House of Commons

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 21 March 2018

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

1. For what reasons the decision was made to publish information about loans and donations given to Northern Ireland political parties dating back to July 2017 rather than 2014.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

The recent publication by the Electoral Commission of donations and loans data for Northern Ireland parties is a positive step that should be welcomed by the whole House. The decision to backdate transparency was taken on the basis of broad support from the majority of political parties in Northern Ireland.

[Layla Moran]

It has recently been revealed that a portion of the largest ever political donation given to a party in Northern Ireland was spent on services linked to Cambridge Analytica. In the light of that, should not the Secretary of State backdate transparency regulations to 2014, so that we can finally have full disclosure about where that cash came from?

[Karen Bradley]

As I say, the decision to backdate to July 2017 was taken due to the broad support of the majority of parties in Northern Ireland. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), took time to consult the parties, and July 2017 was the date that they wished to start the transparency from.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I think that my right hon. Friend has already answered the question I wanted to ask: did all the parties agree not to take it back to 2014?

[Karen Bradley]

As I say, my predecessor consulted all the parties, and this position was supported by the broad majority of them.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will be able to confirm that even if the regulations did go back to 2014, no information would be published that has not already been published. Will she also confirm that there is a disparity when there is no mention in this Chamber or elsewhere of the dark money received by Northern Ireland parties from foreign jurisdictions? This is the only place where that is allowed to occur, and it should stop.

[Karen Bradley]

I firmly believe that transparency is the important thing that we have here. We should all know where money is coming from, and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am very interested to hear the Secretary of State’s explanation of why the Northern Ireland Office deliberately and wilfully ignored the advice and recommendations of the Electoral Commission that the publication of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland should be backdated to 2014, not 2017.

[Karen Bradley]

There was no wilful ignoring or anything else. My predecessor consulted all the parties in Northern Ireland and there was broad support for July 2017.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

We know about one questionable donation that was channelled from Scotland through the Democratic Unionist party to be used in the Brexit referendum. People are rightly asking what the original source of that money was and whether there are others that we do not know about. If the Secretary of State will not consider revising the recent decision to limit transparency by taking it back to 2014, will she bring forward legislation to allow the individual parties to instruct the Electoral Commission to reveal their donation data?

[Karen Bradley]

As I have said, we are keen to ensure that there is transparency, but the question the hon. Lady asks is a matter for political parties themselves, not the Government.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with Northern Ireland political parties on the UK leaving the EU.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with Northern Ireland political parties on the UK leaving the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Secretary of State and I have regular conversations with the Northern Ireland political parties on a range of issues. This includes matters relating to the UK’s departure from the European Union. As we have said repeatedly, these conversations are no replacement for a fully functioning, locally elected and democratically accountable Executive. That is what the people of Northern Ireland need, and that is what we are focused on.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as we leave the EU, it is essential that current levels of security and co-operation between the UK and Ireland, which are so important in the fight against terrorism, are maintained and enhanced?

[Mr Vara]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. All parties have been clear that there will not be any disruption to north-south security co-operation when it comes to policing and tackling the terrorist threat. I applaud the incredible work done by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda to keep us safe. That will not change after our EU exit.

[Alex Chalk]

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that as the UK, including Northern Ireland, leaves the EU, this Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement remains steadfast?

[Mr Vara]

Yes. I can categorically provide my hon. Friend with the commitment that he seeks. Our negotiating strategy puts our support for the Belfast agreement at the heart of our approach to the Northern Ireland-Ireland dialogue. As the Prime Minister and others have said on numerous occasions, we will continue to abide by the UK’s commitments in the Belfast agreement.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Given the meeting on Monday between the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Michel Barnier, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government’s clear position that the so-called backstop arrangement proposed by the EU Commission is something that no British Prime Minister or Government could ever agree to?

[Mr Vara]

The Prime Minister has made her views absolutely clear on that. Our country’s economic and constitutional integrity will not be harmed.

[Nigel Dodds]

I thank the Minister for debunking the notion that, as a result of the transition arrangements, somehow the Government have reneged on that pledge and for confirming that the Government remain firmly committed to the constitutional, political and economic integrity of the UK. Will he ensure that industries such as the Northern Ireland fishing industry are protected after we leave the EU and that we will take back control of our territorial waters, including our rights for our fishermen?

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. I can confirm that the agreement reached in December in the joint report remains, and that Britain will do all that it can to ensure that all our industries, particularly fisheries, are maintained and that our fishermen and the industry are well looked after.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am sure that one issue the Minister and the Secretary of State will have discussed with the political parties in Northern Ireland is the problems they see with a hard border returning in Ireland. What are those problems and what does the Minister suggest that we do to avoid them?

[Mr Vara]

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others have made it absolutely clear that there will be no hard border.

[Owen Smith]

That is not much of an answer. The Government should acknowledge that the parties all think that there would be problems with a hard border, as do the Chief Constable, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Irish Government and many Conservative Members. Should he not therefore acknowledge the problems and tell the House that the only way to avoid a hard border is for us to stay within the customs union and the single market?

[Mr Vara]

The people of Britain—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—collectively agreed to leave the single market and customs union, and that will be the case. As for the border, the December joint report made it absolutely clear that there will be no physical infrastructure and no hard border. There will be a frictionless border, and that is what is being negotiated and discussed.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

6. What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

I have regular conversations with the Irish Government. We both recognise the importance of the trade that takes place across the island of Ireland, which is worth £4 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. Equally, Great Britain markets are fundamental to Northern Ireland, with sales worth some £14.6 billion. As the Prime Minister reinforced in her Mansion House speech, we are committed to protecting both these vital markets.

[Carol Monaghan]

The Tánaiste told the Dáil yesterday that there would be no formal withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK if the Irish border issue was not resolved. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), has already said this morning that there will be no hard border, but will the Secretary of State explain how that will come about?

[Karen Bradley]

I do not think that the hon. Lady has said anything that is news to anybody. We are committed to the agreement we made in the joint report and to the Belfast agreement and all that it stands for. We will ensure that there is no new physical infrastructure at the border and that there is frictionless trade.

[Gavin Newlands]

Simon Coveney also told the Dáil yesterday that the UK Government had provided a cast-iron guarantee that there would be no physical infrastructure, checks or controls at the border post Brexit. Will the Secretary of State confirm this—yes or no?

[Karen Bradley]

I think that I just answered that question. There will be frictionless trade and movement at the border, and no new physical infrastructure.

[Peter Grant]

Last week, the Prime Minister spoke quite favourably about the “Smart Border 2.0” report from Dr Lars Karlsson. Yesterday, in evidence to the Brexit Committee, Dr Karlsson confirmed that the report was not tailored to the needs of Ireland and that it was incompatible with the December agreement that there would be no hard border in Ireland. Can the Government confirm that Dr Karlsson’s report will not form the basis of any future negotiations or agreement with the EU?

[Karen Bradley]

I confess that I am not familiar with that particular report. I will look into it.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Yesterday, the Irish Foreign Minister suggested that the EU-UK transition arrangements could be extended beyond 2020 if better arrangements were not in place for the Irish border. Do the problems with dealing with the border mean that the UK could stay in the single market, the customs union and the common fisheries policy for longer, but without having any say?

[Karen Bradley]

I presume that the hon. Gentleman wrote his question before the announcement in Brussels by Michel Barnier and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The transitional arrangements will end in December 2020. The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and leaving the European Union means leaving the single market and the customs union—that is what we will do.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with the Irish Government. They did not want Brexit, and there are lots of risks for Ireland and no upside. Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless impress on her interlocutors in Dublin that the option presented in the draft withdrawal agreement is wholly unacceptable and that they should work with us to ensure that option 1 in the December joint report goes ahead?

[Karen Bradley]

Both the UK Government and the Irish Government have stated that they would like to address the issue of the Irish border through the overall UK-EU relationship, as set out in option 1 in the joint report.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

A competitive free trade deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union is clearly in the interests of both Northern Ireland and the Republic. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take the opportunity to suggest to the Taoiseach and others that it is in their interests to put pressure on the European Union to negotiate just that deal?

[Karen Bradley]

I would sum it up by saying that this is either a win-win or a lose-lose; there is no win-lose option whereby one side loses and the other wins. We will all benefit if we secure free trade arrangements and deal with the Irish border through the overall UK-EU relationship.

[David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my confidence that we will find a satisfactory solution to such trade issues in the negotiations before we leave the EU?

[Karen Bradley]

I do share my right hon. Friend’s optimism. I believe that we can negotiate a deal that works for all sides.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State think that it would be a good idea to ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Mr Barnier to come to the border—not for a press conference, but for a full day—to see the hundreds upon hundreds of crossing points and to debunk the nonsense and myth of a hard border, which would be irrelevant and impossible to enforce?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are more crossing points in the 310 miles of land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic than there are on the whole eastern land border between the European Union and non-member states. However, I think that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that both Mr Barnier, who was working in the European Commission at the time of the Belfast agreement, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union are very familiar with that border.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Now that spring has come and there is a lightness and warmth in the air, may the equinoctial optimism extend to all politicians in Northern Ireland!

I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of the important role played by the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, particularly during the previous period of direct rule, when there were 18 meetings between 1999 and 2007. With no devolution, and with the horrors of Brexit looming ever larger, what plans does she have to reconvene the BIIGC, and when and where will it be reconvened?

[Karen Bradley]

It seems ironic that on the day when there are exactly 12 hours of daylight, we have scheduled 12 hours of programmed time in which to debate Northern Ireland legislation.

[Stephen Pound]

Not enough.

[Karen Bradley]

It may well not be enough; it will depend on how the shadow Secretary of State feels.

I regularly discuss with both the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach issues relating to our commitments in the Belfast agreement, and I continue to reflect on those matters.

[Mr Speaker]

I am bound to say that I am a little disappointed that there was a less than fully attentive audience for the legendary thespian performance of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), to which many of us have become accustomed over the last two decades, but there are always other occasions on which people can listen more closely—and should.

[Stephen Pound]

Shall I do it again?

[Mr Speaker]

Another time. Let us keep it for the long summer evenings that lie ahead. I call Tom Pursglove.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

How do you follow that, Mr Speaker?

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to identify opportunities to strengthen Northern Ireland’s economy as the UK leaves the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I am not even going to try to follow that.

The Government are committed to building a stronger economy fit for the future right across the United Kingdom. That is clear from our industrial strategy and the Chancellor’s spring statement, where we continue to identify further opportunities for investment in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, however, a key requirement for stronger growth is political stability. That is why it is essential that a restored Executive are in place to take forward strategic decisions to deliver for Northern Ireland’s economy.

[Tom Pursglove]

Tayto has operations not only in Corby, but in Northern Ireland, and it is very good news that in recent times the operation has expanded considerably. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that such UK-wide manufacturing industries continue to grow and prosper?

[Mr Vara]

Tayto Group is the third largest snack manufacturer in the UK. It employs some 1,500 people right across the country—from Tandragee to Corby, and from Scunthorpe to Devon—and is one of the many success stories for growth. Through our industrial strategy, we are creating conditions in which successful businesses such as Tayto Group can thrive, helping them to invest in the future of our nation. We are shaping our business environment to take on the challenges and opportunities of new technologies and new ways of doing business, especially as we leave the EU, and to develop new trade relationships and expand our global trade networks.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Institute of Export and International Trade says that if Northern Ireland is not in the single market or customs union, it will face 350 million new product codes. How many tens of thousands of administrators would Northern Ireland need to continue its current trade, let alone expand it?

[Mr Vara]

I can rebut such pessimistic claims with actual fact. The employment figures that we will publish this morning say that there are 66,000 more jobs now than in 2010, with 15,000 of them created in the last year. Since 2010, we have 12,300 new businesses.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, this House will no longer be prohibited from reducing the rate of corporation tax for Northern Ireland. If the institutions are not up and running by that time, would the Minister consider taking that step?

[Mr Vara]

We very much hope that the devolved Assembly will be up and running, because it is for the Assembly to take the decision of reducing corporation tax. We are very committed to it doing that on the basis that it can show sustainable finances.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Despite the ongoing political situation, Northern Ireland has had a very positive business environment this year, particularly in relation to foreign direct investment. Will the Minister consider establishing a formal and regular business forum to include Invest NI and organisations and local businesses in Northern Ireland, to ensure that they can maximise opportunities that arise from the UK leaving the EU?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I have just been assured by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary that he would be happy to participate in such a venture.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

9. If she will hold discussions with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on recruiting more officers and reducing its overtime budget.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Policing is a devolved matter and should be overseen by a restored Executive at Stormont. The Chief Constable continues to engage extensively with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice on operational and financial issues. Both the Secretary of State and I have met the Chief Constable to discuss various issues. The PSNI does a superb job and will always have the fullest possible support of this Government. We have committed an extra £32 million a year to support its response to Northern Ireland-related terrorism.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response. Bearing in mind the fact that the potential overtime bill for the PSNI is £48 million, will he further outline his perception regarding recruitment, as it would be better to have a recruitment policy involving more feet on the ground, because that would adjust the overtime bill and ensure that police officers would not be burnt out because they have to work overtime? Will Ministers agree to do that?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but he will be aware that PSNI operational matters such as staffing levels are a matter for the Chief Constable. I hope that he will take on board what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

10. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that healthcare provision in Northern Ireland is maintained after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

There is ongoing positive engagement between UK Government officials and the Northern Ireland civil service to ensure that the current provision is maintained as part of the common travel area, as agreed in the joint report in the December Council.

[Kerry McCarthy]

At the moment, children from Northern Ireland can access emergency heart surgery in Dublin, cancer patients from the Republic can have treatment in Derry and ambulances cross the border to attend emergencies. Can the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that that will continue post Brexit?

[Karen Bradley]

I visited the hospital in Derry and saw for myself the excellent treatment that patients from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland receive there. About a third of the patients at that hospital come from the Republic. It is essential that we maintain that situation by maintaining the common travel area, as agreed in the joint report in December. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a considerable hubbub in the Chamber, which is arguably discourteous to the people of Northern Ireland and certainly unfair on Members from Northern Irish constituencies. Let us have a respectful hearing for Mr David Simpson.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the European health card system. Does she envisage that system continuing when we leave the European Union, or will there be some other arrangement?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that that was one of the early matters to be settled as part of the negotiations with the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was able to ensure that that will continue.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to prevent the unnecessary suffering of live animals exported from Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Government are committed to improving the welfare of all animals. We expect animals across the UK to be transported in conditions that comply fully with welfare requirements, and would prefer animals across the UK to be slaughtered close to the point of production. Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland; it would be for a future Northern Ireland Executive to determine their own policy.

[Henry Smith]

May I seek assurances that, as we leave the European Union, in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom we will use the opportunity to enhance animal welfare standards?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare, and we are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. He will appreciate, however, that animal welfare is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and it would be for a future Northern Ireland Executive to determine their own policy. We have been clear that when we leave the EU, we will not only maintain the existing rules on animal welfare but, where possible, look to strengthen those requirements.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

As the Minister has said, Northern Ireland has very high animal welfare standards, and surely we can do better than what the EU offers in terms of animal welfare standards.

[Mr Vara]

It is our intention not only to stay at the same level but to continue to improve our levels of animal welfare.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

12. What progress has been made on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

I set out—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is nice to be welcomed so loudly—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is impossible to hear the Secretary of State. She did not realise just how popular she was, but now she knows.

[Karen Bradley]

I set out the Government’s approach to restoring devolved government in my statement to the House on 12 March. As I said then, the UK Government remain determined to see devolved government re-established. We are continuing to work with all the Northern Ireland parties—and with the Irish Government, as appropriate—towards restoring the Executive and a fully functioning Assembly.

[David Hanson]

What progress has the Secretary of State made on involving Assembly Members in scrutiny? Has she had discussions with the political parties, and does she expect them to be involved in the scrutiny of the budget proposals announced yesterday?

[Karen Bradley]

Specifically on the budget, I made sure that all the main political parties represented in Stormont had sight of it before I announced it, because I sincerely hope that they will be the parties that will actually deliver that budget. The right hon. Gentleman will also know from my statement of 12 March that I have had a number of representations and that I continue to receive suggestions about how we might get some form of functioning Assembly working in Stormont, and I am considering all those approaches.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State realise that so long as Sinn Féin refuses to enter the Stormont Assembly without laying down pre-conditions and continues to create a toxic political atmosphere in Northern Ireland, there is little chance of restoring devolved government, and that she must consider ways of ensuring that Northern Ireland is governed properly in the meantime?

[Karen Bradley]

As I have said, several suggestions and representations have been made to me about what the next steps might be, and I am considering all of them. I am looking at what we can do to ensure that we get something that gets us back on the road towards having a fully restored devolved Government.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

13. What support the Government is providing for the hosting of the 2021 Youth Commonwealth games in Belfast.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

Under the terms of the devolution settlement, responsibility for sporting events such as the Commonwealth youth games is a matter for the devolved Administration. The Government are continuing to work towards the restoration of a devolved Government in Northern Ireland for precisely that reason. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is still too much noise in the Chamber. Let us hear the voice of Vauxhall.

[Kate Hoey]

I am afraid that that is really not good enough from the Secretary of State. Northern Ireland has won the right to host this hugely important sporting event, and the Secretary of State must make these decisions. We cannot wait until we get another Executive, which could be a very long time coming. The decision must be made, and the Secretary of State must actually show that she is in charge.

[Karen Bradley]

I feel as if I were answering questions in my previous role at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because this issue crossed my desk there. My officials have met the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games Council to discuss whether the option of holding the 2021 games in Northern Ireland could be sustained until such times as the devolved institutions are restored and in a position to consider the decisions required.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland is heavily dependent on tourism, including event-driven tourism. Our work is linked with that of Tourism Ireland, but unfortunately, we do not believe that we are getting a fair crack of the whip in terms of delivery for our contribution to that body.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind a particular focus on the games and just accidentally neglected to say so.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the 2021 games would bring tourists to Northern Ireland, and I have had discussions with both the Tourism Minister and others about tourism in Northern Ireland. He will welcome the call for evidence announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week with regard to specific tourism issues in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 21 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the Westminster terrorist attack. It was a sick and depraved attack on the streets of our capital, but what I remember most is the exceptional bravery of our police and security services, who risked their lives to keep us safe. I know that Members will be attending events tomorrow and over the weekend to mark this tragic anniversary.

I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the Red Arrows engineer who tragically died in the aircraft incident at RAF Valley yesterday.

Members across the House will also wish to join me in congratulating Andria Zafirakou, who recently won the global teacher prize. It is a fitting tribute to everything that she has done, and I look forward to meeting her shortly to congratulate her in person.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Howarth]

I am sure that the whole House will want to be associated with the condolences and congratulations that the Prime Minister has just expressed.

