogue with Israeli authorities on legal issues relating to the occupation, as part of which we discuss the treatment of Palestinian children in military custody. Our “Human Rights and Democracy Report 2016” explicitly referred to Israel’s treatment of children in detention and this year’s report does likewise, as colleagues will see when it is published shortly. We also raised the issue at the United Nations universal periodic review last month, as I said, and while welcoming the positive steps that Israel has taken since the last review in 2012, we urged the Israelis to take further action to meet their obligations. We also continue to urge them to implement in full the recommendations I mentioned earlier.
Significantly, the hon. Member for Rotherham spoke about an understanding, particularly given her background, of wanting to help in this situation. It serves no one’s purpose to use the detention of minors as a weapon in this long-running dispute, and it serves nobody’s interest to defend a situation if minors are treated wrongly. It serves us all to work toward a situation where those who are engaged in detaining people for infringement of law do so only in a manner that absolutely conducive to fulfilling their obligations.
It is in that spirit that the United Kingdom continues its efforts. We are committed to helping the Israeli authorities to make the necessary changes. Last year, we invited them to attend expert discussions with the Metropolitan Police to share more than 30 years of UK experience of implementing regulations designed specifically to protect the rights of minors in detention. Do we have to arrest young people? Yes, we do, but it is all a question of how we do it and in what context. We were disappointed when our invitation was declined. It is not a threatening invitation or a condemnatory invitation, but an opportunity to put something right. It still stands, and we hope it is taken up in due course.
Turning to Ahed Tamimi, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, I do indeed know the family. I cannot recall whether I met Ahed Tamimi when I was in the village, but I know the Tamimi family. Although I cannot verify absolutely everything the hon. Gentleman says, I recognise the description of the village that he gave. It is absolutely correct. From the village people can see the settlement on the other side, and see the water that is the source of distress and discontent in the area. This case has rightly kept the issue of the mistreatment of child detainees in the spotlight. Footage of Ms Tamimi’s arrest, aged 16, for slapping an Israeli soldier has been shared widely online.
None of us was there to hear everything that was said. I know that remarks from Ms Tamimi, quoted on television in Arabic, have not been translated in a manner that her lawyer recognises, and we are not entirely sure of what was said, but the language is there. It is on television for people to hear. Her case is of concern to all of us here who know of it. I said in the House the other week that it was a sad case, and I repeat that. In answer to the many letters I have had since making my comment in the House, I do not in any way wish to excuse Ms Tamimi’s behaviour, but nor do I condone her treatment. As I said in the House, I believe that she should not have needed to do what she did, because the soldiers should not have been there. Let me explain that still further. These flashpoints are a direct consequence of the failure to reach an agreement, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, in her wisdom and long experience of this subject, rightly said. They are more evidence of how the unresolved conflict continues to blight the lives of all those involved.
It is a tragedy that each new generation, which should be growing up together in peace, continues to be divided. It is not that the Israeli soldiers did not have a right at the time to be in land they are occupying; they did. It is not that the young lady should have done what she did; she should not. But the circumstances just should not now be arising, because we should have settled this. That is as important for Israel as it is for the Palestinians. We are following developments on Ms Tamimi’s case closely and, while it is ultimately a matter for the Israeli authorities, we have raised our concerns with the Israeli ambassador here in London, and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice in Tel Aviv.
Let me conclude as I have previous debates. I find these debates incredibly sad. We should not be having them, because the situation that gives rise to them needs to end. That can only happen with the resolution of issues by direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people. I do not find it incompatible to believe passionately in the existence and the security of the state of Israel and in justice for the Palestinian people in lands I first visited 40 years ago, based on the efforts of peacemakers over the years. I also believe passionately that it is never too late, although it might soon be so.
The UK will do it all it can. It will make every effort and strain every sinew to work, upon the resumption of the middle east peace process, to support those who wish finally to bring that conflict to an end. Israel is a close and trusted friend of the United Kingdom. As such, we do not shy away from raising our serious concerns about the detention and treatment of minors in military facilities, but we understand the context in which Israel works, as everyone in this room does. However, the situation we have described today is just one of the many compelling reasons why we will continue to support progress toward a two-state solution. I want to see a situation in which it is no longer the case that a young IDF conscript and a Palestinian youngster have the options that they seem to have at the moment, so that they have a better chance of a better future together.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered military detention of Palestinian children by Israeli Authorities.
Credit Cards: Cost Regulation
(6 years, 10 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
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of the cost of credit cards.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I hope that by the end of the debate we will actually have done more than consider the cost of credit cards. This is a familiar place for me to come to raise concerns with Ministers about personal debt in this country. However, I hope that I get a better hearing today than I did several years ago, when I came here repeatedly to warn the Government about the dangers of payday lending, because I believe that we are again on the cusp of another massive personal debt crisis in this country. There are proactive things that we can do to tackle that, one of which is dealing with credit cards.
We have to be honest: this is a nation in debt up to its eyeballs. Individuals actually owe more than the Government, with total household debt standing at £1.23 trillion. Most of that total is mortgage debt, but £117 billion of it is from credit cards and loans—a 15% increase in the last couple of years alone. The average UK household now has £14,000-worth of debt, and that is expected to rise to £19,000 of unsecured personal debt by the end of this Parliament. It is little wonder that the number of people going bankrupt in this country is soaring. Indeed, the number of people taking out individual voluntary arrangements is also soaring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this pertinent and important debate. Does she agree that credit card companies must play their part in ensuring that small retailers are still able to use card machines as a payment option? It must be the credit card companies, not the small businesses, that pay the bill.
Stella Creasy
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a particular concern. I hope I can convince him that the regulation of credit cards that I am interested in is about their cost to the consumer in the first instance.
I do not think the reason we have such a personal debt crisis in this country is rocket science. There is simply too much month at the end of the money for too many people. We now know that economic insecurity is the new normal, with at least 70% of Britain’s working population defined as “chronically broke”. Some 32% of UK workers have less than £500 in savings, and 41% less than £1,000. Almost 30% are desperately concerned about their debt, because it is not just about everyday living costs; it is about the financial shock that might come because someone loses their job or their relationship breaks down. Too many people live on that edge now.
It is worrying that, unlike in previous years when insolvency rates have increased so much, unemployment rates are still dropping. That tells us that people are in full-time work, but are still unable to pay the basic costs of living, such as utility bills and rent. Combine that with inflation increasing at about 3% a year and stagnating wages, and it is not hard to see why personal debt is booming in this country.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
On credit card debt, a lot of people are suckered in with introductory interest-free periods and their credit limit being increased, to a degree where they end up putting a noose around their neck. Ultimately they are unable to repay because of their lack of savings, as the hon. Lady has already identified, and as a consequence they end up paying at exorbitant interest rates once the interest-free period runs out.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman prefigures much of what I will say about who I believe are the new Wongas in our society.
It is not possible to make the argument that the millions of people on zero-hours contracts and in temporary work can manage their repayments and can be confident about the amount of money coming into their households. With millions of people now self-employed, and more people in England likely to be employed in the gig economy than working for the NHS in a few short years, it is clear that insecure, precarious work and precarious finances are the new norm for millions of people in our country.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Many of my constituents rely on organisations such as Citizens Advice to support them when they are in dire credit card debt. At the West Hampstead Women’s Centre in my constituency, bespoke Citizens Advice surgeries often lead to referrals to specialist services, such as the face-to-face disability and debt service. However, since 2010, Citizens Advice has seen its funding slashed from £178 million a year to £99 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to taking on credit card companies, we need to ensure that debt management services are protected as well?
Stella Creasy
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The idea is that this is just a problem for a few hundred thousand people, but debt, worrying about debt and the causes of debt are mainstream concerns in this country. Debt management, debt advice and the work of Citizens Advice is very important, but I also believe that, when we see these problems growing again, there is a role for us to step in before they get any worse. I made a call to action several years ago about payday lenders. We did not listen then until it was too late. I hope the Government will listen now.
We know that not everybody is struggling, and that Britain is a nation of contrasts, where some people have seen their wealth balloon because of property and pension rights. However, we also know that there are too many for whom debt is just everyday life. It is debt on basic payments—on food, rent and travelling to work costs. We know that 25% of the UK population now struggles with debt. Not everybody is in trouble, but enough are, and the reason is the nature of the products they use to deal with their debt, particularly credit cards.
I hope the Minister will understand why we need to act, because credit cards are the acceptable face of modern debt for people. All of us have one; I am sure if Members were to open up their wallets and purses, they would have, if not one, then maybe two or three with them. There are 30 million cardholders in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Financial Conduct Authority has been investigating the credit card market.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady has been very gracious in giving way. I appreciate that very much. Does she appreciate, as I and many others in the House do, the good work of Christians Against Poverty, church groups, Citizens Advice and those who step into the gap to give advice and help people to manage their affairs when they get into debt?
Stella Creasy
I happily join the hon. Gentleman in supporting Christians Against Poverty, which very kindly came and ran a workshop for activists in my local community not a few weeks ago, to help residents to understand what they should say to somebody who is struggling with debt.
People often do not see credit cards as debt because they are just a fact of life. We know that the Financial Conduct Authority will tell the Minister that the market is working well for most, and that people shop around when getting a credit card, are able to compare rates and understand what they are buying. However, the problem comes when we look deeper and see the connection between those who struggle with debt and the nature of the credit cards they have.
Credit card debt is £263 billion—about 15% of total household debt—but it accounts for half of all interest payments made each year. That is the first signal that we need to look more closely at the interest rates on these cards. A whopping £28 billion is repaid each year, which accounts for 41% of all consumer debt, up from 33% in 2008. The average balance of those making just minimum repayments—the zombie debtors, who are paying off the interest but not the capital—is about £5,000; that is what they owe. However, 15% of zombie debtors owe more than £10,000. Crucially, when the FCA looked into this, it found that 20% of the people who ended up paying interest on their credit card did not expect to do so when they took it out. The reason is that life does not always go the way we expect it to. Jobs disappear. Relationships break up. The cost of living gets higher and higher.
Little wonder that there are 5 million accounts that, with people making just minimum repayments, it is estimated it will take 10 years to pay off the balance. It is no wonder that four in 10 British adults are worried about their credit card debt. They understand that what seemed like the best way to manage their finances has quickly got them into a situation that they cannot get out of. Forty per cent of adults in this country say that they struggle to make it to payday and, of those, 30% say that credit card repayments are causing them the problem. The FCA has identified that; it has identified those people whom it would say are in difficulty because of their credit card debt. It considers more than half those people to be “potentially vulnerable” because they have few resources to fall back on, even if they are managing to make some repayments.
The FCA has also identified that one third of people do not really understand the interest rates that they are paying on their credit cards. Again, it is the point about interest rates and what it will actually cost people to use these cards, even if they are flipping between zero-rate-interest cards. It identified that people who switch are switching because they think that they are getting a better balance offer—crucially, they are not getting out of debt.
The point of today’s debate and raising this issue with the Minister is to ask him not to wait until the situation gets worse, because we know the consequences of waiting until it gets worse. Let us learn the lesson from those legal loan sharks, the payday lenders—the people who were lending £100 to people who were ending up paying an average of £260 back. They were using payday loans when they were unregulated to pay for their basic living; 53% of them were using them just as people are using credit cards—to pay for groceries and utility bills. They were paying for things that they could not go without. Three in five borrowers on a payday loan said that they could not go without the item for which they had taken out the loan.
Let me tell the Minister that when we do act—when we recognise the consequences of leaving a situation to fester, as we did with payday loans—it makes a massive difference. Bringing in a cap on the cost of credit saw a 45% reduction in the numbers of people going to the citizens advice bureau in difficulties with payday loans; indeed, there has been an 86% reduction since 2016.
These credit card companies are truly loan sharks pretending to be the good guys. We know that what matters is in the small print. Many of us may have looked at our own credit card interest rates and seen that they vary from between 0.8% and 2% a month, but we also know that those basic interest rates on credit cards have been rising over the past 11 years, from an average of 15% to 23% now. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) pointed out, the zero balance transfer deals have been lengthening, but what is happening is that the credit card companies are making up for competing to get people to switch, by increasing the interest rates. And that is before we get on to the credit cards for people who are in bad credit—the new Wongas: the Vanquises, the aquas and the Capital Ones, which offer interest rates of 30% to 60%.
The Minister will point me to the research by the Financial Conduct Authority that shows that about 45% of people borrowing on cards for those with bad credit have found them useful for building up a credit history, but let us think about the other 55%—those who, as the FCA has identified, are in severe or serious arrears as a result of getting these cards. I see Vanquis in my town centre in Walthamstow, preying on people.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions the FCA. In December 2017, it published revised proposals that would see lenders reduce or even cancel credit card interest and charges for customers who are in persistent debt, so positive work is going on.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out the research that I am quoting and the paper that I have read. This is my concern. Having read exactly what the Financial Conduct Authority is doing, I think that it is missing a trick, and I am appealing to Ministers to intervene. Let me explain why.
We can look at companies such as Vanquis, which offers people £1,000 straight off—no credit checks, no questions asked. It is owned by Provident, which is a high-cost-credit legal loan shark. It targets people with the blithe claim that as long as they can afford the minimum repayment every week, they can rebuild their credit. Alternatively, we can look at the aqua credit card, with an interest rate, superficially, of 3.9%. If someone borrows £1,000 from that company and makes the minimum payments, they will have paid £480 within one year, £680 within 18 months, £800 within two years and £1,000 in interest by 28 months. Those figures reflect exactly the sort of lending and patterns of repayment and costs of interest that we recognised were wrong for payday lenders, yet now that is happening in the credit card industry.
There is a simple principle at issue here. We recognised that it was wrong to ask people to pay back more than they had borrowed; up to 100% was a fair amount of interest to be charging. Why have we intervened and said that that was wrong in the payday lending industry, but are letting it happen with credit cards? That is exactly what is happening: people are paying back in interest double what they have borrowed.
Yes, the FCA conducted a market study, and yes, parts of the market are working well for some consumers. Therefore, if we act where the market is not working well for the other consumers, we can stop these problems before they get worse. I do not understand how the FCA can justify not bringing the same lessons that we have learned from payday lending, about not asking people to pay back in interest double what they have borrowed, to the credit card companies, even though we recognise that that is wrong in the payday loan industry—but that is what has happened.
All the FCA’s remedies at the moment require people to have the cash to be able to act—to be able to make quicker repayments and to be able to pay back earlier—when actually what we are seeing is a nation that does not have spare cash in its pocket, let alone when facing economic shocks. These companies are entering into voluntary agreements with the Financial Conduct Authority. We are not learning the lessons of asking legal loan sharks, like turkeys, not to speak in favour of Christmas. These companies are making millions of pounds from pushing people into debt in exactly the same way as the Wongas of this world did, yet still the FCA is standing by.
There are things that we can count on in the coming months. We can count on the fact that the economic situation will still be uncertain for people, that there will still be precarious work as the new norm, that people will not be able to plan. We can count on the fact that the cost of living is still going to go up—that if we want to put food on the table, keep a roof over our head and put petrol in our cars to get to work, it is going to get more expensive. We can count on divorce, house moving and redundancy still being facts of life. And yes, we can count on the fact that some parts of these markets work well, but not enough of them do, so I am asking the Minister to learn from history. Do not wait until millions more British people are stuck in spirals of debt with credit cards. Do not think that credit cards are acceptable and high-cost credit and payday lending are things of the past. This market is mutating, but it is still firmly focused on exploiting communities such as mine, exploiting people in financial difficulty, exploiting people who have few options. If the FCA feels too timid to be able to act, then just as we did before, let us give it muscle. Let us bring in a cap on the cost of credit cards, just as we did with payday lending, and recognise legal loan sharking in this country for what it is. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for raising this significant issue with characteristic passion. I will seek to answer the specific questions she has raised about the role of the FCA and how fluid the situation is.
Consumer credit, including credit cards, plays an important role in our economy, helping consumers to smooth their income, spread costs over time and cope with unexpected financial shocks. However, risk is inherent in any credit product, so it is vital that consumers are treated fairly and protected from unscrupulous or predatory practice. The Government recognise that and are working with the regulator to ensure that such activity is curtailed.
I think it will be helpful if I set out first what the Government have already done on consumer credit. Our vision is of a well functioning and sustainable consumer credit market that responsibly meets the needs of all consumers. That is why we fundamentally reformed regulation of the consumer credit market, transferring regulatory responsibility from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April 2014. The Government have given the FCA a robust set of powers, designed to protect consumers, in three key areas. The FCA assesses every firm’s fitness to lend and it has put in place a binding standard on firms. The FCA requires all firms to assess each customer’s ability to repay. The hon. Lady gave the example of Vanquis being able to lend £1,000 without any checks. I repeat: all lenders must make that assessment of their customers’ ability to repay. Firms must also treat customers who fall into arrears fairly. Thirdly, the FCA monitors the market. The characterisation of the FCA as passively waiting for a crisis does not do justice to the actions it has taken. I will go on to set those out and describe how they are still under review.
Focusing on the areas that are most likely to cause consumer harm, the FCA has a broad enforcement toolkit to punish breaches of its rules. The FCA’s enforcement arm supports its objectives by making it clear that there are real and meaningful consequences for firms and individuals who do not follow the rules. There is no limit to the fines it can levy. Crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers. For example, in October 2017 the FCA announced that BrightHouse, a rent-to-own firm, will pay over £14.8 million in redress to customers in respect of agreements that may not have been affordable and payments that should have been refunded. That is just one example of the effectiveness of the FCA enforcement action. In total, the FCA issued fines of nearly £230 million last year, and as of December 2017 it had secured £734 million in redress for more than 1.47 million customers in the consumer credit market.
I turn now specifically to credit cards. When the Government gave the FCA responsibility for consumer credit regulation in 2014, it sought to build a sound understanding of the credit card market and to assess whether it was working well in the interests of consumers. To that end, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the FCA conducted an extensive study of the credit card market between 2014 and 2016. It found that competition within the industry was working well for the majority of consumers, but identified concerns about the scale and extent of problematic credit card debt. Last year the FCA consulted on remedies to tackle persistent credit card debt and proposed a robust package of remedies to tackle the issues—
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the main Chamber, so we will have to suspend the sitting and you will all have to come back to conclude. We will suspend for 15 minutes.
Stella Creasy
The Minister mentions that the FCA consulted on persistent debt. The FCA defines persistent debt as paying 100% in interest and charges on top of the principal repaid over an 18-month period. Given the evidence that that is exactly what people are doing on these credit cards, and the fact that we intervened and capped the cost of credit through payday loans when we saw that, will the Minister explain why it is acceptable not to do that for credit cards when it is okay to do it for payday loans?
John Glen
I will come on to that. As ever, the hon. Lady is eager to intervene. Let me finish what I want to say, and I will give her the answer that she wishes to hear.
The remedies include requiring firms to take steps to encourage customers to repay debt quicker and to avoid getting into persistent debt in the first place. Where customers are not able to repay their debt in a reasonable period, firms will be required to offer forbearance. Firms will also be required to use the data available to them to identify customers at risk of financial difficulty earlier and to take appropriate steps.
The FCA’s rules apply to all credit card companies, including those that lend at the higher interest rates, some of which the hon. Lady mentioned, to customers with poor credit ratings. All lenders have a duty to treat customers fairly and to lend only to those who can afford to repay. We expect the FCA to publish a final policy statement soon, and I will look carefully at what it says to see how we can take this forward. It seems a bit unreasonable not to wait for the final policy statement before we conclude where the FCA has got to with it.
As an additional weapon in its armoury, the FCA has worked with the industry’s leading body, UK Finance, to secure a voluntary agreement with its members to restrict unsolicited credit limit increases, giving customers more control over their accounts. All customers will be made aware that they can choose not to receive offers, and customers in persistent debt will not receive any unsolicited credit limit increases at all. New customers will be given the choice of how credit limits will be applied to their account, and firms will make it easier for existing customers to decline offers of a credit limit increase by reminding them of their options.
The combination of existing FCA powers and the proposed package of remedies is a very robust arsenal.
John Glen
No, I will continue.
The measures are a demonstrable commitment by this Government, the regulators and the industry to tackle structural issues within the credit card market. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady did me the courtesy of listening, as I did to her, it would be quite helpful.
Thinking about the limits that should be put on the cost of credit card borrowing, which I think the hon. Lady referred to, it is important to note that the Government have already given the FCA the power to cap all forms of credit, and the FCA can do that if it thinks it is necessary to protect consumers. However, it is neither this Government’s mandate nor our role to intervene in a functioning and competitive market. In addition, a credit card cap would be inherently more complex than the price cap introduced on payday loans in 2015. Payday loans are fixed-term, discrete loans, whereas credit cards provide a revolving credit facility—they are quite different.
What the Government can do, and already have done, is ensure that there are regulatory checks and balances in place to ensure fairness. The FCA has said that it will keep the issue of a mandatory cap on the cost of credit, including credit cards, under review. The FCA will monitor the effectiveness of its credit card remedies, and can take further action if necessary.
Stella Creasy
The Minister has not answered my question. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I asked him a very specific question about the disparity between it being unacceptable for people with payday loans to pay double in interest what they had taken out, and those 5 million people who are stuck in 10 years-worth or more of credit card debt continuing to pay those rates. I would like his specific answer on that unacceptability.
John Glen
I did directly explain that there is a distinct difference between the nature of a payday loan and a credit card facility. I explained that very clearly and I am sorry the hon. Lady did not hear it.
It will be helpful to set out some of the things that the Government have done with respect to dealing with people in financial difficulty. The Government are delivering on their manifesto commitment to implement a breathing space and debt management plan. The call for evidence on the breathing space scheme recently closed, and the Government have committed to consult on a policy design proposal in the summer.
We set up the Money Advice Service, which spent close to £49 million on providing 440,000 debt advice sessions last year. We are now going further to ensure that consumers can gain easier access to financial guidance and debt advice by creating a new single financial guidance body, which will bring together the Pensions Advisory Service, Pension Wise and the Money Advice Service. The new body will make it easier for consumers to get help with all aspects of their financial lives, as well as having a statutory duty to improve financial capability and to commission free-to-use debt advice. The Bill to create the new body is currently before the House of Commons.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue—I acknowledge that it is very important—and for speaking with such fervour. I share some of the concerns that she has expressed. Millions of people in this country use credit cards regularly, and the Government are committed to ensuring that they are treated fairly and not encouraged to fall into persistent debt. I hope the hon. Lady understands that a cap on the cost of credit card borrowing is not an effective solution. It is a blunt, interventionist approach to a complex issue. The Government have given the FCA strong powers to take action, and the FCA is putting in place measures to tackle persistent debt in the credit card market. This is not a static issue, however, or one that I and the Government are not interested in examining on an ongoing basis. The Government and the FCA are committed to ensuring that it remains under constant review.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulation of the cost of credit cards.
A5 Upgrade
(6 years, 10 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
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the upgrade of the A5 between junction 18 of the M1 and junction 10 of the M42.
The A5 is one of our oldest roads. It was commissioned during the reign of the Emperor Claudius, after his successful invasion of Britain in AD 43. It is also one of our most strategically important roads. The stretch that we are discussing goes past the geographical centre of England, which is near Higham on the Hill in my constituency. More than ever, it is an essential road because of the circumstances around it, in terms of the growth of proposed housing and business. There is a very pressing need for an effective relief road when there are problems on the M1, M6, M42 and surrounding motorways in this golden triangle.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. Right now, there are 90-minute delays on the M6 between junction 1 at Rugby and junction 3 at Nuneaton, where two out of three lanes are closed for repairs to an expansion joint. Highways England is advising drivers to use other routes. In this context, the other main route is the A5, which is one of the reasons why we need the upgrade to deal with traffic that gets moved when there are hold-ups on the M6, as is often the case.
David Tredinnick
My hon. Friend, who is ever quick out of the stalls in a debate, makes a very good point. I will touch on the problems of congestion.