Since 2010, Merseyside police has lost 1,084 police officers. In 2017, crime in Knowsley went up by 18.5%, and there were 21 firearm discharges, one of which resulted in a fatality. Across the force area, there were 94 firearm discharges, with four fatalities. Local MPs have met Home Office Ministers, but no extra resources have been provided. Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Home Secretary to meet local MPs to discuss what additional support can be given to deal with that serious problem?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that with the Knowsley safety partnership with Merseyside police, crime statistics in his constituency have fallen by 9% since the year ending June 2010. He mentioned some incidents that are of real concern, and I am sure that the police are giving their full attention to them. We are ensuring that overall—[Interruption.] He points at the Home Secretary, but my right hon. Friend is ensuring that overall, in the next year, not only will we protect police budgets but we will see, with precept, £450 million extra available to police forces across the country.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Q3. May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s earlier comments? Britain’s ability to trade with the world has been curtailed by the EU for over 40 years, but we have now won the ability to sign our own trade agreements around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is Brexit’s greatest opportunity and ensures that we can embrace the globe as a truly proud international country once again?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right—I agree with him that this is an important opportunity for the United Kingdom post Brexit, because for the first time in 40 years we will be able to step out into the world and forge our own way by negotiating our own trade agreements and signing trade deals with old friends and new allies alike. We will, of course, be able to do that. As he knows, from next March we will no longer be a member state of the European Union, and in due course we will be able to bring into force new trade arrangements around the rest of the world—a truly global Britain.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I, too, join the Prime Minister in commemorating the attacks that took place in Westminster a year ago, and I, too, will be at some of the events tomorrow. We should all remember this as an attack on democracy within our society.

I also join the Prime Minister in sending condolences to the friends and family of the Red Arrows engineer who sadly died yesterday. We wish the pilot well in his recovery.

I had the pleasure of meeting Andria Zafirakou, who won the global teacher award, just before she went off to receive it, and we should all congratulate her and Alperton School in Brent on the great work that she does there.

Today is the Kurdish new year, Newroz, so can we wish all Kurdish people around the world a happy new year and, particularly for those who are suffering so much in the conflict in Syria, a hope of peace in the year to come?

Does the Prime Minister believe that the collapse of Northamptonshire Council is the result of Conservative incompetence at a local level, or is it Conservative incompetence at a national level?

[The Prime Minister]

May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing all those who are celebrating a very happy Newroz?

If we are looking at what is happening in relation to local councils, obviously there has been a report on Northamptonshire County Council, but let us look at what we see across the board in councils. [Interruption.] Yes, yes—if we look at what is happening in councils up and down the country there is one message for everybody: Conservative councils cost you less.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My question was actually quite specific to Northamptonshire. The Tory leader of the council said:

“We have been warning Government from about 2013-14…we couldn’t cope with the level of cuts that we were facing”.

Three years ago, that council bragged that it was pioneering an “easy council” model. It then proceeded to outsource 96% of council staff, and transferred them to new service providers, which were run like private companies paying dividends. Now that council has gone bust. Does the Prime Minister really believe that the slash and burn model for local government is really a good one?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, first, that it would be helpful if he accurately reflected the independent statutory inspection, which concluded last week. The report was clear that Northamptonshire’s failure is not a case of underfunding. Indeed, Northamptonshire’s core spending power is set to rise by £14.5 million, so the attack he is making—that this is all about the amount of money the Government are providing—is not correct. What we are ensuring is that councils are able to provide good services up and down the country, and that is what we see with Conservative councils up and down the country—they are costing people less than Labour.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

But the problem is that Northampton- shire has gone bust, and this is caused by the Conservative Government and a Conservative council. It is a model still being used by Barnet Borough Council, which, until very recently, was run by the Conservatives—they lost control of it this week. Capita holds contracts there with an estimated value of £500 million. What has Barnet done? It has cut council staff every year and increased spending on consultants every year. Government cuts mean that councils across England are facing a £5.8 billion funding gap by 2020. So with hindsight, does the Prime Minister really believe it was right to prioritise tax cuts for the super-rich and big business? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is becoming rather overexcited. I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister’s answer must be heard. The question from the Leader of the Opposition must also be heard, and it will be, however long it takes. [Interruption.] Mr Snell, you are behaving in a most undignified manner—compose yourself, man.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

There seemed to be a lot of concern among Conservative Members about my suggestion that the Government had prioritised tax cuts for the super-rich and big business, and put them as more important than funding for social care, libraries, repairing potholes, bin collection or street cleaning.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about bin collection. Well, people living in Birmingham under a Labour-run council saw thousands of tonnes of waste on the streets because the council was failing to collect the bins. He talks about tax, and we all know that the top 1% of taxpayers are paying a higher burden of tax than they ever paid under Labour. And we all know what Labour would mean for council tax payers, because just this week the shadow Communities Secretary—[Interruption.] “Oh”, he says. Could that be because he does not want people to know what he is supporting? He has supported a plan to stop local taxpayers having the right to stop tax hikes; he is supporting a plan to introduce a land value tax—a tax on your home and your garden—and he wants to introduce a new hotel tax. We all know what would happen under Labour: more taxes, and ordinary working people would pay the price.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The shadow Secretary of State supports councils, thinks they should be properly funded and does not think they should be a vehicle for privatisation.

The leader of Surrey County Council, who happens to be a Conservative, has said:

“We are facing the most difficult financial crisis in our history.”

He did not mince his words, because he went on to say:

“The Government cannot…stand idly by while Rome burns.”

Council funding has been cut by half since 2010. Households in England now face council tax rises of £1 billion. The Tory leader of the Local Government Association says that

“councils will have to continue to cut back services or stop some altogether”

due to Government cuts. So as people open their council tax bills, is it not clear what the Conservative message is—pay more to get less?

[The Prime Minister]

The average council tax for a band D property is £100 less under Conservative councils than it is under Labour councils. The right hon. Gentleman says that his shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is supporting councils, but I wonder whether he supports these councils: Haringey, where the Labour leader was forced out; Brighton, where the Labour leader was forced out; and Cornwall, where the Labour group leader was forced out. What had these people done? They had supported building more homes, providing good local services and tackling anti-Semitism in the Labour party. The message is clear: if you believe in good local services, want to see more homes built and want to tackle anti-Semitism, there is no place for you in the Labour party.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Labour councils build houses; Conservative councils privatise—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a very raucous atmosphere. I have said it before and I will say it again: Back-Bench Members should seek to imitate the zen-like calm of the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is an example to us all.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We all admire zen, Mr Speaker.

Pay more for less is the Conservative message. In Leicestershire, the county council is pushing through £50 million-worth of cuts and council tax increases of 6%. Its deputy leader blamed chronically low Government funding. That is the Tory message: pay more to get less. It is not just households: the average small shop will see its rates bill increase by £3,600. Empty shops suck all the life out of our high streets and local communities, so why is the Prime Minister presiding over a Government who are tearing the heart out of our local high streets?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, we have provided extra support for small businesses in relation to business rates. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about Labour councils building homes, but we have seen more council homes being built under this Government than under 13 years of a Labour Government. He talks about what councillors are saying at a local level; I am pleased to say that yesterday two Labour councillors from Ashfield District Council joined the Conservatives, and what did one of them say? He said:

“Both locally and nationally”

the Labour party

“has been taken over by the hard-left who are more interested in fighting internal ideological battles than standing up for the priorities of working men and women.”

Conservatives will always welcome people who care about their local area and we will always stand up for people in their local area.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Half a million businesses will see their rates rise this year, some by 500%. Even Mary Portas, who led the Government’s “Save the High Street” campaign, said that it was simply a

“PR campaign which looked like ‘hey, we’re doing something’ and I hoped it might kick-start something—but it didn’t.”

The Conservative Government have slashed public services. They cut funding and expect councils to pick up the pieces. The result is that children’s centres are closing, schools are struggling, there are fewer police on the streets, older people are being left without care or dignity, and refuges are turning women away. The Tories’ own head of local government says it is unsustainable. Doesn’t it tell us everything we need to know about the Government that they demand that households and businesses pay more to get less?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government are spending more on our schools and on our NHS than ever before. We are able to do that because of the balanced approach we take to our economy and because of the strong economy we see under the Conservatives. I notice that in his six questions the right hon. Gentleman did not mention today’s unemployment figures. Employment is at a joint record high. Unemployment has not been lower since 1975. Economic inactivity is at a record low. That is a strong jobs market. Who benefits from a strong jobs market? Labour staffers, Labour council leaders and moderate Labour Members of Parliament.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Q4. I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition has not read the report about Northamptonshire County Council; I commend it to him. But I want to focus on a different issue today. Worldwide, every minute, millions of throwaway paper coffee cups go to landfill. To solve that, we need industry, consumers and the Government to work together. In that spirit, Amaray, a company in my constituency, has developed a fully recyclable alternative cup; it can be easily recycled, unlike the current option. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that innovation? Perhaps if she is around afterwards, I might be able to give one to her.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that, if he would like to come along and see me afterwards, I am very happy to do that. He has raised an important point. As he knows, we are committed to wanting to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. I congratulate Amaray and welcome the innovation that it has shown. This is an important example of working with industry to ensure that we are dealing with this issue of plastic waste. We were clear in our 25-year environment plan that that is what we want to do, and Amaray is a very good example of exactly that.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about the terrorist atrocity in Westminster a year ago? Our thoughts are obviously with those who gave their lives and, of course, with the emergency services. I also want to associate myself with the remarks about the loss of the engineer.

Does the Prime Minister agree that subverting the democratic political process of any country is totally unacceptable?

[The Prime Minister]

We certainly believe in ensuring that democratic processes are able to continue and that people see free and fair elections. I think that is what everybody in this House would recognise and would accept.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. May I point out to her that the parent company of Cambridge Analytica is Strategic Communications Laboratories? It has been run by a chairman of the Oxford Conservative Association. Its founding chairman was a former Conservative MP. A director appears to have donated more than £700,000 to the Tory party. A former Conservative party treasurer is a shareholder. We know about the links to the Conservative party: they go on and on. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House her Government’s connections to the company?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about two companies: the parent company, SCL, and Cambridge Analytica. As far as I am aware, the Government have no current contracts with Cambridge Analytica, or with the SCL group. The allegations are clearly very concerning, and it is absolutely right that they should be properly investigated. It is right that the Information Commissioner is doing exactly that because people need to have confidence in how their personal data is being used. I would expect Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and all organisations involved to comply fully with the investigation that is taking place. I am pleased to say that the Bill that we are bringing forward on data protection will strengthen legislation around data protection and give the Information Commissioner’s Office tougher powers to ensure that organisations comply. I hope that it will be supported by everybody across this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We now have a lot of Back Benchers’ questions to get through.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Q7. Some London boroughs are renting houses in Kent, including in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, for use as temporary accommodation for homeless families. My local authorities are then expected to provide those families with the support they need. That is putting a strain on Kent’s schools, hospitals and social services, which receive no extra funding to provide that support. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London Mayor and the London boroughs should be providing more homes in the capital, so that London families can be looked after by them, instead of placing the burden of care on hard-pressed council tax payers in Kent?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to speak up on behalf of his constituents on this issue. London authorities must secure temporary accommodation within their own borough, as far as is reasonably practical. We have also changed the law so that councils must take into account the impact that a change in location would have on a household. However, he is absolutely right: we do want the London Mayor and London boroughs to be able to build more homes. Money has been provided to the Mayor of London to build affordable homes. It is a pity that he has not been building as many as we would like.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Q2. School cuts in Portsmouth under this Government will reach £3.3 million by 2019, meaning that classrooms are being starved of the resources that they need, including textbooks and basic stationery. At the same time, approximately 40,000 children in the south-east are relying on food banks. If the Prime Minister were a teacher who had been under a pay cut for eight years, what would she buy a struggling child in one of my city’s classrooms—a textbook or a square meal?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of school funding. As I said in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the amount of money that we are spending on schools is greater than it has ever been before. What matters is the quality of education provided in schools, which is why I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not welcome the fact that over 20,000 children in his area are now at a good or outstanding school; that is 9,000 more than in 2010.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Q8. I am sure that we all recognise and welcome the employment figures announced today, but given the latest report that there are still unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment among ethnic communities in Britain, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what the new £90 million fund will do to help young people into work?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We know these figures because of the race disparity audit that I commissioned when I became Prime Minister. The audit shows that there has been progress, but we need to do more because 16 to 24-year-olds in other ethnic groups are twice as likely as their white peers to be unemployed. The £90 million that I announced will help to tackle those inequalities in youth employment. The initiative will be run by the Big Lottery Fund, and it will identify the barriers to employment for those young people and help them to overcome those barriers. That is incredibly important. I was very pleased to visit Street League in Birmingham, which is already doing excellent work in this area.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q5. The war in Syria has now entered its eighth year. In recent weeks, over 1,000 people have been killed in eastern Ghouta. In Afrin, hundreds of Kurds lie dead and 200,000 civilians are desperately fleeing for their lives; even the hospital has been attacked. What will the Government do to help to bring urgent humanitarian relief for those in such despair?

[The Prime Minister]

We take the situation in eastern Ghouta very seriously indeed, which is why we have raised the issue at the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign Secretary has also raised this matter with others. We have been very clear about what needed to happen to ensure that people could be protected, that humanitarian aid could get in and that safe passage could be given to those for whom it was necessary due to their condition. We will continue to press this case.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Q9. The Select Committee on Education recently interviewed a panel of university vice-chancellors who failed to recognise that their salaries are outrageous, being twice that of the Prime Minister and mainly funded by the taxpayer and student debt. Given that these outrageous salaries are paid in even the poorest performing universities, will the Prime Minister confirm that this situation will be looked at in the post-18 education review?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised a point that others are concerned about as well. Of course, universities are autonomous from the Government, so it is up to them how they set the pay of their vice-chancellors and what level they set it at, but they should recognise that students and taxpayers are all contributing to our higher education system and expect value for money. The Office for Students, which has now been set up, will be acting to ensure greater transparency in relation to senior staff pay and requiring a justification for the total remuneration package that is awarded to the head of the provider and the provider’s most senior staff, so we will now start to see a light being shone very clearly on the issue that my hon. Friend raises.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Q6. Last week, the Agriculture and Fisheries Secretary and Ruth Davidson said:“The Prime Minister has been clear: Britain will leave the CFP as of March 2019.”Now, the UK is staying in the common fisheries policy but with no say on quotas—the worst deal imaginable. What changed between last week and this week?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be working with the fishing industry, both fishermen and fish processors, to ensure that we do see a bright future for the fishing industry. I want to see three things: we will take back control of our waters, we will ensure that we do not see British fishermen unfairly denied access to other waters, and we want to rebuild our fishing industry. But it is the Conservative party that is committed to coming out of the common fisheries policy; the hon. Gentleman’s party wants to stay in the common fisheries policy.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Q13. Cherwell is really proud to be building three houses a day but construction traffic is playing havoc with our road services. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss what more national Government can do to help with inevitable growing pains?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I am very happy to congratulate Cherwell on the homes that it is building, but I recognise that this brings with it other challenges. At Budget, we more than doubled the housing infrastructure fund with another £2.7 billion, and earlier today my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary, I am pleased to say, announced a further 44 areas shortlisted for funding for major infrastructure projects worth £4.1 billion, with the potential to deliver 400,000 more homes. I recognise the important role that infrastructure plays, and that is why the Government are delivering it.

[Sir David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q10. The Prime Minister was right to prevent members of the royal family and Government Ministers from attending the football World cup in Russia, but what is being done to safeguard everyday football fans in what was, in my view, already a dangerous place to watch football, even before the incident in Salisbury? What advice will be given to travelling English supporters, many of whom have already bought their tickets, and is she confident that adequate co-operation between our police and the Russian police will protect English fans?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the important issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, because we want British football fans to be able to be safe when they are enjoying watching the England team. We are currently working very closely with the police in looking at what arrangements will be in place to support the England football fans who travel to Russia. The Foreign Office will be carefully monitoring the situation and ensuring that advice is available to football fans, so that they are aware of the circumstances there will be in Russia and what support will be available.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Q14. My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have mentioned Jacci Woodcock, a terminally ill constituent of mine who set up the Dying to Work campaign. Santander, her mortgage broker, has been incredibly helpful in freezing her payments and will take them from her estate when she dies, but now it has gone even further—it is not increasing the interest payments either. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other banks should follow the caring and compassionate example set by Santander and that we should encourage them to look after terminally ill people in the same way?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an issue that I know she cares about very deeply. I am certainly happy to join her in congratulating Santander on the support that it has provided to Jacci Woodcock. Obviously, my hon. Friend has raised a wider issue. It is important for employers to be aware of and to fulfil their legal obligations to their employees, including terminally ill employees, and I am sure that others will look at the excellent example that Santander has set.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Q11. The Sunday Times said this week that Bedford’s relatively affordable housing and easy access to London have made it one of the best places to live in the UK, but Bedford constituents are concerned about the school funding cuts, court services cuts, the impending closure of our only walk-in centre, the big increase in homelessness and the loss of fast peak-time rail services to London. My question to the Prime Minister is, why are her Government ruining the prospects of our great town?

[The Prime Minister]

The prospects of the hon. Gentleman’s great town are being improved. They are being improved by the fact that we see thousands more children in good or outstanding schools in Bedford local authority than when we came to power. They are being improved by the fact that extra funding is going into the health service in Bedford. They are also being improved by the fact that this Government are ensuring we have a strong economy, providing jobs for people in his constituency.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Financial services are critical to thousands of my constituents and to the country as a whole. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to update the House on the progress made on ensuring that our future trade deal with the European Union includes an agreement on financial services?

[The Prime Minister]

I am well aware of the importance of financial services for the United Kingdom, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere, and also the important role that the City of London plays in the financial sector for the whole European Union. We are in discussion with the European Union about this matter, and there is a recognition of the significant role that the City of London plays and the importance of ensuring that we maintain access to finance across the European Union.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Q12. Mental health issues affect one in 10 children, who on average have to see their GP three times before a referral, with many waiting up to 18 months for treatment. I acknowledge the Green Paper on this issue, but at a time when national funding in this area is being constantly cut, including a 5% reduction in funding to Lewisham child and adolescent mental health services, is this not another example of the Government saying one thing but doing another with our NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government are putting more funding into mental health provision. We have already committed to making available an additional £1.4 billion to improve children and young people’s mental health services, and we have committed that, by 2020-21, 70,000 more children and young people each year will have access to high-quality NHS mental health care. The hon. Lady rightly raises mental health as an important issue for us to deal with, and particularly the mental health of children and young people, but across the board we need to give more attention to mental health. We are putting money into it, and we are clear that we want to see parity of esteem between mental health and physical health in the national health service. That is something the Labour party in 13 years of government failed to do.

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

The EU agreement published this week has sadly left my fishermen in Amble and the north-east very anxious. While it is great news that we will regain control of our fishing grounds at the end of the implementation period, there is real concern that our EU colleagues might try to take advantage of our losing our voice in the CFP by altering discard rules or quota rules during the implementation period. Will the Prime Minister consider asking the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare a financial mitigation plan to protect our fleet until 2021 should we need to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

The implementation period is there so that people have the certainty of being able to operate on the same basis until we reach the new partnership that we are negotiating. As I said earlier, in that new partnership, we want to take back control of our waters but ensure that British fishermen are not unfairly denied access to other waters and that we can rebuild our fishing industry. That is important. My hon. Friend mentioned quotas. It has been agreed that the stability key will not be changed, so the quotas that British fishermen will be operating under will not be changed. I know that DEFRA is looking actively at how we can ensure that we not only maintain our fishing industry, but enhance and rebuild it after we leave.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

This week, every party in Westminster took part in an international summit to challenge violence against women in politics, and online abuse dominated the discussions. Last year, the Prime Minister’s Government considered a statutory code of practice for social media corporations, holding them to account for the abusive content they publish. Will she confirm whether she remains content with a toothless voluntary code, or will she now give us a digital guard dog that both barks and bites?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. On all these issues, we have taken the view that we should first sit down with those in the industry and work with them to see what they are willing to do on a voluntary basis, but they know that if that does not actually work, we will look at legislation. She raises an important point about the abuse that takes place. She refers particularly to the abuse that takes place within political campaigning, and I am afraid we have now reached a very sorry state of affairs in this country. We want to see free and fair elections and people having the confidence to be able to go out and put their views forward without fearing that they are going to be abused for it.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The clinically led Future Fit programme for Shropshire seeks to improve and modernise hospital services across the county of Shropshire. We have been waiting for a decision on this issue for many years. Will the Prime Minister use her good offices to ensure that this vital scheme is supported in the coming weeks, so that we can secure this vital investment for Shropshire NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to speak up for the NHS in Shropshire in the way he has done. He will be pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care heard his comments, and I think will be contacting him about this issue.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Bercow review made a big difference in improving services for children with communication needs—communication is the key life skill for children to learn and thrive—yet, a decade on, the latest report shows that much more needs to be done. Will the Prime Minister commit to a cross-Government strategy that puts this issue at the heart of policy and gives all our children the best possible start in life?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue. We welcome the report, and the Department for Education is going to be considering it carefully. We do not want to see any child held back from achieving their potential, and that includes ensuring that children with speech, language and communication needs are given the support they need. There has been particular training for teachers to support children who require additional help to communicate, and we will be introducing the education, health and care plans to make sure that children with additional needs receive the right support to succeed in school in the future, but we will look very carefully at what the report has said and obviously respond to it in due course.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Unlike the SNP, I do not want to see Britain rejoin the disastrous common fisheries policy, but I do have some concerns about the fisheries aspects of the transitional agreement that has been provisionally agreed with the European Union. Before she travels to the European Council, will the Prime Minister reassure the House, and indeed fishing communities around the United Kingdom, that we will absolutely and unequivocally take back full control of our waters from 2021?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, the point about the implementation period is that it is the period during which people are able to make the changes necessary for the new partnership we will have. It ensures that businesses, fishermen included, do not face two cliff-edge changes in the way they are operating. By definition—because it is maintaining, as far as possible, the status quo, so that people do not have to make those extra changes—I recognise that it is not the same and will not be the same as the end state when we are able to have a future economic partnership and have a new relationship. As I said earlier, one of the elements that we will be looking for in reassuring the fishing industry and providing for the fishing industry is to ensure that we do take back control of our waters.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the SNP in offering condolences to the family of the Royal Air Force engineer who was tragically killed in my constituency yesterday? The RAF has been part of my constituency for over 75 years, with a tight-knit group of aircraftmen and support staff on the ground. While they are grieving, will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the RAF as it commemorates its century of dedicated service to our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in saying what a great job the Royal Air Force does for us; of course he sees it at first hand, given its connection with his constituency. We should recognise the valour of all those who are serving in our armed forces—particularly, in this 100th year of the Royal Air Force, those who serve in the Royal Air Force. We thank them for it.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

May I welcome the Government’s decision to create a medical school at Canterbury in east Kent, which was fought for by all Kent’s MPs—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who has been indefatigable in that fight? Does this not underline the importance of training more doctors and nurses, to ensure that our health services in the regions are well staffed and looked after?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to welcome the new medical school in Canterbury, but also the four other new medical schools being set up around various parts of the country. He is also absolutely right that this is about ensuring that we are training a workforce for our national health service. We have raised significantly the number of training places—I think it is probably the biggest increase in training places that the NHS has seen for some considerable time.

[Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Given that mesh can shrink, degrade or twist in a woman’s body, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she will support proposals to “sling the mesh”?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise that this is a very real, important issue that has been raised. It is one of a number of women’s health issues that have been raised in this House that are causing concern to women. I will look in detail at it. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady about this, but I recognise the concern that there is about this particular issue. I am happy to write to her about what the national health service will be doing on it.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the remarkable staff of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow, who have ensured that the hospital is out of special measures today, following a report from the Care Quality Commission? Will she support our campaign for a new hospital to ensure that the staff have a hospital fit for the 21st century?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the local hospital in Harlow that my right hon. Friend has referred to on coming out of those special measures. I think that is very important and I know it will give added confidence to his constituents. He tempts me to support a new hospital in his area. As he will know, the Secretary of State has heard his request, but what we do know is that we are putting more money into the national health service to ensure that we do get the best possible services provided to people through our national health service.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. Before we proceed to next business, I take this opportunity to remind the House that tomorrow we will be commemorating the Westminster terrorist attack of a year ago, reference to which was made earlier. I propose that we begin our proceedings tomorrow after prayers with a minute’s silence in memory of those who died. There will also be, colleagues, a commemorative event in Westminster Hall at 12 noon and services in the chapel of St Mary Undercroft at 10 am, 2 pm and 6 pm. I hope that is helpful to colleagues.

Although points of order ordinarily come after urgent questions or statements, I understand that this inquiry appertains to exchanges with the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether that was today or on a previous occasion, but let us hear from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh).

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It does particularly relate to today’s session because police funding was referenced by the Prime Minister today. You may have seen that the UK Statistics Authority issued a statement yesterday reprimanding the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Home Office for making statements that

“could have led the public to conclude incorrectly that central government is providing an additional £450 million for police spending”

this year. Given that the “Ministerial Code” requires that Ministers correct

“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”,

would it not have been appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to this House and the public for inadvertently misleading us in Prime Minister’s questions?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I confess that I had not seen the UK Statistics Authority communication to which she referred, but obviously her beady eye has focused on it. What I would say to her in respect of the conduct of Ministers is that, as applies to all right hon. and hon. Members, those Ministers are responsible for their own conduct. If they judge that they have made a mistake—communicated incorrect information to the House that has given an incorrect impression—it is incumbent on them to correct the record, but it is not for the Speaker to be the arbiter of whether that is required. To judge by the puckish grin on the hon. Lady’s face, I think she is well familiar with that point, but she has registered her point with her usual force. Doubtless it will be communicated to the people of Sheffield, Heeley and elsewhere.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and to your wise words and guidance, you will recall that in business questions last week I specifically said to the Leader of the House that there was growing concern that although Ministers are properly accountable to this place and can be called if they have said anything that is not accurate, that does not extend to Opposition Members.

Yet again in Prime Minister’s questions, we have had assertions from right hon. and hon. Opposition Members of facts that are disputed. Mr Speaker, I do not expect you to give any ruling now—you cannot—but would it be in order for the House to consider how we ensure that we report things factually and that any means of challenge extends to the Opposition as well as to the Government?

[Mr Speaker]

I shall always profit by the right hon. Lady’s counsels and I am grateful to her for offering them. Off the top of my head, I would say that the assertion of disputable facts is the very essence of politics. The assertion by one Member of something as fact that is contradicted or questioned by another Member is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. I think we will have to leave it there for today.

The right hon. Lady raised a wider point appertaining to social networking sites, at or after business questions last Thursday, to which I gave a fairly comprehensive reply that can always be consulted by Members in the unlikely event that they have nothing better to do.

NHS Staff Pay

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

13:51

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on NHS pay.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

The whole House will want to pay tribute to the hard work of NHS staff up and down the country during one of the most difficult winters in living memory. Today’s agreement on a new pay deal reflects public appreciation for just how much they have done and continue to do, but it is much more than that. The agreement that NHS trade unions have recommended to their members today is a something for something deal that brings in profound changes in productivity in exchange for significant rises in pay.

The deal will ensure better value for money from the £36 billion NHS pay bill, with some of the most important changes to working practices in a decade, including a commitment to work together to improve the health and wellbeing of NHS staff to bring sickness absence in line with the best in the public sector. We know that NHS sickness rates are around a third higher than the public sector average, and reducing sickness absence by just 1% in the NHS will save around £280 million. The deal will put appraisal and personal development at the heart of pay progression, with often automatic incremental pay replaced by larger, less frequent pay increases based on the achievement of agreed professional milestones. It includes a significantly higher boost to lower-paid staff, to boost recruitment in a period when we know the NHS needs a significant increase in staffing to deal with the pressures of an ageing population. Pay rises range from 6.5% to 29% over three years, with much higher rises targeted on those on the lowest and starting rates of pay.

As part of the deal, the lowest starting salary in the NHS will increase by more than £2,500, from £15,404 this year to £18,040 in 2020-21, and a newly qualified nurse will receive starting pay 12.6%—nearly £3,000—higher in 2020-21 than this year. But this deal is about retention as well as recruitment. It makes many other changes that NHS staff have been asking for—such as shared parental leave and the ability to buy extra or sell back annual leave—so they can better manage their work and family lives, work flexibly and balance caring commitments.

The additional funding that Chancellor announced in the Budget to cover this deal—an estimated £4.2 billion over three years—cements the Government’s commitment to protecting services for NHS patients, while recognising the work of NHS staff up and down the country. This is only possible because of the balanced approach we are taking—investing in our public services and helping families with the cost of living, while getting our debt falling. Rarely has a pay rise been so well deserved for NHS staff, who have never worked harder.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The Secretary of State has finally given the lowest-paid NHS staff a pay rise. Staff, royal colleges, trade unions and the Labour party have today been vindicated in saying that a pay rise is long overdue. But when we have seen nurses, paramedics and midwives losing thousands of pounds from the value of their pay, heard stories of NHS staff turning to food banks, have 100,000 vacancies across the service, seen more nurses leaving the profession than entering and seen trusts spending billions of pounds on agency staff, this pay cap should have been scrapped years ago.

In the general election, Ministers said that scrapping the pay cap was nonsensical. When a nurse pleaded with the Prime Minister for a pay rise on national television, she was told that there was no magic money tree. Can the Secretary of State tell us how this pay rise will be paid for? Have the Prime Minister’s horticultural skills grown said magic money tree? We have heard that there will be additional money. When will trusts get the allocations, and if the money is additional, will it be paid for by extra borrowing or extra taxation? Public servants deserve reassurances that the Government will not give with one hand and take with the other.

Given the projections for inflation, can the Secretary of State guarantee that staff will not face a real-terms pay cut in any single year of the deal? We note that he has backed down on docking a day’s holiday. Will he commit to not tabling that proposal again? We also note that he will not block the transfer of hospital staff to wholly owned subsidiary companies. Will he at least guarantee that all staff employed by such companies will be covered by “Agenda for Change” terms? Can he tell us when the rest of the public sector will get a pay deal?

NHS pay has been held back for the best part of a decade. Today is a first step, but the NHS remains underfunded and understaffed. We urgently need a plan to give the NHS the funding it needs for the future.

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Gentleman wants a plan to give the NHS the funding it needs, can he explain why Labour in Wales has deprived the NHS of £1 billion of funding that it would have had if funding had increased at the same rate as in England? Far from Labour being vindicated, the House will remember that the pay restraint in the NHS for the past eight years was caused by the worst financial recession since the second world war, caused by a catastrophic loss of control of public finances.

The hon. Gentleman asks for some details. Today’s pay deal means that someone starting work in the NHS as a healthcare assistant will see their rate of pay over the next three years go up by 26%, nearly £4,000. A nurse with three years’ experience will see a 25% increase, which is more than £6,000 over three years. A band 6 paramedic with four years’ experience will see a £4,000 rise. On top of that, we are putting in a huge number of things that NHS staff will welcome, including, for example, statutory child bereavement leave and shared parental leave. Yes, we are asking for important productivity changes in return, but this is about the modernisation of NHS staff terms and conditions, which is good for them and good for taxpayers.

The hon. Gentleman asks where the money is coming from: it is additional funding from the Treasury for the NHS. It is not coming from extra borrowing. If he had been listening to the autumn statement, he would have heard that debt as a proportion of GDP is starting to fall this year for the first time. That is possible because we have taken very difficult decisions over the past eight years—they were opposed by the Labour party—that have meant 3 million more jobs and have transformed our economy out of recession into growth. None of that would have been possible if we did what his party is now advocating, which is to lose control of public finances by increasing borrowing by £350 billion. Let us just remind ourselves that countries that lose control of their finances do not put more money into their health services—they put less. In Portugal, the amount is down 17%, and in Greece, it is down 39%. The reason that we can announce today’s deal is very simple: this country is led by a Government who know that only a strong economy gives us a strong NHS.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I warmly welcome today’s announcement of a well-deserved pay rise for NHS staff and, in particular, that this will be additional funding of £4.2 billion over three years, rather than it coming out of existing resources. I particularly welcome the focus on staff health and wellbeing, which was raised by the recent Health Committee inquiry into the nursing workforce. In particular, I ask the Secretary of State to go further and talk about what will be done on continuing professional development for NHS staff, because this was identified as a key factor in retention. He referred to it partially in his comments, but I wonder whether he could go further.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Underneath this agreement, there is a very important new partnership between NHS employers and the unions to improve the health and wellbeing of staff through mental health provision and the implementation of the Stevenson-Farmer review, taking on board a number of points raised by the Health Committee, and through improved support for people with musculoskeletal conditions, because a lot of NHS work is very physical. However, she is absolutely right: professional development is also very important. By reforming the increments system that we have been using for many years, we will give staff the chance to see their pay go up in a way that is linked to their skills going up as well. That is something that many staff will welcome.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the comments made by the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our NHS staff? It is good to have not just warm words today, but substantive action. He has referred to devolved nations elsewhere in the UK, and I hope that he will acknowledge that the Scottish Government were the first Government in the UK to lift the public sector pay cap.

Although this announcement is welcome, we have committed to using any additional funds that come to Scotland through consequentials to go into the Scottish pay agreement. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected that average earnings will go up by 7.7% in the next three years, while the retail prices index goes up by over 9%. Has the Secretary of State taken that into account, or are the Government ignoring the OBR on average earnings? Committing to a three-year deal could stagnate wages and lower the standard of living, and none of us in this House wants that to happen.

[Mr Hunt]

The majority of NHS staff will see that their pay is protected against the cost of living, but many NHS staff, including the lowest-paid, will see increases that are substantially higher than inflation rates, because, first, that is the kind of society that we believe in. Conservative Members want everyone to be given decent rates of pay, and there are many parts of the country where the cost of living is very high and this will make a very big difference. We also recognise that there will be 1 million more over-75s in 10 years’ time, so we need to expand the number of staff in the NHS and its capacity to deal with those pressures. We therefore need to attract more people into working for the NHS and social care systems.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend; I know of his huge personal commitment to the NHS and how he has battled for it over the years—I have seen that personally. I unashamedly, absolutely agree that this is a very good deal, and I congratulate nurses and others on this pay rise, which they deserve and for which they have worked very hard. Is it not also right to recognise and remember that back in 2008-09, Labour’s great depression plunged the economy into the biggest and most difficult economic trench that it has faced? As a result of our stewardship and our support of the NHS through that period, unlike many other countries that cut their health spending, we secured 200,000 jobs in the NHS, and now we can start rewarding staff for their hard work.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend and commend him on his courage in putting through some incredibly challenging and important reforms to our welfare state, when many people said that it was nigh on impossible. He is right: the biggest and most misleading thing that we hear is the charge that in austerity Britain, the NHS budget has been cut. In fact, the countries that cut their health budgets were Portugal and Greece—countries that are following precisely the policies that are advocated by the Opposition. In this country—so-called austerity Britain—NHS spending has gone up by 9%.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

On the vexed question of how to pay for the NHS, has the Secretary of State been in any way influenced by the testimony of the recently retired permanent secretary to the Treasury, who at last acknowledged that the only way to do it was to have some form of earmarked taxation?

[Mr Hunt]

The former permanent secretary to the Treasury is an extremely wise and experienced public servant, and I always listen to what he says with a great deal of interest.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I have met many nurses from Taunton Deane to press their case for a rise in salary, and I have passed that on not just to the Department of Health and Social Care, but to the Chancellor. I welcome today’s pay rise; I think these hard-working nurses all deserve it, and we congratulate them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s £4 billion commitment demonstrates that this is a listening Government who are taking investment in the health service extremely seriously?

[Mr Hunt]

I very much enjoyed meeting nurses and staff at Musgrove Park Hospital when my hon. Friend invited me there recently. I know that they will welcome today’s deal and they would welcome even more investment in their operating theatres, which she is campaigning for assiduously.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have lost over 5,000 nurses working in mental health since 2010. As a result of this announcement on pay, when does the Secretary of State expect the number of mental health nurses to return to 2010 levels?

[Mr Hunt]

We would have more nurses in mental health if we had not had to deal with the crisis at Mid Staffs and pronounced short staffing in our acute hospitals. Since I have been Health Secretary, we have 15,000 more nurses in the NHS and we are also finding more money to go into mental health. It is time that the hon. Lady recognised that, rather than trying to paint the opposite picture.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I add my voice to those congratulating the Secretary of State and his ministerial team on a tremendous achievement in discussions with the Treasury to secure this additional funding. I invite him to comment on the work that has been done by the health unions and the Royal College of Nursing, in particular, in helping to deliver this agreement and particularly to give many of the people on starting salaries a significant uplift, which he referred to earlier. This will make it easier to attract people to the vital starting roles for future generations.

[Mr Hunt]

I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend because, when he was working in my Department, he laid a lot of foundations for this deal. He chaired some very important meetings. In particular, one of the most important areas of consensus that has emerged, which he should take enormous credit for, is that we are saying today that the minimum salary for anyone working in the NHS will go up by £2,000. That is going to make a huge difference—100,000 people will benefit from that important change—and he should be very proud of that.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

NHS trusts are spending £3 billion a year on agency staff to plug gaps in the workforce. Has the pay cap not been totally self-defeating and led to huge amounts of public money going to private staffing agencies?

[Mr Hunt]

What led to the mushrooming agency fee was the realisation, post Mid Staffs, that we needed a lot more nurses. Nursing staff numbers were going down until the Francis report was published, but the report created huge demand among hospitals, which realised they needed to improve patient safety by recruiting more staff. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, however, that we are bringing down the agency bill, and I expect it to be significantly lower this year.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

It is disappointing to see the lack of welcome from Labour Members for this pay rise for NHS staff in England—one day after the announcement of five new medical schools across the country. Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Labour Government in Wales to see if they will be replicating this pay rise for NHS staff in Wales?