There is an historical perspective to this 30-mile stretch of the A5. Near this road, the governance of our country has changed not once but twice. At the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, the man who became Henry VII defeated Richard III. Most of us are familiar with that, not least because of the publicity around Richard III’s re-interment a couple of years ago.
Less well known is the battle of Watling Street, which took place 1,400 years earlier. In AD 60, when Nero, the adopted son of Claudius, was on the throne, the 14th legion of the Roman army was moving down the country after defeating the druids in Anglesey. Somewhere near Witherley in my constituency or, more likely, further south at Mancetter, the legion met Boadicea, queen of the Iceni—her statue is not far away—and the united English tribes, and roundly defeated them; this led to Roman dominance in England south of that area for many years to come. According to the historian John Higgs, Tacitus said that 80,000 Britons were killed in that battle. If that is true, it would be the most people killed in a single day in history before the first world war.
Those anecdotes about the two battles and the geographical centre emphasise the point that this is no ordinary A road. It is right at the heart of our country. It has been crucial and has played its part in troop movements—Henry VII moved down Watling Street to London after his success at the battle of Bosworth Field.
The road has lost its pre-eminence—or had lost it, I should say—since the building of the M1 between 1959 and 1968, and the building of the M6 from north of junction 18 of the M1, which was finished in May 1972 and opened by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. After that, the A5 lost attention and was no longer the great north-west road that it had been. That has all changed. I will now turn to the arguments for making it an expressway and expending £10 million, a relatively small sum of money, to take that project forward.
Along this 30-mile section of road and beyond, my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and other colleagues, have an incredibly fast-growing corridor of movement and of economic growth. There are significant proposals for 60,000 new homes—a staggering amount—to be delivered along that corridor between Northampton and Stafford via Warwickshire and Leicestershire up to 2031. I cannot see how that can take place without investment in the A5.
There is also the impact on the sub-regional economies of Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Coventry, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. In addition to housing growth, more than 500 hectares—more than 1,000 acres—of new employment land is planned that will contribute £1.5 billion gross value added to the economy and generate thousands of jobs over 20 years. That is a staggering investment.
The golden triangle in the midlands is bounded by the motorway system. I could go through a list of business parks in or near my constituency, including Sketchley Meadows, Magna Park and MIRA Technology Park, that are set to expand in a staggering way. Yesterday I spoke to MIRA, which got the go-ahead to become an enterprise park in 2011. There were originally about 600 jobs there, and there are now 1,200. In five or 10 years’ time, according to our conversation, there will be between 2,500 and 3,000 high-value jobs there.
MIRA is working with Warwickshire Council on a proposal for an additional development on the 92 acres of land on the south side of the A5, Watling Street, which I am sure comes as no surprise to the Conservative Members present—my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton, for North Warwickshire, for Rugby and for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). That development will be massively affected by what happens on the A5. MIRA tells me that it is trying to bring entirely new technology to the region, including projects that relate to the environment, such as the development of electric batteries for cars. It is advertising internationally right now to take that forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby was quick off the mark in mentioning congestion. The economic prosperity of the midlands relies heavily on the performance of the strategic road network because of its central location and the connectivity with routes, including no less than four motorways—the M1, M5, M6 and M40—and the A14, A46 and A5 trunk roads. The standard of the A5 is shocking. It is mostly a single-lane road, with some dualling, and it regularly gets clogged up, as we all know. It will be impossible for the economic corridor to develop unless we act now. For the sake of resilience, a proper relief road for the motorway system is critical. The M1 and M6 are frequently closed because of traffic problems, bridge changes and all kinds of other problems; I am sure my hon. Friends present could name many more.
The A5—the old great north-west road—is the obvious candidate as a relief road, because it goes straight through the triangle of motorways. Our case is that that 30-mile stretch of the A5 should be upgraded to expressway standard, with priority given to the section between the M1 and the M42. I understand from Highways England, which is responsible for the A5, that £10 million would be required for completion of detailed studies to secure early delivery of the expressway over the next route investment strategy periods. I hope that the Minister will address that in his reply.
Let me set out what action has been taken so far. A transport partnership was formed in 2009-10 and has representation from 18 local authorities, including local highways authorities and the local economic partnership. It has grown to cover a much longer stretch of the road— the 72-mile section from Gailey in Staffordshire to Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes—and has produced its first report. It seeks delivery growth, support for network resilience, management of freight impact and the delivery of a safe, secure and sustainable A5.
This is what others have said about the matter. Sir John Peace, Chairman of Midlands Connect and Midlands Engine, said:
“The Midlands Connect Strategy demonstrates that to improve the economy of our region, rebalance the UK’s economy”—
we in the midlands often feel that sometimes we are neglected—
“and accommodate growth we must upgrade the transport infrastructures”.
He said that we need to
“see the A5…playing a key role”,
that
“upgrading the route will dramatically improve access within our region”,
and that the A5 is
“a vital component to strong economic growth for the Midlands, and our region’s contribution to the UK economy.”
Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands, said that
“we recognise the significance of the Midlands A5 Expressway in the larger Strategic Road Network…indeed, Midlands Connect have highlighted the A5 Expressway as a corridor of strategic and economic significance…which is a statement we also advocate”.
Highways England has undertaken four studies and concluded that there is a strong economic case for an A5 scheme, with a range of credible options for further study. Four options have already been tested and shown to offer high value for money. The housing infrastructure fund bids that have been submitted for key priority work in the north Warwickshire stretch of the A5 will have a huge impact.
I must raise a couple of parochial matters. A long headache in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has been the fact that two national highways—the A5 and the A47, which runs through Hinckley and beyond—share a stretch of road. He and I have campaigned for years to improve that tiny stretch at the Long Shoot junction where the two roads become one.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire for providing me with information about his meeting with the Secretary of State; no doubt he will raise that today if he catches your eye, Mr McCabe. I also thank Councillor Brian Conway, lead councillor of the A5 parish councils contact group, who has highlighted problems with the rat runs through Witherley and Fenny Drayton; the notorious A5 Woodford Lane junction, which has the worst accident record of any intersection between the M42 and Milton Keynes; the anomaly of A5 traffic having priority over traffic already on the Mancetter island; and the Department for Transport’s reliance on old data.
To use modern slang, this is a no-brainer. We will not be able to deliver the terrific expansion at MIRA, the huge housing developments that I am sure other hon. Members will raise, or a solution to the pressure from Birmingham if we ignore the A5. We have to do something about it—the A5, the old great north-west road, Watling Street. That would be terrific value for my hon. Friend the Minister, because a proper relief road is essential when there is trouble on the motorways. I rest my case.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
As ever, Mr McCabe, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and congratulate him on securing this debate, which is a very important one for my constituents. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) present.
The part of the A5 under discussion is a vital part of the national strategic road network and the UK distribution and logistics network. All the constituencies represented by the hon. Members present are part of what is known in the logistics industry as the golden triangle, because of its excellent links to the rest of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth has identified, the A5 is a vital resilience route for the operation of the west midlands section of the M6 and the east midlands section of the M1.
My speech will address the particular challenges facing the route along the northern boundary of my constituency. This is often a heavily congested part of Watling Street, where there are challenges associated with heavy volumes of local traffic meeting heavy volumes of traffic travelling long distance along the A5. This section of road also includes a number of busy junctions, which are not just traffic bottlenecks; at times, there have been significant accidents, and there has been a very sad history of fatalities.
On the positive side, the A5 between the Royal Redgate junction and the MIRA Technology Park, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth mentioned, has been upgraded in recent years to dual carriageway. That was done under a £17 million regional growth fund grant in 2014. Since then, as my hon. Friend also said, over 600 jobs have been created at the MIRA Technology Park, and it is thought that another 1,500 to 2,000 could be created on that site.
We are therefore seeing economic development as a result of that comparatively small investment, but my constituents have also seen significant safety improvements. That is because the once lethal Royal Redgate junction, where people have to cross the A5 to go north or south on the A444, has been significantly improved and is much safer than it was.
My constituents also have significant issues in relation to the Woodford Lane junction, which my hon. Friend mentioned. I have a number of constituents in the Hartshill ward who use Woodford Lane. It is a minor but extremely busy junction, where it is possible to turn both left and right on to a very wide part of single carriageway. In recent years, there have been a series of minor accidents, some major accidents and, regrettably, several fatalities. Although there have been some very minor upgrade works there, we have not seen anything approaching the type of major upgrade scheme that is needed to make the area much safer. I must also say that a number of my constituents have contacted me recently about the quality of the road surface on the A5 in the area; currently, it is far from ideal.
Probably the most difficult area for the majority of my constituents who use this stretch of the A5 is the Long Shoot junction, where the A47 meets the A5. Despite upgrade works undertaken in 2015, which have been relatively successful, the sheer volume of traffic at this junction at peak times creates huge delays for my constituents on the A47 and the A5. Also, for those living at the top of the Long Shoot junction and on that stretch of Watling Street that runs alongside it, there is a significant problem with pollution from standing vehicles, given the length of time it takes them to get through.
The Minister will know that an upgrade is planned for the short section of the A5 between the Long Shoot junction and the Dodwells island, where Nuneaton meets Hinckley. He will not need me to tell him that, given the challenges in that area, that upgrade is very much a short-term fix. It is important and it is required, but it will not deal with the fundamental issues. I also understand that the work to upgrade that short section of road has been put back slightly, to facilitate the important upgrade of the M6.
Although this debate is not about the M6, there is the issue of resilience to consider, and I am glad that the Government are investing significant money to bring smart motorway to junctions 2 to 4 of the M6. That will hopefully cut down significantly on the accidents there, which have the knock-on effect of causing gridlock for my constituency, as people see fit to get through to the A5 and the M69. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has said, we can absolutely guarantee even today that the people of Nuneaton will suffer absolute gridlock as a result of the closure of the M6, so we need to consider resilience.
As I have outlined to the Minister, there are challenges but they are set against the backdrop of a very positive economic story around the A5. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth of the plans that exist. As I understand it, there are 500 hectares of new employment land being planned along this stretch of the A5, which could deliver £1.4 billion in gross value added to the regional economy of the midlands and create thousands of jobs in the next 15 to 20 years.
There will also be significant housing growth, with 15,000 new houses being built in my constituency and in the neighbouring Bedworth part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Although many of my constituents are concerned with that development—I myself am concerned, because much of it is taking place on the north side of Nuneaton, in one large block—it highlights the necessity to find a better solution to the A5 problem, so that we can facilitate the new development.
I have explained the challenges; I will now turn to the solution. I am enthused by the concept of the midlands expressway. It will transform the A5, fully dualling the highway from Tamworth right down to Crick. As I understand it, there are several options to achieve that transformation, which would open up the potential for growth and, above and beyond that, transform the lives of many of my constituents, improving their quality of life tremendously.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth has pointed out, there is a partnership of local authorities, and I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Conservative-controlled Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council. It is a medium-sized district council, but it has been instrumental in the work of this A5 partnership. On my side of the A5, it is being very well supported by Warwickshire County Council, and on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, it is being very well supported by Leicestershire County Council.
All those authorities are backed by a number of business organisations and businesspeople. Sir John Peace, the chairman of the Midlands Engine and Midlands Connect, is backing this project, as is Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, who sees the value of the works being proposed for this area.
Considerable feasibility work has already been done, as the Minister will know. Highways England has looked at this project and, encouragingly, it has concluded that there is a strong economic and strategic case for a scheme of this type on the A5. It has also concluded that there are a number of credible options and that the project would deliver “high” value for money.
The Minister is currently working on roads investment strategy 2. My ask is that the A5 scheme is acknowledged as part of RIS2 and that our request for the resource to develop more detailed work on a specific route for early implementation is looked on favourably. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said that £10 million is needed to take that initial work forward, so I will just impress on the Minister that this is an important matter for my constituents. If we are to achieve this transformation, it needs to be thought about now—even if the work itself is carried out several years from now—because this route needs safeguarding. That is because there is a lot of new development in the area, and the last thing we want is for that new development to take place where the route of the A5 should be.
I am sure that, throughout this roads strategy process, my hon. Friend the Minister will have colleagues from across the country knocking down his door to try to get a response on the road projects that they want. However, I just say to him that, on this stretch of the A5, there is clearly a solid business case, and the project will help to deliver significant numbers of new houses and significant amounts of commercial development and new jobs, allowing the midlands to fulfil its economic potential.
Finally, the time for quick fixes and sticking plasters along this stretch of the A5 is over. We very much need to take a more substantive approach. We need to make this once Roman route fit for the 21st century.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on securing this hugely important debate and on his thoughtful speech, which was excellent in covering the sensible and reasonable A5 improvements that are much-needed. Watling Street and Fosse Way cross in my constituency. I often wonder what my ethnic ancestors would think if they were to look at that stretch of the road today, with its high level of traffic. When the Romans first built that junction, it was busy, but it was never heavily congested. Perhaps we have something to learn from my ethnic-Roman ancestry.
Many Members will no doubt be aware of the huge strategic importance of the midlands to Britain’s thriving industry. Whether it is logistics parks, rail freight terminals or international airports, the midlands is a beacon for British industry and innovation. I am proud that much of that industry can be found in my constituency of South Leicestershire. As my hon. Friend said, the area is known colloquially as the golden triangle. That refers to the intersection of major motorway networks in the local area, which provide crucial links for commercial and residential traffic.
The A5 shares that commercial and residential importance. As my hon. Friends will be aware, the A5 is a major road in my constituency and theirs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), I have experienced the long queues of traffic on the A5 at various times of the day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth correctly stated, unless the Minister takes into account the strategic needs of the road, the problems will only be exacerbated by the further planned industrial and housing developments.
Further consideration should be given to the villages in the vicinity of the A5, particularly those in and around my constituency. I am thinking of the Claybrookes, Ullesthorpe, Wigston Parva, Sharnford, Cotesbach and Shawell, to name but a few. Having listened to the chairman of the Leicestershire Fosse villages neighbourhood plan group—a voluntary organisation that speaks for constituents in the south Leicestershire villages of Sharnford, Stoney Stanton and Sapcote—I think we need to take account of the ever increasing traffic demands in and around those areas. These rural, idyllic villages already suffer from a swathe of large HGVs and other commercial traffic. While I have been working closely with constituents in Sharnford, for example, to help to remedy the problems, I fear that the issues will only get worse if we see the increase in development outlined by my hon. Friends without any significant increase in the associated infrastructure, in particular the improvements on the A5 that we seek.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend is making an important point about ensuring we get infrastructure before development takes place. The A5 acts as a boundary between his constituency and mine. In the same way that his villages are affected, people from Pailton, Monks Kirby, Churchover, Clifton and Newton are in many cases reluctant to go on to the A5 because of the large number of HGVs using it as a consequence of the industrial development that has taken place. That will only get worse if development continues.
Alberto Costa
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. My family use a dentist in Pailton, so we are familiar with travelling along the A5 to get to that wonderful village.
The Magna Park logistics park is one of the largest in Europe and is located in my constituency. Given its proximity to the market town of Lutterworth, my constituents are often subject to unreasonable amounts of commercial traffic clogging up the area. However, as we heard from my hon. Friends, the A5 does not have an impact only in my constituency. I am glad to say that it is also important and significant for my hon. Friends here today. My hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth, for Nuneaton, for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) have been instrumental in pushing the matter to the very top of the Department for Transport’s agenda, and I pay tribute to their excellent efforts. Like me, they recognise the plight of their constituents and are cognisant of the A5’s huge importance. For that matter, I thank Conservative-led Blaby District Council and Conservative-led Harborough District Council, which have also been pushing efforts to help to improve infrastructure on the A5 and surrounding areas.
In closing, it is important to note that the concerns I have expressed about the A5 are not simply local concerns; they are regional and national. The A5’s strategic importance should not be underestimated, but to keep up with economic growth and our nation’s industry, vital infrastructure improvements such as those proposed to the A5 must be prioritised. The road stretches through four counties and multiple constituencies and encompasses hundreds of thousands of our constituents, so the A5’s inclusion in the road investment strategy 2 is not only a must for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends; it is a must for the people of the midlands. It is very much a big picture project, and the road needs big improvements right away.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on securing this important debate and on the versatility he showed in starting with a history lesson and ending with modern slang. In between, he put together a powerful case. I echo the comments of colleagues, which I completely agreed with. A strong business case has been put forward today as to why the development is needed as soon as possible.
The A5 is a key route in the heart of the country. We have an ambition as a Government to push forward the midland engine, so the route is going to become even more important. From my perspective, it is important to North Warwickshire. We have a central location right off junction 10 of the M42. We attract many types of business because of our location. Ocado, Aldi, TNT, 3M, UPS and Euro Car Parts all have significant bases along the A5 in my constituency. The borough has a proud record of creating jobs. We have an incredible record: my constituency provides 1.22 jobs for every working age person. Some 18,386 people from across the west midlands come into North Warwickshire every single day to work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) just mentioned, this debate is not just about North Warwickshire, but about the wider west midlands infrastructure. The current situation is that this stretch of road is not fit for purpose. Were Members to go on the road at this time of day—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) made this point, but it has been echoed by all colleagues—or in the morning, we would see complete congestion in such areas as Dordon, Grendon and Atherstone. That frustrates local residents and puts off future investment by companies. If there is an accident on one of the roads that the A5 connects to, such as the M42, the M1 or the M69, we have complete gridlock. As I have said, there is a strong business case and need for this. If we are to unlock the potential of the area, it is important that we take urgent action.
I would like to raise three specific points with the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth mentioned that I have already put them to the Secretary of State. I brought members of North Warwickshire Borough Council along to the meeting, and the Secretary of State was very understanding. He knows the area well, particularly in relation to the first point that I will raise, but obviously I would like to hear the Minister’s view.
The first point is about the impact of HS2 on the area. I will not dwell on this too much, but anyone who knows me will not be surprised to hear me say that I am not a huge fan of the project and it is not something that I particularly support. It is worth reiterating that we are the most affected area outside London. We will get 31 miles of track, with disruption to the area potentially lasting for about 17 years. Critically, HS2 will run straight through junction 10, where the M42 meets the A5, so we will see further upheaval on an already busy junction.
HS2 provides a threat and an opportunity. The threat is quite clear: huge disruption to a key area of road, which is the gateway to not only the north Warwickshire borough, but large parts of the country. If there is no access through that area, traffic will be displaced on to other routes. The opportunity is to make substantial improvements that would not only mitigate some of the disruption that people will face over that long period as a result of HS2, but create a more freely moving road network, which will bring benefits and, as has been said, investment to the local area. From the discussions I have had, I think that the solution is to create a partnership with HS2, Highways England and Warwickshire County Council, which is the local highways authority. There is precedent for that being done along phase 1 of the route, where those partnerships have worked well. I do not support the development of HS2, but if it is to go ahead, it is important that the traffic offering to local residents is enhanced. This would seem the perfect opportunity to do that.
My second point, which has also been made by colleagues, is about local development in the area. North Warwickshire Borough Council is having to revise its housing figures from 3,150 to 9,070, and 42% of that is to accommodate the Greater Birmingham housing area. The challenge is that more than two thirds of the borough is green belt, so we can develop only in limited areas, the majority of which are along the A5 corridor, which, as I have said, is already at tipping point. There are significant areas of single carriageway, and there has been a lack of thought among previous councils when approving commercial developments, in that they did not upgrade the local infrastructure to accommodate for them.
Without significant improvements, it will clearly not be feasible to deliver the housing. However, the other side of the coin is that if we get it right, there is the potential not only to alleviate the current issues and provide new housing opportunities, but to unlock ambitious employment opportunities across North Warwickshire. Warwickshire County Council’s transport assessment backs that up, highlighting the importance of the A5 growth corridor. I have supported its bid to the housing infrastructure fund, but I cannot stress enough that, without the right infrastructure, housing simply will not be delivered in North Warwickshire.
The third point might seem small, but I urge the Minister to visit and judge for himself the rather interesting Mancetter island. It is right in the heart of the A5 and has really odd rights of way. Residents in a number of properties that front on to it have to reverse either on or off their drives to gain access to moving lanes of traffic that do not have to give way as they come down the A5. It is difficult to explain, but I urge the Minister to look at it.
There is danger to both residents and people using that route on a daily basis. There have been some really significant accidents, in particular involving HGVs, because of its logistic nature, and the fact that there is an adverse camber on the road. A number of constituents have had their garden walls demolished as a result. Residents fear that it is only a matter of time before we have a fatality and somebody walking down gets hit. The issue has been raised with Highways England, which has agreed to look at it. Residents have every right to be worried about the issue, which is regularly raised with me. Without amendment to that part of the road, it is unlikely that we will be able to make the most of this important road network.
To sum up, my view, and I think that of colleagues, is that the A5 is currently underperforming, but offers huge opportunities for the area, the west midlands, and potentially the country as a whole. If the ambitions of our local MPs, councils, the action groups that we talked about earlier, and the resident groups are matched by those of the Government, the possibility of a substantial solution, which would greatly benefit the lives of my constituents and people living in communities along the A5, can become a reality. This is about not only the future of the A5, but how we improve the present. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), particularly in what he asked of the Minister. Clearly action is needed as an urgent priority. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on not only giving us an incredibly good history lesson today, but extolling the virtues of all that is planned for his constituency and the surrounding area.
When we are talking about the scale of 60,000 new homes, we have to have a serious discussion about whether we are just talking about development of a new express way, or if we need to look at other modes of transport that are available for local communities as well. If we are talking about that scale of economic opportunity, particularly with the developments that we have heard about this afternoon and the potential of 3,000 new jobs, we need to think about how people are travelling to and from work. While the road provides one option, I think that where we are building significant new developments we also need to start exploring other modes, particularly the future of rail.
As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) just highlighted, HS2 should be about creating new opportunity, as opposed to limiting choices for people in the area. If HS2 does not open up new opportunities and does not connect, we have to ask serious questions about what the point of it is in the first place. Although we can see that new stations in places such as Toton will provide new economic development, we need to make sure that everybody along the route benefits from greater connectivity. That will be absolutely essential as we scrutinise the route’s development, the plans moving forward, and the connectivity.
I believe that a very strong case has been put forward this afternoon by hon. Members. I wonder if the costing of £10 million will be the final sum proposed. It sounds like a rather small amount of money, so I was a bit confused by that sum. We know that improvements to roads are incredibly important. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke about removing the rat runs from the villages, as they create such a nuisance. We heard about the distress of constituents over delays, which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) highlighted. Delays do not just eat into a person’s evenings, night after night; they also affect whether someone gets the chance to get home to see their kids in the evening. For some, it will mean whether they can chose to go for a particular form of employment. It is therefore really important that all factors are considered when looking at new developments.
The other important point made by a number of hon. Members was on safety. Although capacity is vital and should be looked at in the future, travel safety has to be the prime consideration. Road improvements, whether changing the camber on the road or providing safe access on and off the highway, are vital. I am sure the Minister will hear that.
I also want to draw out the process of decision making. I have several concerns about phase 1 of the road investment strategy. Although hon. Members may well have put forward a strong case today, we know that a number of projects have been delayed in phase 1. Nineteen schemes have been pushed back into RIS 2, which means that resource that could have been dedicated to the project highlighted today—the expressway—could be delayed in further planning and payment processes. We need to look at that. Six schemes have been cancelled altogether—or, I should say, “paused for further review”. Sixteen projects have been delayed within the RIS 1 period, and there is a bunching up of 54 projects at the end of the phase. That clearly has an impact on the ability to deliver the programme at the end of the phase, in 2019-20 in particular.
In recruitment and skills, we are also seeing feast and famine across the construction sector that we really need to look at. We also need to make sure that we are able to recruit and train locally. The feast-and-famine approach means that people have to go further afield, and as a result, the costs of projects go up.
I would like the Minister to commit to moving on from that feast-and-famine approach—not least because it builds expectations from constituents. When the de-electrification of the trans-Pennine route was announced, I know from my own constituents how hope in the project plummeted. It is really important to do due diligence now, to make sure that every mode of transport has been explored to bring the best economic value into the midlands area. If there is a commitment, it is important they are adhered to in a timely way. We cannot have overprogramming and overpromising, then a deletion of expectation. I trust the Minister will speak to that in his contribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a delight, possibly an honour, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) for this useful, important and timely debate, which ties into a wider pattern of effective and successful lobbying from Members and colleagues from the same area.
My hon. Friend will know that this is an important area not merely for its road transport connections but for its history. He referenced the battle of Watling Street in AD 60-61, tragically not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), at the opposite end of whose constituency one would hope the road would ultimately end, but referring to the great Roman victory. Of course, the day after celebrating the suffragettes and the suffragists, I note the tragedy of our greatest suffragette, Boudicca, suffering her untimely defeat at such a moment. I thank him for the historical reference.
In order to respond to the comments from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about RIS 1, I will start by laying out the Government’s overall approach. The debate has been interesting in the way that it has blended national and regional concerns relating to the road investment strategy’s second phase and the question whether this project should be a candidate for an expressway, with specifically local concerns, such as Mancetter island and so on, which Highways England might be invited to consider as part of its local responsibilities. It is important to keep those two balanced.
As hon. Members will know, in recent years, the Government have taken a much more long-term, phased and planned approach to investment in the strategic road network, including our motorways and main A roads. That has been a very important development over the last five to seven years. We do so for a specific reason, which is that when there is more longevity in the system and greater visibility of funding in the overall envelopes, there can be better planning, costs can be driven down in relative terms and productivity can be improved; overall, there should be greater certainty of delivery.
Alberto Costa
I thank the Minister for outlining the reasonable position of the Government in taking a long-term view when it comes to financing, but my South Leicestershire constituency has one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, Magna Park, and there is a proposal to double its size. That is not a long-term proposal—it is an immediate one. Given the problems we have expressed about congestion, noise, air pollution and so on, would the Minister look sympathetically at how the Government’s policy can be linked with the infrastructure proposals outlined by my hon. Friends and others from my constituency?
Jesse Norman
I am rather regretting giving way to my hon. Friend, because his intervention was of such a length and repeats information he already put on the record through his speech. I have very little time to make a quite a lot of points that I know he and other colleagues will want to respond to. Needless to say, of course the Government are sensitive to great and fast-breaking developments. We have schemes, including the large local major transport scheme, that are designed precisely to assist local government to petition where there are important local developments that can require new infrastructure on shorter term notice.
Highways England is making good progress according to the investment strategy launched in 2015, which brought with it a very large increase in funding for the strategic road network—more than £15 billion in the five years between 2015 and 2020. Highways England has already delivered something like 18 schemes that are open for traffic. Work on the £1.5 billion A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme is advancing well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the interaction between the M6 junction work and the work at Dodworth. He is of course right about that. What it shows—I use this to respond to the hon. Member for York Central—is that work has got to be phased, and sometimes the acceptance of bids is not consistent with the intelligent structuring of investment. As a result, Highways England routinely and quite properly slightly overprogrammes the amount of investment it is making, knowing that some of those schemes will not hit the correct benefit-cost ratios, some local authorities in some cases will not have their bids and other work ready on time, and there will be local opposition in some cases that may delay a scheme. Therefore, it is important to understand that some balancing out will be required, and that is what has happened in RIS 1. There has been some delay for all of those reasons. That does not, unfortunately, mean that the money that has not been spent can be redeployed, because it is overprogramming within an overall envelope that has been used for purposes of investment.
This represents significant progress, but we recognise that there is more to do, and it is in that context that it is important to think about the second phase of the road investment strategy, which has been highlighted by colleagues today, and the Government’s investment in the strategic road network between 2020 and 2025. It will be funded by the new national roads fund, an important development that is designed to assist planning, remove the potential for disruption and ensure that all money spent by taxpayers on vehicle excise duty in England will be reinvested back into the roads network. There will be a much closer link between the money people pay and the investment that is made, which will allow us and Highways England to take a co-ordinated, long-term approach to investment in the network.
It is vital that the strategy’s potential is realised, and that we use RIS 2 to unlock wide-ranging benefits for the whole nation. The RIS 2 system deploys and relies on proper input from local authorities, and we are very pleased with the work that has been done by those who have submitted bids and expressed interest in RIS 2 schemes across the country. That crucial feedback will help us to make and Highways England to implement the right investment decisions for our strategic roads.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), for Nuneaton, for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), and for Bosworth for their co-ordinated approach to considering this road, which is entirely appropriate for a regional bid. I also thank them for the letter they jointly signed supporting the proposed upgrade between the M42 and the M1 near Rugby. I note that the scheme is backed by 18 local authorities and has been endorsed by the Midlands Connect strategy.
It is important to understand that Highways England is taking careful note of the bid—I want to put that on the record clearly. We are grateful for that. Highways England has proposed the conversion of the country’s busiest A roads to what it calls an expressway standard. It has provided evidence to suggest that that could provide users of those roads with improved performance and safety benefits, and a motorway-standard experience. As hon. Members know, the Department is consulting on the proposals, and the consultation closes, as luck would have it, today, having been open for two months—again, serendipity for my hon. Friend’s debate.
I assure colleagues that the case Highways England made for investment in the A5 has been recorded as a formal response to the consultation, and I have noted it in this debate. The Department will publish its response to the consultation in the spring. Officials—those present and those in the Department—will have been noting all the advice given today, which will be taken into account as part of the consultation.
The hon. Member for York Central was right to raise a quizzical eyebrow about the £10 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said would be the total cost of the scheme. If I understand it right, that £10 million will be required for the next phase of work into a study of the options. We are not quite in the world of Linda Evangelista, but £10 million does not go far when we are building roads. The research phase concludes after the Department’s response to the public consultation, after which decisions will be made about the content of RIS 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton rightly identified the importance of avoiding accidents and pollution wherever possible, and of getting the full benefit from investments. I share that view. The reason for treating this as a route is so that a holistic view can be taken across all those issues—
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I am very sorry, but the clock has beaten you on this occasion.
Written Statements
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Modern Working Practices
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
On 11 July 2017 the Government published the review of modern working practices, which was led by Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Arts) at the request of my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister.
The Government set out in the industrial strategy, published in November, a long-term plan to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK by focusing on the five foundations of productivity: ideas, people, infrastructure, business environment and places.
Good work and developing better jobs for everyone in the British economy is at the centre of our industrial strategy vision.
Building on the industrial strategy, today the Government are publishing a full response to the Taylor review, setting out how we intend to develop further the strength of the UK labour market and ensure it meets the challenges and opportunities presented by new ways of working and innovative business models. Alongside the full response, we are publishing four public consultations, which seek views on how to implement a series of proposals to enhance workers’ rights and ensure that the labour market is working for everybody.
The four consultations cover proposed changes on agency workers, employment status, enforcement and increasing transparency.
We are taking forward work on the vast majority of the review recommendations, and the plans we are outlining build on our pledge to not only protect, but enhance, workers’ rights. Copies of the Government response and consultations will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS455]
ECOFIN: 23 January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 23 January 2018. EU Finance Ministers discussed the following:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President provided briefing to Ministers on the outcomes of the 22 January meeting of the Eurogroup, and the Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU.
Deepening of the economic and monetary union (EMU)
The Council held a policy debate on the deepening of the EMU.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The presidency presented information on the current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
VAT: simplification of rates and simplification for SME’s
The Commission presented proposals to reform the rules on VAT rates and structures, and to simplify VAT obligations for SMEs.
Presidency work programme
The Bulgarian presidency presented its work programme for January to June 2018.
European semester 2018
The Council adopted the Council conclusions on the annual growth survey 2018 and the Council conclusions on the alert mechanism report 2018. The Council also approved a Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area.
Action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe
The Council exchanged views on a factual report by the Commission regarding the implementation of the action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe.
AOB: EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes
The Council approved a report by the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to de-list eight jurisdictions from the EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes that was agreed at December 2017 ECOFIN.
[HCWS458]
Votes A Annual Estimate 2018-19
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
The Ministry of Defence Votes A estimate 2018-19, has been laid before the House today as HC730. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2018-19.
[HCWS457]
Schools and Early Years Update
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Following the two public consultations my Department ran recently, I am pleased to announce my intention to lay regulations in the House later today that will introduce net earned income thresholds under universal credit for free school meals, the early years pupil premium, and the early education entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds.
This approach is consistent with how other Government Departments have set criteria for other “passported” benefits.
The changes will come into force on 1 April 2018 for the start of the school summer term. Under our proposals, we estimate that by 2022 around 50,000 more children will benefit from a free school meal compared to the previous benefits system. In addition, we will apply transitional protection to anyone currently receiving free school meals.
These changes do not affect the criteria for universal infant free school meals, which will continue to be available to all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 regardless of parental income.
For free school meals and the early years pupil premium we are introducing a net earnings threshold of £7,400 per annum. A typical family earning around £7,400 per annum would, depending on their exact circumstances, have a total household income of between £18,000 and £24,000 once benefits are taken into account.
For the early education entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds, we are introducing a net earnings threshold of £15,400 per annum. Under this new threshold, we estimate that by 2023 around 7,000 more children will benefit from the two-year-old entitlement compared to the previous benefits system.
The Government’s responses to these consultations have been published on the Department for Education’s website, and copies of the regulations will be laid shortly.
[HCWS459]
Finance Guidance and Claims Bill (Contingencies Fund Advance)
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill currently before Parliament provides for an arm’s-length non-departmental public body, known as the single finance guidance body, to take on their functions currently delivered by the Money Advice Service, The Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise.
Our intention, subject to parliamentary approval, is to launch the new body in autumn 2018. In order to avoid delay in the launch, expenditure is required in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent to cover the costs associated with the commencement of the recruitment of the Chair and Chief Executive of the body, including the staffing costs of the DWP public appointments, any media advertising, and miscellaneous administration costs. Advertising for the posts will be clear that the roles are dependent on the successful passage of the Bill through Parliament.
Parliamentary approval for resources of £30,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £30,000 will be met by repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS456]
House of Lords
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Abattoirs: Non-stun Slaughter
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trees
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to minimise the number of animals slaughtered without stunning in abattoirs in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, EU and domestic legislation require all animals to be stunned before slaughter, with a long-standing exception for Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. We recently asked the Food Standards Agency to conduct a survey of slaughterhouses that included looking at different slaughter methods. The survey’s results should help to ascertain the volumes of meat arising from different slaughter methods.
Lord Trees (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate the Government on the number of measures they have announced recently to improve animal welfare in this country. They are progressive and very welcome. However, on non-stunned slaughter, I am afraid we have not made much progress. The latest Food Standards Agency figures to which the noble Lord alluded show that the number of sheep slaughtered without stunning in Britain in 2017 doubled in the six years from 2011 to over 3 million sheep. That is 3 million sheep that had their throats cut without being rendered unconscious first. Does the Minister agree that, in that aspect of animal welfare, we are going backwards?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is why it is important that we first look at the results of the 2018 survey. The last full survey was in 2013, so it is important that we hear about the issue again. The Government would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but we have been very clear over a long period—since the 1933 Act—that we respect the rights of the Jewish and Muslim communities to consume meat in accordance with their religious practices. However, we expect our announcement on CCTV, affecting all slaughterhouses, to be an advance in animal welfare.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Does the Minister realise that there is a partial solution to this, particularly in respect of the Muslim community? All New Zealand lamb that arrives in this country is halal and all the animals were stunned prior to slaughter. If it is good enough to have a standard in New Zealand that classifies as halal, why do we put up with a local decision, which is not an international rule? There is a perfectly good arrangement from the other side of the world, which has led so much in food safety and farming practices. Why can we not adopt the New Zealand practices in respect of the Muslim community?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my understanding is that there are different requirements in different parts of the Muslim community. The noble Lord, with all his experience, is absolutely right, but certain parts of the Muslim community are prepared to have stunned halal meat and other parts are not. I return to the fact that we have this long-standing reasoning behind permitting the communities to eat meat in that way. We certainly want to enhance animal welfare, and that is why the official veterinarians must be in every part of the slaughterhouse.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I support the position adopted by my noble friend? It is very important to carry the Muslim and Jewish communities with us and I hope they will be tightly involved in any consultations that may take place.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I say, we do not intend to move away from this long-standing right, but we want, with the other measures that we are considering, to ensure that all slaughtermen hold a certificate of competence, which is clearly essential, and that the official veterinarians can see from the video footage that everything done in all slaughterhouses is carried out in a proper manner. We certainly want to advance animal welfare in all slaughterhouses.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, the growth figures that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about are in excess of what is needed to meet religious needs for the slaughtering of animals without stunning. We have been leaders in the European Union on animal welfare, so have the Government looked at the German system of quotas as a way of bringing the numbers down, and if not, why not?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we should get the figures in March and we will want to look at the survey, which will be put in the public domain at some point this year. It is also important to say that we want to see what proportion of this meat is going for export. We want to look at where the livestock is sourced and the market distribution, including exports. Once we know that, we will be in a position to give this issue the consideration it deserves.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, accurately pointed out, that the number of animals, in this case sheep, being killed without stunning is rising dramatically? I am sure that is not mirrored by a rise in the population who demand halal meat. What is the Minister’s explanation for the number of animals having risen so sharply in the UK?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord has raised a number of points. I understand that people in the Muslim community eat more sheepmeat than the rest of the British population and that the number of Muslims who are looking to have non-stunned halal meat has also increased because of enhanced religious observance. As I say, with this survey we want to look at the reasons behind this. Obviously, our intention is to allow an exemption for religious communities, but not that this meat should go into the wider market.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the horrifically cruel treatment of sheep in a slaughterhouse near Thirsk? The animals were not stunned, rather they were kicked and mutilated; what they went through is really horrifying. The men involved will be tried in court in Leeds very soon. Can the Minister say when CCTV will be operational in all slaughterhouses?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we intend to lay legislation on this matter very shortly. I wish I could give the noble Baroness and the House a precise date, but we want to bring it forward as soon as possible. CCTV will be installed in all areas where live animals are present. We want animals to have a good life and a respectful end to their lives. I think this will advance that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, of course we must wholeheartedly and unreservedly respect freedom of religious belief, but there are among us those who would prefer not to eat meat that has been slaughtered using a mechanism that we believe causes unnecessary suffering. Will the Government now grasp this nettle and arrange for a labelling mechanism so that those of us who do not believe in following this practice have the freedom of our own belief?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the labelling issue is very important. We think it is absolutely essential that everyone can make an informed choice. We will be considering this issue in the context of our departure from the EU. I also say to my noble friend that farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and the RSPCA Assured scheme, require stunned slaughter. That is an important feature.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we all welcome the introduction of compulsory CCTV in slaughterhouses, which should assist with proper welfare standards. The noble Lord will know, however, that the recent incident at 2 Sisters came to light not because of the CCTV but because of undercover reporters. Unless the Food Standards Agency has the proper resources to look at the footage, we will get no further forward. Will the Minister explain what extra resources will be put in place so that the CCTV footage is used and not just sitting there in a dead camera?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is very important that the official veterinarian takes his or her duties extremely seriously. That is why the footage will need to be stored by the slaughterhouse operators for 90 days. The official veterinarians will have access to the CCTV systems and their recorded images. It is important that CCTV recording may be used as evidence. On resources, the official veterinarians, who are essential to this, have their duties. There have to be official veterinarians in slaughterhouses. As I said, this will be an important part of the work of enhancing animal welfare at the end of animals’ lives.
NHS: Winter Crisis
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of their planning for the winter crisis in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, planning for winter started earlier than ever before to ensure that robust plans were in place to support NHS delivery during the challenging winter months. Despite the NHS being extremely busy and flu rates being at the highest level for years, hard-working staff treated more than 55,000 people within four hours every day in December—more than 1,200 more than last year. NHS England and NHS Improvement will publish their review of winter by summer 2018.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. As he knows, NHS spending has risen by an average of 4% each year in real terms since its inception in 1948. Since this Government took over in 2010, that 4% increase has fallen to an average of between 1% and 1.5% in real terms. Can the Government not accept that some of their meanness is one of the major causes for the crisis the NHS finds itself in?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I totally reject the accusation of meanness. If noble Lords look at the spending on the NHS, not only has it gone up in real terms every year while a massive fiscal retrenchment has had to take place to deal with £150 billion of borrowing bequeathed by the previous Government, but it now accounts for the highest percentage share of public spending that has ever been in place. We have found the money in difficult circumstances. We all agree that more is needed. More was found in the Budget; I am sure more will be found in the future.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, in 2015 the King’s Fund warned the Government that the NHS would experience a “full-blown crisis in care” if the Government did not act early enough. That crisis has now materialised, with the additional funding announced in November’s Budget having arrived too late for hospitals struggling to cope with the accepted increase in demand from patients at that time of year. If the planning is to be published in July, when will the announcement about money to support that planning also be announced?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
As the noble Baroness knows, last year we had two significant spending announcements —there were two Budgets—in the March Budget on social care and in the November Budget for NHS funding, with billions extra being put into the service to meet very quickly rising demand. The review that will come out in summer will be a retrospective review of planning and the success of planning for winter. There will also be important lessons to be learned from it I am sure.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Are the Government planning to ask NHS England to review the number of beds available, given that staff at the moment are starting shift after shift with no beds available and having patients who need IV therapy or even ventilation in their departments who cannot possibly be sent home? Staff morale is inevitably being undermined because they just do not know where they can put these patients.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right to highlight the issue of bed occupancy; it is very high. The service managed to get it down below 85% before Christmas but inevitably it has risen since then. There is a big improvement in delayed transfers of care; we need that to continue to happen, and it was welcome that the Secretary of State for local government announced more funding for social care so that we can increase those transfers into social care and free up space in hospitals.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, following the noble Baroness’s question about bed occupancy, it is absolutely true that in 30 of the last 70 days in the winter period occupancy has been above 95%, which is dangerous. Some hospitals are at 100%. Was that part of the winter plan that the Minister assures us was timely and thorough? Will he accept that the winter plans have now been compromised in the light of pressure on beds, lack of staff and the fact that at least 23 trusts are now on black alert, which means that they are under very severe pressure?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I agree with the noble Baroness that bed occupancy is higher than we want it to be and in some hospitals it is far too high. The question, of course, is what we do about that. It necessitated the difficult decision, for which the Prime Minister apologised, to cancel non-urgent elective surgery. Happily, that has not been repeated and rolled forward into February. We think and hope that the situation with flu, in particular, has stabilised and that that will start to relieve the pressure. I absolutely understand the hard work that staff are having to put in under tremendous pressure and I know that we all appreciate that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on finding extra money for the National Health Service but does my noble friend agree that just putting more money in is not going to solve the crisis? Until we manage to sort out the social care system and the care of elderly people in our population the crisis will continue. We need convalescent places for older people who do not need to be in hospital in order to free up beds. I would also welcome an update on the thinking on integration between health and social care, which I so much endorse.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight integration. I point to two things, one that is happening now and one for the long term. In the short term, the better care fund is a pot to which local authorities and the NHS contribute and it has more money than ever before, precisely to make sure that that interface between NHS care and social care is as good as possible and people can be discharged safely home as soon as possible, which is of course what they want. We also know that we are going to have a social care Green Paper this summer. It is a really important moment; we know how many missed opportunities there have been in the past to reform care in this area and I know that noble Lords are really keen to contribute to this. I urge them to do so and in that way we can build a consensus for change.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says there are billions extra for the health service, but the East Sussex Healthcare Trust has just announced a £21 million increase in its deficit, making it £57 million for the rest of this financial year. This is now 14% of its total budget. The finance director says that it is necessary to achieve clinical stability for this ambitious deficit reduction. Is this not just a euphemism for cuts to services? What advice can the Minister give to patients using hospitals in Hastings and Eastbourne who are waiting for treatment?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am not familiar with the specific circumstances around the hospitals that the noble Lord has pointed to, but of course we know that there is huge pressure on services. If you look at the performance data, the NHS is seeing more people in A&E, more people being diagnosed, more people being referred to treatment, and that is why additional funding went into the budget, not just for this winter but for the next two years as well.
Plastic: Recycling
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to reduce the use of plastic and to ensure that the maximum amount of plastic can be recycled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have banned microbeads in cosmetics and taken 9 billion plastic carrier bags out of circulation with the 5p charge. More needs to be done and we will be taking an ambitious approach. My right honourable friend Michael Gove has recently set out in a four-point plan how we will reduce the use of plastic and ensure that where plastic is used it is easier for households to recycle.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we need a sense of urgency, given the scale of the challenge on plastic. We need dynamic and radical ideas—as, I think, are promised in the new strategy—that need to cover research, alternatives to plastic, and recycling, where, I am afraid, we still await a single system that consumers can understand. Will the Minister kindly ensure that his energetic Secretary of State focuses on this—busy though I know he is in supporting the Prime Minister on other fronts?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I experience day in, day out the energy of my right honourable friend and we are very grateful for it. Clearly it is important that we undertake research. We want plastic to be reusable and recyclable and for recycling to be understood. That is why, in working with BEIS, Innovate UK, Research Councils and industry, we need to bring forward bids for the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund so that we can develop more sustainable materials with a lower environmental impact. We are also working, within WRAP’s framework, to ensure greater consistency. Yes, we want to have a common set of materials that are recycled. Working with local authorities we have already made some advances and there are some very good examples of where councils have increased their recycling, some by over 14% in one year—so it can be done.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, my local authority, like many others, recycles plastic but not black plastic, which is a major proportion of all plastic. WRAP, the excellent organisation which the Minister has already referred to, has found a solution to this by changing the pigment that puts in the black colour. As an immediate action, following up the noble Baroness’s reference to energy, will the Government insist that that pigment is changed so that that proportion of plastic can be recycled as well?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, industry has certainly been working on this, as has WRAP. Indeed, industry has committed to bringing in by the end of this year the solutions that will enable the sustainable recycling of all black plastic packaging. Waitrose, for example, has decided not to have black plastic but to have other plastic—so industry across the piece is working on this.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, last year the Environmental Audit Committee recommended a legislated deposit return scheme for plastic drink bottles, which has proved extraordinarily successful in the US, Norway and Germany in improving collection rates and reducing littering. When do the Government plan to do the same in this country?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate mentioned litter. One of the problems we face with plastic is that too many of us are dropping plastic, in the terrestrial and marine environments. The call for evidence on the deposit return scheme closed in November. The working group is due to provide advice to Ministers on potential incentives for drink containers early this year. We are—as I say, with an ambitious Secretary of State—looking for progress.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, there has been a common theme among Conservative spokespersons to criticise the performance of the Welsh Assembly Government, and they have recently had to apologise for that. Is this not an area where perhaps those same Conservative spokespersons should be asked to praise the Welsh Assembly Government, who are pioneers in this field? The Government have been rather tardy in following them, so there has been a great loss during the years that the Government failed to follow the lead of the Welsh Assembly Government.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am a unionist and therefore, wherever things are going well, wherever it is in the country, I am delighted. I have looked into this. In Wales a lot of the recycling percentage—it comes down to weight—is down to the fact that it has done far more food and garden waste recycling. That is why it has a higher recycling rate: 58% compared with 44.9% in England. I am very pleased that there is success in Wales on that. We certainly want to improve that, but there are plenty of local authorities in England with recycling rates of over 60% and I congratulate all local authorities that are recycling, whether it is plastic, food or other materials.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, with respect to marine pollution, will my noble friend also take a look at the issue of PCBs—polychlorinated biphenyls—and in particular at the work of Paul Jepson of the Zoological Society of London? He concluded that, although PCBs were banned in the 1980s, they are still getting into European seas and are responsible for the fact that the resident pod of killer whales has not been able to have babies around the British Isles for many years.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I take that very seriously indeed. It is fair to say in marine and across the piece that international collaboration is key. Whether it is the G7, the G20, the UN, OSPAR—
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Of course, my Lords. We are in the world leadership on this issue. Noble Lords on the opposite side do not seem to like the fact that our country does rather well at a number of things, and it would be much better if that were appreciated in the same way that I am delighted when Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland has a success.