[Mr Hunt]

First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend as one of the practising nurses in the House and someone who always makes sure that the voice of nursing is heard loud and proud in this place. I very much hope that the devolved Governments will follow suit with this deal, although for every additional pound per head we have put into the NHS in England, Labour in Wales has put in only 57p.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), we all know how much agency nurses cost the NHS, and the same goes for private finance initiatives. These companies are making £1 billion in profits, which is money that will not touch any of our hospital budgets, including that of my own, Whipps Cross Hospital, which has a 17% agency rate and tried to deal with its PFI debt by downgrading the pay of nurses to save money. What is the Secretary of State doing to cut the PFI bill for our hospitals and prevent them from balancing their books off the backs of hard-working staff?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that problem. We have certainly stopped doing any new PFI deals of the disastrous kind that lead to the consequences she talks about. We have given some relief to a number of hospitals in that area, but I will look again at her local hospital, because it is clearly totally unacceptable if that is happening.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

Colchester General Hospital has recently come out of special measures, and the staff there have worked so hard to turn our hospital around, so I welcome wholeheartedly this announcement of extra money, which means that our staff will get a well-deserved pay rise. I will always champion our hospital, however, so will my right hon. Friend commit to continuing to invest in our hospital and its people? In particular, will he look at the accident and emergency department?

[Mr Hunt]

I will happily do that. The hon. Gentleman has championed his hospital, which has been on a rollercoaster journey during his time in this House but which has now turned a corner. The staff have worked incredibly hard to improve safety standards for patients, but I know that, like many places, they would like more investment in their A&E, and I will certainly look at it.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I, like many others, welcome the fact that NHS workers in England will finally receive a pay rise they deserve. Of course, health is devolved to the Welsh Government, so could the Secretary of State clarify how much of this additional funding is new funding and what the Barnett consequential will be for the Welsh Government?

[Mr Hunt]

This constitutes an investment by the Treasury of £4.2 billion, and the normal Barnett consequentials will apply, so it is perfectly possible for the Labour Government in Wales to replicate this deal if they choose to, but we know, of course, that had they replicated the increases in funding to the NHS in England, the NHS in Wales would have had an additional £1 billion spent on it over the past five years.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I see that two doctors are standing on the Government Back Benches. I am sure that the House will understand if I call the medic rather than the military strategist.

[Dr Murrison]

I warmly welcome this announcement and congratulate my right hon. Friend, the trade unions and NHS Employers on reaching this deal. One problem facing our NHS is that of people not returning to work after they have had caring responsibilities. What elements of the deal will encourage more people to consider coming back into the workforce? I am thinking, in particular, of the non-pay elements and the reform of pay structures that he has mentioned.

[Mr Hunt]

The most important thing about the deal is that it will discourage people who might be reaching breaking point, because of personal circumstances, from packing it all in and leaving the NHS family. There is a particular proposal to allow much greater flexibility in the buying and selling of annual leave, so that people who need to work less because of things that happen at home, and perhaps people who want to work more, find it much easier to do so. This is therefore part of a much bigger shift towards the flexible working that we know everyone wants these days.

[Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

I absolutely appreciate the Secretary of State’s announcement on pay. As a nurse who has worked for more than 40 years, I know that it is greatly welcomed by everybody across the patch, including porters. I want to ask, however, about wholly owned subsidiary staff. I believe that some of them are not under “Agenda for Change” terms. Will they get the pay rise as well?

[Mr Hunt]

First, I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the deal. I think she is the first Labour Member who has done so, and it is not insignificant that she is a nurse. A wholly owned subsidiary is a legal structure that was made possible by a change in the law introduced in 2006, under her party’s Government, and is actually an alternative to outsourcing. Employees would be far more likely to benefit from “Agenda for Change” pay rates within such a structure than if they were outsourced, which the last Labour Government tried so hard to encourage.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

When I met Devon’s secretary of the Royal College of Nursing recently to discuss nurses’ pay, she made the obvious point that she was getting a bit fed up with politicians saying that they valued nurses while not actually adding to their pay packets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that from today not only will we be saying that we value nurses, but that that will be reflected in their pay packets? I congratulate him and the RCN on achieving such a good deal.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to Janet Davies, the boss of the RCN, who has worked very hard to make this deal happen and in the best interests of her profession.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

My healthcare economy was held together over the winter solely by the good will of NHS workers, yet they have had a 14% pay cut in real terms since 2010. This announcement is a drop in the ocean. How does the Secretary of State think that it will help retention rates?

[Mr Hunt]

I cannot agree that this is a drop in the ocean. If the hon. Lady does not want to hear it from me, let me point out what was said by the Unison head of health, Sara Gorton, who is also the head negotiator for the NHS unions. She said that the deal

“would go a long way towards making dedicated health staff feel more valued, lift flagging morale, and help turn the tide on employers’ staffing problems.”

That is not a drop in the ocean.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced. He will have heard my question to the Prime Minister earlier, and he will acknowledge that Harlow Hospital is out of special measures and that this pay award is much deserved by staff. In the future, will he look at the particular problem we face—we are just outside London, and a lot of staff work in London, which makes it harder for Harlow Hospital to recruit—and perhaps think again about the pay scales?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to do that and to congratulate the staff at my right hon. Friend’s hospital, which he has long championed and whose pressures and needs he has highlighted assiduously. To come out of special measures is a huge achievement. I have recorded a video message, but I am happy to say in the House how proud we all are of what the staff have achieved. I also recognise the capital issues at the hospital and the fact that the building is not fit for purpose.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The minimum amount that nurses in south Cumbria will have lost since the pay freeze is £4,306. Given that the average house price in my constituency is 10 times the value of the average nurse’s salary, Members will understand the huge impact that there has been on retention and recruitment. The rise is therefore deserved, welcome and overdue, but without a long-term plan for funding health and social care, this announcement will not be trusted, so does the Secretary of State not agree that we need a new deal to refresh Beveridge’s vision for the 21st century, and should we not be prepared to be honest with the British people and say that this will involve a modest but clear increase in taxation?

[Mr Hunt]

I disagree that the deal will not be believed—it is a concrete deal. NHS staff still have to vote for it, but the Government have committed to significant rises in pay. I agree, however, that we will need to find the best way of getting more money into the NHS and social care system as we face the pressures of an ageing population.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the Secretary of State expand a little on what he briefly said about flexibility of working hours and family bereavement among NHS staff? After this urgent question, will he kindly give a short tutorial to those of us with an interest in defence on his successful techniques for extracting £5 billion from the Treasury for a Department that urgently needs it?

[Mr Hunt]

I would not dare to talk about an area outside my own Department’s responsibilities, even to such an eminent person as my right hon. Friend.

Flexible pay is at the heart of what we need to do differently in the NHS. This is really about two types of NHS worker. First, many people find that the shift patterns in the NHS are very unpredictable. Every six weeks their lives are turned upside down as they are given a new set of times when they have to work. People want regularity and predictability, and we do not offer that at the moment, which makes life much tougher for those who are trying to achieve a work-life balance. Secondly, we make life hard for people who want to do extra shifts at the last minute. Both those factors are important, and they will be helped by this new pay deal.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have already heard about the 14% real-terms fall in NHS staff pay since 2010. There have been eight long years of pay restraint, and this deal does not go far enough to offset that historic deficit.

The Secretary of State is having to deal with the massive problem of an ageing population and the need to increase the capacity of the NHS to deal with it. Does he agree that alienating an entire generation of junior doctors was not a productive way of achieving that?

[Mr Hunt]

We do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given but, in any event, he cannot say that the deal does not go far enough without asking why that has happened. It happened because in 2008 we had the worst financial recession since the second world war, which was made an awful lot worse by the Labour Government’s loss of financial discipline. What I think is most disturbing for people in the NHS is that the hon. Gentleman’s party seems set on repeating the same mistake.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I join colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Will he join me in congratulating the nurses and doctors at the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch on their incredibly hard work in keeping people safe and well cared for throughout the winter? Following yesterday’s announcement about new medical schools and nursing apprenticeships, his announcement today represents a real, solid investment in our NHS workforce that will enable us to open the urgent care centre at the Alex for which I have been campaigning.

[Mr Hunt]

I certainly recognise my hon. Friend’s strong argument for an urgent care centre, and I commend the very hard work of the staff at the Alex. I know that the new leadership at the trust is making progress and turning things around, and I hope that what has happened at Harlow today will be an inspiration.

What we are doing today is significant. The extra doctors and nurses whom we are training, and a pay deal that is intended to boost recruitment in the NHS, demonstrate our recognition that we need a significant increase in capacity in the NHS and the social care system if we are to ensure that every older person gets the care that they really need, which is what the Government want.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I press the Secretary of State a little further on Barnett consequentials? Will he confirm that there will be consequentials for each of the three years of the pay rise? Will he also welcome the Welsh Government’s introduction of a living wage in the NHS in 2014, and does he recognise that NHS and social care spending is higher in Wales than it is in England? That is a matter of fact.

[Mr Hunt]

What is a matter of fact is that the NHS in Wales would have £1 billion more if the Welsh Government had matched the increases that have taken place in England and that Welsh patients waiting for both elective and emergency care are 40% more likely to wait too long.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I have the great good fortune to be married to a former renal nurse, and she tells me regularly that much of retention is about work-life balance, training and interactions with management. Will the Secretary of State tell us what progress he is making in those areas?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to do so. Work-life balance is something that we need to handle a lot better. I think we have been slow to recognise that today’s NHS staff are likely to live in households in which both partners are working and that juggling life and work has therefore become much more complex than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The reform of the increments system means that there will be more focus on training and skills, which will be much more motivating for NHS staff, so I hope that my hon. Friend’s wife is pleased.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s change of heart in awarding a pay rise to our hard-working NHS staff. May I pursue the point made by the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)? Our Committee’s report emphasised that continuing professional development was key to the retention of nurses. It was not clear to me from what the Secretary of State said whether money would be ring-fenced—sadly, the amount has been cut—to ensure that nurses can access CPD not only in the NHS, but in social care settings.

[Mr Hunt]

I recognise that there have been pressures on the CPD budget, and that is because we have made increasing the number of nurse training places our main priority. We have increased that by 25%, which has meant that difficult decisions have had to be made about other parts of the budget. I can reassure the hon. Lady, however, that I think that CPD will continue to have a vital role, and we will need to return to the issue.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Efficiency and productivity deserve to be rewarded, and, given the 16% increase in emergency admissions, NHS professionals have certainly earned that. In the light of this new working relationship, does the Secretary of State envisage staff and the Government working in partnership to challenge patients to be more respectful to those who work in the health service?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He often raises difficult issues that need to be talked about in this place. We all know that the vast majority of patients are incredibly grateful for the care that they receive from NHS professionals, but occasionally that does not happen. Occasionally, people use services that they do not need to use, which creates pressures and denies other patients what they do need. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that as we start to expand NHS capacity, we need the public to understand their responsibilities as well.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am happy to welcome the statement, but let me take a moment to remind the Secretary of State that we in Northern Ireland have not had a functioning Assembly for 14 months, and we have had no Health Minister for 14 months. How can the hard-working staff members of the NHS in Northern Ireland benefit from the new pay deal? Will the Secretary of State commit himself to speaking to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whom I am delighted to see sitting on the Front Bench, to ensure that NHS staff in Northern Ireland see the benefits of the deal?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady speaks eloquently and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was listening to her comments. It is a matter of great sadness that nurses’ pay has fallen behind in Northern Ireland, not because the money was not available, but simply because the Administration were not in place to implement changes. I know that my right hon. Friend will do everything she can.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I welcome the proposed pay rise, especially the increase for the lowest paid in the NHS. Nurses at my local hospitals tell me that as well as a pay rise, what they really want is flexibility in relation to things that happen in their lives, so I particularly welcome that aspect of the proposal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that flexibility and investment in training will enable NHS employers to show their appreciation for the valuable contribution that each individual member of staff makes to the care of patients?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with a great deal of knowledge. Let me give an example of something we are doing that is not part of this deal, but that backs up what she says. We are prioritising the use in every hospital of an effective e-rostering system that enables people to book the shifts that they want on their phones and to change them very easily through a modern IT system. That makes an enormous difference to the control that they have over the hours they work, and I think that, in combination with the new deal, that will make a big difference.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

The NHS is now short of 100,000 staff because of the Government’s neglect of the NHS workforce. When the Government scrapped the nursing bursary, they said that that would lead to the training of more nurses, but UCAS data shows that since then the number of applications has fallen by 15,000. Will the Government now commit themselves to reintroducing the bursary?

[Mr Hunt]

What the hon. Lady chose not to tell the House was that since the time of the last Labour Government, we now have 5,500 more nurses and 15,000 more doctors in the NHS, and there has been a 9% rise in NHS funding. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Secretary of State talking about vacancies from a sedentary position. I hope that he will also welcome the 25% increase in the number of doctors and nurses whom we are training precisely so that we can fill those vacancies.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement, and it was great to see the Secretary of State meeting staff at my excellent local hospital, the George Eliot, recently. What will be particularly welcomed is the hugely progressive nature of this deal, with its focus on the lowest paid. What exactly does it mean for those at the very bottom of the pay scale?

[Mr Hunt]

For people starting off in nursing, there will be a rise of about £2,000, which will make a very big difference, and we are increasing the minimum starting salary for anyone working in the NHS by about £2,500. This is completely in line with the Government’s policies over a whole range of areas. We have prioritised increasing the amount people can earn tax-free before paying any income tax at all. We have taken millions of people out of income tax. That is because this Government are committed to helping the lowest paid.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has taken six years, but finally the Health Secretary has come to the conclusion that Labour Members reached many years ago: the pay cap is a folly. I thank Sara Gorton and the team at Unison and the GMB for campaigning on this matter for years, standing up not just for clinical staff, but for the support staff without whom our NHS simply would not function. Given that the offer in the second and third years of the pay deal is below inflation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that this is not a one-off deal to hide the fact that he is failing in his job, and is instead a long-term engagement to achieve proper pay in our NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks the pay freeze was a folly, why does he support policies that would increase borrowing by £350 billion and potentially lead to another financial crisis and pay freeze?

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement and believe that it is a further obvious commitment by the Government to the NHS and NHS staff. I will continue to have a debate on whether the record spending is enough, as, personally, I would support more spending, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment and anger that there continue to be campaigners and campaigning organisations that, for whatever reasons and motivations, spread the untruth that there have been cuts in spending in the NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right. Just to reassure him, I do not think that any Health Secretary would ever say the NHS does not need additional funding. He makes an important point, and the truth is that at the 2010 election there was one party that wanted to cut funding for the NHS. It was the Labour party, and we stopped it.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

When my sister broke her neck only weeks ago, I saw at first hand the pressures that NHS staff are under. They start shifts early and finish shifts late, and there are not the right staffing levels on wards. Those staff were amazing, however. The NHS is now short of 100,000 staff because of this Government’s neglect of the NHS workforce. Will the Government apologise to all NHS workers for undervaluing them for so long?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady needs to look at the facts before making those kinds of claims. Let us look at what has happened in the last five years—the period during which I have been Health Secretary. The numbers of qualified clinical staff have not gone down, but have gone up by 43,000. We are doing everything we can to increase the capacity of the NHS, and the hon. Lady should be welcoming that.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I met representatives from the Royal College of Nursing in my constituency recently, and I am sure that they, too, will welcome this statement. Does this not show that, contrary to the assertion so often made by Labour, it is this Government and Secretary of State who are committed to long-term investment in our NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. The truth is that there is probably one thing that those on both sides of the House agree on: the long-term future of the NHS depends on long-term funding for the NHS. Sadly, there is one thing that only Conservative Members understand: to do that, we need a strong economy.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I welcome the statement. Has the Secretary of State had time to assess the impact on retention and recruitment of EU citizens who work in the NHS? If he is feeling generous, may I remind him that St Helier Hospital is in need of £400 million?

[Mr Hunt]

I am aware of the estate issues at St Helier Hospital. I have seen them myself and know that that building is, in many areas, not fit for purpose. On EU citizens, the picture is mixed. We have seen a small decline in the number of EU nurses, but overall the number of EU citizens working in the NHS has gone up by 3,200 since the referendum. That has happened because the Government and NHS staff have made a huge effort to reassure them of just how valued they are and that we want them to stay.

Points of Order

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

13:34

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a parliamentary written answer on 12 January 2018 the Minister for the Armed Forces stated:

“The UK will remain completely committed to European defence and security after we leave the European Union”,

yet 48 hours ago it was announced that the UK is withdrawing from providing the battle group in 2019. Is there a way in which I can hold the Government to account on what appears to be a substantial policy change, which has not been announced in this place but has in fact been announced as a result of a leak to a newspaper?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he planned to raise this matter, and I know that he has been vigorous in pursuing the issue through parliamentary questions. As he knows, there are many other routes that he can pursue, including, I am sure, forthcoming Government statements on, for example, the European Council, but his concern will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and I am sure it will be taken back to the Department concerned.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we are on the subject of the European Union and defence, may I seek an assurance that Mr Speaker will not be emulating the example of the President of the European Commission, who has just sent a grovelling letter of congratulations to Vladimir Putin on his election victory, and that he will note instead how fortunate we are to be able to depend on NATO when the security and defence of this country is at stake?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I suspect that Mr Speaker will have very firm ideas, no doubt taking some advice from the right hon. Gentleman himself, about how he will respond to that election.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Health questions yesterday, I asked the Secretary of State when the independent reconfiguration panel report about the future of Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, our local hospital, would be presented. The response was that it would be produced “in due course”, and the same response was given to my written question of last month. May I have clarification about the definition of “due course”: is that within a week, within a month, or after the next local elections?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter, which I will answer now rather than in due course. I know that it can be rather frustrating for Members when Ministers say no more than “in due course” when asked when something is going to happen; however, I am afraid that the content of Ministers’ answers is for Ministers, not the Chair, and I cannot attempt to define what was meant by that. Again, though, I would say that the hon. Member has made her dissatisfaction clear, and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and, I hope, will be reported back.

BILLS PRESENTED

Northern Ireland (regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General and Mr Shailesh Vara presented a Bill to make provision about the regional rate in Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2019; and amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 188).

Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General and Mr Shailesh Vara presented a Bill to confer power on the Secretary of State to determine salaries and other benefits for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of periods when there is no Executive.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 187).

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Welfare of Women)

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:39

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 to make provision about the welfare of women undergoing any medical, surgical or obstetric treatment services provided for the purpose of assisting such women to carry children; and for connected purposes.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to begin by thanking right hon. and hon. female Members from throughout the Chamber for supporting the Bill, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my right hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who herself worked in a fertility clinic before joining us in the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 26 years ago the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established to regulate the new frontier of medicine brought forth by in vitro fertilisation. The sector has subsequently transformed into a multimillion-pound industry, with more than 5 million children having been conceived thanks to IVF. Because of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the HFEA rightly works to protect the welfare of children before providing IVF treatment, and it is fundamental that this should continue. Notably, however, there is an absence of provisions in the Act regarding the welfare of the women who are undergoing the treatment. As a result of the huge increase in the use of IVF, not only by women who have problems conceiving but by those such as single women and same-sex couples, we have a dawning understanding of the prevalence of cancer diagnosis among women who have gone through IVF. In the light of the overwhelming evidence that drug protocols can cause women extremely adverse health effects, including a risk to life, I believe that there is a clear case for amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to ensure the welfare of women.

One of the main health risks to women undergoing IVF is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or OHSS. It is triggered by the over-stimulation of the ovaries caused by hormones injected during IVF treatment. However, as the Act does not explicitly make stipulations about the welfare of the woman, the HFEA is unable to monitor or regulate guidelines on clinical practices relating to the administration of drugs and dosages during IVF treatment. There is therefore a total lack of monitoring and control of the drugs given to women.

One third of women undergoing IVF suffer from some form of OHSS. In severe cases, there is clinical evidence of fluid in the abdomen and chest, a reduction in urine output, a significant disturbance of blood biochemistry and a thickening of the blood, with an imbalance of the clotting system. It can even be critical, causing a woman to have renal shutdown and the fluid in her abdomen and chest to be so severe that it causes her to have respiratory distress syndrome. I have chosen to describe the symptoms graphically because I believe that all Members should be aware of the devastating nature of this preventable condition. A staggering 3% to 8% of women will suffer from moderate to severe OHSS during a cycle of treatment, and it can be life-threatening. Scientific studies have even indicated about three deaths per 100,000 cycles of stimulated IVF treatments. Let me clarify that: critical OHSS has caused women to die right here in the UK, but the outdated measures in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act prohibit us from understanding the true scale of the issue and preventing it in the first place.

It is accepted that almost all women with critical or severe OHSS, and some with moderate OHSS, will require hospital admission, and current regulation dictates that this should be reported as an adverse incident to the HFEA. The HFEA should then work in collaboration with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on dealing with the adverse effects of drugs used in IVF treatment. So clinics are required to report to the HFEA any cases of severe OHSS occurring as a result of treatment, but there is powerful evidence of wholesale under-reporting. More than 67,000 cycles of IVF are carried out in the UK each year. A shocking investigation by the Daily Mail last year found that 836 emergency hospital admissions for severe OHSS had occurred during 2015, even though the HFEA database reported just 60. Furthermore, the evidence is clear that collecting more than 15 eggs during IVF indicates a significant risk of OHSS, yet the HFEA recorded that in 2012 more than 3,400 women had more than 20 eggs collected.

Such widespread evidence of the welfare of women being compromised is deeply disappointing, because OHSS is a preventable condition. There are reliable predictors that allow the adjustment of the dose of stimulation to prevent the vast majority of cases, with such treatment being equally successful in terms of live birth rates. Lowering the stimulating dose is a win-win situation for the woman, whose wellbeing is protected, and for the NHS, which does not have to foot the bill for treating emergency admissions.

When I brought this issue to Parliament in 2016, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health stated that women were warned of the potential risks before starting treatment. However, we are dealing with a vulnerable group of women who are desperate for a family and who are easily exploited by being told that the side effects of high ovarian stimulation are the price of success. That simply is not true. These are completely avoidable side effects that changes to the Act can and must prevent.

OHSS is not the only danger to women undergoing IVF. The use of off-label intravenous immunology drugs, which are potentially harmful and of no proven benefit, comes with a health warning from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The HFEA collects no data on what drugs and drug dosages are administered to women undergoing IVF because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act gives it no authority to do so. Furthermore, because of restrictions based on confidentiality for couples undergoing fertility treatment, the HFEA has no power to monitor the consequences of current treatments on the short-term and long-term health of the women. That has to change, because a voluntary reporting system simply does not work. Let me make this clear: this condition is life-threatening, and it is entirely preventable for the tens of thousands of women undergoing fertility treatment every single year. The lack of concern about the welfare of women during IVF treatment is a scandal that cannot continue to exist.

I should like to summarise the crucial amendments that I believe must be made to the Act. There should be an explicit added commitment to safeguard the welfare of women. The HFEA should be required to collect information about all drugs and dosages administered to women during IVF treatment and early pregnancy. Finally, the Act should be amended to link the HFEA registry with hospital, cancer and death registers, to enable the accurate recording and publication of the links between IVF treatment and incidences of severe OHSS, cancer and mortality among women. I sincerely hope that the House will recognise its duty to ensure that IVF continues to enable the celebration of new life, but not at the expense of the women who are undergoing it. It is 26 years since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was created, and it is high time that its inadequacies were reformed and the welfare of women recognised.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Siobhain McDonagh, Joan Ryan, Karen Lee, Emma Hardy, Layla Moran, Dame Caroline Spelman, Julie Elliott, Caroline Flint, Rosie Cooper, Ms Karen Buck, Dame Margaret Hodge and Liz Kendall present the Bill.

Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed (Bill 189).

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to Northern Ireland. Ordinarily, it is ruled out of order for Members to raise devolved issues, such as schools, hospitals and other important matters. However, given that the Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland have not sat for more than 14 months, would it be in order to raise such matters in the Chamber in future during questions or debates?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise that matter. In the first instance, I suggest that he discuss the issue with the Table Office. While the fundamental principle is that questions must relate to ministerial responsibilities, how that is interpreted is affected by the pattern of ministerial answers, and it may be that the changing circumstances mean that there will be some further changes.



Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill (Business of the House)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Notices of amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—

(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill), and

(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.

(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Karen Bradley.)

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

13:52

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I start by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) an early happy birthday because I know that it is coming up. I am afraid that I will not be able to celebrate with him, but I wanted to wish him a happy birthday in the Chamber. I am sure that we will all join in wishing the former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee a happy birthday.

As with the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill that we introduced yesterday, I stand today to ask the House to give a Second Reading to legislation that is a necessary intervention to safeguard public services and finances in the ongoing absence of a Northern Ireland Executive and sitting Assembly. I covered the broader political situation in my statement last week, but it will be helpful to remind the House of the context in which we are taking forward this Bill today.

During the past 14 months, in the absence of an Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland, the UK Government have worked tirelessly to facilitate the restoration of devolved government. It had been my firm hope that a new Executive would be in place to complete its own 2017-18 estimates process and to set their own budget for 2018-19, as well as to extend the current cost capping on the renewable heat incentive scheme. It was therefore with disappointment that I had to bring forward yesterday’s Bill to put 2017-18 public spending on a legal footing.

As I set out in my statement on 8 March, there are acute pressures across public services to be addressed in 2018-19, which is why I took steps that day to provide clarity and certainty on Northern Ireland’s finances for 2018-19. The Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill seeks to build on that certainty, delivering on this Government’s commitment to protect public services and to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland. Today, the focus is on taking forward key steps to provide support for public services and sustainable finances in Northern Ireland as we move into the next financial year.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on something that the public may not be aware of? There are key decisions that ought to be taken and priorities that ought to be set, but that cannot happen because there is no ministerial grouping in Northern Ireland to make such decisions.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are decisions that ideally would be taken by Ministers sitting in Stormont as part of a devolved Government, but that has not been the case for 14 months. I am therefore taking steps today, reluctantly, and it is pressing that we are able to proceed. I hope that we can get devolved government in Stormont again in the near future, because that is the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland to be able to take advantage of the available opportunities.

Clause 1 addresses the collection of the regional rate, which represents more than 5% of the total revenue available to the Northern Ireland Executive. With a devolved Government in place, it would be set via an affirmative rates order in the Assembly, enabling bills to be issued in 10 instalments, providing certainty to ratepayers and allowing various payment reliefs to be applied. Last year, it fell to the UK Government to take that step in the absence of an Executive. When I took office as Secretary of State earlier this year, I had sorely hoped that it could be one of the first acts of a new devolved Government and Assembly and would not fall again to this Government and this Parliament to set the regional rates. That will not be possible before the next financial year, and it would be unacceptable to allow uncertainty to linger in the meantime until a new Executive are formed.

While we are clear that it is a devolved matter, we are also clear that only the UK Government and Parliament can take such action to secure the interests of individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland. This Bill therefore sets out rates, in pence-per-pound terms, for both domestic and non-domestic properties. For non-domestic properties, the rate reflects a 1.5% inflationary increase. For domestic properties, the rate would be raised by inflation—1.5%—plus 3%, as I set out in my budget statement on 8 March.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am sure the Secretary of State would like to confirm that she is well aware that the general public in Northern Ireland will not be one bit pleased that, when rates are going up in Northern Ireland, it is expected that Members of the Legislative Assembly will get a salary increase from 1 April, unless the Secretary of State exercises the power that she will take later this afternoon. Will she confirm that she will cut their salaries and eliminate any increase before 1 April?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady is pre-empting the speech that I will make later—I hope not in six hours’ time—when I will be legislating to bring powers to this Parliament to vary the rates of MLA pay. I am doing so this week to ensure that it happens before the start of the new financial year, so that no pay increases go through. I well understand her strong feeling, which is one that has been expressed to me by many in Northern Ireland.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that the Assembly Commission, which comprises all the parties, recommended that she should take a power to ensure that the pay increase would not go ahead. That is the view of all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It is a sensible step, and we welcome what the Secretary of State is saying.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that it was cross-party, cross-community view that the pay rise should not go ahead, which is why we are legislating today.

Returning to domestic rates, I well understand the concerns that people will have, but this important measure will address a hole in the budget for 2018-19, so that public services can still be delivered. In my view, the measure represents an important contribution to delivering a sustainable budget picture for 2018-19. As the budget consultation launched by the Northern Ireland civil service last year pointed out, there are important conversations to be had about the right balance in Northern Ireland between revenue raising and spending efficiencies, and that document discussed rises in regional rates of as much as 10% above inflation. Having reflected on conversations with the parties and stakeholders more broadly, and having understood the pressures on key services, I concluded that it was right that we ask households to pay a little more to help to protect and preserve public services.

However, I also considered that we had to balance that increase at the right level. That is why I propose a 3% on top of inflation rise—less than £1 a week for the average household—to help to address pressures in health, education and elsewhere. It is also why I have held business rates in line with inflation—within a broader budget envelope that allows the safeguarding of the small business rate relief—to keep a focus on the growth that Northern Ireland needs to see. That forms an important part, along with the flexibilities that we set out in last week’s budget statement, of helping Northern Ireland to live within its means at a challenging time, maintaining the UK Government’s responsibilities to uphold good governance in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, in addition to the information that she is imparting to the House, that the onus falls on district councils as well because they set a district rate? If they are effective and efficient, the increase will be even less than she has indicated.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We all know that local government finances operate at both district and regional levels, and he is absolutely right to make the point that some of the regional rates paid by households go to district councils. It is important that they reflect the efficiencies that we are asking the rest of the civil service to reflect. As the Bill makes clear, nothing that we do would cut across the continuing right of the Executive to set a rate by order in the usual way. Should a devolved Government be restored in Stormont, they would therefore be able to make an Executive decision about the regional rate.

Clause 2 deals with the administration of Northern Ireland’s renewable heat incentive scheme, which was established in 2012 to support efforts to increase uptake in the use of renewable energy. However, owing to incorrect assumptions about boiler size and usage, tariff levels and lack of cost controls led to substantial excess payments. Over the 20-year lifespan of the scheme, the projected overspends were well over £500 million, with £27 million of overspend in the 2016-17 year alone, putting the sustainable finances of the Northern Ireland Executive at significant risk.

As colleagues will be aware, the administration of the scheme and the circumstances that led to errors in its administration are subject to an ongoing public inquiry. One of the final acts of the last Executive was to introduce regulations in January last year that put in place robust cost controls. Those made sure that the costs were sustainable. They were put in place only for a year, to allow for longer-term consideration of the scheme as a whole.

[Lady Hermon]

Again, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will she confirm for the benefit of people in Northern Ireland in particular the savings to the public purse as a result of the Bill? How much would it cost without a cap on the RHI scheme for another 12 months, compared with the measures in the Bill?

[Karen Bradley]

As I have said, the estimated saving for 2016-17 was £27 million. I assume a similar sort of saving this year. The total saving as a result of the cost capping is in the region of £450 million.

[Nigel Dodds]

The Secretary of State rightly said that this was a continuation of measures that were put in place by Simon Hamilton, the DUP Economy Minister, and which saved money last year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Bill replicates the excellent legislation introduced by Mr Hamilton?

[Karen Bradley]

I can confirm that that is the case. We are following the same cost capping as was put in place by the Executive and Simon Hamilton as Economy Minister. The right hon. Gentleman will know the restrictions placed on this Parliament in terms of what we can do with changes, and we are very much guided by decisions taken in the last Executive. He will also know that since then there has not been an Executive to undertake that broader consideration of the right energy policy for Northern Ireland. We are now at the point where the existing cost controls are due to expire. If that happened, there would be no legal basis, not only for maintaining the current cost cap but for paying all those who receive payments under the scheme and whose installations were accredited before November 2015. Neither of these would be acceptable outcomes, nor would it be suitable for the Northern Ireland civil service to administer payments on an extra-statutory basis, which would create unnecessary legal uncertainty for all concerned.

That is why clause 2 ensures that the present cost controls, and the legal basis for payments, can continue for the 2018-19 financial year. As with the 2017 regulations, there is a sunset provision that expires after one year. This is a devolved policy matter, and it is right that the longer-term approach is one for a restored Executive to decide. In the meantime, I am assured that the Northern Ireland civil service will undertake detailed analysis to enable a new Executive to consider the right course for the future.

In summary, this is a modest Bill doing two discrete things. In setting a regional rate and extending the cost controls of the RHI scheme, it upholds our responsibilities to ensure good governance and to safeguard public services and finances in Northern Ireland. It does so in a way that continues our approach of intervening only as necessary to meet those aims, and only at a point at which it is critical that the measures are taken forward. I hope that colleagues across the House agree that it is important we now make progress to see these measures passed into law to put Northern Ireland on its strongest financial footing for the year ahead. The UK Government shall continue to meet our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. To that end, I commend the Bill to the House.

14:05

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right that this is a modest Bill with relatively few clauses and few substantive measures. I thank her and her office for providing me with a draft copy yesterday evening, but it is a pretty poor showing that the rest of the House had precisely 10 minutes to look at the Bill before debating its contents, however modest they are. That does not strike me as a terribly long time to look at a measure that increases taxes on 1.8 million people in this country.

We support the Bill. As the Secretary of State said, it is a necessary measure to allow councils to raise the regional rate. It legislates in an area of clearly devolved competence, and it sets the regional rate at about 4.5%, which is above inflation. My first question—I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer it at the end of the debate—is, how did the Government arrive at that figure? Was it discussed with political parties or with the Northern Ireland civil service, or, indeed, with local councils in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State could have set a lower or a higher rate. How did she reach that figure?

Will the Secretary of State explain the cash impact on households in Northern Ireland? The explanatory notes are scant, so we do not have an impact assessment, and I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland knows the net effect on average households. It would be useful to learn that.

The RHI measure was a poorly drawn piece of legislation. It is right that we are extending the cap again today. As the Secretary of State said, the liabilities for the taxpayer were potentially £500 million—some people have even said £700 million—so it is absolutely right that we should legislate to mitigate that figure. We are amending the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, which were laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly, passed and amended there. It is Northern Ireland legislation, and we support its further amendment today. However, that raises an important question relating to yesterday’s debate that is vital in the halfway-house period—the limboland—for Northern Ireland. We have had 14 months without an Assembly or Executive, during which Ministers have not been accountable to people, either in Northern Ireland or in the House. We have legislation on issues that fall squarely within the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly when the Government choose to introduce them, but there are other issues on which the Government choose not to introduce measures. Yesterday, I mentioned the historical institutional abuse inquiry compensation scheme and the prospect of a pension for people who were severely disabled and injured in the troubles.

I was troubled by the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my question, in which she explained why she could not legislate on those things:

“Constitutionally, the inquiry”—

the HIA inquiry—

“was set up by the Executive and reported to the Executive. Unfortunately, the Executive were unable to take decisions on the recommendations before they collapsed…he”—

meaning me—

“will understand that the constitutional implications of the Westminster Parliament or Government taking a decision about something set up by a devolved institution mean that such decisions are not to be taken lightly.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 204.]

I completely accept that, but the Secretary of State is taking a decision—I presume not lightly—to legislate in other areas of devolved competence, including MLA pay, later today. We need to understand why it is deemed permissible to legislate in certain areas but not in others.

To that end, yesterday evening I commissioned the House of Commons Library and an independent Queen’s counsel to provide legal advice to the House, and I will happily place those items in the Library later today. I asked them to explain what the difference might be, constitutionally and legislatively, between those two areas. The Library agreed with what I assumed would be the fairly standard interpretation, which is that there is no constitutional reason why the Secretary of State cannot legislate on historical institutional abuse or on the victims’ pension—the pension for the severely injured and disabled. The Library says:

“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament can legislate with regard to any matter whatsoever in relation to Northern Ireland, relying on the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.”

It goes on:

“If the Assembly is unable to introduce legislation, UK Government Ministers may decide that it is either necessary or expedient to ask Parliament to do so.”

Of course, they may decide it is not politically expedient to do so or not timely to introduce those things. That is what we are dealing with here—

[Karen Bradley]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I hope that when the Secretary of State intervenes she will explain that.

[Karen Bradley]

I wanted to make the point that although, constitutionally, this Parliament can legislate on any matters regarding the United Kingdom, where a matter had been devolved we would be undermining the devolution settlement—that is the point. It would be extraordinary for this Parliament to decide to legislate, unilaterally, where, for example, such an inquiry was set up by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Government. We do not take these things lightly and we need to give them great consideration, although I have enormous sympathy with the victims, in both cases.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I was in the Home Office at the time we set up the inquiry on institutional abuse across England and Wales. We carefully considered, and had many debates in the House on, whether the issues in Northern Ireland and the existing Hart inquiry should be brought into that inquiry, but the decision was taken that they should not, because the Executive had already set up the Hart inquiry.

[Owen Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention, but she cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot argue that it would undermine the devolution settlement to intervene and legislate in areas of devolved competence—for example, on the HIA or the pension for those who have been severely disabled—and then do so. She is doing precisely that today on the renewable heat incentive scheme, which was introduced in the Assembly, by the Assembly, for Northern Ireland, and on the regional rates, which is an area to do with local government that is entirely devolved to the Assembly in Belfast. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. One cannot speak out of both sides of one’s mouth on this issue, and I fear that that is what the Government are seeking to do.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with great interest. Where would he draw the line? Does he appreciate the dilemma the Government face in respect of the micromanagement and microgovernance of Northern Ireland, and dealing with the discrete and modest legislative vehicles—the Secretary of State made that clear—that we have to have to ensure that there is decent governance there? He has not said where he would draw that line and perhaps it might be timely if he did so.

[Owen Smith]

I am glad I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he understands Northern Ireland and understands fully that this is delicate. I completely accept that the Secretary of State is in an invidious position on these conventions, but to an extent they are just that—conventions—with the key one being the Sewel convention, whereby, ordinarily, this Westminster Government do not legislate on areas of devolved competence. However, there are instances where it is morally or fiscally necessary to intervene and the Government do intervene.