Brexit: EU Customs Union
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what future relationship they plan between the United Kingdom and the European Union Customs Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government made clear in the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence and subsequently that we will be leaving the EU customs union. In the Government’s customs future partnership paper published last August we put forward two possible approaches to the UK’s future customs relationship with the EU. The specific approach we take will of course be subject to the outcome of the negotiations.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s certainty, but it does not seem to be shared by all members of the Cabinet who are speaking out. Indeed, when on Friday Mr Olly Robbins gives EU negotiators a,
“UK update on the future relationship”,
as the agenda foresees, I suspect that all he will really be able to tell them will be, “My political bosses are incapable of making up their minds. Can you please tell us what to do?”
Lord Callanan
Was there a question there? I am sure that, if Mr Robbins gives any kind of update, being the good, efficient civil servant that he is, he will want to reflect government policy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that when we leave the customs union we will be able to end the scandalous discrimination against developing countries and others where there are very high tariffs on food, clothing, textiles and other goods? Can he give an example of some of the high tariffs that we will be able to avoid, thus reducing the costs to British consumers?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is, of course, right. Leaving the EU offers us the opportunity to have our own independent trade policy not contracted out to the European Commission. There are many opportunities that will present themselves, and eliminating some of the extremely high tariffs on agricultural products is one of them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in an open letter this morning the British Chamber of Commerce has almost begged the Government to spell out what they actually want from the relationship with the EU. It said quite bluntly that those who are elected to govern now have to make a choice—it is make your mind up time. Will the Minister send a little memo to the Brexit sub-committee which is meeting today to urge it, for the sake of the country’s economy and not just for party unity, to look at jobs first and decide that whatever is best to get jobs and the economy going will be what drives the negotiations?
Lord Callanan
I totally agree with the noble Baroness that of course we should have regard to jobs created in the economy. No doubt she will be delighted to know that last week we announced the lowest unemployment totals in the UK for 42 years. I am sure that the Labour Party will want to join us in welcoming that record.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said, correctly, that in August or September the Government referred to two options. They did not describe them; they just referred to them. I think that one of them was called “blue sky thinking by the Secretary of State for DExEU”. With all the resources of the British Government behind them, what have the Government done to fill out those two options since then? Will the Minister perhaps share that information with the House?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord is aware, we published a future partnership paper and put forward two proposed options for the UK’s future customs relationship. The first is a highly streamlined customs arrangement consisting of negotiated and unilateral facilitations, aiming to simplify requirements on UK-EU trade. The second is a new customs partnership. They are both comprehensive options that will be studied.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government have made their position so clear, why is not only the Cabinet meeting but the sub-committee on Brexit meeting twice this week in order to determine among themselves what government policy is?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord will be aware that the Cabinet meets once a week and that sub-committees regularly consider all aspects of government policy. This is a particularly important aspect of government policy, so we will want to go through all the options in great detail
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, are the Government aware of the Civitas research which shows that, if the Eurocrats force us to trade on World Trade Organization terms, EU exporters will pay us tariffs of some £13 billion a year, while ours will pay them only some £5 billion a year—a nice little profit to us of some £8 billion? So would it not be generous of us to offer to leave our free trade just as it is, while taking back our law, borders, fishing, agriculture and sovereignty generally?
Lord Callanan
I am sure that the noble Lord is a believer in free trade. Nobody on either side wants to get into paying tariffs. We want a bold and ambitious economic partnership, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that some of us listening to the Government’s debate are getting a little confused about what the exact distinctions are between “the” customs union, “a” customs union and a customs “arrangement”? Since Ministers use the terms “a customs union” and “a customs arrangement” regularly to describe what we want, could the Minister help us by explaining exactly what the Government mean by them?
Lord Callanan
I can certainly agree with the noble Lord that the Liberal Democrats are confused, if that is what he is asking me to do. The term “customs union”, as he will know, has a specific legal formulation.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, how is regulatory alignment between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland to be maintained if we leave the customs union?
Lord Callanan
We are currently formulating the legal agreement implementing the phase 1 agreement, where we, alongside the EU and the Irish Government, committed to having no hard border in Northern Ireland. All of the options will be considered in the second phase, but we are committed to that option.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [HL]
Wednesday 7th February 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 View all Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clauses 6 to 9, Clause 16, Schedule 7, Clause 17, Clause 10, Schedule 2, Clause 11, Schedule 3, Clause 14, Schedule 6, Clause 15, Clause 12, Schedule 4, Clause 13, Schedule 5, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedules 8 and 9, Title.
Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 7th February 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will recall with fondness the debates we had on the Policing and Crime Bill last Session. The Bill received Royal Assent a little over a year ago, on 31 January 2017, and many of its provisions are already in force, with a number of further measures due to be implemented on 1 March or 1 April. These draft regulations support the implementation of the Act.
Noble Lords will recall that the Act contains several important reforms, a number of which are relevant to these draft regulations. Part 1 of the Act enhances the accountability arrangements for fire and rescue services in England. In London, this means abolishing the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and giving the Mayor of London direct responsibility for the fire and rescue service in the capital, with operational responsibility for the service being vested in the London Fire Commissioner. In the rest of England, the Act enables directly elected police and crime commissioners to take on the functions of fire and rescue authorities where a local case is made.
Part 2 of the Act strengthens public confidence and trust in the police by reforming and simplifying the police complaints and disciplinary systems. Part 3 enables chief constables to make more effective use of police staff and volunteers, freeing up police officers to focus on those tasks that need the core powers of a constable. Part 4 introduced important reforms to pre-charge bail, particularly to ensure that the arrangements for police bail properly balance the rights of individuals and the need to protect the wider public. Part 4 also closed gaps in police cross-border arrest powers, enabling a constable in one UK jurisdiction to arrest a person wanted in another jurisdiction without first having to obtain a warrant.
The 2017 Act gave effect to those reforms by amending key policing and fire enactments, including the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. However, as is often the way, substantial consequential amendments to other enactments were also needed. While many of these were made in the Policing and Crime Act itself, we anticipated that other necessary consequential amendments might come to light as part of the implementation process. Accordingly, Section 180 of the Act includes a standard power to make such consequential amendments, and these draft regulations derive from that power.
Many—indeed, most—of the consequential amendments made by these draft regulations are technical in nature. They are described in detail in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum so I will confine my remarks to the substantive provisions. First, as I have said, the 2017 Act alters the governance arrangements for fire and rescue in London. From April this year the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will be abolished, with day-to-day responsibility for the fire and rescue service transferring to the new London Fire Commissioner. The commissioner will be directly accountable to the Mayor of London, supported by a new deputy mayor for fire. This change has the full backing of the current mayor.
It is expected that many of those aspiring to be appointed as London Fire Commissioner will be members of the existing firefighters’ pension scheme. A successful candidate would, quite understandably, want to retain their membership of the scheme upon their appointment. Clearly, we should not put artificial barriers in the way of experienced senior firefighters applying for this post, thereby limiting the pool of suitable candidates. The mayor, for the time being, should be able to appoint the best available candidate to the office of London Fire Commissioner. Regulations 2 and 10 of the draft regulations therefore make the necessary amendments to the Fire Services Act 1947 and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to allow for continuity of membership of the firefighters’ pension scheme where an existing member of the scheme is appointed commissioner.
Outside London, the 2017 Act provided for any change to the governance of fire and rescue services to be locally determined. Noble Lords may be aware that in October last year the Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex, Roger Hirst, became the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex. We have also received proposals from the PCCs in Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, Staffordshire and West Mercia to take on the functions of the fire and rescue authorities in their areas. We are currently considering these proposals and aim to make an announcement soon.
This reform provides the backdrop for the consequential amendments made by the schedule to the draft regulations. Fire and rescue authorities are subject to a wide range of local government and other legislation that governs how they operate. The Policing and Crime Act itself made a good many consequential amendments to modify such legislation to ensure that it could continue to operate where the functions of a fire and rescue authority were taken on by a PCC. We have identified a small number of further enactments which also need to be amended, in particular the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which makes provision for the financial administration of fire and rescue authorities.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. The House will forgive me, but my body has decided to go sick two days early, so if I do not make much sense, that probably accounts for it.
The complexity involved in the instrument is staggering. It involves 12 pieces of primary legislation and has 32 footnotes. As far as I can see, the instrument is reasonably innocuous, but I am concerned that people will find it impenetrable. I engaged my noble friend Lady Hamwee to help me to interpret it, and she assured me that if she had eight hours uninterrupted, she could probably be more certain about the impact. With the Brexit legislation to come, when similar statutory instruments may come in a blizzard to this House, the House will be concerned about its ability properly to scrutinise them.
I do not want to go over the discussions we had during the passing of the Act, but I will refer to what the honourable Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said yesterday when these matters were discussed in the other place around the limitations on pre-charge bail. The concern, which we share, is that now that a suspect is likely to be released pending further investigation but not on bail, the suspicion hangs over that individual and they never know whether they will be arrested again, whereas when they were released on pre-charge bail, there was a specific time when that person would come back to the police station. There was a limit to the uncertainty.
We not only argued from my professional experience but quoted evidence from the Police Superintendents’ Association and from the professional bodies in policing that the 28-day limit was not sufficient, bearing in mind the sorts of inquiries that have to be done now in terms of investigating computers, mobile phones and so forth. Can the Minister give us some reassurance about whether, contrary to what the law change was supposed to achieve—that is, to bring investigations quickly to a conclusion—this change may have the opposite effect?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The regulations before the House this afternoon make a number of changes as a consequence of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 coming into force. These changes, as we have heard, cover reform of the governance of fire and rescue authorities in England, including the abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, known as LFEPA. The regulations also makes changes to the police disciplinary framework and pre-charge bail. They extend the powers of police civilian staff and volunteers and strengthen the powers of cross-border arrest.
Dealing with LFEPA first, I am happy to support the proposal to abolish it and replace it with the London Fire Commissioner. It will then be for the Mayor of London to appoint a deputy mayor for fire as he puts in place the governance structure that is needed to deliver these vital services for Londoners. The governance structure being abolished was set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which established the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It is important to put on record our thanks to all the members of this body, past and present, for the service they have given over the last 17 and a half years of its existence.
It is of great credit to the authority, and the firefighters and other staff who work for it, that during its existence, with an increasing population in London, the number of dwelling fires has reduced. This reduction is attributed to the success of community safety initiatives and the increase in smoke-alarm ownership. One of the first actions of the LFEPA was the introduction of the first community safety strategy, approved in September 2000. This strategy changed the focus of the London Fire Brigade from being a mainly reactive emergency response service to a proactive service with fire prevention at the core of its activities. Since then, London has enjoyed a long period with the number of fires falling. In 2000, there were around 50,000 fires every year in London, which is now down to around 20,000.
I pay particular tribute to the outgoing chair of the authority, my good friend Dr Fiona Twycross AM, who has led the authority for the last year and has met and delivered on many challenges in that time, but who also, in the previous four years, led the robust opposition to the cuts in the fire service proposed by the previous Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. With the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London, we have seen a much more pragmatic and sensible attitude to the fire service in London, and that is very welcome.
The regulations also make various consequential amendments, inserting the London Fire Commissioner where LFEPA previously had statutory responsibility, and I am content with those proposals.
The regulations make further amendments to governance arrangements outside London. If possible, can the Minister say a little more about how many PCCs are taking over the control of the fire and rescue services? I know she mentioned a number of them, but how far have they gone to take over these services? I know that the paper makes reference to Essex—and again we put on record our thanks to members of all those fire authorities that will be abolished as a consequence of PCCs taking over responsibility for fire and rescue services. These are challenging times, and we should thank those who have served on those authorities.
The amendments to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 give individuals the protections that they would have received to ensure that they receive a fair trial, if the matter comes to trial, by ensuring that the course of justice is not impeded by political prejudice or adverse publicity. I recall our debates on this issue when the Act was passing through Parliament. I support the changes today, but it would be good to know from the Minister how many fewer people would need this protection if the Government had listened to the police and others, including Members of this noble House, who suggested that 56 days rather than 28 days was a more realistic timescale for releasing individuals on police bail, as the machinery of investigations and things like forensics just cannot complete their work in a majority of cases within 28 days. That leaves people released while under police investigation, not police bail, and potentially at risk of action which is prejudicial to them being taken against them. No one wants to see anyone on police bail for extended periods, but if we have just substituted being on police bail with being under police investigation, it begs the question what has been achieved here.
The other provisions in the regulations make fairly minor amendments in provisions concerning disciplinary procedures for former members of police forces and former special constables, the powers of police civilian staff and volunteers and the closing of a gap in the cross-border powers of arrest, which I am content to agree to. With those points that I have raised, I am content with the regulations today.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
Before the Minister steps up, I would like to echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, about the 28-day rule. Would the Minister be prepared to agree that the Home Office or the inspectorate should examine in a year’s time, after the enactment of all this, as to whether this limit works? Intuitively, it does not; intuitively, certainly when we look at the stuff that we have heard recently about rape cases collapsing because the material had not been looked at, 28 days is almost an impossibility in a serious case, if there was only one case. We know that rape investigators in London are carrying 25 cases simultaneously, which means that they have to deal with all this in one day, effectively. There is something very honourable in the attempt to keep people off police bail, but, intuitively, this may go absolutely wrong. I would like the Minister to agree to seek agreement from the Home Office or HMIC that this matter be reported back to this House in 12 months’ time as to the effects of this well-meant provision.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and wish the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, well. I hope that he does not spend the whole of the Recess in his sick-bed.
I am grateful for the support for the draft regulations, although it is fair to say that some of the debate has touched not on the provisions but on some of the substantive reforms made by the Policing and Crime Act. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has reiterated the Opposition’s support for the establishment of the London Fire Commissioner. The current governance arrangements in London can lead to confusion, with the mayor being accountable for setting the annual budget but decisions relating to fire and rescue provision being determined by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Previously, this has led to a breakdown in decision-making, with the previous mayor having to repeatedly use his direction-making powers to resolve conflicts, which is time consuming and costly. That was clarified by the noble Lord’s comments. The changes in the 2017 Act will strengthen democratic accountability by giving the directly elected mayor greater responsibility for fire and, crucially, streamlining decision-making to assist in making future demands on fire and rescue services in London.
The mayor, both now and in the future, should be able to appoint the best available candidate to the office of London Fire Commissioner. The changes made in the draft regulations to firefighters’ pension arrangements will ensure that this is the case. Indeed, failure to make the changes provided for in the draft regulations is likely significantly to reduce the pool of suitably qualified candidates for the post in the future.
Taylor Review
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place in relation to the Government’s response to the Taylor review of modern working practices. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to set out the government response to the review of modern working, which was led by Matthew Taylor. Matthew Taylor set out his ambition that government should place as much emphasis on creating quality jobs as it does on the number of jobs. Good work and developing better jobs for everyone in the British economy is at the centre of the industrial strategy vision. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that as we leave the EU there will be no rollback of employment protections, but today, we are committing to go further than that and seek to enhance rights and protections in the modern workplace for even more people. We will support employers who give individuals their correct employment rights, but we will prevent undercutting by unscrupulous employers who try to game the system by clearly defining who is employed and who is not.
We will extend the right to receive a payslip to all workers, including stating the hours that they worked. We are requiring employers to clearly set out written terms from day one of the employment relationship and extending that to all workers. We are taking forward 52 of the 53 recommendations in the Taylor review, and all but one of the recommendations from the joint report of the BEIS and DWP Select Committees. For workers on zero-hour contracts, we are creating a ‘right to request’ a stable contract. For the first time, the state will take responsibility for enforcing a wider set of employment rights, including sick pay and holiday pay, for the most vulnerable workers. Employers who lose tribunal claims against staff and are found to have had no regard for the law will face fines of up to £20,000 from the tribunal, quadrupled from the current £5,000, and we will also ensure that when an employment tribunal award is made, it is paid correctly.
The Government are very grateful to Matthew Taylor and his panel, as well as to the many individuals and organisations who contributed to this review. I would also like to thank the BEIS, DWP and Scottish Affairs Select Committees for their contributions to this work. Through this response we are acting to ensure good work for all, to protect the rights of those on low pay and to ensure that more people get protection, security and certainty in the work that they do”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating in the form of a Statement the reply to the Urgent Question in the other place on the Government’s response to the Taylor review of modern working practices. This is a very disappointing government response. Against the challenges thrown up by employers using technological innovations in drawing up job specifications, pay and conditions, the Government should focus on the definitions of categories of employment to be clarified and monitored by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. Enhancement of rights merely with payslips and written terms does not go far enough. Will there be clarity in the employment laws in relation to how workers are employed in the so-called gig economy? In the case of a dispute, to whom does a worker go? How will the state take responsibility for enforcement? What rights will apply to which workers on day one of employment, and how will they apply to those on zero-hours contracts? Will any new right to request a more stable contract result in an obligation on the employer? Will the role of trade unions be enhanced to protect and guide their members through any new procedures? A far more comprehensive response will be required after the consultation.
Lord Henley
I am sorry that the noble Lord was disappointed with my response, as I think that we went a long way. He failed to recognise that we are announcing further consultation on some of the grey areas in which there is a lack of clarity. The noble Lord will be aware that we have the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the law on the subject has grown and developed as a result of cases in the courts since then. We all accept that there are grey areas in which there is a lack of clarity regarding employment. That is why my right honourable friend wanted to set up this review and why he has responded with the Statement on good work today. He has also responded with a series of consultations, the first and most important of which is the consultation on employment status. We have responded as we did to get that correct so that we can then move on to legislate where it is necessary. We look forward to helpful contributions from the noble Lord and his party in due course.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, on employee status, a central part of the Taylor review concerned dependent contractor status. The Government seem to be agnostic on that. They are going into consultation, but what mood are they in? Are they in favour of moving towards dependent contractor status? If not, why not—and how long will this consultation process take? People are already working in this economy and being exploited by it. Will this require primary legislation? If so, what timetable do the Government envisage before we deal with this issue on the Floor of this House?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord seems to think that we need to look only at dependent contractor status but the whole question of the boundaries between employed status and being self-employed also needs to be looked at. That is part of the consultation and I look forward to hearing his comments on that in due course as part of the consultation. Thinking back to the Employment Rights Act 1996—I do not remember its passage, though it is not that long ago—it is very likely that inclarities, if I may call them that, will emerge as a result of the consultation and will need to be looked at, as has happened since 1996. For that reason we are consulting—just to keep the noble Lord busy, there are three other consultations as well, where we would again be grateful for his comments—and it is quite likely that we will need to legislate as a result. As to the likely timescale for bringing forward primary legislation, I am afraid that I cannot give any assurances to the noble Lord. He will be aware that both Houses are rather busy with quite a lot of legislation at the moment.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, we are not short of consultations in this area; Taylor himself carried out a very extensive consultative exercise which the Minister referred to in his opening Statement. It looks to many people as if this exercise is being kicked down the road, with yet more consultation before the Government act. Some modest measures have been announced today—I noticed that the general secretary of the TUC said that a “baby step” had been taken. However, this is not the ambitious approach that the Prime Minister originally set out regarding the insecure labour market which affects so many in Britain today. Many young people are struggling to get secure contracts, and many people who work for agencies feel that their job security is at risk. Many mothers in particular, but also parents generally, cannot plan their childcare arrangements. We recently read about the case of a man who died because he did not want to take up a doctor’s appointment because he would be fined. I am not saying that that is typical but there are such cases. For too many people out there the world of work is nasty, brutish and, occasionally, all too short. When will the Government seize the nettle and move forward in an ambitious way, as we were led to believe would happen when the Prime Minister originally made a Statement on this matter?
Lord Henley
Again, my Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord takes this rather negative view of what has emerged. Regarding the government response, Matthew Taylor himself said:
“There is much more to be done to make good work for all a realistic goal, but the Government response to my review is substantive and comprehensive. It will make a difference to the lives of the most vulnerable workers and that is what matters”.
We are in a position where employment is at an all-time high and unemployment is at its lowest level for some 40 years. Whatever we do, we do not want to damage, but we want to make sure that we make the right changes at the right time and in the right way. That is why there will be further consultation on employment status and on the other matters that I talked about—agency workers, enforcement of employment law and transparency for employees. Let us get that right and then legislate where appropriate.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s view on unpaid internships? As the Taylor review chose to pull its punches on this point, does my noble friend agree that it is high time to legislate to put an end to these pernicious practices?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend’s concern on this matter and of his Private Member’s Bill. A letter is on its way to him and to others who have been involved in that Bill offering a meeting on the subject. I hope that he will receive it in due course.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, a number of things are to be welcomed in the Government’s response to the Taylor report but perhaps I may pick up on one small thing. One recommendation is that the Government should develop a free online tool to provide individuals with an indication of their employment status and rights. However, do the Government not realise that a large proportion of the workers who are most vulnerable to exploitation are the very ones who will have least access to that sort of digital connectivity? Will the Minister make a commitment that the question of how more vulnerable people can access this information will be looked at closely when implementing this recommendation?
Lord Henley
The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point—some people do have problems with access to computers and such matters. I know that considerable work has been done on these matters in the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly in relation to universal credit and other benefits. I think that the department finds that most people can manage but I will certainly have a further look at what the right reverend Prelate has said and, if there is anything further that I can add, I will write to him.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
As welcome as the Taylor report is, will the noble Lord, as a fellow member of the legal profession, bear in mind that in that profession and in a number of others there are a large number of very successful limited liability partnerships, the members of which are self-employed and treated as self-employed by the Revenue? Those arrangements are often to the distinct advantage of the professional people concerned—men and women. Will the Government ensure that beneficial limited liability partnerships, which bring a great deal of money into the economy, are not affected by these proposals?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord does me the honour of claiming that I am a member of the legal profession. I suppose that I am legally qualified but I do not think that I could put myself at quite the same level as the noble Lord. However, he raises a very sensible point and it is one that I will certainly want to look at. As I remember my employment law, the important point is that whether you are employed or self-employed should not be a matter for the individual to decide; it is, as it used to be, a matter of fact and degree. I hope that whatever changes we make—particularly changes to limited liability partnerships and those working in them—do not affect that, but I will certainly make sure that the noble Lord’s point is taken on board.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, before I set out the context surrounding, and the key features of, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, I think it would be helpful to explain again the meaning of nuclear safeguards. Investing a little time in this will, I believe, help with our discussion of this important but rather technical issue.
Nuclear safeguards are about non-proliferation and demonstrating that the United Kingdom is a responsible nuclear power. Nuclear safeguards are the reporting and verification processes that nuclear states use to demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not diverted into military or weapons programmes. The Bill has a very specific purpose in a very technical area: it ensures that the United Kingdom can put a domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime in place.
It is important to make clear at the outset, as it is key to understanding the subject matter covered by the Bill, that civil nuclear safeguards are entirely distinct from nuclear safety and nuclear security. Nuclear safety concerns the prevention of nuclear accidents, and nuclear security concerns physical protection measures. Both nuclear safety and nuclear security are already the responsibility of the Office for Nuclear Regulation and are unaffected by the Bill.
As a responsible nuclear state, the United Kingdom is a committed member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which provides international oversight of civil nuclear safeguards. The United Kingdom has voluntarily accepted the application of international safeguards through agreements with the agency and is seeking to conclude new agreements with the agency that follow the same principles as our current agreements. We were a founder member of the IAEA back in 1957 and we continue to be at the forefront of its activities. Leaving Euratom will not change that.
The United Kingdom’s nuclear safeguards regime is currently provided primarily by Euratom with some support from the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The European Union and Euratom are uniquely legally joined, so when the Prime Minister formally notified our intention to leave the European Union, she also commenced the process for leaving Euratom. The United Kingdom therefore served notice of its intention to withdraw from Euratom at the same time as withdrawing from the European Union. The Bill therefore enables the United Kingdom to ensure that a domestic nuclear safeguards regime can be put in place when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply to the UK.