It is, in essence, for the Government to choose where the line is set, but there are moral and fiscal imperatives in respect of those people who are in the HIAI and those who have been severely injured, and who ought to see the Government intervene on their behalf. If the Government were to do that, it would in no way undermine the devolution settlement because the precedent is already set, as we are seeing today on the RHI and as we have seen on other areas of legislation. Nor would it undermine the peace process and the talks process, because there is widespread support for those things. Legal counsel supports my opinion—

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I want to complete this point. I sought some support from KRW Law, a firm of lawyers at the Bar in Belfast. Its view is:

“There are three significant points which would support a conclusion that Parliament should in fact legislate”

particularly in respect of the HIA. It continued:

“(i) The Sewel Convention is a…convention, not a rule of law, and can be departed from for good reasons;

(ii) The constitutional obligation to avoid a vacuum in governance clearly has more weight in the present constitutional circumstances”

where we do not have an Assembly.

The hon. Gentleman raised that second point. The third was that the HIAI made a clear case for intervention. Therefore, I put it to the Secretary of State that there is clear precedent and legal support for her intervening to support some of the most vulnerable and damaged people, either under the terms of the abuse inquiry or in respect of those who have been physically disabled.

I raise the pension for those who were disabled and injured because they are here today—some are in the Gallery for today’s debate and some are meeting hon. Members from across the House. I think they would want to hear from the Secretary of State that she understands the nature of the issues they face.

[Karen Bradley]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

Before the Secretary of State intervenes, let me quote her own words to her. She has said that the Government have responsibilities to

“provide better outcomes for victims and survivors—the people who suffered most during the troubles.”—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 33.]

She has an opportunity to make good on those words and legislate, and I hope she is going to tell us right now that she will do so.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am at a loss to understand what the point being made has to do with the RHI or rates in Northern Ireland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is speaking to the Second Reading, and I am sure he is consistent and will ensure he sticks to that.

[Owen Smith]

I give way to the Secretary of State.

[Karen Bradley]

I want to clarify the difference between the two issues the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The HIAI—the Hart inquiry—was set up by the Executive and therefore, constitutionally, it is a matter for the members of the Executive to make a decision on its recommendations. The Hart inquiry reported to the Executive after they had collapsed and therefore they were unable to do that. That therefore gives a legal difficulty: what would the Executive have decided on those recommendations for this Parliament to try to second-guess?

On the victims of the troubles, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that this Government are committed to setting up the institutions that were agreed under the Stormont House agreement. We are committed to consulting on how that is done, and as part of that, we will deal with all the issues regarding the victims of the troubles, because I agree with him that those people have been waiting far too long to see remedy for what they went through.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the intervention, and let me answer it and the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). She makes my point for me. She asks what the Executive decided in respect of the HIAI and the answer is we do not know. We know that they said they thought they ought to implement its findings in full—they said that just before the Assembly went down—so we have some clarity on that. Crucially, we do not know what the Executive would have decided in respect of the regional rate and we do not know whether the Assembly would have decided to change the terms of the cap on the RHI, yet we are legislating in this place, in this Bill, to change those things, without any knowledge of what the Assembly would have done. So it precisely relevant to the business at hand—

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will give way in a moment. It is precisely relevant to the business at hand that we could be legislating under the same terms on these two issues but are choosing not to do so for some reason, be it political expediency, timeliness or the fact there are less pressing financial reasons for doing so. Those people who are here today—there are people who were injured by either side in the troubles—having been in paralysis, having lost limbs or having lost livelihoods for a long, long time now, are in need of our support.

I know that the Secretary of State wishes to give that support, so I cannot understand, and do not think she has yet explained to the House, why it is not a moral imperative—and a financial imperative for those people—to introduce legislation to implement a pension for the severely injured and to enact at the very least the relatively minor compensation arrangements that Sir Anthony Hart agreed under the HIAI.

The Secretary of State has the extra £1 billion that she managed to find for the Democratic Unionist party under the confidence and supply agreement, and part of that money could be allocated either to the victims of historical institutional abuse or to those who have suffered injury as a result of the troubles. That would be time well spent in the House, and nobody would reject or resent it. I do not believe for a moment that it would undermine either the Secretary of State’s efforts to get the peace process and the talks back on track, the Sewel convention or our desire to get the Assembly back up and running.

14:20

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I shall confine my remarks to the Bill.

Yesterday, we were doing here what should have been done in Stormont, and today, we are doing here what should have been done in Stormont. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Bill will not be the most exciting legislation passed in this Session, although I also suspect that politicians in Northern Ireland might regard the renewable heat incentive scheme as a little contentious here and there. The scheme has produced a lot of heat—a fair amount of it political heat—and I am sure it will not fade into nothingness just yet. It is almost tempting to submit an amendment to the tariff to get a bit of debate going and get some heat up—almost, but not quite.

As we are where we were yesterday, I shall be very brief. I reiterate what was said yesterday: these decisions should be taken at Stormont; decisions on devolved issues should be taken in a devolved legislature or by Ministers in the devolved Administrations, rather than here or in Whitehall; and Stormont politicians should get their collective act together and get back to work.

My comments on the rationale for the fast-tracking of this legislation should be taken as read as being the same as my comments on yesterday’s legislation, although I again accept that there should be no further delay. We knew this was coming and the Bill should have been prepared and started in good time for it to be considered properly.

This Bill and the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill, which we will consider later, will pass serenely by, while we all watch with benign smiles. That is really not how legislation should be passed. My contribution today is short because this is something that we have to do, rather than a matter for policy debate.

14:22

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am very sorry that the Bill has had to come before the House, but it is clearly necessary for the good governance of Northern Ireland for it to be passed. The Secretary of State was right to describe it as modest and discrete, which it clearly is, but I am concerned about incremental drift, which was why I was testing the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). He sat down before I could intervene on him again, but the Opposition have certainly not said where their red line would be. He cited two examples, and there will be a lot of sympathy with his remarks—

[Owen Smith]

In case I did not, I meant to make it clear that I do not propose that we pursue other matters but absolutely do advocate that we legislate on historical institutional abuse and a pension for the injured.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has established his red line. I therefore assume that he would not wish to make decisions on, for example, the Commonwealth youth games, which has been cited by a Back Bencher from his own party. I am thinking that the Opposition red line on governance in Northern Ireland, in the absence of an Executive, exists somewhere between those options. That is extremely helpful and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I, too, am interested in the metrics that have gone into making the recommendations in the Bill. It would be useful to know how the figures were arrived at. The House is de facto responsible for the scrutiny of these tax rises. Of course, imposing or levying taxes is a defining feature of any system of governance, and that is what we are doing today with the greatest of reluctance, notwithstanding the fact that we did with the same thing last year. We need to do everything we can to ensure that this does not become a habit.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is currently considering the future-proofing of the governance of Northern Ireland and how its governance can be made more robust. In our consideration of the Bill, it strikes me that we might like to think about how district rates and regional rates operate and whether some other body might be able to levy them both. Of course, that rather unusual and peculiarly Northern Ireland feature does not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the council tax prevails. Has the Secretary of State given any thought to how taxes of that sort might be invested in local government? Given that local government in Northern Ireland has changed dramatically recently and the number of councils has been reduced, we might possibly be able to levy such taxes for particular purposes through local government, rather than the Assembly—that is, if Stormont is going to continue to be unstable, which is an eventuality that I regret we will have to allow for in our thinking.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although it would be interesting to find a way to democratise the taxes, the regional rate is really used to finance central Government services, while the district rate is set by councils and used to finance local government? It might not be an accountable way to levy taxes if councils levy a rate for services that they do not deliver.

[Dr Murrison]

I note that we voted earlier to allow six hours to debate these matters, so I am more than happy to hold forth at great length. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await my Select Committee’s report on this matter, which will deal partly with how, as an option for future-proofing governance in Northern Ireland, powers might be given to local government in future rather than to a body that I am afraid has shown itself to be unstable. It would clearly be inappropriate for any body to levy taxes for services for which that body was not responsible. That is the burden of the point that he was trying to make: the two clearly have to go together. I hope that my Select Committee report, which will be published in the next few weeks, will make that clear.

Although we have six hours to debate these matters, I am sure that we do not want to take that length of time.

[Karen Bradley]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Murrison]

Well, if the Secretary of State wants me to go on, I certainly will, but I think I would rapidly lose the House’s sympathy. I clearly support the Bill, which is completely uncontroversial, given the grave situation.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady will lengthen my speech, but of course I give way to her.

[Lady Hermon]

I am delighted to lengthen the speech of a distinguished chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and, indeed, former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. In both those capacities, the hon. Gentleman will have built up expertise on and a considerable body of knowledge about inward investment into Northern Ireland. The second part of the Bill is on the renewable heat incentive scheme. Has the hon. Gentleman come to any conclusions about the negative impact on inward direct investment into Northern Ireland as a consequence of the continued uncertainty and bad publicity surrounding that scheme?

[Dr Murrison]

The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, I have not formed a view on that. The absence of the institutions at Stormont is most definitely acting to reduce confidence in Northern Ireland as a place to invest. Indeed, the hon. Lady will recall our discussion of the electricity market earlier. All I can say—it has been repeated at length in this place and will continue to be—is that the solution is clear, and it is the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly.

[Ian Paisley]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said he is not aware of any negative impact. The facts speak for themselves: Invest Northern Ireland has had its highest year of inward investment ever and unemployment is at an all-time low. It appears that, no matter how many people in Northern Ireland froth themselves up into a lather about how negative everything is, Northern Ireland continues to go forward because of the drive and thrift of good, hard-working people there.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point time and again, and he is right to do so. I think the question was to do with the RHI, and I suspect that it has had a fairly small impact on the picture that he paints, and rightly so. He makes a good point, and it is worth emphasising, that we in this place have a duty, in the absence of an Executive and an Assembly that should be doing this, to big up Northern Ireland as a destination for FDI and for a place in which to grow jobs and prosperity. He is absolutely right to say that the picture has been transformed in recent years in Northern Ireland. I think it is true to say also that the restoration of the Executive would do wonders for that continuing picture. We must do everything in our power to ensure that that Executive is up and running without any further delay. I commend the Secretary of State for all her hard work in that respect. With that in mind, I shall end my remarks.

14:30

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Just as we said yesterday, this is a necessary measure that the Secretary of State has brought forward. It will not be the last of the necessary measures that she will have to bring to this House. I do not take the same view as the shadow Secretary of State, who seems to think that he can decide on the measures that should be brought to this place by whom he sees in the Public Gallery. There will be other issues that come across his desk in the future, to which, I am sure, he will give equal importance. For example, when it comes to school building in Northern Ireland, does he want to see Northern Ireland schoolchildren left without the new schools for which there is the capital money, but no Minister to make the decisions? I could go on and on, as I did yesterday, but I will not give lots of other examples.

The fact of the matter is that when there is an absence of an Assembly and an absence of Ministers to make decisions and when civil servants are not confident to make those decisions, there will be a number of issues that have to come back to this House. That is the issue that the Government will have to grasp.

Let me turn now to the rates order—I will try to stick to the two issues before us today. [Interruption.] I notice, actually, that the shadow Secretary of State had very little to say about the rates and the increase in rates. That is because the increase has been kept at a very modest level. In fact, if we look at the record of the Assembly, we will see that the previous Finance Minister could not even bring himself to name a rates increase last year, so the previous Secretary of State had to do it. Again, this year, this Secretary of State has had to do it as well.

There was a genuine fear in Northern Ireland that, given what the civil servants were recommending in the options papers and the record of past direct-rule Ministers, we would see draconian increases in local taxation. In fact, one of the papers suggested a 10% increase, which would have been devastating for small businesses and certainly for hard-pressed households. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, after discussion with the DUP and other parties, has come to the conclusion that businesses should have only an inflationary increase. That is good news for many businesses. She may have to bring in subsequent legislation to extend the small business rates relief scheme, which is due to run out this year. That reduces the overheads of tens of thousands of businesses across Northern Ireland.

The other aspect of that scheme, which I am pleased to say was a DUP proposal and has been copied in part in other places in the United Kingdom, is that it shows how innovative the Assembly—when it was working—was when it came to looking at how to help businesses. I am glad to see that that proposal will be continued. It certainly is a big relief for many small businesses, as their biggest overhead was the rates. Of course, domestic households are paying more in real terms than they would have been before this measure, but, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, it is still less than £1 per household per week.

I suspect that one reason why the shadow Secretary of State did not talk about the rates increases was that, of course, he is ashamed of the record of the Labour party when it comes to the council tax and the rates on people in local areas here in the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister pointed out at Question Time, if a person lives in a Labour-controlled council, they are likely to pay £100 more in council tax than they would if they lived in a Conservative-controlled council. If a person lives in a DUP-controlled council, they will pay even less. That is a point worth noting. Perhaps the answer is that, instead of having a confidence and supply arrangement with the Conservatives, the DUP should be standing in local council areas in the rest of the United Kingdom to ensure that rate payers get good value for money. [Interruption.] That will have them shaking in their shoes. I am pleased that the protections have been kept in place.

Let me mention one other thing about the renewable heat incentive and the cap on the subsidies that will be available. Again, once it became obvious that there had been negligence in the way that the scheme was administered and that people were able to capitalise on the lack of controls, a DUP Minister stepped in to impose the cap, and I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has continued that cap in this legislation. May I just point out one thing? I am not trying to make excuses for the renewable heat incentive, but it was something that was started by an Administration here in Westminster. Devolved Administrations were encouraged to take it up, and the Northern Ireland Administration did so.

Much has been said about the lack of control, but it should be noted that the same lack of control still exists in GB. Let me give just one example. Under the previous Administration, Drax B power station, with coal mines just down the road, transferred to using wood pellets. Wood pellets, which devastate virgin forests in the US, are carried in ships across the Atlantic ocean and deposited and burned in a power station. The subsidy started at £250 million a year. This year, the subsidy will be more than £600 million a year. It is estimated that the subsidy could eventually rise to £1 billion a year.

Let me return to the Northern Ireland Administration. I am not trying to make excuses here, but the cost overrun and the lack of subsidy would have led to an expenditure of £450 million over 25 years. That was used as an excuse to bring down the Government in Northern Ireland. It was a shabby excuse made by a party that wanted to run away from its obligations to bring forward a budget, to make hard decisions about the past and to make difficult decisions about Brexit. It was used as an excuse, and the remedy, of course, was brought forward by a DUP Minister. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has continued to implement that remedy. It is the right thing to do: public money should not be abused in that way. If public money should not abused in that way in Northern Ireland, equally, it should not be abused in that way in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is significant. The same attention has not been given to the lack of control in other parts of the United Kingdom from the same kind of scheme.

In conclusion, this is a necessary measure. We are pleased that it has been put through today. It gives certainty to finances in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State has said, about £1,000 million will be made available for public services as a result of the collection of the regional rates—whether domestic or business rates. That is important in delivering services in Northern Ireland, but as I pointed out yesterday, it is not sufficient simply to make the money available to Departments; there will be requirements in the future for Ministers to step in and give civil servants direction on how the money that we will collect as a result of this Bill should be spent.

14:39

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I will make a few points about the Bill and pose a couple of questions to the Secretary of State. The well-made points of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will ring around Northern Ireland tonight, as questions certainly need to be answered.

Will the Secretary of State let us know what provision the Bill makes to consult the representative body of RHI owners? That is particularly important, as such a provision was previously included in the Northern Ireland arrangements. Although there have been court cases and all sorts of other activity, there has not yet been a meaningful consultation, and it would be useful if one were to take place. I encourage the Secretary of State to make provision for a consultation. It would be time well spent, and would help people who have put money into the scheme for all the right reasons, but now find themselves getting the rather shoddy end of the stick.

On the calculations that appear in the schedule to the Bill, will the Secretary of State let us know whether the Government intend to examine the payment caps as prices alter during the year ahead? I would be happy to write to the Secretary of State’s ministerial team to ask them to examine the payments and accept that just putting them on a long finger is not the right answer. The payments have to be calculated in a way that gives at least some profit to the people who have invested in the scheme. Many of my colleagues and I are now receiving numerous calls from our constituents who invested in good faith, took up a Government offer and did not abuse that offer, but are now being turned over financially as a result of the scheme. That is not at all acceptable.

There are also issues to do with how the whole matter is reported publicly. Indeed, hon. Members have mentioned some public reports and the ongoing inquiry, and we look forward to seeing the inquiry’s conclusions. However, it was publicly reported in our newspapers on 16 March—I was in the United States of America, so I did not have the opportunity to speak in the House on this matter—that Teri Clifton of Ofgem, who gave evidence to the inquiry, said that she recalled an interesting telephone call between myself and herself. The chairman of the inquiry, Sir Patrick Coghlin, suggested to her that that was a very “intimidating” call. I take complete exception to that, not because of name-calling or accusations, but because of the facts.

The facts are that Teri Clifton alleged that I was part of a conference telephone call in November 2015 with a Mr and Mrs McNaughton, and representatives from Moy Park, Action Renewables and FG Plumbing and Heating. No such call took place. It is a lie to suggest that such a call took place. I was not involved in any conference call. Importantly, I understand—I have an email about this that I am happy to share with the Library so that it is on record for the House—that on 21 March 2016, my constituents, a company called Action Renewables and a company called FG Plumbing and Heating did make a call to Teri Clifton. I was not involved in that call and neither was the company, Moy Park. Whatever happened in that telephone conversation was frankly none of my business, as I was not involved in it.

This witness should be ashamed of herself for standing up and telling the press, or an inquiry, a calumny of the highest order—that a Member of Parliament was involved in a conference call when they were not. She should be brought back to the inquiry, put through the wringer and asked why she lied to an inquiry about such a matter. Importantly, the chairman of the inquiry, who put words in the mouth of a witness, should apologise to me personally for his conduct and his actions, as I do not take this at all well. I am happy to stand by and defend actions that I take, which is why I am an elected Member of this place, but I will not be lied about by Teri Clifton, the chairman of an inquiry, or newspapers in Northern Ireland. The chairman of the inquiry said the next day that we should not sensationalise matters, after he had gone out of his way to sensationalise matters about me. I take complete insult at his conduct and actions, and look forward to his apology.

14:45

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I shall speak briefly about this short and reasonably technical Bill. I will first touch on rates and the power being given to the Secretary of State to look at the issue. She has previously announced her intentions regarding these matters.

I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that I and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party firmly believe that the best place for these matters to be discussed and decided is in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by locally elected representatives there. Yesterday, I mentioned the important role that the Assembly’s Committee for Finance plays in scrutinising such measures, talking to business and stakeholders, and trying give advice. The Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly have a statutory role to give advice and to form policy, which is unusual within an elected body. That important role aids the cross-party power sharing arrangement for Northern Ireland. It is incredibly disappointing that we do not have that in place, and it is sad that we do not have the opportunity to look at these measures in that way.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned the DUP’s approach to taxes in Northern Ireland. As I said yesterday, a number of former Ministers of Finance in the Northern Ireland Assembly are now in this place. Regarding the year-on-year budget, the DUP made it clear that we are a party of low tax because we want to keep as much money as possible in the hands of hard-working and under-pressure households in Northern Ireland. We have looked at a range of measures to that end, including keeping rates low.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned some of the pressure regarding the increase in rates. I welcome the fact that the significant increases feared by some did not happen and that the Secretary of State consulted all the parties. I did not want any increase, because an increase will have an impact on those hard-working and under-pressure families, but I welcome the fact that, following consultation with the parties, it is not as significant as was initially suggested.

No firm details on rates were released to the Assembly by the last Minister of Finance, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, despite the Committee for Finance calling on him to do so. He did not bring forward the rates legislation in a timely way, which meant that the Secretary of State had to do so at a very late stage, on the collapse of the Assembly. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is not taking forward Máirtín Ó Muilleoir’s proposal to lift the cap on domestic rates. I have been contacted about this issue by many of my constituents who were particularly worried about the significant increases that they would have faced as a result. Without the cap, they would have been paying more in domestic rates than if they had lived in a house in London worth £1 million or £2 million. That would have been fundamentally unfair. I disagreed with that proposal by Sinn Féin and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has not taken it forward. It is important that there is fairness in relation to these matters across the United Kingdom.

We are of course aware that rates levels in Northern Ireland have traditionally been low. However, given what the Secretary of State has said about the devolved nature of these matters, as well as the very difficult position we find ourselves in and what has been said about the Sewel convention, I urge her to talk to local representatives and organisations in Northern Ireland to ensure that as we move forward through this difficult period, we continue to make sure that we keep costs low for our families in Northern Ireland.

The second aspect of the Bill deals with the renewable heat incentive. I welcome the Secretary of State continuing the cap on costs in relation to that scheme. We had considered this matter in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome the fact that my Assembly colleague, the then Economy Minister, Simon Hamilton, brought forward these measures to almost eliminate any overspend on the scheme. I want to put on record, as we did previously, my concern about the reporting of this issue. Many of the political parties in Northern Ireland, for political reasons, gave a very clear impression to the public of Northern Ireland that £500 million was gone—spent—and that that was it. That was not the case. Despite the fact that we said repeatedly that it was not money that has been spent but money that was projected to be spent, and that we gave a firm commitment to bring forward measures to mitigate that, as we did under the DUP’s ministership in the Department for the Economy—

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that just over year ago there was the most outrageous and disgraceful calumny in Northern Ireland as regards the reporting on the RHI scheme? A small number of journalists repeated the untruth that the money had been spent—had already gone up in smoke—and exacerbated people’s fears unnecessarily, leading to the beginning of a state of crisis even before the Government fell?

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree. Language was used to the effect that the money had turned to ash.

We have to be aware that many people do not get the detail of some of these schemes. They are not privy to the information that those who are delivering a scheme or have examined it may be privy to. The language used gave the clear impression to people—this was a misunderstanding—that the money had disappeared, but that was not the case. Yes, it is disappointing that there were flaws within the scheme. I welcome the fact that we moved, and moved quickly, to eliminate any overspend on the scheme—this measure will virtually eliminate that—and to protect public money. I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification about the projected cost saving of £450 million-plus over the lifetime of the scheme.

I welcome the fact that the regulations survived a legal challenge over the past year. That is an important point, because the situation caused concerns to be raised when we discussed it in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome the fact that the courts looked at this and listened to the public interest. The Bill represents a continuance of those regulations. I urge the Secretary of State to consider implementing these mitigations on a more permanent basis, rather than their needing to being continued on a year-on-year basis. I understand that that was the intention prior to the collapse and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim indicated, that would have happened following consultation with all the relevant parties about putting measures on to a much firmer footing.

I was disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State did not eventually give way to me, despite indicating that he would do so. I was in fact rising to offer support for what he was saying. I think that my record shows that I might have come across as a little critical in some of my interventions on the hon. Gentleman, but I have always tried to be informative as opposed to critical. I was going to tell him that the WAVE campaigners on pensions for severely injured victims of the troubles are over here at the moment. Along with my DUP colleagues and our party leader, I had the opportunity to welcome them to the House of Commons last night to speak to them about this issue in some detail.

I have been supporting those individuals and encouraging them to speak to as many people as possible about this issue. I extend my thanks to those Members who have met or will meet them, including the Scottish National party shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Such meetings are very valuable, because they have a very powerful story to tell. I was also going to say to the shadow Secretary of State that this issue extends far beyond Northern Ireland. It absolutely should be seen as an issue right across the United Kingdom, because there were many victims over the course of the troubles from right across the United Kingdom, and a number of them were severely disabled. Although there is no doubt that some elements of dealing with victims’ issues are devolved, this is a UK-wide issue.

The other issue I wanted to raise in support of the shadow Secretary of State relates to the fact that this is a legacy issue. As we have said, my party has been involved for many years in discussing how to deal with the very troubled and tragic legacy that arose from the troubles in Northern Ireland. In those discussions, there was an agreement across all parties that some of these issues happened at a time when there was direct rule and no devolved government. Some of the issues go much wider than Northern Ireland with regard to dealing with the legacy of the campaigns of violence. That would be recognised through the Government considering, drafting and bringing forward legislation to deal with a mixed range of issues, some of which would have been devolved and some that would not. I see no reason why such legislation could not contain provisions to support those who are very much in need of support through a victims’ pension. The people who are over here are victims of some terrible, terrible atrocities, and they are suffering the consequences. I urge those Members who have not spoken to them to take the opportunity over the next couple of days to do so.

With reference to business in Northern Ireland, I welcome the very positive words about looking into the establishment of a business forum to discuss these matters, because the Secretary of State and the Minister will both know from listening to people from the business community that they have some concerns. They think it is right that their voices are heard. Of course, there is a positive story about business in Northern Ireland, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim. Despite the political difficulties, business is doing well. Invest Northern Ireland is working hard. Businesses are benefiting through foreign direct investment. We want that to continue. We will be doing everything in our power, within our role, to work with our partners across Northern Ireland and across the House to try to ensure that Northern Ireland works and that we have the best possible outcomes for everybody across the community in Northern Ireland.

14:58

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). Members sometimes say that every time they rise to speak in the final part of a debate, everything they want to say has already been said. I have only been here for a short time, but it does not seem to me to make any difference. Plenty of people believe that repetition is definitely a way to get the message across, so I will continue to say what everyone else has said.

When the Northern Ireland Executive were in place, they had a rule associated with setting the regional rate that it was not to be above inflation, and that was what happened up until recently. Unfortunately, the previous Minister, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, did not have the bottle to bring forward a budget because he believed that he was probably going to have to bring about a rate increase—I am not sure whether that was the case, but I will state it. In line with that, many functions need to be carried on.

The regional rate makes up roughly 47% of the rates bill that a household pays. On the basis of what I have just said, a 4.5% increase—albeit above inflation—is a lot better than it could have been. I want to thank members of my party, as well as those of others, who have negotiated and been involved in that reduction and ensured we did not end up with a 10% increase in the rate. The people who will benefit greatly from that are those in households that are hard pressed at the moment.

I want to refer to the small business rate relief scheme brought forward by the Northern Ireland Executive to help our small businesses—primarily those on our high streets—which suffered greatly during the economic crisis. For a start, we set a limit of £5,000—if a business’s rateable value was more than £5,000, it did not get the relief. If the rateable value was under £5,000, it did. We moved that to £10,000, and now it is £15,000. I would like to ensure that we bring forward the same scheme now and extend it for a further year, to help businesses that are already struggling and finding it difficult. I want to ensure that our high streets are vibrant and alive and that rates are not used as an excuse for having vacant properties on our high streets.

It is vital for services in Northern Ireland that we bring forward the Bill, but in doing so, we note with sadness that we do not have an Assembly in Northern Ireland to make such decisions for us. The people to blame for that are those who refuse to go there and set up a Government. They want to set red lines—we hear all sorts of red lines. None of those red lines will affect Northern Ireland economically, but their decision to not enter a Government has a major impact on Northern Ireland’s economic development.

I do not want some people to think, “This is an opportunity because we have no Assembly,” but in spite of all that, it is interesting to note our economic figures. We are doing extremely well with foreign direct investment, and our unemployment figure is one of the lowest since 1975. I welcome the statement of such figures, and I know that Northern Ireland as a region has benefited greatly from our connection with and being part of the Union. That is the important thing, and that is how we have developed our wealth as a country. We have not got it because of our connection to Europe, as some people might want to say. They might say that we have received a lot of economic benefit from Europe and that the grant funding will disappear, but that is only a small proportion of what we contribute to Europe as a nation, and as a consequence I believe we will still be able to sustain and support the communities and organisations that receive help through that mechanism.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was under the impression that grant funding would stay the same, at least in the short term, so there would not be a big difference.

[Paul Girvan]

I welcome that point, and I understand that to be the case, but some people want to talk a crisis into absolutely everything. No matter what happens at the moment, they will make a crisis out of it. They want to say that there is nothing good going on, and they see nothing positive. Our media peddle a story that tells us nothing positive about what is going on in Northern Ireland. We are producing the best employment figures in Northern Ireland for decades, but what do we hear? Nothing. They do not want to cover that. We hear all the nonsense, slander—I should not say that—and lines of attack that they put forward as their agenda.

The cap that has been put in place for the renewable heat incentive scheme has created some hardship for many who were using the scheme correctly and not abusing it. I believe that the cap had to be put in place, but there needs to be some recognition of how some people moved forward with funding under the scheme. They made a 25-year business plan, and some of them want a payback fairly quickly. Some of them were not fortunate enough to have enough money to put in and capitalise the whole thing themselves, so they had to go to finance houses to get a loan to buy equipment. They may have made a business plan based on a five-year payback, which means that it is quite a large payback per month for a small business, with some of them borrowing £300,000 or £400,000, but they did that on the basis of the Government-backed scheme and the funding that they were receiving.

I believe that there is an opportunity now, and that banks should be given help to renegotiate some of those finance deals. There will still be money to be made; but not as much. The difficulty is that businesses are sometimes paying far more than they are earning in a month—not just what they are receiving in payments from their energy use, but what the business itself is earning. A message has to go out that we will allow banks to renegotiate some of the terms of those loans.

I appreciate that the rates cap associated with property is set at £400,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and ratepayers in the leafy suburbs of her constituency will benefit greatly, not having to pay higher rates than someone who owns a property in the centre of London valued at £2.3 million. I welcome the retention of the cap within the rating scheme, and I support the Bill.

15:06

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) was the penultimate Back-Bench speaker in this debate, and I am the last. I am always pleased to contribute to debates about Northern Ireland—and, indeed, a few others as well.

First, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Bill forward. As we outlined yesterday, this is not the preferred scenario for Northern Ireland. We very much want to see the Bill coming forward, but it is no doubt due to Sinn Féin’s obstinate attitude, the obstacles it has put up and its austerity agenda, which we are all going to suffer from. Today will hopefully be the first stage in people not suffering, because the people back home will have an opportunity to see what we can do.

The preferred scenario is that we allow those who were elected to do a job to sit down and do that job. My colleagues are desperately aware of that and are itching to do it, yet we are past the stage where we can apply a plaster to cover the wound. The wound is infected and seeping and needs urgent attention, and today’s debate is the prep for the surgery. The Secretary of State has set that out. I would like to thank all hon. Members who have contributed so far to bringing the Bill forward. We have discussed who and what caused the wound—a militant Sinn Féin agenda—and now we are beginning the process of cauterising it and stopping the bleeding.

I want to put on record my thanks to my colleague, the MLA and former Finance Minister Simon Hamilton, for all the hard work he has done. He is a really hard-working MLA, as all MLAs are. They do incredible work across all constituencies in Northern Ireland, night and day.

The people from the Province have waited long enough for decisions, and today we are waiting for the right decision to be made. For example, I know that the council that covers the majority of my constituency, Ards and North Down Borough Council, has been working really hard to keep the rates down in its area, as has Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. Ards and North Down Borough Council has initiated a scheme whereby the grey bin for any waste is collected every other week, a blue bin for recyclables is collected on the alternate week and a brown bin for food waste is collected every other week, along with a kerbside collection of glass.

Such initiatives enable savings to be made at the council level. Some of the savings were put into an educational pot that is used to promote environmental issues in schools, by taking children to see how recycling works and holding other such events. The pot is used to go around community groups and host events in communities, and a large amount of it goes to offsetting the rate, meaning that despite the council building a state-of-the-art leisure centre and many other outputs in Ards, when it met on Tuesday 13 February and struck a district rate for 2018-19, the domestic rate was 22.3273p in the pound—a rise of 2.96%. It is a thrifty council, using all its Ulster Scotsism to look after the pennies and the pounds and ensure that it can still deliver a good rate. For the average household in Ards and North Down, that equates to an increase a £1.35 per month, and they get all the things I have mentioned and a lot more for that money. The council has attempted to stay as close to the inflation rate as it possibly could, while still providing an acceptable level of service provision.

When we look at the decision that the Secretary of State is making today, we understand the reasons why she has put it forward and why it must be done. I know that the Secretary of State will say that we pushed and pushed her to take the decision, and we are very pleased that she has done so.

For the record, may I commend the Secretary of State for her answers during Northern Ireland questions today? She was pithy and confident, and she showed all the things we look for in a Secretary of State. There again, the Under-Secretary obviously did extremely well, too, in assisting the Secretary of State. He always does well.

Some will question why, when others are attempting to keep increases as near to the inflation level as possible, the Secretary of State has set the rate at the level she has. We need more finance, and this will enable such money to be collected, allowing business to continue and the wheels to carry on turning. This is all part of the additional money that has been granted by this House.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that councils in Northern Ireland are very prudent, because we have working relationships and collaboration right across the whole Province, which helps to save money for the general public?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. There may be an odd council or two that are not quite as prudent as they should be, and we would like them all to be every bit as prudent as one another.

With the additional money, we live in hope that the Ballynahinch bypass might even be started, that nurses could be trained in using diabetic insulin pumps and that there may be more hours for NHS staff and more classroom assistance. We hope for all these things from this money, and we will see how it goes.

I am very pleased that the Government have awarded NHS staff a wage increase today. This House should be proud of that, use it to encourage them and say that it is a recognition of their efforts and hard work.

As we all know, the nature of rates is that they go up every year; it is very unlikely that they will not. The fact is that they are higher this year than they were last year and the year before. I want to point out, however, that families are struggling. It would be remiss of me to come to the Chamber without making that point. I obviously say that regularly, and I have done it again today.

It is my belief that the working poor are becoming more and more prevalent, with parents in work and yet struggling under the burden of bills. Another sacrifice for a struggling family who are not on benefits is that they do not get any form of rates relief, yet their children might be living in poverty. In Northern Ireland, we have some of the highest child poverty levels in the whole United Kingdom. An area may be perceived to be affluent, but that does not mean that the issues of child poverty are not real, because they clearly are.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

If the hon. Lady wants to make a contribution, I encourage her to make a speech, because that would be very helpful.

In 2016, it was found that 24% of children in Northern Ireland live in poverty. We need to address that issue and ensure that raising the rates will help those in poverty as well as others. For those who are well off enough to live in a large house with no thought of a rates increase, such an increase is wonderful, and it is fine for those who are receiving housing benefit and help with rates, but for those who are just above the income threshold for help, it is another blow. I again ask the Secretary of State whether it is possible to respond to the needs of households that fall below that threshold. They would not have been affected a while ago, but will find that they are with this rates increase.

I wish to comment on the fact that, as people know, the Northern Ireland Assembly has not functioned correctly or been able to make legal decisions for the past 14 months. As we are aware from our discussions yesterday, this period has seen some of the largest growth, the highest percentage rises in job opportunities and the lowest unemployment that we have had for a great many years. The Assembly set the scene for that, putting concrete foundations in place for it, and we are now seeing the benefits. Again, as I am sure others would agree, we would love to see even more of that, as we would if we had a functioning Assembly that was able to work.

I thank the Secretary of State for setting the rate, but is there a way to lower it for households on the threshold of help, and indeed for those that receive no help? They now have yet another higher bill to pay, and that bill is not taken into account in working out what comes to the household in the form of tax credits or other support. Again, we knew that the rate increase had to come, but we cannot ignore what may happen. Will the Minister outline what help in relation to the rates increase is available for those who are being squeezed financially?

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the continuation of the small business rate relief scheme, for which I am thankful, as we are seeking to revive our high streets and provide support to small retailers and small employers. In the main town of Newtownards in my constituency, and indeed in Comber and Ballynahinch as well, small business rate relief has brought dividends and positivity. Where once there were vacant shops in the high street of Newtownards, there are none today.

It is well known—I will say it again to make sure that it is recorded—that Newtownards is one of the towns with one of the best shopping and town centres in the whole of Northern Ireland. It is not only me saying so, but those who live there and businesses as well. If hon. Members have not been to Newtownards for their shopping, I encourage them to do so. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), has done so, and I encourage others to do likewise. We also look forward to having the opportunity to take the Minister to Newtownards shortly as well.

In the same way that Ards and North Down Borough Council found an innovative way to educate the community, and in turn to save it, by keeping the rates down, what innovations can be made to ensure that the rate is not continually uplifted well above inflation and to help people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a financial squeeze? We need infrastructure and an influx of funding for the NHS, but we also need to ensure that those who are in the middle and working hard—they see their children having massive debt in student loans, but are unable to help them—are not squeezed any further. I again thank the Secretary of State for the Bill.

15:10

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have used expediency as their watchword this afternoon. Would that brevity was always the order of the day here.

The Secretary of State rightly referred to “a necessary intervention”, and the points that she and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), made about the current situation being unsought by any of us and something that we have to manage were very well made.

I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Secretary of State’s contribution, which was her very welcome mention of small business rates. This was picked up by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). Some of us have had the great pleasure of attending small business Saturday throughout Northern Ireland. It has taken me from Downpatrick to Coleraine, but I have to say that the high point was probably visiting Quails in Banbridge. People have said that Quails is the Fortnum & Mason of County Down, but I think that Fortnum & Mason is the Quails of Knightsbridge.

[Nigel Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Quails, which I know very well since it is not far from where I live, but just for the sake of completeness and inclusiveness, he should also mention Fred Elliott, an excellent purveyor of meat products in Banbridge.

[Stephen Pound]

There are strict rules in this House against the wearing of advertising. I appreciate that the top of my head is available, but I would prefer it not to be emblazoned with anybody’s name. I am more than happy to give credit to Fred Elliott, although I have to say that Quails is quite remarkable.

We have heard a range of speakers coming mostly around the same point, although they occasionally went off in slightly different directions. None was more recondite and esoteric than that of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who raised the terrifying prospect of the DUP standing in my constituency and those of other Members. That is something that I am prepared to wrestle with, although I have visited the right hon. Gentleman in Carrick and Larne and, the last time I visited Carrickfergus Council, a tank was parked outside the city hall. He apparently uses it for canvassing, so I would prefer him not to proceed.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Stephen Pound]

I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I should say in advance that I am unable to identify the precise type of tank.