The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from Euratom will in no way diminish our nuclear ambitions. Maintaining the continuity of our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom and international partners is a key priority for us. We remain absolutely committed to the highest standards of nuclear non-proliferation, including safeguards, and the United Kingdom will remain a committed member of the global architecture that provides the framework for non-proliferation.
Civil nuclear safeguards and reporting, by assuring the international community about the proper use of certain nuclear materials, underpin international civil nuclear trade. Alongside the consideration of this Bill in the House of Commons, the Government have been engaging in negotiations with the European Union, the IAEA and third countries. The United Kingdom has held several rounds of discussions with the European Union in the first phase of negotiations and there has been good progress on Euratom issues.
Negotiations with the IAEA on future voluntary agreements for the application of civil nuclear safeguards in the United Kingdom have been constructive and fruitful, and substantial progress has been made. Substantial progress has also been made in negotiations to put in place new nuclear co-operation agreements. In particular, constructive progress has already been made in discussions with key partners such as the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan.
It is clear that we need continuity and must work to avoid any break in our civil nuclear safeguards regime if we wish to support the United Kingdom’s nuclear industry and its nuclear research community. A civil nuclear safeguards regime and safeguards agreements with the IAEA are critical for the continued operation of our civil nuclear industry and research. As set out in the Written Statement laid on 11 January, our strategy for withdrawal and our future relationship with Euratom is two-fold: first, to seek, through our negotiations with the European Commission, a close association with Euratom; secondly, and simultaneously, to put in place all the necessary measures to ensure that the United Kingdom can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one. This is vital to ensure continuity for industry, whatever the outcome of negotiations.
We will also seek to include Euratom matters within any negotiated implementation period. The Government also made the commitment to report back to Parliament every three months, by way of further Written Statements, about overall progress on this strategy, including in respect of negotiations. We have been working closely with the Office for Nuclear Regulation to ensure that it can be ready to take on new responsibilities for a domestic safeguards regime, in place of Euratom’s current regime.
As my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Prior, set out in a Written Statement on 14 September 2017, our intention is for the new domestic regime to exceed the standard the international community would expect from the United Kingdom as a member of the IAEA. The Government are aiming to establish as soon as possible after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union a robust regime that is as comprehensive as that currently provided by Euratom.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but this issue was raised recently in the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee inquiry into energy security. The ONR cannot be independent in the same way that Euratom was. The accounting officer is appointed by the DWP accounting officer. The chair of the ONR is appraised by the DWP. How can it be sold to the IAEA that the ONR is as independent as Euratom?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will take advice but my understanding is that the IAEA does not have concerns about this issue, which is part of the ongoing discussions with that body. As I said, discussions have taken place and they will continue. The Bill will be considered in this House for some weeks and in due course, I will give a further reassurance to the noble Lord to make sure that he and others are satisfied that the ONR can perform this role.
Perhaps I may continue with my remarks. Currently, under the Euratom treaty, all members including the United Kingdom subject their civil nuclear material and facilities to nuclear safeguards inspections and assurance which is carried out by Euratom. Euratom then reports specific information on member states to the IAEA, which has international oversight for those nuclear safeguards. The Nuclear Safeguards Bill ensures that the United Kingdom can put this domestic regime in place and it will enable the ONR to oversee nuclear safeguards when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply to this country.
To ensure continued international verification and oversight of the United Kingdom’s safeguards, as I have said to the noble Lord, we will continue in our discussions with the IAEA to agree replacement voluntary safeguards agreements that reflect the fact that the Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the United Kingdom. This Bill provides us with the ability to implement those new agreements as well as the new domestic regime that underpins them.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
This part of the noble Lord’s speech suggests that it is a given that we are leaving Euratom, and the noble Lord is nodding in assent. Is he not aware that leaving the European Union does not necessitate leaving Euratom? If we were to stay in the European Economic Area by switching to being a member of EFTA, there is a whole raft of EU agencies which people can still belong to. Are the Government, even at this late stage in the negotiations, not clear about that?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has been following what has been happening in this House and in the other place. We have the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill going through at the moment and last year we had the Bill which in a sense set off Article 50, which has gone through. By those means we are committed to leaving the EU and for that reason—
Lord Henley
Yes, my Lords, we are leaving Euratom. That is the case, and the simple fact is that we have to make provisions for leaving Euratom and that is why we are doing this.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord says that what I have said is not true. I would ask that he withdraw that remark. We are leaving Euratom and that has been made clear.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I will withdraw that particular remark which used the words, “not true”, but if we stay in the European Economic Area, we would have withdrawn from the European Union but would still be able to be part of these agencies.
Lord Henley
My Lords, Euratom consists of the 28 members of the EU and no others. There are two countries which have some sort of associate membership, but that would not be appropriate for us. Being members of EFTA would not do that. The noble Lord will have to accept that we are leaving Euratom. That is the case and we therefore need to make provisions. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I will now tell him about the Bill.
Clause 1 will amend the Energy Act 2013 to replace the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s existing nuclear safeguards purposes with new nuclear safeguards purposes which reflect the nature of the new regime. The ONR will reflect the new nuclear safeguards regime primarily using its existing relevant functions and powers. Clause 1 will also amend the Act by inserting new powers so we can set out in regulations the detail of the domestic safeguards regime, such as accounting, reporting, control and inspection arrangements.
Clause 2 will create a limited power—I stress limited power—enabling consequential amendments to be made to the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000, and the Nuclear Safeguards (Notification) Regulations 2004. It is a very narrow power that will mean that references in that legislation to existing agreements with the IAEA can be updated once international agreements have been reached.
In addition, in January we published two sets of pre-consultation draft regulations to support consideration of the powers in the Bill, on which we have been working closely with the ONR. The Government are committed to an open and transparent approach as they continue to develop these regulations, which set out the detail of the domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime. We expect these draft regulations to continue to evolve in response to comments from and consideration by noble Lords and other stakeholders. To that end, the department is planning a series of stakeholder events and workshops in addition to the public consultation on the regulations, which we intend to take place later in the year. The drafts we eventually consult on will, of course, in certain respects differ from the working drafts that we have provided for the benefit of Parliament.
I now turn to one final issue that is not strictly relevant to the subject of the Bill but has been raised in another place and in meetings that I and others have had with noble Lords. It is the question of medical radioisotopes. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has tabled an amendment to the EU withdrawal Bill on this very issue. It might be that that would be a better place to discuss these matters in due course rather than here. I could not possibly comment on what might be the appropriate Bill, other than to say that I do not think that it is, strictly speaking, relevant to this Bill, but because of the concerns that been expressed on this issue, it would be right for me to make a few points and give assurances to the House that the supply of medical radioisotopes is, and will continue to be, a very high priority for the Government. We share that concern about the well-being of patients receiving such treatment that results from being able to import such materials in good time, bearing in mind the relatively short lives that medical radioisotopes have.
We have made it clear that Euratom currently does not place any restrictions on the export of medical radioisotopes to countries outside the European Union. As they are not classified as special fissile material they are not subject to the international safeguards regime or to the approval of the Euratom Supply Agency, which governs the supply of special fissile materials. Although its role does not extend to ensuring the supply of medical radioisotopes, the Euratom Supply Agency established in response to the last shortage crisis in 2012 the European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Radioisotopes. The observatory aims to consolidate and share information between the EU, European Union member states, international partners, the medical community and industry stakeholders on supply, but crucially it does not have a decision-making or executive role in responding to shortages.
However, the Government recognise the concerns that changes to our customs arrangements after our withdrawal from the European Union could potentially affect the timely supply of medical radioisotopes. Therefore I offer an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords who have raised this point that the Government are committed to minimising any impact such changes might have. I have had meetings with counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care and Her Majesty’s Treasury to step up our work in this area. We are working across government to prepare domestically and to negotiate a future customs arrangement with the European Union that ensures cross-border trade in this area is as frictionless as possible.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said, but are we to take it that the sentence in the factsheet on the Bill that was given to your Lordships’ House at some very useful meetings still applies in relation to radioisotopes:
“This will be part of the broader negotiations of the UK’s future with the EU”?
If so, will he tell us what that means?
Lord Henley
My Lords, it is exactly the same as what I have said—as part of our broader negotiations we will obviously want to ensure that, in the words I think I used, a future customs arrangement with the European Union is as frictionless as possible. We understand the importance of these matters. It is as frictionless as it can be at the moment; we want to make sure that that continues. I do not believe that it is strictly relevant to the Bill but it was important to bring the matter up. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling an amendment, which will be discussed, to another Bill, but I want to give assurances that the Government are doing everything we can to make sure that such imports are frictionless, just as their export from Europe will be frictionless and just as they are frictionless in their export from Europe to non-EU countries at the moment. It is a matter of giving assurances as to what the Government can do and I hope that that will help to reassure noble Lords.
Lord Warner (CB)
I did not quite understand what the noble Lord was saying in his attempts to reassure us about Euratom’s observatory. As I understand it, the observatory was an important part of smoothing out problems when there were supply issues around radioactive isotopes. Is he saying that the observatory will continue for all those who have the benefit of being in Euratom but those who leave will not have any equivalent benefits and it is impossible for the UK to achieve such access to those benefits?
Lord Henley
It is a body set up by Euratom for Euratom, therefore it has an interest in ensuring safe export from the EU. There is no problem of the export of radioisotopes from the EU to non-EU countries. We want to make sure that when we are no longer part of Euratom that continues to be the case. That is why I am trying to give assurances based not only on what is coming out but on what the United Kingdom Government can do at our end. I hope that that will deal with the noble Lord’s problem.
Lord Warner
I do not think that that answers the point. The noble Lord is saying that they will go on helping to smooth out the supply to EU countries, but the UK will be left over here somewhere, unable to benefit from that if there is a world shortage of radioactive isotopes. That seems to me to be what he is saying: will he just confirm that that is what he is saying?
Lord Henley
I have a sneaking suspicion that the noble Lord is deliberately misunderstanding me. What I am trying to make clear is that we have to deal with not only what we want to import but obviously what is being exported from Europe. Euratom has an interest in what is being exported. Euratom is quite able, through the advice offered by the European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Radioisotopes, to look after the export of such radioisotopes. We have an interest in their export because we will be importing them as a non-EU country in the future. What I wanted to do is to give the noble Lord, if he will accept it, and other noble Lords an assurance that everything that can be done by the Government, and everything that is relevant in the negotiations, is being done to ensure a continued supply from European countries, just as there will continue to be supply from countries such as South Africa, from which we also import medical radioisotopes. I hope I have given sufficient assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that he will accept that we are doing what we can. As I made clear earlier, I do not think it is relevant to this Bill but I wanted to deal with the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill.
The powers in the Bill give the existing independent nuclear regulator—the ONR—a new role to regulate nuclear safeguards, alongside its existing role, which it performs very well, regulating the United Kingdom’s nuclear safety and security. The Bill sits alongside other work around our future relationship with Euratom, the IAEA and third countries. Of course, we do not know what the final arrangements will be so we are doing what any responsible Government would do by being ready to put in place a civil nuclear safeguards regime for the United Kingdom through the Bill. I reiterate that although the United Kingdom is leaving Euratom, we will continue to support Euratom and want to see continuity of co-operation and standards and a close future partnership with it. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, there are indeed many concerns. I have yet to hear any principled criticisms regarding the objectives, operations and outcomes of the EU’s civil nuclear organisation and the framework around Euratom. Indeed, widespread dismay was expressed when it was announced that, in consequence of the leave vote, the UK must leave Euratom. The Bill sets up a parallel inspection, monitoring and regulatory regime as robust as that which exists under Euratom, to be the responsibility of the ONR.
The Euratom treaty is legally distinct from the EU treaty but it shares the same constitutional oversight as the EU: the European Commission, the Council and the European Court of Justice. Although the decision that the UK should leave Euratom is contested by some expert legal advice—and my noble friend Lord Lea—the Government have chosen to do so because of the technical jurisdiction of the ECJ, even though I understand that there has never been a case referred to it. The Government wish to replicate Euratom’s functions and the Bill is confined to the safeguarding functions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency—IAEA—was set up also in 1957 to be the world’s intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the civil nuclear sector. It was set up under the non-proliferation treaty to safeguard nuclear material. Euratom also provides information on member states’ safeguards to the IAEA. Euratom and the IAEA carry out joint inspections of nuclear sites in the UK and endeavour to avoid duplication. There are, therefore, tripartite agreements the UK’s fulfilment of which relies on the UK’s membership of Euratom. The Government intend to replace these tripartite agreements with bilateral commitments whose robustness we will need to examine as the Bill progresses. Perhaps the Minister will say at this stage whether, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, he expects that Parliament will need to ratify these arrangements.
Leaving Euratom without the correct policy, regulatory and research framework in place will have significant implications for the UK’s nuclear and radioactive waste industries, as well as the health industry through radioisotopes, as we have just been discussing. Euratom undertakes supervision of nuclear safety, nuclear fuel supply security, radiation protection through the proper use of materials and safeguards, and research and development in nuclear fusion, as well as radioactive waste and decommissioning. As such, it impacts on many sectors of the economy, including construction and the necessary skills, manufacturing of parts, technical expertise and research.
On the Government’s insistence that leaving Euratom is included in the Article 50 letter and Bill, we agree that this Bill is necessary and that the UK must have a robust safeguarding system in place to meet our obligations. The new arrangements need to be as comprehensive as the current Euratom regime to enable public confidence in continuing high standards, to give international partners confidence in engaging in civil nuclear trade, to support the UK’s ongoing commitment to the global non-proliferation treaties and to demonstrate that the UK is a responsible nuclear state. On all these parameters, there must be severe doubt that the Government can meet these challenges in the timeframe required.
The proceedings in the other place demonstrated that the ONR could not maintain a regime equivalent to the standard set by Euratom from day one. Dr Golshan of the ONR made clear that the aim to have a system in place by March 2019 was unrealistic. The quality and quantity of inspectors required could not be recruited in time. Instead, it is likely that the UK could meet the lower standards set by the IAEA. The Government therefore need to clarify whether they are prepared to start the inspections at a lower level before increasing them to Euratom standards.
The Government recognised the issue with a ministerial Statement on 11 January which stated:
“We will seek a close association with Euratom and to include Euratom in any implementation period”.
“Any implementation period” gives the Government a further two years in which to put in place all the necessary measures. In so far as leaving Euratom has additional and separate wording in the Article 50 letter, will the Minister confirm that this gives the Government the opportunity to secure an implementation arrangement unique to that sector, should the more general and wider exit discussions prove less fruitful? It is imperative for this Bill. There are two treaties. Can the Government clarify that the implementation period acts in relation to this situation?
The ministerial Statement stated that the intention was,
“to ensure a future safeguards regime that will be equivalent in effectiveness and coverage as that currently provided by Euratom, including consideration of any potential role for Euratom in helping to establish the UK’s own domestic safeguards regime”.
We need to explore that potential role for Euratom during the implementation period and whether this Bill needs strengthening in that regard. For example, I imagine that the Minister will confirm today that the UK could subcontract inspectors from Euratom to continue monitoring UK facilities. Practicalities must help shape the architecture necessary for Brexit, and this Bill fits into the wider Brexit discussions.
The ministerial Statement continued by stating that,
“it is vital that Government pursues all options for providing certainty for the civil nuclear industry”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/17; col. 399WS.]
Our amendments in Committee will have this in mind. During the passage of the Bill through the other place, it was proposed that this close association could take the form of an associate membership—a status that is allowable under Euratom’s constitution. The reports are that this week the Government are trying to determine what they want in their future relationship with the EU. The Minister has the opportunity today. There would be little advantage to be gained from regulatory divergence for the nuclear industry outside Euratom. It is hardly a worthy answer to repeat that there is no associate membership class at present under Euratom.
Reconciling legal certainty with flexibility to negotiate presents challenges. The answer cannot include unfettered use of unconstitutional Henry VIII powers under Clause 2 to amend primary legislation. In the other place amendments to constrain those powers were proposed. We also have concerns about the use of those powers. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has yet to report on this Bill. We await the committee’s report with interest and will consider appropriate amendments for Committee.
The Bill is drawn up to be narrow in scope. Nevertheless, we need to be aware of all Euratom’s functions and to explore all of its facets, so that the Government can assure the industry that it will continue without disruption post Brexit. Part of the safeguarding regime will include nuclear co-operation agreements. The UK currently utilises Euratom’s NCAs to facilitate trade. Euratom has nine NCAs at present. Although there are requirements for some countries and not others, the UK will need to agree many bilateral NCAs within the necessary timeframes. Can the Minister commit to bringing these to Parliament and confirm the procedure that the Government will utilise?
It is vital that the Government make progress on developing new NCAs quickly. Given that these can only begin after the UK has satisfied the IAEA with regard to its safeguarding regime, it is essential that the UK implements its safeguarding protocols as soon as possible. The ONR has already suffered funding cuts. Under the impact assessment recently published, it is clear that the ONR must be given all the resources it needs to take up the responsibilities included in the Bill. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not only commit to providing resources but will not be calling on the industry to co-fund the inspection regime through cost recovery? At present it is funded through the UK’s contribution to the EU budget.
The immediate disquiet around the announcement that the UK will be leaving Euratom focused on two clear concerns: the valuable R&D facility of the Joint European Torus—JET—programme at Culham in Oxfordshire and the supply and maintenance of medical isotopes vital to the health service. The fusion research programme supports 1,300 jobs in the UK and is instrumental in attracting the expertise the UK needs in the nuclear industry. The EU currently provides 88% of JET running costs. Given Switzerland and Ukraine’s association status with Euratom, it is imperative that the Government examine the scope of this associated membership, even if it is limited to research and development facilities. Given how much of the Brexit process will involve the UK and EU navigating an implementation period, trade and the movement of product and expertise—and seeking unprecedented solutions—should not the Government be seeking agreement on a form of association?
The continuing supply of isotopes in medicines has also been subject to questions and debates, and even today has needed extra explanatory exchanges. The UK’s regulatory regime for setting and enforcing standards for the safe use, disposal and transportation of medical isotopes is based on international regulatory requirements informed by the IAEA. The supply has implications for cross-border EU negotiations and trading, and as such merits further investigation. The issue and how relevant it is will certainly need to be examined as the Bill progresses.
Regarding radiation protection, the UK is currently implementing the Euratom basic safety standards directive, which updates the UK’s radiation protection standards. Euratom also underpins trade in nuclear materials, and this will impact on the UK’s security of supply. The replacement arrangements with Euratom will need to cover the ownership of nuclear material. I understand that Euratom appears to be seeking to retain rights over uranic material on UK territory which EU customers have the right to use.
It is a complex task to follow up on all these issues through the various framework architectures. In a briefing the Nuclear Industry Association submitted, in conclusion to its analysis of requirements for the UK withdrawal from Euratom, it drew up a checklist highlighting five actions for the Government. The first is to agree the replacement voluntary offer safeguards agreement with the IAEA and to refund and resource the ONR to establish the UK’s safeguards regime. The second is to negotiate and conclude NCAs with nuclear materials. The third is to clarify the validity of the UK’s current bilateral NCAs with Japan and other nuclear states. The fourth is to set out the process for the movement of nuclear material, goods, people, information, services and protection, to be agreed with the Euratom supply agency. The fifth is to agree the new funding arrangements for the UK’s involvement in fusion for energy and the wider EU nuclear R&D programme. Perhaps the Minister could undertake to map out during the passage of the Bill the Government’s own plans across the field and to clarify in one place the various interlocking arms of the regulatory framework, highlighting the various measures to be enacted under various Brexit Bills to come. I am sure that would be very helpful to all noble Lords.
Labour believes that the best way to maintain nuclear safeguards and protect the nuclear industry is to achieve an equivalent arrangement with Euratom, at least in the implementation period. The Government were reckless to rule out continuing Euratom membership, making the ECJ a defining characteristic.
The Bill is only one small part of the picture. Clarity and certainty for the industry are still missing. I have outlined our five key concerns. We will seek to address them all during consideration of the Bill.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very tolerant and understanding introduction. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on a comprehensive assessment of the situation, with much of which I associate this party.
Judging from the debate in the other place, I expected to be told that this was a narrow technical Bill and that it was about safeguarding, not safety—and so we were. Like the Minister, though, I have sneaking suspicions too: I suspect that by narrowing the focus of the Bill and the debate, the Government were hoping to avoid having to debate many of the other issues. I am afraid that, as we have already seen and as the Minister has experienced, that will not be the case. There are important issues in addition to safeguarding—which is of course important—such as providing the nuclear single market for goods and services, and providing funding for nuclear fusion research.
How did it come to this? Not even the most ardent no voter in the referendum was aware that a vote against the EU was going to turn into a vote against Euratom. I have not met anyone who voted against Euratom in the referendum. I agree with the honourable Member for Oxford West and Abingdon in the other place when she said:
“The most sensible approach to nuclear safeguarding would be for the United Kingdom to remain a member of Euratom”,—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/17; col. 648.]
rather than having to go through this process. This view has been supported by the Nuclear Industry Association, as we have heard, but the Government have produced and waved around legal advice to say that that is not possible. With all due respect to some members of the legal profession in this House, my experience is that the answer you get is only sometimes associated with the question you asked in the first place. I believe some others had a legal opinion that points in the other direction. The NIA also states that leaving Euratom without having replicated and replaced the current arrangements could impact on the supply of electricity and medical isotopes. That is why your Lordships are right to be concerned about this. The NIA calls for a transitional period to guarantee continuity and avoid a cliff edge in March 2019. Can the Minister outline the Government’s position regarding transition?
As the Minister outlined, the first clause is about creating powers for the ONR and the second is one of the now-traditional Henry VIII powers that seem to pop up in every piece of legislation that comes before your Lordships’ House. I shall leave the Clause 2 debate for Committee stage, except to reiterate the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already expressed. I will dwell on Clause 1 and the aim of reforming existing legislation to ensure that the ONR is able to pick up its important safeguarding role next spring, in the event that the Government continue to press on with departing from Euratom.
The legislation appears to be the easy bit. The challenge is the scramble to get all the pieces in place in the event of the metaphorical cliff edge arriving. The Bill fails to make any clearer how the Government will address the practical challenge of setting up this regime. It is a hands-off approach. At the moment, as the Minister knows, Euratom employs about 160 staff, a quarter of whom focus on UK installations. We are told that the ONR is recruiting and training people to replace the 40 Euratom safeguarding staff. Can the Minister tell us how that is going and by how much the ONR budget is being and has been increased to facilitate this up-skilling?
There is the issue of facilities. Will the ONR be taking over existing Euratom equipment and facilities in the UK? If so, have the Government given thought to the liability it is taking on? Will taking ownership make the ONR or BEIS liable for the decommissioning, removal and disposal of any equipment taken on as a result of the transfer? Again, what is the projected cost of liability?
Those are just a couple of issues. There is so much to do and so little time to do it. Does the Minister agree with the senior ONR official cited by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who told the Commons BEIS Select Committee that the timescale for adding safeguarding responsibilities to the ONR is very challenging?
Looking beyond our shores for a moment and turning to the wider proliferation landscape, my noble friend Lord Teverson will pick up on the international and institutional issues. I just note that to cover for our Euratom departure, the UK will need to complete international agreements with a wide range of non-EU countries. Once again, this is a formidable to-do list, especially given that there are one or two other things to do associated with the whole Brexit process. It relies on an enormous groundswell of good will from the global nuclear community. Let us hope that this is forthcoming.
Briefly, I turn to the two areas of Euratom actively ignored by the Bill: the nuclear single market and nuclear fusion research. The Minister has already tried to bat those to one side as irrelevant to the Bill, but he should recognise the legitimate concerns of noble Lords about these issues and that, unless there is another forum for us to debate the wider nuclear agenda, this is the only game in town. For that reason, he should take these issues seriously and engage with this debate.
The focal point of the free market issue has been and is radioactive isotopes for medical and scientific use. The concern is not trumped up by politicians; it has come from radiologists, scientists and practitioners in the industry. It is a genuine concern and legitimate issue that the Government have to address.
If it is not this Bill and if it is not BEIS, can the Minister tell us which department and who in that department is now working on this process, who will be accountable and when we will have the opportunity to discuss that on the Floor of the House? As the Member for Wantage so compellingly put it in the other place, we need to replicate the nuclear common market that exists because of our membership of Euratom. I would add that because the Prime Minister has now said that we will not have a customs union, this becomes much harder. During the course of the Bill, the Minister must explain how this common market will be achieved. It is not just about radioisotopes. Post exit, if a nuclear component is sourced outside the UK for a project to build or maintain a nuclear power station, it could no longer be seamlessly imported. Delay in such matters is critical.
This is not theoretical. As EDF has pointed out, the Sizewell B plant breakdown in 2010 was handled using the nuclear market arrangements. They will not be available in future.
The Commons BEIS Select Committee views withdrawal from Euratom as having a considerable impact on the UK civil nuclear sector. Having listened to the Minister’s opening comments, he seems to be accepting that there will be more friction than there is now—“as frictionless as possible” is an acknowledgement that friction will exist. He said that everything that could be done will be done, and “We are doing what we can”. If the Minister is a betting man, would he put it at 70:30 that he will do as much as can be done, or is it a 60:40 chance that we will succeed in this negotiation?
Another area on which noble Lords will talk in detail is nuclear research. As the Minister knows, the UK is home to JET. The Government have underwritten Culham, I believe to 2020, which the Minister will realise is not very far away. People working there need certainty and to know what is happening beyond 2020. The UK has benefited in the long term from fusion projects, and I believe that the Government want that to continue. Membership of the Fusion For Energy programmes has led to at least £500 million of contracts for UK concerns, but there needs to be long-term security for this research, and 2020 does not constitute long term. Perhaps the Minister can help with this. This is not just about the prospects for the projects; brilliant researchers and engineers have gathered here from across the whole of Europe, and they need to know the status of their project as well as the status of their passport.
By hiding behind the narrow remit of this Bill we are not addressing these important issues, which we look forward to hearing more about. My party will work to help improve the Bill, but we are disappointed that it deliberately ignores some very important issues and concerns of this House. Given that this is the only chance to air them, the onus is on the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box with a broad mind and a full set of answers to this wider set of issues. We await his answers with interest.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill, and I am glad that it is shorter and clearer than most other comparable Bills. As this is the Second Reading debate, I will touch on three areas: EU aspects of what is planned; prospects for nuclear; and then I will ask some detailed questions about the Bill itself.
I resisted the temptation to add to the enormous numbers speaking last week on the withdrawal Bill. I should, however, state clearly that I am in the camp of those who voted remain, but unlike the noble Lord, Lord Fox, now believe that, following the democratic vote in the referendum, we should get on with Brexit. Given the attitude of the EU negotiators, I am, sadly, increasingly doubtful about the prospect of reaching a broad-based deal with the EU. The clearly expressed attitude of the EU negotiators that the UK’s preferred outcome is not possible for them needs to be reflected in a more realistic UK position in the negotiations, based on the fact that our future is outside the EU, not half inside it. But that is, in the main, for another day. However, it means that, as a contingency, we need to work very hard now to be ready for a bare-bones deal, which will keep the aeroplanes flying, the interconnectors working, and so on.
Turning to the nuclear area, as a former Energy Minister, my judgment is that we need to pass this Bill quickly and get on with the negotiations with the IAEA and other nuclear powers. Moreover, I would not yet completely rule out the possibility of extending Article 50 in the case of Euratom if unforeseen problems arise. My view is that this would have no real implications for Brexit overall. I would be amazed, indeed, if the EU would have a problem, given the potential dangers of nuclear material and the mutuality of interest in proper nuclear safeguards across Europe.
I turn to the prospects for the nuclear industry, and endorse what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Fox, about the importance of nuclear fusion research. I speak today partly because of my support for nuclear power, which of course started in this country in the 1950s at Calder Hall, another British innovation. Nuclear is still responsible for more than one-fifth of UK electricity generation, and we know that most of this is produced in reactors whose life will probably be over by the 2030s. Renewable energy has been growing, but in some weeks we produce tiny amounts of energy from wind and solar because of the intermittency problem—blame the UK weather.
I am therefore a believer in what I like to describe as a portfolio approach to energy. Security of supply is vital, and diversification is as important for energy as it is for financial investment if we are to avoid disasters in future generations. Nuclear, which is virtually zero carbon, has to play a key part internationally and in the UK, which is why the safeguards against proliferation, which are at the heart of today’s Bill, are so important. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to update us very soon on nuclear investments that secure a baseload capacity for the future. What is the state of play on Hinkley? Have we found a way of securing investment in the other five power stations for which we have proposals across the UK? What has happened to the plans for small modular reactors? We know they work technically, as they have been used by the Royal Navy for years. To my mind, they offer export potential in a post-Brexit world, especially given our strong record on nuclear safeguards and security—the subject of today’s Bill. The Government have rightly earmarked substantial funds for UK infrastructure. I believe that some of this should go to securing nuclear investment as part of a sustainable energy portfolio and to ensure that power cuts do not blight our old age.
I am supportive of the Bill, and glad to see the use of affirmative resolution SIs in key areas. It is helpful that we have been given sight of the regulations in draft that will be made under the Act later this year. That inspires real confidence. I commend the Minister and his colleague in the other place, Richard Harrington, for this, and indeed for the briefing meetings that have been arranged to get us all up to speed. This making available of draft regulations early could usefully be adopted more widely in the Brexit context. That could increase understanding in a complex and difficult area, and I shall come back to it as an idea on another day.
There are, however, some questions which I hope to explore in Committee, if today’s debate does not assuage my concerns. First, I would like to understand how the proposals relate to nuclear waste. This is an important UK operation, with Sellafield pioneering innovation in safe disposal to the benefit of its large Cumbrian workforce, and government plans, out for consultation, for a new geological disposal facility. The government memorandum on delegated powers says that there are about 100 UK facilities or other duty holders subject to Euratom standards and safeguards. What and where are these? I also associate myself with the questions about the movement of medical isotopes raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others. This issue must be addressed here, or in another Brexit Bill— and it is good to hear the Minister saying that he is focusing on the issue.
Secondly, on resourcing, according to the memorandum ONR has five areas of responsibility; it looks after safety, site health and safety, security, safeguards and transport, following its separation from the Health and Safety Executive in 2014. I would like to understand how well that change has worked and be reassured that the resourcing is adequate for the future, with enough expertise and enough money, and without over-the-top fees on nuclear operators. It is a tight timeframe, so this issue of resourcing matters a lot.
Thirdly, is the ONR geared up for a crisis? We would not want to find out that it was not after the event. Learning from Grenfell, can the ONR secure rapid back-up help from the Government, the police and security services and other agencies?
Finally, I note that there is no review clause in the Bill. Given that, what are the arrangements for reporting to Parliament on an area of such importance, both within and beyond the Brexit period? The Bill does not provide for an annual report. Is this provided for elsewhere? Perhaps the Minister can reassure us and agree that the safeguards work will be properly covered in any annual report.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, Brexit notwithstanding, is to try to sustain the confidence of the public in the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that, since the non-proliferation treaty of 1968, there has been a growing awareness of the split between civil and military nuclear activity. Indeed, the opposition to nuclear power had begun to dip—although there have been periods of increased popularity—and, since 1968, a lot of the misgivings about nuclear power have been reduced. This is because there have been, in varying forms, regimes that would look after civil nuclear power in its various manifestations.
Prior to Euratom, that was done by the IAEA, which in those days was probably not the most rigorous of organisations. Indeed, when one looks at the record of the nuclear industry—for example, the way in which it stored and dealt with nuclear waste for many years—it was somewhat haphazard. However, this is now very rigorously addressed and it is fairly successful, although the enormity of the task at Sellafield means that it is slow and, by necessity, exceedingly fine in the manner in which it is dealt with.
When we are confronted with the departure from a regulatory organisation such as Euratom, we have to cast around to find a means to deal with it in a way that will not undermine public confidence. It is significant that we no longer refer to the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, because it is now a somewhat different organisation and enjoys a degree of financial independence, which enables it to employ and retain an inspectorate. Prior to the changes, the old inspectorate had terrible leakage problems. It had some of the most capable nuclear physicists in the country, but for understandable reasons they went elsewhere to work—they were paid far more by the private nuclear companies. Without Euratom, the work of the Office for Nuclear Regulation will become that much more critical.
It would be wrong to suggest that we can just stand by and take the IAEA standards. The IAEA covers the whole of the world’s nuclear-generating capability. Not all countries that are members of the IAEA have the capability, or indeed the desire, to achieve the standards of performance that we regard as essential for the safety of our public and for the acceptance of nuclear power.
In examining the Bill, we must first look at the capability of the Office for Nuclear Regulation to replace the staff who will be lost because of the absence of Euratom’s officials. That is probably the first priority. We have to make sure that the necessary money and resources will be made available, and that it is not done at the expense of an industry undergoing a lot of difficulty one way or another.
Secondly, we have to explore how we can realistically maintain a relationship with Euratom that is capable of sustaining those high levels of safety. Euratom will have the means to explore what is required in a way that an individual country cannot do. If we are talking about an organisation that sits alongside Japan and Canada, we need to be in that kind of position. In a number of areas our withdrawal from Euratom may not be quite the national tragedy that some people suggest, but we need to work a bit harder at getting that brought across. So far, the Government have not given a convincing explanation of our future relationship with Euratom.
On the medical issues and whether they could be the subject of an additional clause, I think that would probably be difficult, given the Long Title. However, those issues need to be addressed for obvious reasons.
Lastly, one of the problems faced by the nuclear industry in the round—that is, civil and defence—is that there has been a tradition of secrecy and a desire not to let anybody know what is going on. As regards health and safety, one could argue that in the civil field people should not necessarily have to be preoccupied or concerned with what is going on within the industry. However, I am not certain about that argument. I tend towards the view that transparency can be a high-risk issue but it is one that we need to address. I am not sure whether the Clause 2 provisions, which are drifting towards the character of Henry VIII provisions, are necessarily the kinds of things that need to be hidden away or carried out by executive order. Beyond this legislation, when reporting is carried out and changes are proposed, the widest possible consultation should be available and the opportunity for this House and the House of Commons to debate any changes should be made available.
I recognise that this legislation is, unfortunately, necessary. If we were not in Brexit mode, we would probably not need to have it. However, I would like to think that it is one of those pieces of legislation that could become irrelevant because we could stay on. But until such time as we know that for sure, it is essential that we give the Bill the closest attention. I hope that we can produce something a wee bit better than what we have. It is not a terrible Bill that we will spend our nights awake over the Recess worrying about. However, there is scope for improvement, and it is incumbent upon us to improve it when we get the opportunity to do so.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, particularly for his explanation at the beginning, not least that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is not about safety but about security. I look forward to the Government’s nuclear security Bill, which will look after safety in due course—the whole of this area is perhaps a little confusing.
On the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I am relatively relaxed about the Bill and the transfer of medical isotopes. However, he pinpoints the right issue with the Bill, which is that out of Euratom we are then out of the observatory, which is there for emergencies when supplies of these difficult commodities are short. That itself is probably a key area as regards the Euratom aspect.
I welcome a number of things from the Government on the Bill. The Government, unlike with the shambles of the EU negotiation, are getting on with it, and I give them credit for that. In comparison with the other negotiating stream, they are positively better. I also welcome the Minister’s undertaking in his opening remarks that we would go not for IAEA standards but for the continuity of Euratom standards. That is an important point—if only we had that guarantee of alignment elsewhere, perhaps in the negotiations. I also welcome, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the advance publication of the draft regulations. Therefore, it is good from all those points of view.
As my noble friend Lord Fox mentioned, the Euratom treaty and organisation is around research projects. I was privileged to visit Culham a couple of weeks ago with the other members of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee that I have the privilege to chair. It is important that the work that is going on there—the co-operation, future planning and the promise that we hopefully have from the project as it moves on to ITER, into France and then on to a demonstration project—is here in the United Kingdom and co-operates on research projects as part of Euratom.
The Euratom treaty is also around the movement of materials, which I will come back to later on, and, as my noble friend Lord Fox said, around freedom of movement for individuals. When we remove ourselves from the Euratom treaty, we will then stop those freedoms that come with the treaty, and I very much hope that the Home Office will take note of the fact that we need to have that freedom of movement for nuclear experience to continue. That is not just about the most professionally advanced people but about people at all levels. For instance, I know that one area that EDF has been particularly concerned about at Hinkley Point is steel fixers, as the lack of that key skill could stop that project going ahead. So it is not just the PhDs and the nuclear fusion research; we need to keep that freedom of movement right the way through the nuclear chain.
However, the thing that really concerns me, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, is timing. The deputy director of the Office for Nuclear Regulation has already been quoted a number of times. I find it very difficult indeed, from both her evidence and that of others, to see that we can have an approved organisation—the technical term for what we need is a voluntary offer agreement—with the IAEA by the time we leave Euratom on 29 March next year. It seems that there is a high risk that we will not meet that. That has a number of implications for our international relations. It particularly means that, if that is not the case, we will be unable to fulfil our obligations under international treaties and the legislation of other countries with which we deal.
If the Minister answers one question I ask today, this is the one I would most like him to answer. Let us suppose that we get to 29 March next year and do not have the voluntary offer agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. If we manage to get an agreement with Euratom that we can subcontract and still work those safeguarding arrangements through Euratom, will the IAEA agree to that? I would be interested to understand from the Minister whether we have an agreement with the IAEA on that, because it seems fundamental.
We cannot guarantee that we will have that agreement with Euratom, however. Why? Again, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about extending our membership of Euratom instead of having a transitional agreement; it would make everything so much easier. The referendum did not cover Euratom, so politically it is not an issue. It is not a given, however; the situation could be more sensitive than we might think, because Germany and Austria are often difficult about the Euratom treaty in areas including future agreements.
Finally, on nuclear co-operation agreements, I went through the Commission’s website earlier today to see how many such agreements Euratom had to which we were privileged to be party. The list covers Australia, the Russian Federation, Japan, Canada, the United States of America, Switzerland, South Korea—strangely, it was described as the Korean peninsula—Argentina, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and, of course, the International Atomic Energy Agency itself. To continue the 20% of generation that we already have and complete the construction of Hinkley Point and the remainder of a new nuclear programme if we have it, we need to replace significant numbers of those nuclear co-operation agreements very quickly, before we actually leave the Euratom treaty. That seems an extremely tall order, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister exactly how we intend to achieve it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, given that I intend to address my remarks to the issue of medical isotopes, I am grateful to the Minister for talking about it so fully in his introduction to the debate. Like all your Lordships, I trust implicitly his integrity and intentions; that goes without saying. However, I have some misgivings about the lexicon that he has been given, which led to his using particular words in his opening remarks. Having said that, I express my thanks to him, to his colleague in the other place and to the Bill team, which has worked hard to inform noble Lords about the Bill.
I have heard more often than I can remember—it is merely a mantra—that this Bill is about nuclear safeguards, not nuclear safety. If you say it often enough you may well come to believe it, but I suspect that we would all believe something quite different when we did so. I understand the reason for that distinction: it is entirely political, of course, because it gives the Government the excuse for leaving a significant section of the industry out of the Bill. I am afraid that it is no more than a semantic explanation, and I am sure that the distinction would be totally lost on the broader public. For example, if significant detriment were caused to staff and patients because of a problem with radio- pharmaceuticals brought into a hospital from a European Union country, I doubt that the distinction that we have been given would be regarded as mitigation in the public inquiry that would ensue following such an accident. Concern, which I share, has been expressed strongly among professionals, including the Society for Radiological Protection—the SRP—of which I have the honour to be patron. It says that the supply of imported radiopharmaceuticals is implicitly part of the Euratom arrangements that have been reached over years, as I shall explain.
I am advised that the isotopes used for the treatment of cancer are not produced in the UK at present. That means that we rely on imports from the European Union and elsewhere. I think that the Minister mentioned South Africa. My understanding is that the supply from South Africa is currently not available because of safety issues there, although supplies are being brought in from Australia and America, as well as from the EU. However, the important point is that those products have a half-life of around three days. As your Lordships will know, that means that the effective radioactivity in the product falls by a half in about three days. As a consequence, the intended effectiveness of the medication is reduced and indeed in many cases destroyed.
The industry believes—and I support it—that the continued availability of such medical isotopes in the best condition should be encompassed in this Bill. It is just not good enough to say that this will be part of the broader negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the European Union. That is uncertainty on toast and it is not acceptable. Although the Minister has said—I have heard this in meetings—that this issue has nothing to do with the Bill before us, I am told, and accept, that it does. For example, a shipment of isotopes falls within Council Regulation (Euratom) No. 1493/93 as amended—it is still in force as amended. This regulation is designed to safeguard health workers and the general public against ionising radiation, and that is stated as its purpose in the recital of the regulation.
Although that regulation recognises the removal of border controls within the EU, in order to protect the public, including those who receive medical isotopes, it provides a notification system. Not only has it become a safeguarding system but it is a system that has been used to ensure the regular and steady supply of fresh medical isotopes. It provides for the safe and speedy transfer of the products concerned. It involves so-called “competent authorities” in each country—in the UK the main authority is the Office for Nuclear Regulation—which devolve responsibilities to others, such as the Environment Agency, and, importantly, its counterparts in Scotland and Wales. There is a devolution issue here too, although that seems to have been overlooked.
The Government say that this part of Euratom’s statutory activity can be consigned to those later and general negotiations about the transfer of goods and services between the UK and the EU—the same category as applies to, for example, the importation of processed croques-monsieur into the United Kingdom. I do not accept that; it is much too important. That promise—if it be a promise—provides no assurance whatever for continuity. Indeed, it raises the prospect of UK patients, if they can afford it, having to travel for this kind of treatment to France and Germany, where such isotopes are manufactured. I suppose that it also provides the insurance industry with a potential bonanza, cashing in on a new form of insurance that enables those who take private medical insurance to buy treatment in countries abroad as part of their policy.
Major suppliers of radiopharmaceuticals in the European Union have confirmed that the current arrangements, which are made, so they tell us via Euratom, ensure the timely supply of material from the point of manufacture to patients in the UK. That includes such urgency that the product can be delivered and then reporting arrangements can be used retrospectively in cases of urgency. It is a very important part of medical treatment.
There is also the issue of resilience of supply of medical isotopes. The UK, due to the work of the European observatory, is in a better position to be able to rely on a fair share of radiopharmaceuticals from Europe without fear of loss of supply. But the continuation of these advantageous arrangements—they benefit hospitals such as the Royal Free, University College Hospital, London and other places where important cancer treatments are carried out or clinical trials are being performed—is critical for such places, given that we manufacture none in the UK and suppliers in South Africa, as I said earlier, and also in Canada have major production issues.
There are issues that worry the industry around three other matters. First, the potential uncertainty of UK participation in future Euratom research projects that engage British academics and others will either reduce UK-based expertise or, worse, drive most nuclear physicists to go and work in other countries. Secondly, there is the designation of professionals as medical physicists. The recognised standards entitling scientists to be designated as medical physicists are arranged under the umbrella of Euratom, with a requirement for all relevant clinics to employ such a person. Thirdly, standard designations apply to medical isotopes just as they apply to any other goods. Those are currently agreed on an EU basis, which is based on conversations within Euratom.
There is an overwhelming case for provision in the Bill for the medical isotope matters to be the subject of assurance for the future. They should be included, and I look forward to debates in Committee on that subject.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord O’Neill referred to the Bill as an unfortunate necessity, but it is only necessary because of choices the Government have already made. We could have remained in Euratom while leaving the other institutions of the EU. Euratom was originally in a separate treaty and remained a discrete part of the consolidated treaty. It would not have been cherry-picking for us to remain. The EU would not have objected. There is admittedly a role for the ECJ in Euratom’s institutional structure, but that has never been used. It would have been a sensible and safe thing to do to say at the beginning of the post-referendum process or at the point of triggering Article 50 that we were withdrawing from the other institutions but wished to remain within Euratom. It would have been the logical thing to do, and it would also have been by far the safest thing to do.
In the Bill, we are dealing with the rules that govern the use and proliferation of what is probably the most dangerous material handled by mankind, and their enforcement. Frankly, the boundaries between civil and potential military use need always to be absolutely clear and shared within and between nations. That has not always been the case in the history of the nuclear industry, nuclear power and military hardware.
The global system under the auspices of the IAEA is vital but is not watertight. Over the years there have been a number of reports about fissile materials going missing in the sense that they have been unaccounted for. Usually, the authorities have reassured us that it was an administrative glitch and not a real diversion of these vital materials to North Korea, to terrorist organisations or to other countries wishing to join the nuclear powers. But that has not always been certain. The role of the Euratom operation in preventing proliferation has been vital and is one of the tightest parts of the global system. Under Euratom, the tightness of the safeguards has been maintained. It has monitored nuclear sites and trade to ensure security of operations and transfers within and beyond Europe, and as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, it has also been responsible for the third party treaties. We will have to replicate those treaties post our leaving the EU.
It is true that the Minister has distinguished between safety and safeguards, but as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just implied, it is not always a clear distinction and not a clear one in the minds of the public. It would certainly not be a clear distinction if an incident actually happened. By and large the HSE and latterly the ONR, along with the organisations in this country to which they have delegated powers, have enforced that safety. However, we also need international and particularly cross-European co-ordination. Hitherto, Euratom has helped to ensure that co-ordination and indeed the UK’s own compliance with the various international conventions governing nuclear materials, nuclear safety and non-proliferation.
Under the Bill it is true that the UK through the ONR will continue to meet IAEA standards, but the reporting and monitoring standards of the IAEA are different and on the face of it less rigorous than those of Euratom. I was grateful to hear what the Minister said about maintaining Euratom rather than IAEA standards and I hope that somehow appears in the final version of the Bill. However, all of this will place severe pressures on the ONR, an organisation that has performed well but, frankly, has had its resources cut by more than two thirds in the current spending round up to 2020 for its existing responsibilities.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out clearly, before the Bill completes its passage through this House, the resources, staffing and level of qualifications of staff for the ONR that will be needed for it to carry out its new obligations. I understand that currently, 40 Euratom safeguarding staff are based in the UK and focused on UK nuclear institutions while at the moment only eight ONR staff have professional safeguarding qualifications. How many extra staff will the ONR need, or will it sub-contract the work back to Euratom? I hope that any new migration package will not stop those staff coming in. These questions are vital if we are to establish that the ONR will be in a position to carry out these new duties. There are also duties relating to what is currently Euratom equipment. Are the Government going to acquire that equipment for the ONR, and will it be a cost to the ONR and the Exchequer? What will be the future cost of its decommissioning and replacement? How will all this be taken into account on the basis of a significantly reduced ONR budget and a shrinking expertise base, which is what we are inheriting?
The phrase “Euratom equivalence” requires some further explanation in the context of the regulations, as does the ONR’s independence. The UK Government, via the ONR, will be inspecting their own provisions regarding the civil and military interface, for example. I think I can say without severely breaching the Official Secrets Act that when I worked for the Atomic Energy Authority, well before Euratom, those interfaces were not always clear. I shall say no more. ONR independence from government is absolutely essential; otherwise, the Government will effectively be marking their own homework in this vital area.
The Bill does not cover all the other functions of Euratom, but even the safeguarding provisions stray into other areas. For example, another key Euratom function has been the facilitation of cross-border supply chains. Since much of the UK nuclear industry is owned overseas and certainly has overseas suppliers, primarily French, these international supply chains are key. I, and I expect other noble Lords, have received evidence from EDF that spells out how important this seamless supply chain was in dealing with a very dangerous emergency situation at Sizewell B a few years ago, and now in fulfilling the effective delivery of the new Hinkley Point station. If we are absent from not only Euratom itself but its agencies—the observatory referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and its supply agency—the monitoring and support for these supply chains will inevitably diminish.
The Minister might say that this is irrelevant to the direct subject of the Bill, but others have already mentioned the R&D provisions under Euratom, which spill over into safeguarding. I recognise that much R&D is international. I have probably related this in the House previously, but in my early youth in the 1960s—prior to Euratom even being invented, or certainly the UK being a member of it—I worked at Harwell and Culham. Noble Lords might find it difficult to believe, but I received security clearance to the highest level. It took about three passes to get to my office. But one morning I was in early and I heard this babble outside in the corridor, which was all in Russian. Harwell had invited a whole crowd of Russian experts and scientists, because science is international. This was at the height of the Cold War.
Some international collaboration is open, but Euratom has channelled expertise and money into projects that have already been referred to, which include the important work on fusion technology. The Minister may try to downplay the importance of Euratom in this, but it is all part of the picture of European co-operation. Before we finish with the Bill, we need to get a clear indication of the Minister’s understanding of and position on the JET and Torus fusion projects, and other R&D programmes, when we leave the EU and Euratom.
The noble Lord referred to progress being made on Euratom in the Brexit negotiations. I would be grateful if he could expand on this and how, in agreement with our European ex-partners, we will liaise in future. Are the Government at least seeking associate membership of Euratom and its agencies? I assume from what the Minister said that the answer to that is no, but it is possible. Norway is party to some of these.
The recent EU document suggests that we will be absent from the agencies as well as the institutions of the EU, not only after the end of the transition period but from the beginning of it. That means that by March 2019, we must beef up the operation of the ONR, reach an understanding with the EU and ensure that an adequate alternative UK regime is recognised internationally and co-ordinated in new bilateral treaties replacing those currently covered by the EU. That stretches credibility. While there are aspects of the Bill that I welcome, the Government need to stop pretending that all of this can be done. We need to ensure that the endpoint of this process, if we are leaving Euratom, is at least the endpoint of the transition period. There is no chance of us meeting it by what is effectively October, or even by March 2019.
I recognise that, in the circumstances, the Government have created the need for the Bill, but there are many queries still to be faced. In particular, I would like a justification for what appears to be an impossible timetable.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I realised when I saw my position in the batting order here that most of what I was going to say would have already been said, although I am somewhat astounded by what is coming out just now—what the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord O’Neill and Lord Carlile, said—that we may not have had to get into this mess. I had thought that our membership of Euratom was, legally, tightly linked to our membership of the EU and that it was inevitable that we would have to leave Euratom. If that is not the case then somebody has made a very major blunder. I hope the Minister will be able to sort out for us whether we needed to leave Euratom, because I cannot imagine anybody supporting that.
I decided to speak today because I am convinced that nuclear power is going to be essential if we are to meet our carbon targets, and to sustain our nuclear power in the long term we are going to need a nuclear R&D programme. To explain my interest, I have spent a lot of time supporting nuclear R&D in this House as a past member and chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. I am therefore well aware of the importance of our membership of Euratom and of the need, after Brexit, to find the means to sustain what that membership provides. Related to that, I also retain the hope that the challenges of harnessing fusion power will in the end be met, and our membership of the international projects driving fusion forward also depend on our membership of Euratom. Both the future of nuclear R&D and fusion research are closely related to our membership of Euratom.
I realise that the Bill addresses only the issue of nuclear safeguards. I found this early in my reading, in a simple paragraph entitled, “What the Bill doesn’t cover”:
“The Nuclear Safeguards Bill only makes provisions for Euratom’s role on nuclear safeguards. Euratom however has a number of functions including regulating the civil nuclear industry, disposal of nuclear waste, ownership of nuclear fuel, and research and development”.
I would rate those things as outranking our safeguards by about 10 to one, but the Bill dodges them. It is being thrown into that overall confusion of what we are doing to negotiate our position in the EU.
Getting back to the Bill, I support the Government’s two-track approach to providing safeguards for our nuclear plants, but I naturally hope that we can follow the first track and find a way to remain a member of Euratom, rather than having to rely on the alternative of providing the capabilities ourselves. The Bill provides the means of establishing our own capabilities in the area of safeguards. This is going to be expensive—even this, as has been realised—and I believe that new inspectors are already being hired and trained. However, it is not going to be possible to train the inspectors to the level that they can maintain the current high standards in the long term without maintaining a competitive and up-to-date research and development programme. Nuclear technologies, along with all other high technologies, are going to continue to change rapidly. Advanced reactor designs are already being worked on, as are small modular reactors, and the knowledge of how to maintain safeguards for these new systems will require an up-to-date understanding of their operation. This can be obtained only through direct involvement with the engineers who actually design and build these systems. Either we have these engineers working on our projects, or we are members of the international community—presumably Euratom and perhaps the IAEA—and have access to the latest data from other countries.
As I have mentioned, there is also the vital issue of nuclear fusion. As we all know, we are leaders in this technology through our work on the Joint European Torus at Culham. For more than three decades we have maintained world leadership in this research. In addition, we have been major partners in ITER, the large international project in the south of France, where a fusion reactor capable of generating electricity is being built. At Culham we have also pursued research into new, smaller fusion reactors. These are known as spherical tokamaks, where the reactor chamber is not a torus, or doughnut, but spherical. This geometry has been shown to be three times more efficient and there are hopes that this may make smaller reactors than ITER feasible. There is also a commercial company in the UK developing this type of reactor. If we are forced to leave Euratom, we will lose the funds necessary to continue all this vital fusion energy research, which would be a major tragedy, perhaps not in the “dagger in the heart” category but almost there. We lead the world in precious few scientific or technological fields but this is one of them. It would be a complete tragedy if we jeopardised this project in any way.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to reassure us that the Government will give the same priority to maintaining a competitive nuclear R&D programme as to establishing our own ability to provide the safeguards necessary to maintain our existing and already planned nuclear plants. This will be essential if we are to be able to assess our own power plants in the long term and to remain competitive in fusion research, which has the potential to solve many of the world’s energy problems.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, first, I will refer again briefly to the question I raised in my earlier intervention about the umbilical—or otherwise—relationship between EU membership and Euratom membership. I am endeavouring merely to ascertain the objective truth about this matter. It cannot be a matter of opinion; it must be somehow a matter of fact. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot give a more definitive answer today, will put a letter in the Library giving the facts of the matter, because I think it may be more complicated than either he or I have stated, but it needs to be clarified.
I will mention just one relevant anecdote. I happened to chair a meeting in 1961 at the Cambridge Union for Seán Lemass, the Taoiseach—the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland—and he took the opportunity to announce to Irish TV Ireland’s accession to Euratom. Of course, it was not until 1973, 12 years later, that Ireland, along with the UK and one or two others, actually joined the EEC. So there was no umbilical connection at that time and I think the degree of umbilical-ness is perhaps being exaggerated. The registration regulations may well have changed since then but I am not sure how umbilical it is—or the opposite. Unless I am totally wrong, I suspect that I am following a train of thought which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was hunting for on the same point.
It is clear from the debate that there is a strong feeling in both Houses that we should be seeking as a minimum some form of associate membership of Euratom. I do not know whether there is such a thing. My view is that there is a clear option in principle if we stay in the EEA.
Another point that I would like to mention which has not yet been raised, but been implied by many, is that there is a very strong multinational dimension to all aspects of this, not only in the scientific co-operation but in the generation of power. We only have to think of EDF, the Chinese, the Japanese and so on. We are inevitably under the umbrella, and one of the strongest umbrellas for technical co-operation on standards is Euratom. As many noble Lords have said, the Office for Nuclear Regulation will do its best but, according to the note that I have, the Government have cut the grant to the ONR between 2015-16 and 2019-20 by 70%. How can it deal with all this extra work?
I shall not go into any more detail about the red lines on the European Court of Justice, because they are very tangential to this decision. However, if the UK were to leave Euratom, we would need to have a properly resourced regulatory framework in place by exit day. Everybody has pointed out the difficulty of doing that. Euratom currently employs about 160 staff, 25% of whom focus on UK installations. Without Euratom’s infrastructure and resources that work is likely to fall to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which currently employs eight professional staff. Those are relevant numbers. We are placing extra responsibilities on the ONR but are not providing extra resources to fulfil them or, as far as I know, holding any open conversations, certainly with the trade unions, about how the regime would be funded.
I have a couple of specific points to put to the Minister, perhaps for response later. First, have the Government given any thought to the liability that they are taking on with regard to purchasing or obtaining existing Euratom equipment in UK facilities? By taking ownership, would that then make the ONR and/or BEIS liable to facilities for the decommissioning, removal and disposal of that equipment were it not to be used or replaced? The decommissioning, removal and disposal of contaminated equipment is not easy and will come with a price tag. Secondly, what is the purpose behind Euratom equivalence, which my noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned? Who will the ONR be expected to satisfy by performing Euratom-style inspections using video surveillance and equipment to verify that nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful purposes? It is already known that the UK has a weapons programme, and we already have security cameras and portal monitors mounted on our sites to protect against theft and neutron monitors to provide a safety function. What benefit is there to the UK in providing our own internal verification of our own UK declarations? Those measures will not be recognised by bodies external to the UK as we are self-verifying, therefore not providing any independent verification.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I have been around government as a civil servant, special adviser, Minister and parliamentarian for about 50 years, and during that time I have been involved in a lot of legislation. I cannot recollect a Bill so reckless and so alienating to a major UK industry as this one. The briefing from the Nuclear Industry Association, representing 260 companies, is damning. It does not agree with the Government’s position that in law we have to leave Euratom on exit from the EU in March 2019, which probably rather annoys the Minister, and it does not believe that this Bill will have us ready to do so in time. It wants a transition period if the Government insist on leaving Euratom, and if we cease to be a member of Euratom it wants some form of continuing relationship. As other noble Lords have said, there is a real risk that our role in international R&D in this industrial sector will be seriously damaged by leaving Euratom, and how do we participate in the international nuclear market outside Euratom? These are big questions which the Minister and the Government do not seem to have considered.
The Government virtually ignored the NIA’s views and advice during the Bill’s passage through the Commons. To add insult to injury, the Government have not come clean on how the new UK safeguarding arrangements will be funded. In these circumstances, most normal Governments would not plough on with legislation against a major industry’s advice, especially when that advice is supported by a major overseas company—EDF—with which the Government have recently contracted to deliver a major nuclear infrastructure project at Hinkley Point.
But then they are no ordinary Government. They are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, memorably described an earlier Conservative Government,
“in office but not in power”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/93; col. 285.]
We have this Bill because the Prime Minister cannot face down that sect within the Conservative Party which was rather entertainingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, in a newspaper article this week as “latter-day Jacobins”. I thought that was a bit unkind to the Jacobins, because some of them were quite entertaining. This sect goes into spasm at the very mention of the European Court of Justice, and Euratom is just unlucky enough to be within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
So, according to the Bill, we have to leave Euratom at 11 pm on 29 March 2019, ready or not—no matter that the ECJ appears never to have pronounced on any aspect of Euratom’s activities since the UK joined; no matter that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill provides for UK courts after exit day to take account of ECJ jurisprudence in making their judgements; no matter that we have not yet fully implemented the latest EU directive on nuclear safety standards, which we were involved in negotiating; and no matter that we cannot discharge the standards for nuclear safeguarding to the same level as Euratom before the currently specified exit date.
Last September, in her Florence speech, the Prime Minister said that the status quo should continue for what she called,
“an implementation period of around two years”.
Yet when the Opposition tried to amend the Bill in the Commons to give effect to this approach by staying in Euratom after March 2019 for a transition period of up to two years, the Government marshalled their forces to vote it down. This is despite the fact that the Government will not be operating at the same safeguarding standards as Euratom because they will not have sufficient inspectors in post. I shall be putting down an amendment at the close of this debate to reintroduce a transition period for this sector, irrespective of what happens on wider Brexit issues. I hope that others across the House will support such an amendment.
I turn now to the subject of medical radioisotopes, which others have discussed and which, it is important to emphasise, are vital for NHS diagnosis, treatment and research. I have been seeking clarification on the role of Euratom in regulating the use and disposal of these isotopes from Ministers. In parliamentary replies from the Health Minister, it is clear that the use and disposal of these materials are governed by a set of standards that,
“have in some cases been informed by Euratom standards”.
Despite my best efforts, it is far from clear what happens to these safeguarding standards for NHS patients and staff when we leave Euratom. As I understand it from the Minister, the Bill will not cover medical isotopes—nor, as I also understand it, will the ONR have any responsibility for them. So, as things stand, at 11 pm on 29 March 2019, the overarching Euratom framework of safeguards that seems to have some relevance to the use and disposal of medical isotopes will simply disappear. In its place, a mishmash of UK agencies will be involved. This seems to be a diminution in the safety reassurances for NHS patients and staff that exist now. If I have got this wrong, I should be grateful if the Minister and his health colleagues would explain to us all in writing why it is not so before Committee.
Despite the Minister’s attempt at reassurance, I want to return to the issue of security of supply of medical isotopes, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, elegantly exposed. Noble Lords know that these isotopes have a very short effective life—a matter of a few hours, in some cases—so they have to be delivered to the end user very quickly. They are critical to many treatments of serious conditions, to diagnostic applications and to furthering research into new treatments. Their importance is growing for use in medical advances at a time when the sources of supply of the raw material—ageing nuclear power stations—are diminishing.
The UK has no domestic supplier. About 60% of our supply comes from the EU, and the remaining 40% comes from elsewhere but may arrive in the UK via an EU supplier. We know from past experience that there can be supply problems with these isotopes. That is why the Euratom observatory was set up—to help with supply problems for EU members when they arise. My understanding is that we lose that help when we lose Euratom and, as far as I can see, there is no game plan for replacing it. Moreover, being in the EU customs union makes it easier to ensure a “frictionless” —to use that phrase—passage of isotopes from supplier to UK end user. However, the Government have rejected being in either “a” or “the” customs union with the EU from exit day next March. Michel Barnier has made it clear that the Government’s current Brexit plans would create “unavoidable” barriers to goods and services. I suggest that this is seriously bad news for the supply of medical isotopes.
In the last few days the Government have published what I can only describe as a somewhat fanciful partnership paper on future customs arrangements. Even if the proposals were a practicable basis for an agreement with the EU, which they are not, they certainly could not be put in place by next March across 28 countries. So my question for the Minister is: how are the Government going to safeguard the timely access of NHS patients to medical isotopes after next March? Again, perhaps he could write to us with an explanation before Committee, as I shall certainly be tabling an amendment on this issue as well.
This is an inadequate and ideologically driven Bill that damages established safeguarding processes and procedures that we were involved in shaping and keeping up to date. Even if it were justified, it should not be implemented in such a rapid timetable. Moreover, because of the Government’s totally misguided and fantasy approach to the future customs relationship with the EU, the timely supply of medical radioisotopes to the NHS and its patients will be put in great jeopardy. If the Government are not going to listen to industry’s serious concerns about the Bill, I suggest that it is up to this House to do the job for them.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare a couple of interests. I am a member of the Cumbria Trust, which has considerable concerns about some of the issues being discussed today. I also live 12 miles north-east of Sellafield, which always reminds me that at school I was taught that the prevailing winds were south-west.
The Minister was very firm at the briefing meeting that he kindly arranged before the Bill was under consideration here—and that meeting really was very much appreciated—that the Bill was about safeguards, not safety. The Minister has a style about him, and he was at his firmest in saying that. I have a great affection and considerable regard for the Minister. I have more respect for him perhaps in the sphere of marmalade than in political matters.
It just will not wash. There are no dividing lines: civil, military, safeguards and safety all overlap. They all have implications for each other. To think that one can take part of this and put it in a watertight compartment is, if the Minister will forgive me, nonsense.
We are all pretty disturbed—that has come across clearly in the debate—that we are dealing with a situation that is apparently an incidental consequence of deciding to leave the European Union. We are dealing with the utmost grave issues here—issues which affect not only current society but will affect men, women and children for thousands of years to come. They are profoundly grave and significant issues. To think that we can somehow rush this thing through in legislation is a betrayal of future generations. We must put it under very firm scrutiny, and we must be satisfied.
As if that were not enough, the fact that we are a nuclear power with our own nuclear deterrent again puts a heavy responsibility on us. When the non-proliferation treaty was secured, we gave the most solemn undertakings about our responsibilities in these spheres. We therefore have a duty to fulfil them.
I share with those who have spoken deep anxiety about the belief that national arrangements for inspection can in any way be a convincing substitute for international arrangements. It is crucial for the world—and for our own people—to see the independent judgments and assessments that come from international arrangements. It will become a cosy, closed circle in which things may tend to slip. So we must do our best to ensure that whatever is put in place is not open to any kind of doubt. Personally, I do not see how we can do that, but we must try.
It is also clear from what has been said in the debate that, because of what I just said and for other reasons, we should remain as close to Euratom as possible. We should not be defeatist about associate membership of Euratom, and I would like to think that the best legal brains available to the Government are working on how we do this, as distinct from why we cannot. In my experience of responsibility in organisations, it is crucial to find the lawyers who can help you to do what you want to, as distinct from those who tell you why it cannot be done.
The time available is clearly ludicrous, and some special arrangements will have to be made. But, if we are to have special arrangements with IAEA and voluntary agreements, as has been mentioned, we need to be clear about how they will be effective in this transitional phase, because I do not believe that the deadlines we have been asked to accept are feasible.
At the moment, there are eight professional safeguarding staff employed by ONR, compared with 40 at Euratom, focused on UK issues. We are asking for this to be undertaken with our British arrangements at a time when there has been a 70% cut in government grants to ONR from 2015-16 to 2019-20. There is also the issue of whether we have the necessary expertise. I recall that, some time back, when we were considering new legislation on nuclear power, the Government’s argument was that one of the reasons we needed to have foreign interests coming into the process was that we simply did not have the expertise that was available to those foreign experts. If that is real—it is a very worrying thought—and if it applies to the generation of nuclear energy, how much more real does that argument become to monitor effectively what we are ourselves doing? Parliament simply has to be satisfied that arrangements involving the IAEA, voluntary agreements and the additional protocol are as fool-proof as they can be—although I remain sceptical as to whether that is possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke about the costs and consequences of taking over the ownership of Euratom facilities and the subsequent costs of decommissioning. We really will need very convincing arguments from the Minister on all that. I particularly appreciated the speech of my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan. In this context, I am interested that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has itself produced a number of—intended to be, I think—helpful factsheets. They have been produced in the context of our deliberations. I see that one on transport and waste states:
“The UK will continue to uphold its responsibilities in respect of spent fuel and radioactive waste. Appropriate arrangements will need to be agreed between the UK and the EU in relation to the status of radioactive waste and spent fuel generated by the UK but currently situated on EU 27 territory and spent fuel and radioactive waste generated by the EU 27 but currently situated on UK territory. UK legislation and standards in this area will continue to be informed by recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the Joint Convention on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste, and the safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Authority”.
These are vital considerations. But, in dealing with waste, let us please remember that there are two categories of waste at least. There is the existing waste, which is a time-bomb ticking away, and there is future waste, which has implications for thousands of years ahead. We are involved in a situation that is not only grave but is of immense, incalculable historical significance for the future. We cannot rush it or botch it, and it will need a great deal of careful scrutiny by this House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I actually find it encouraging to see this important Bill arriving in your Lordship’s House so early in the year. In the informative briefing given to us by the Ministers and officials last week, we were told that many issues identified in the position papers published last summer are well on the way to being resolved, and this has to be good news. It is most important that there is a seamless transfer in safeguarding arrangements for the non-proliferation of nuclear materials, as well as for continued co-operation in nuclear research and the mobility of workers and trade in this important sector. Obviously, there are two remaining political issues which are material—namely, those that relate to a transition period or, even better, an extension of our membership of Euratom, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the Henry VIII powers in Clause 2, which will allow the Secretary of State to amend existing Acts as new international agreements are negotiated. But other issues, such as the transfer of Euratom-owned equipment, the status of existing contracts between member states and the UK, and the presence of fissile material in the UK which is owned by another member state, are, we hear, well under way, and I am sure that we all look forward to being updated on their status.
We leave Euratom on 29 March next year, and it is essential that new reporting and verification processes are in place on the date. We need to have the correct number of inspectors recruited and trained by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and I understand that we already have half the number in training and a further recruitment round is under way. Again, I look forward to my noble friend the Minister updating us on this issue and its impact on the budget for the ONR.
Of course, while we may no longer be a member of Euratom, many of the standards it sets are legally binding and arise from obligations to which the UK is in any event committed under the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which we were a founder member in 1957. But I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to adhere to the higher standards of Euratom. The UK must continue its leading role in the development of international security and safety standards, irrespective of our future relationship with Euratom. For this industry is extremely important to the UK; it employs 66,000 people, and we are a world leader in nuclear fusion technologies and are committed to maintaining this position. I strongly believe that putting our regulatory house in order at an early stage will generate the confidence necessary to attract further investment in the industry. I am reassured that the pace of negotiations with other member states will enable this to happen, for we need to see advances in nuclear technology—for example, into a new generation of small modular nuclear reactors, which may represent a cheaper and quicker way to generate the new, low-carbon power that the country needs.
Finally, I understand entirely that this Bill is concerned with safeguarding, not safety arrangements, and with a new legal and regulatory framework. Medical isotopes do not fall within the scope of the Bill, nor indeed of this department. However, practical arrangements for their continued import to the UK do not appear to be covered anywhere. Most are imported from eastern Europe and many have a shelf life of only two weeks. The potential disruption to their supply is causing concern to cancer sufferers and to the medical profession generally. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for suggesting that he arrange a meeting between BEIS, the Treasury and interested parties to discuss this important area of real concern.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is slim by the standards of Brexit Bills, but this belies the importance of the issues it addresses. The Bill makes provisions for the eventuality that the UK will leave the European Atomic Energy Community, or Euratom, to give its common name. In its place, we should have to establish a new safeguards regime to oversee the security of our nuclear materials. Euratom has provided much more for us than an inspection regime for ensuring that radioactive material does not fall into the wrong hands. It governs the supply of fuel and all the nuclear engineering materials and equipment that come to us from abroad. It facilitates international exchanges of personnel trained in nuclear technology. It governs the acquisition and supply of medical radioactive isotopes and it funds an extensive nuclear research and development programme.
Euratom is governed by the International Atomic Energy Agency—the IAEA—which is an organisation affiliated to the United Nations. It mediates our relationships with third-party countries. On leaving Euratom, we should have to establish individual nuclear treaties with each of those nations. Even now, there remains doubt as to whether it is necessary, in any case, for the UK to sever its connection with Euratom. The legal opinions on the matter have been divided. It is clear that the Ministers most closely involved are far from enthusiastic about the prospect of this divorce.
The die was cast at the beginning of 2017 when, in a flurry of Written and Oral Statements, the Government asserted that there would be no room for compromise in exiting the European Union. Thus, in a speech on 17 January, the Prime Minister asserted that there is to be no,
“partial membership of the European Union, associate membership … or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out …We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave”.
Euratom is an international organisation founded in 1957, as we have heard, and is legally distinct from the European Union. However, since the European Court of Justice plays a marginal role in its affairs, Euratom was judged to be half in the European Union and, therefore, an organisation that the UK is bound to leave.
During Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill in the Commons on 16 October 2017, the Minister Greg Clark emphasised:
“Triggering article 50 of the treaty on European Union also requires triggering article 50 on membership of Euratom”.
He also asserted:
“That is not just the Government’s view; it is the European Commission’s view, too”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/17; col. 618.]
He proceeded to quote a declaration to this effect that had been made in the European Parliament. It appears that the European Commission and the European Parliament have been happy to go along with the view of the UK Government. The Government’s insistence on a clean break from European institutions has led to a perverse outcome that we are now coming to regret. It is arguable that, had we taken a different approach at the outset, we would not now be faced with the need to enact the present Bill. The trouble that is entailed in leaving Euratom might be mitigated by the proposed two-year transition period after our formal departure from the European Union in March 2019.
Leaving Euratom imposes tasks that would be impossible to accomplish by that date of departure. There have been numerous testimonies regarding the expense and the damage that will result from leaving Euratom, and they bear some repeating. In the UK, more than 100 facilities and locations are currently subject to Euratom safeguards and inspections. The Office for Nuclear Regulation—the ONR—which is the UK’s nuclear regulatory agency, has repeatedly asserted that it will be unable to implement equivalent safeguarding standards by March 2019. To deliver the new domestic regime, the ONR will need to double the number of its inspectors by 2019 and triple the number by 2021. The costs of purchasing and installing replacement equipment would, in its testimony,
“likely be well in excess of £150m”.
Once established, the regime is expected to involve an ongoing cost of £10 million per annum. Without safeguards and nuclear co-operation agreements, critical areas of nuclear trade and research collaboration would cease. The United States, on which we depend for nuclear equipment, will not trade with us unless a regime is in place. Moreover, a new safeguards regime will need to be implemented before any nuclear co-operation agreements can be concluded and ratified. That is to say, none of the necessary third-party nuclear co-operation agreements, or NCAs, can be negotiated in advance of a settled regime.
At present, in excess of 20% of our power is provided by nuclear energy. The flow of nuclear goods and services that are required to sustain this output cannot continue without a safeguards regime. The construction of new nuclear power stations requires the importation of specialised equipment and personnel that is regulated by the codes of the IAEA. EDF, which is overseeing the construction of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, has expressed grave anxieties in this connection. In a very telling memorandum, it has revealed the extent of the international co-operation that was required to overcome a seemingly minor operational problem affecting the Sizewell B reactor, which arose when a seal on one of the heating elements failed. The supply chain involved France and the USA as well as the UK. Its point is that an impaired access to the international supply chain is bound to prejudice the safe and reliable operation of our nuclear power stations.
The UK hosts important nuclear research facilities, including the Joint European Torus at Culham, which is currently funded largely by Euratom. The Government have undertaken to meet the costs of JET until 2020. Thereafter, the future of the Culham enterprise is in doubt.
The next phase of the international fusion programme entails the construction of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, which is being constructed in Provence, France. ITER, which will exploit the developments at Culham, is one step away from an operational power plant. If we cease to be fully involved in this enterprise, we will squander our intellectual capital and forgo some significant business opportunities for British enterprises.
These troubles, and more besides, are the consequence of an ill-considered and intransigent attitude on the part of the Government in pursuit of their Brexit agenda. These difficulties could be mitigated to some extent if we were prepared to contract the delivery of our safeguards regime to Euratom, while maintaining our overall responsibility. In fact, this has been proposed in a recent report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of the House of Commons. There is no other reasonable course of action.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly in the gap as some months ago I advocated, rather along the lines of some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon, that we ought to remain in Euratom. The response I received then is consistent with the introduction of the Bill we are discussing. Therefore, the most sensible course of action is to implement a seamless transition from the Euratom regime to a national regime. If I have understood my noble friend the Minister correctly, the national regime will be at least as rigorous as the Euratom arrangements now in place. That would be satisfactory to not merely Cumbrians like myself, a number of whom are in the Chamber, but to the rest of the country.
Noble Lords will remember that last week we discussed the withdrawal Bill. On that occasion a large number of strictures, based on the work of the Constitution Committee, were made about the way in which that process was being taken forward. I would like to incorporate by reference—I think that was the term used when I read law—those strictures into this debate as they are as relevant to this matter as they were on that occasion.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, somewhat more interesting than I expected given the spat with the Minister. I think that arose because the Government have focused this Bill too narrowly, and arguments have been advanced as a consequence of that.
It was impossible to listen to this debate and that in the other place and not recognise the scale of the folly that leaving the EU forces upon us, not just because we are leaving but because the room for common sense and compromise has gone out of the window. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, that has arisen because the ruling party is terrified of the split riven in its own ranks by Brexit. One of the most confounding aspects of leaving the EU, which leaving Euratom evidences, is the need to set up and replicate so much that already functions so well for us as is. Perhaps we should have a maxim: if it ain’t broke and it is doing the job, surely the British people did not mean us to fix it by taking action that will do us harm or cost us a fortune.
There are aspects of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill that clearly cause concern, not just among those who have participated in this debate but well beyond. There are concerns about what is in the Bill, and what is not in the Bill but needs to be tied down and delivered before our departure from the EU next year. As we have heard from all sides, they fall into defined areas: the ONR’s capacity; the transition period; issues that need dealing with such as the nuclear single market, raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, and nuclear fusion research, which many noble Lords mentioned; radioisotopes; concerns over JET, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson and other noble Lords; our ability to negotiate new nuclear co-operation agreements with international partners beyond the EU in a timely way; delegated powers—and, in an overarching sense, that the Bill should not have been necessary in the first place.
We heard from all parts of the House, as was the case in the other place, that we do not need to leave Euratom. Sadly, the Government are not prepared to fight that one out with the EU—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and other noble Lords. One wonders why the Government are so reluctant. It is a matter of legal dispute—I and others do not believe that we need to leave Euratom—and it strikes at the heart of the stupidity of so much of this. Is it ideological? Yes. Is it simply that if we remained in Euratom, we would have to continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ concerning nuclear safeguards? If so, what a performance just to adhere to ideological red lines. Surely the Government see that all this—all the change, the angst, the cost and the effort in this so-called contingency Bill—might be avoided if it were not for obdurate ideological dogma.
However, as we are to leave Euratom, a better answer would be associate membership. As the Government believe that we can have a bespoke deal with the EU on the single market, I hope they feel that we could have bespoke associate membership of Euratom. Does not Article 206 of the Euratom treaty facilitate associate membership? That is what we should be pursuing. I am aware that the Secretary of State, who was at the Bar earlier, made a Written Ministerial Statement saying that there will be quarterly updates on associate membership, but I put it on the record to indicate the importance we place on this issue.
Ministers reassure us that arrangements will be in place and negotiations are going well; that we will have the closest of associations with Euratom; that discussions on customs and borders have to sort out only a couple of minor things such as the transfer of Euratom-owned equipment and special fissile material in the UK owned by other EU states—that it is all nearly sorted out and everything will be all right. That is not good enough. However, assuming from the passage of the Bill in the other place and the debate today that we are going ahead—fingers crossed—and we have associate membership or equivalent, we still have to ensure that there is no gap between the end of Euratom and the beginning of the ONR taking on that role, and that all that was associated with our membership of Euratom is in place.
It was clear from the evidence given in Committee in the other place that the likelihood of the ONR being up to the same standards as Euratom in March 2019 is zero. Many Members across the House have raised the need for a transition period to tide us over from our protections in Euratom to a place where we are self-sufficient. We cannot leave ourselves exposed by coming out of Euratom when our safeguards are incomplete.
I was interested in the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that Article 50 could be extended in regard to Euratom if need be; that seems reasonable. We on these Benches will be happy to put our names to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on transition.
There is a litany of things that are not in the Bill but which need to be in place and sorted. As a couple of noble Lords said, the CEO of the Nuclear Industry Association, the trade body for the UK civil nuclear industry—which we should be listening to—that represents 260-plus companies across the supply chain and thus is in the front line of this legislation, stated that the Bill does only one of a whole range of things that need to be done to prevent disruption on leaving Euratom. We agree. That includes the transportation of overseas nuclear fuel across the EU; co-operation on information, infrastructure and funding of nuclear energy; clarity on who owns all the nuclear material, currently and going forward; the legal purchase, certifier and guarantor of any nuclear materials and technologies that the UK purchases; and, more than anything, bilateral agreements with other countries on nuclear safeguarding. As my noble friend Lord Fox made clear, the Prime Minister’s statement—that definitely, absolutely and with no equivocation we are leaving the customs union—will not be very helpful.
As we heard from all sides with great passion, another issue not covered in the Bill is medical radioisotopes. Ed Vaizey in the other place pointed out that the Euratom Supply Agency specifically extended its remit to cover the supply of isotopes because we do not create any in this country. The Government assure us that the movement or supply of isotopes is not pertinent to the Bill, and that negotiations to remain as close as possible to the conditions that we currently experience are going very well. However, surely we must have it written in the Bill that unless and until such arrangements are in place we will not and must not leave Euratom. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a powerful case on the faux distinction made by the Minister and the Government between safeguard and safety. He made an unarguable case for the inclusion of isotopes in the Bill.
The ONR was mentioned by many Members across the House. The Bill transfers authority for nuclear safeguarding from Euratom to the ONR. Although it is making heroic efforts to recruit and train the 30-plus additional inspectors needed to meet these extra responsibilities, it is clear that the ONR will not make the finishing line by March 2019. In Committee, Dr Golshan of the ONR said that:
“It is fair to say that this is unprecedented territory … and … that we will not be able to replicate Euratom standards on day one”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nuclear Safeguards Bill Committee, 31/10/17; cols. 6-7.]
It needs a number of skilled staff, proper training, specialist equipment in place with trained operators, and 12 to 18 months to train a single inspector. Another requirement is a new IT system. If any of your Lordships have ever tried to commission a bespoke IT system, they will look at this timetable in horror and recognise the huge challenge of that deadline. That is not to mention the free movement of scientists; perhaps the Minister can give some assurance on that issue of vital importance. We also need sign-off by the IAEA. I am delighted that the Government are having “very positive conversations”, but that is not enough and is not tied down. It is not sufficient to say that everything is in hand and will be all right on the night. We need it to be stated that unless and until certain things are in place, the Bill cannot be enacted. We need a contingency upon this contingency Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, observed the need for the ONR to be independent, otherwise the Government will be marking their own homework; that is an important point.
Suffice it to say that not all doubts have been assuaged and not all aspects have been addressed by the Bill, as your Lordships’ House requires. We look forward to Committee, where we hope to develop further the safeguards that we need and to address the issues that remain of grave concern.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in one sense the Minister was right when he described this as a technical Bill. Something of the sort is clearly needed. However, it is of course highly regrettable that he has had to bring the Bill to your Lordships’ House as a consequence of what can be described only as the perverse decision to leave Euratom. My noble friend Lord Lea was right to press that point. Euratom predates the EU and comes under a separate legal treaty. The issue might be the ECJ, but it has never made a ruling in respect of any matter relating to Euratom. And Euratom works well—so well that the Government have decided that we are going to leave Euratom only to set up our own new regulator to meet Euratom standards. You could not make it up.
A number of key concerns have come from this debate. The first is that, although the Government are intending to meet Euratom standards, on their own admission they cannot do this by March 2019. That then leads to the ONR. I hold it in high respect but I am concerned about its capacity, funding and governance—the point about the independence of the ONR in the future is very important—as well as the question of time. When one thinks of the scale of the task, one has to ask whether it has the time, capacity and funding to do the job that is required, alongside the establishment of the new regulatory function. The international bilateral agreements—the NCAs—that have to be negotiated in a matter of months are also a cause for some concern.
The second area of concern is around the transition. It is not clear to me exactly what the Government are aiming for and what the fallback position will be. If the fallback plan is to say that by March 2019 we can guarantee only IAEA standards, that will certainly be unacceptable, and I think that the House will wish to amend the Bill to make sure that that cannot happen.
Many noble Lords have commented on the narrowness of the Bill. Clearly the Euratom decision goes much wider in three areas in particular. One is medical isotopes. Another is the international supply chain, which applies as much to new nuclear as it does to the decommissioning of our old stock, with all that that implies. As a former Minister for Energy who has visited Sellafield on a number of occasions, I am only too well aware of the challenges there.
There are also questions about responsibility for setting standards. If in the future that is not done by Euratom, will it be done by the UK Government? It is one thing to say that we are going to aspire to meet current Euratom standards, but life moves on and standards will evolve. The question of which standards we will meet in the future is a very important one. Are we going to set our own standards within the sphere of the IAEA, or are we going to follow Euratom standards without having any influence over them? Those are the things that we want to know. The Official Opposition do not support leaving Euratom. Failing that, we believe that there must be an equivalence, and that that equivalence must be in place by March 2019.
Looking at some of the questions in more detail, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about the transition. First, the impression that I got from his opening remarks is that he sees this issue as being fully a part of the transition that we are negotiating with the EU, and therefore that Euratom matters cannot be considered as a separate point. The noble Baroness asked whether Article 50 could be suspended in relation to Euratom. From what the Minister said, my impression is that that is not possible because this is simply a part of the more general discussions. It would be good to know whether my assumption is right.
Secondly, what does “close association” mean? There has been a lot of discussion here and in the other place about whether, certainly during the transition period but beyond it as well, we could subcontract back the Euratom staff to continue doing what they do while, I imagine, being duly accountable to Euratom and to the ONR. That would seem to be a straightforward way of doing it. Or, could we be an associate member? What does close association mean? We are right to ask what that entails.
That brings us to what the Government seek to do. We all read the evidence given in the Public Bill Committee from the ONR itself and I pay tribute to the work that it has done, but I understand from what was said that it recruited four new people and reckoned it needed another 10 or 12 in order to make IAEA standards by 2019 and another 20 following that to meet Euratom standards. So there are two questions. If another 20 are needed over what was thought could be achieved by 2019, what is the difference in real terms between Euratom standards and IAEA standards? In other words, what is the impact of having fewer inspections of less intensity? If the Government say, “Actually, there is very little difference at all”, I would ask them why they are sticking to Euratom standards. If, actually, this is significant, it is clearly unacceptable that we allow the Bill to go through without having some guarantee that in March 2019 we will abide by Euratom standards.
On finance, a number of noble Lords expressed concern, particularly my noble friend Lord O’Neill, about the cuts to the ONR budget and whether that will impact on its capacity to carry out these new roles. I also think that there is an issue that the industry has raised. Who will pay the cost of the new regime? At the moment, it is paid out of the UK contributions to EU budgets. I suspect that the Government have in mind to make industry pay the cost in the future. We ought to know.
On current activities, on the whole issue of the international supply chain and on the question of decommissioning, clearly, as my noble friends Lord O’Neill and Lord Judd said, maintaining public confidence is crucial. As someone who very much supports the industry, who works to bring new nuclear back to the UK, it is vitally important to make sure that there are no hiccups in the international supply chain because we need the support of people, companies and goods and services from other countries. It is also important in relation to decommissioning.
A number of noble Lords mentioned research. It is clearly important. We get a lot of money through Euratom to invest in our research projects. We have a great deal of collaboration. The Government have to set out a strategy about how to ensure that we do not lose that collaboration and investment in the future.
I do not need to say very much about radioisotopes because a number of noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, went into that in great detail. I am grateful to the Minister for focusing on this, but in his opening remarks he said that he hoped that we would be reassured, because he recognised concerns, and he talked about customs arrangements being able to minimise any impact. The problem we have is that a significant part of the Conservative Party in the other place do not want customs arrangements as far as I can see. Lord knows what they want. They seem to want to take this country down to economic ruin, but the fact is that no one sitting here today could have any reassurance that the noble Lord is right about those customs arrangements. The most likely outcome at the moment is that we will walk away from those talks. What guarantees can be made about those custom arrangements? The point that noble Lords made about continuing access to the Euratom observatory was very important.
Finally, rather remarkably, I do not think that Henry VIII powers have had much of an outing here, although, as the noble Lord knows, there are a lot of regulations in the Bill, and one or two Henry VIII ones at that. Of course I understand that there does need to be some flexibility in this area, but there might be a case for looking at whether we can constrain the use of the Henry VIII powers. There is also the suggestion of a sunset clause, and I warm to the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, of reviews and annual reports, which might be another way of dealing with those issues.
Overall, this is a highly interesting technical Bill. Whether two days in Committee will be enough, I rather doubt. We are looking to seriously change the Bill to provide reassurance that, in March 2019, we will continue to have Euratom standards.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will come to the Henry VIII powers later, and I am grateful that the noble Lord feels that he does not want to discuss them in much detail at this stage. I believe that only this evening the Delegated Powers Committee has been looking at them. I hope that, on this one occasion, we will get a clean bill of health. But I think that noble Lords opposite who have been Ministers will know that there are occasions when Henry VIII powers are necessary. Moreover, all of them have probably been guilty at one time or other of having introduced legislation containing a Henry VIII power. However, I shall get to that later and touch on it briefly.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, both wanted a much wider debate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested that I was hiding behind the narrow remit of this Bill. That is not so. He wanted me to join in a wider debate on the nuclear industry, nuclear research and development and all those matters. I have given assurances about our commitment to the nuclear industry because they are important in relation to the Bill. I have also given assurances about how we will continue to invest in research and development, and I hope that my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Inglewood and Lady Bloomfield will accept them. We are committed and, again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Broers, will accept that. But now is the not the time to be debating the wider issues. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, who acts as if he is some simple ingénue and cannot find ways of getting these matters debated knows perfectly well that there are plenty of means of securing a full debate on the nuclear industry, and no doubt he will institute one in due course.
The important matter at the moment is to debate this Bill at its Second Reading because it deals with a crucial point; namely, that we are leaving Euratom. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for saying that although he regretted the fact that we will be leaving Euratom, he accepted that since we are doing so, there is a need for the Bill and, as I understand him, it is not the job of the Official Opposition to prevent it getting on to the statute book. What he wanted to ensure is not only proper scrutiny, but that we should provide the appropriate assurances that in a year’s time the ONR will be in the right place to take on the new responsibilities that it will have. I hope that I can deal with those points in the course of my remarks.
I shall start with the need to leave Euratom and repeat once again the point I have made that the Euratom treaty is legally distinct from the European Union treaty, but it has the same membership of all 28 states and makes use of the same institutions. Noble Lords will recall that the decision to leave Euratom formed part of the consideration by both Houses of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which is now the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. It is a done deal and we are leaving. It therefore behoves this House and another place to make sure that in a year’s time we are in the right place; that is, where the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, wishes us to be.
It is important to say, in particular in response to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, about maintaining public confidence because it is so important to the nuclear industry as a whole—here we are going wider than the question of safeguards—that this does not mean that we should not continue to have a relationship of some kind with Euratom, and we shall continue to discuss these matters. Our withdrawal will in no way diminish our nuclear ambitions or, I believe, our high international standing on nuclear matters. Maintaining the continuity of our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom and with international partners is a key priority. We will continue to have a constructive, collaborative relationship with Euratom. The United Kingdom is a great supporter of it. We have been working on its standards and we will continue to do so.
Our strategy is to continue to seek a close association with Euratom while putting in place all the necessary measures to ensure we can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one.
Lord Henley
Just before I give way to the noble Lord, I remind the House that I gave way six times in the course of my introduction. One of the six who intervened, the noble Lord’s noble friend Lord Rooker, has not felt it fit to stay, but I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Lea.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I was going to pick up a totally fresh point that has just been made, but if the noble Lord does not want to deal with it I will leave it. I am sure he will write a letter on many of these points.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am always more than happy to take interventions. As I said, I took a total of six in the course of my earlier speech. I will of course write to the noble Lord and others on points that I cannot manage, particularly on points that are relevant to the Bill. Some of the interventions, when we got a bit confused about nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety, went somewhere beyond the Bill’s scope.
Lord Lea of Crondall
It is a very simple point. The noble Lord has made a fresh point along the lines that we have no basis on which we can do other than be a rule-taker. I thought that most people who are adamant that we must leave the European Union and all of its manifestations object to anything that leaves them in the position of rule-taker instead of rule-maker. The noble Lord is now saying, “Let’s keep being a rule-taker from Euratom”.
Lord Henley
I said nothing of the sort. I hope that the noble Lord will look very carefully at what I said. I said that we want to continue to develop our relationship with Euratom but that, of course, we will not be in it. Therefore, it is important for us to set up alternative arrangements, which is what this Bill is about, so that we can have the appropriate nuclear safeguards regime in place. Similarly—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others—we want to make it clear that we will have nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries around the world. We already have some, but our officials are engaging with some key international partners, including the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia, to ensure that we have essential nuclear co-operation agreements in place to ensure uninterrupted co-operation in trade and the civil nuclear sector. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on his questions on how we want to develop any further nuclear co-operation agreements, that our intention would be to present any new agreements to Parliament, as is appropriate, prior to the Government’s ratification, as provided for in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
I turn to medical radioisotopes, which have exercised a great many noble Lords. This is important. I am not sure that I can add much to what I said at the beginning, other than to stress how important the Government consider this issue. We will continue to make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place at our borders to allow their seamless import into this country. When I talked about customs arrangements I was not talking—if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will bear with me—about a customs union but just about the usual arrangements that HMRC is responsible for, to make sure that things can come through quickly, particularly things that have a very short life, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others reminded us, and as I think I reminded the House at the beginning. The important point to get over is that we take this very seriously, we will continue to discuss it and I will certainly write to all noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to make it quite clear what we are doing. I will write before Committee and will probably continue to write on other occasions throughout the course of the Bill.
I turn to the role of the ONR and whether it feels that it can implement the necessary changes in the timescale that is before it. The first point to get over is the simple question of funding. I can give an assurance to the House that the Government are making another £10 million available to set up the new regime. When noble Lords talk about cuts to the funding that has been available to the ONR in the past one should remember—I think that there has been a degree of “economy with the actualité”, as someone once put it—that the ONR is actually very well funded and that changes to the level of the grant it gets from government are only a very small part of the overall ONR budget, which is actually growing and not shrinking. More than 90% of the ONR’s budget is recovered from industry; it is not coming from government. The safeguards work is being paid to ONR directly from BEIS’s budget, so I can again give the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that there will be no charge on industry to pay for safeguarding work. The charges to industry are to cover other matters and, as I said, more than 90% of its budget comes from those sources.
It is important to get over just what the ONR is doing and the Government’s commitment to make sure that we have a robust regime that is as comprehensive as that currently provided by Euratom. Euratom standards, as has been made quite clear by me, by other Ministers and by many speakers in this debate, are considerably higher than those that other bodies would achieve. Achieving such international standards will allow the UK to discharge its international commitments and will underpin international nuclear trade arrangements with countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia.
The ONR is in the process of developing an expanded safeguards function by recruiting and training additional inspectors, building additional institutional capacity and developing necessary IT systems. It is aiming to have in place sufficient staff, including inspectors, from 29 March 2019 to meet international standards as applied by the IAEA. Current estimates suggest that the ONR would require a team of some 20 to 25 staff, which would include up to 17 safeguards inspectors. It already has 11 safeguards officers in post who are all in training to become safeguards inspectors by 29 March 2019. The ONR estimates that, to be able to deliver its functions to a standard broadly equivalent to Euratom standards, it may require a team of around 30 to 35 staff, which would include around 20 safeguards inspectors. It is actively recruiting and interviewing further candidates. The first phase of recruitment last year was successful: four individuals were recruited and are currently in training to become safeguards inspectors. A further recruitment campaign is under way. Successful candidates will join the ONR’s training programme and the ONR assesses that it will take a further 12 months or so to upskill new recruits to inspector level. So we have confidence that the ONR will be able to get up to the appropriate level. We also have confidence that, if necessary, it will be able to recruit from abroad. We are working with the Home Office to make sure that whatever happens with our future immigration system, that will be set out shortly and we will be able to ensure that the right people can get in at the right time.
The final matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was the Henry VIII power. I admit that it is a Henry VIII power. It is quite clear that it is a Henry VIII power. I cannot remember who very politely said—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill—that it was just drifting into being a Henry VIII power. It is a classic Henry VIII power—it is seeking to amend primary legislation by means of secondary legislation—but it is as limited as it can be. Clause 2 can amend any of the three Acts that I mentioned in my introduction,
“in consequence of a relevant safeguards agreement”;
in other words, it is limited to changes as a result of the safeguards agreement and can be only in consequence of that. It cannot be used in any other way. It is very specifically drawn. It is limited to those consequential changes and sets out the three pieces of legislation that may be amended. I look forward to hearing a little more about the views of the Delegated Powers Committee and I hope that it will, for once, give the Government a clean bill of health.
I hope I have dealt with most of the points that are relevant to the Bill but obviously I will write to noble Lords in due course, as is appropriate. In the meantime it behoves me only to beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text