[Bob Stewart]

I just want to point out to my hon. Friend—because he is a friend—that Carrickfergus was the first battle honour of the Cheshire Regiment, in 1689.

[Stephen Pound]

I cannot begin to match the Cheshires when it comes to battle honours, as most of my fighting took place in Union Street in Plymouth, sadly—but that is another story, and not one that we will necessarily hear today.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) summed up. When he rises to his feet, additional Hansard reporters are drafted in—two of them have been carried out with wet towels around their heads. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was excellent; every 50th word certainly resonated with the House. If the Hansard reporters were paid on a piecework basis, they would all retire by the end of the week.

The hon. Gentleman always makes important points, and he rightly referred to my very pleasant visit to Newtownards, where I was the guest at an extremely enjoyable dinner held in the Elim Pentecostal church on the Ards peninsula. There was not an enormous amount of liquid hospitality, to be fair, but the welcome was extremely warm and the company extremely stimulating.

Something is hanging over all that we have discussed today. The reality is that we are talking about being in a place where we do not necessarily want to be. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) talked about this being a serene and benign process. She was right to make that point, but we should also be aware of the alternative. If there is serenity and benignity, it is in this place, not necessarily in others.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made powerful points, which I hope will be answered soon—they have to be. We then heard from the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). That was an intensely powerful, really important speech—and not only in setting out the Democratic Unionist party’s fiscal policy, which appears to echo Gladstone’s famous dictum that money should fructify in the pockets of the people rather than be taken in taxation. She then referred to today’s visit from the people from WAVE Trauma Centre, whom the shadow Secretary of State was delighted to welcome.

When we hear the stories of those people—people who have lost their legs or been paralysed; in one case, a man’s father died of a heart attack when his son was shot—we realise what the alternative is in Northern Ireland and why it is absolutely crucial that we should never, ever cease bending every single sinew to ensure the continuity of the peace process. I would like to thank Sandra Peake and Alan McBride from the WAVE centre and pay tribute to those who have come across today: Mark Kelly, Jennifer McNern, Paddy Cassidy, Robert Barfoot, Dr Mary Hannon Fletcher, Peter Heathwood, Cathy McCann, Alex Bunting and Paul Gallagher. They have suffered in a way that most of us in this House can never begin to imagine.

If we do not do every single thing we can to ensure the continuity of the peace process and stability in Northern Ireland, we insult those people and their families. We do not give them credit for their suffering. We simply have to do our very best. Everyone today has spoken from that standpoint. This is one occasion on which I hope we are as one in the House. There have been differences of emphasis by all means, but let us never, ever forget that, if we cannot manage this process in the right way, plenty wish to do it in the wrong way.

We on the Opposition Front Bench are as one with the Secretary of State and her Minister. We support them in what they are doing, but above all we recognise the suffering that many have experienced—the almost unimaginable pain and trauma that they have known. We will never, ever let you down.

15:24

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the moving words of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I thank all those who have contributed today from across the political divide. It is particularly good that we all broadly agree about the way forward for this Bill. In bringing it forward, alongside the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, which the House considered yesterday, we will be providing support for public services and finances in Northern Ireland.

The Bills deal solely with matters that are rightly the responsibility of the Executive and the Assembly and I very much hope that they will be dealt with at a devolved level and in a devolved Assembly in future, as that remains our overriding priority—one shared, I know, by Members across the House. In the absence, however, of an Executive and sitting Assembly, it falls to the UK Government to bring forward necessary measures, such as those in the Bill.

Setting the regional rates will give certainty to citizens and businesses over the level and frequency of their bills and to the Northern Ireland Departments that rely on the revenue from those rates. The extension of the cost-capping regulations for the Northern Ireland renewable heat incentive scheme will protect the public purse in a way that fairly upholds the interests of those receiving payments under the scheme. It is important that we take action now to address those issues.

I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who opened on behalf of the Opposition. I felt that some of the points he raised were dealt with by the Secretary of State. I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The comments made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) were very much appreciated, as were those made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) for her moving and passionate speech, which certainly had the attention of all the House—I do not mean that the House was not listening to everyone else, but it listened more attentively to the hon. Lady. I also thank the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Secretary of State and I are both particularly grateful for the kind comments that the hon. Member for Strangford extended in our direction.

I will try to cover some of the questions raised, but I am mindful that brevity is the order of the day and of this particular debate. The measures being taken are necessary and proportionate to safeguard public finances and public services in Northern Ireland. The decision to raise the rate was not taken lightly. The Secretary of State took account of the budgetary scenarios outlined by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland and spoke to the parties and to stakeholders. It was clear that, to enable Northern Ireland to live within its means while safeguarding growth and addressing pressures in key areas such as health and education, the right course was to ask households to pay slightly more—in this case, less than £1 per week per household. The levels outlined in the Secretary of State’s statement on 8 March strike that balance and offer a necessary, fair and reasonable position on regional rates.

In the absence of an Executive and sitting Assembly, the measures in the Bill will help to safeguard public finances and services in Northern Ireland. I propose that the Bill be read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Bill considered in Committee (Order, this day).

[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill (Business of the House)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Notices of amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—

(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill), and

(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(19) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Paul Maynard.)

Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

15:31

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is the third important piece of legislation to be brought before the House this week. The Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, which the House debated yesterday, and the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill, on which we have just concluded proceedings, focused on increasing clarity and confidence in Northern Ireland’s finances. This Bill will now look to increase public confidence in Northern Ireland’s political institutions.

The Bill addresses an issue of long-standing public concern: the pay and allowances of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is a subject in which interest among the public has increased with the time that Northern Ireland has been without a functioning devolved Executive—a period that now stands at 14 months.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that our party supports the Bill. We believe that it is right to take the power to deal with MLA pay and to stop the proposed pay rise as agreed by the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We would also ask the Government to look carefully at the situation in which Sinn Féin representatives get representative money in this place without being subject to the same rules as everybody else. The two should go together.

[Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me on several occasions and it has been discussed in the House. I know the strength of feeling on the matter, but he will also know that it is a matter for the House, not for the Government. That is why we are dealing with the power to vary the pay and allowances of Members of the Legislative Assembly today.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right to indicate that the matter is for the House, not for the Government, but what is a matter for the Government is the ability of Northern Ireland political parties to raise funds outside the United Kingdom in international jurisdictions and wherever they so choose. She could take steps to close that loophole. Will she do so?

[Karen Bradley]

At Question Time, we had a question about the transparency of donations and I am pleased that the House has passed the order to start to increase such transparency. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to see further work on that, but I ask that we should see how the order works first. If more needs to be done, we will need to look at that.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am surprised but delighted when, during election campaigns, I continue to receive a salary, notwithstanding the fact that the House has been dissolved. What is the difference in principle between us receiving salaries when Parliament has been dissolved and Members of the Assembly receiving salaries when there is no Assembly? I do not mean to be difficult, but I would not want us to set an unhelpful and unwelcome precedent.

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend always asks helpful questions; he is not known for doing anything other. We are looking to have the power in this House to vary the salaries of Members who serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly—MLAs—in response to the fact that there has been no functioning Assembly for 14 months and the clear public concern about people receiving salaries when the Assembly is not sitting. He is correct, of course, that Members of Parliament receive a salary for the period in which an election runs, but I believe that the rules are different for the period when Parliament is dissolved as opposed to when it is sitting. I understand his concerns, but I assure him that this relates specifically to MLAs’ pay, not MPs’ pay.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I encourage my right hon. Friend not to be distracted because a number of important points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members, but the Bill is very tight and, as she rightly says, responds to public concern. In my experience, and I suspect in hers too, that public concern goes right across the divide in Northern Ireland. She is right to pursue this matter, because the public expect these salaries to be dealt with. In my understanding, that is the sole purpose of the Bill. Everything else can be discussed electively, but it must not distract the Secretary of State.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for his intervention. He is right that the Bill responds public concern, which has been raised with me and with him as Chair of the Committee, and with its members. I am sure that it has also been raised with Members of Parliament here who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.

The Bill will grant the power to vary pay and allowances for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and, as I have just said, it is clear from my conversations with the public and stakeholders that there is broad desire for action to be taken in this regard. The Assembly has not sat since 13 March 2017—its first meeting after the 2 March election—but its Members continue to be paid their full salaries.

MLAs’ salaries and allowances are rightly a devolved matter. The normal process for setting MLA pay and allowances is for the Independent Financial Review Panel—a body set up by the Assembly for this purpose—to make determinations on pay and allowances. The panel would normally do that ahead of each Assembly election to cover the newly elected Assembly, although it is also empowered to make changes to reflect extraordinary circumstances. The last panel determination was made in March 2016 before the election in May that year. As no Members have been appointed since the first panel’s term of office ended in 2016, there is at present nobody in Northern Ireland with the power to change MLA pay to reflect the current extraordinary circumstances.

From my conversations and from opinion polling, it is clear that the public want to see somebody with the power to act. That is what the Bill will leave me in a position to do. In short, it will put me in the same position as the panel ordinarily would be in, giving me, as Secretary of State, the power to set out the pay and allowances of MLAs by means of a determination.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

When the Secretary of State last made a statement to the House covering this particular issue, she made it clear that she wanted the Northern Ireland parties to make “full and final representations” to her on it, but she did not clarify when the closure date was for full and final representations. Will she confirm today that that date is before the end of this month and that she will therefore be free to cut MLAs’ salaries before the end of March?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady is right that I did not set a specific date. I hope that representations will be made and will continue to be made and that the fact that we have this Bill before us will encourage people to come forward and make representations. I am also clear that the reason for introducing it this week—I will come to this later—is to ensure that the pay rise that would have gone through automatically on 1 April is stopped, and that we can then take a decision about pay. I will come to my position—what I am minded to do—but she is right that I have not made a final decision on a date.

[Lady Hermon]

I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in taking a second intervention so quickly. Will she also confirm in the House, for the record, that all representations made from Northern Ireland political parties will be published, so that the public can see that the general consensus across the political parties is that they want to see MLAs’ salaries cut?

[Karen Bradley]

Of course I am happy to publish any representations made to me, although that might not be appropriate for some, for specific reasons, and information might need to be redacted. I cannot envisage any such reasons now, however, and I will of course ensure as much publicity and transparency as possible.

One important difference between the panel’s powers and those in the Bill is that, although the panel also makes determinations on pensions, the Bill includes an explicit protection for MLAs’ pensions so that they are not affected by any changes to MLAs’ pay.

With the panel’s 2016 determination continuing to operate, and without action by someone empowered to make a new determination, a £500 per year increase in the salaries of all MLAs will automatically apply from 1 April. That is linked to the level of inflation the previous September. The criteria for an increase was met in 2017, so the increase will apply automatically at the start of next month. I am clear that it is not appropriate for this increase to apply in the present circumstances.

In advice provided to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), Trevor Reaney, a former Clerk of the Northern Ireland Assembly, recommended that the increase not take place. Further, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly has written to me on behalf of the Assembly Commission saying that it is its view that the rise would not be appropriate and that it would be appropriate for me to take action to stop it. If granted the power to do so by the Bill, I will introduce a short determination to do just that.

More broadly, in his December 2017 advice, Mr Reaney provided his independent assessment of what action should be taken on MLA pay and allowances in the current circumstances. As part of that advice, he also recommended stopping the £500 increase. The advice was, however, more wide ranging. He made a series of recommendations, including for a 27.5% reduction in MLAs’ salaries. That was a considered case based on his assessment, following discussions with the parties and other stakeholders, and reflected pay that took account of all the important work that many Members continued to do in the absence of an Assembly. That is, at this stage, a recommendation I am minded to follow.

As we have just discussed, I set it out last week that I wished to seek final representations from the parties before I took action. I continue to encourage those representations so that we can hear views from all sides before introducing a determination on wider changes to pay and allowances under the Bill. I cannot act to put a determination in place, however, until the Bill has been passed by both Houses and received Royal Assent. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members across the House and in the other place will support the Bill and allow me to take action on this matter.

The Bill itself makes no change to MLAs’ pay or allowances. It merely grants me the power to make a determination during this period without an Executive.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State have a view on what should happen to the salaries of those who work for MLAs? They have no choice, and we should be sympathetic to that.

[Karen Bradley]

I have said in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and elsewhere that I agree with the point my hon. and gallant Friend makes. The staff, who work extraordinarily hard on behalf of MLAs’ constituents, should not suffer as a result of our being unable to form an Executive and get the Assembly sitting. As Members of this Parliament, we know the work we do in this place and for our constituents outside, but we also know how hard our staff work, and they should not be prejudiced by the Bill. I do not intend, therefore, to take any action with regard to staff salaries. They should continue to be paid, given how incredibly hard they work for MLAs’ constituents.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State take it from me that many people in Northern Ireland will be grateful she is doing that? As we heard in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee whenever the former Finance Minister, Alex Easton, came and answered questions from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—it became known as the Alex Easton section—the staff of hard-working MLAs work day and night to deliver the best deal possible for constituents, so this is very good news. We welcome the salary reduction, but people on the ground should not suffer as a result.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

I give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Owen Smith]

I too, welcome what I think I heard from the Secretary of State, but may I clarify one point? Is she saying that she does not intend to enact Trevor Reaney’s recommendation that the staff budget should be cut from £50,000 to £37,500? If that is what she has decided, it is an excellent decision.

[Karen Bradley]

That is exactly what I am saying. As I have said, I know how hard my staff work, and I am sure that the staff of all of us in this place work incredibly hard for our constituents. The position of the staff at Stormont should not be prejudiced by what is happening with their political masters.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I have great sympathy with what the Secretary of State has said about not cutting allowances for staff. They should not be punished because the MLAs are not sitting and have not sat for 14 months. However, the Secretary of State said that she was “minded” to follow Trevor Reaney’s recommendation, delivered on 20 December 2017. Does that translate into cutting MLAs’ salaries when she is given the power to do so today? That is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know.

[Karen Bradley]

Yes, I am minded to cut the salaries of MLAs in line with the Trevor Reaney recommendation, on the basis that that is the only evidence that I have and the only advice that I have. However, I am open to recommendations and representations from others. I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Reaney for the work that he did, but if others believe that something different should be done, I shall welcome their representations.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Bill. In the statement that was made last week, it was indicated that there would be consultation with the parties. I welcome that as well, but when will the consultation start?

[Karen Bradley]

I do not intend to consult the parties explicitly. What I have said is that I would welcome representations from the parties to provide me with the evidence and the views that I need to make a final decision about the level at which we should set MLAs’ salaries.

I have spent many hours in the Stormont Parliament building over the last few weeks, along with some Opposition Members. It is a wonderful building, and it is right for it to be full of MLAs and their staff, working and delivering on behalf of the people who elected them. We know how different this place is during recesses from how it is when Parliament is sitting. I want to see that place alive, as it should be.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I absolutely agree with what the Secretary of State has said about constituency staff. They work incredibly hard, and they are in their present position through no fault of their own, so I welcome that decision. I ask her to recognise, however, that there are also very hard-working constituency MLAs, many of whom—including those in my party—want to get back to work but cannot because there are red lines. One of them is my constituency colleague Mr Christopher Stalford, who works very hard in South Belfast alongside me.

[Karen Bradley]

Those are issues that Mr Reaney looked at. He looked at the work that the MLAs are not doing because the Assembly is not sitting, but also at the work they do for their constituents, and tried to find a balance. That is why I would welcome representations from others, so that I can be sure that the decision that is made is a fair decision that reflects properly the contribution that MLAs make to their constituents even in the absence of an Assembly.

Once an Executive is formed, the power to make a determination will return to being an entirely devolved matter. A future panel would of course be free to make a new determination, applying to all future periods, if it saw fit. That would supersede any determination made under the Bill. To ensure that we do not again find ourselves in a situation in which MLAs remain on full pay when there is no Executive, with no panel determination covering that situation, the Bill allows a determination made under it to apply again. Let me make it clear that it is the determination that would apply again. The power to make a new determination would, in those circumstances, remain devolved.

Therefore, overall, the focus of the Bill is narrow, and I consider taking the power to set MLA pay a necessary step to uphold public confidence in Northern Ireland in the absence of an Executive and a sitting Assembly. As an immediate step, if granted the power set out in the Bill, I intend to act to stop the £500 per year inflationary increase applying to MLAs’ salaries from 1 April. Beyond that, I am minded at this stage to follow the recommendations made by Mr Trevor Reaney, but am open to receiving representations before making my final decision. I commend the Bill to the House.

15:50

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

We accept the need for a cut in MLAs’ salaries. The last Labour Government did that on three occasions when there was a similar period of the Assembly not sitting; in the first instance, we cut it from £43,000 to £29,000; in the second instance, we cut it to £21,000; and there was a third cut in 2006. I therefore have one note of caution for those who imagine this will prompt the Assembly and its parties to instantly come together: pay was cut three times and it did not necessarily work—I am not sure that it was the third cut that pushed the parties over the edge to do the deal. None the less, there is widespread support for this measure in the House and in Northern Ireland.

We recognise that, as Trevor Reaney said, legislative work is not the only aspect of MLAs’ work. Just as for MPs, there is a huge amount of work for them to do in their constituencies and elsewhere. Mr Reaney estimates between 50% and 60% of MLAs’ work is constituency-based, not legislative. However, clearly they are not doing their job in its entirety and therefore it is entirely justifiable that their salaries are cut.

We support the way in which the Secretary of State intends to do this, if she follows Trevor Reaney’s proposed mechanism of a phased step basis. That makes sense given that people have to make adjustments: MLAs have mortgages and families, and it is entirely fair, and compatible with employment legislation, that a measured step-wise approach is taken. I welcome the news that the Secretary of State will not enact Mr Reaney’s recommendation in respect of MLAs’ staff, however. As many Members have already remarked, they continue to work extremely hard and the fact that the Assembly is not sitting is no fault of theirs. Therefore, it is right that the budget is maintained.

Finally, I have a question. I am not sure whether I am misreading the Bill or whether I have read this in the notes somewhere and now cannot find it, but I understood that we were going to address in the Bill the anomaly whereby Members of the Assembly who cease to be Members of the Assembly yet are members of the Assembly Commission continue to be paid. That has been a concern and a cause of great consternation and surprise in Northern Ireland. Is that being dealt with in this Bill, and if not, will it be dealt with at some point?

15:51

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

This is a bit like déjà vu all over again.

We, too, accept the Secretary of State’s points with regard to the need for this Bill. I have little to add to my comments in the last two debates, particularly on my dismay at the fast-tracking of today’s legislation and my view that these decisions should properly be taken in the devolved legislature. I am, however, very pleased to note the Secretary of State’s points regarding MLAs’ allowances and staff costs not being cut. At least, constituents will therefore continue to be well-served from constituency offices. I certainly acknowledge the strength of feeling of the public of Northern Ireland on this issue, so we will not oppose the Bill.

15:51

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am delighted to see how much time there is for me to go through this Bill’s provisions, but I think you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are in danger of permitting my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) an inordinate amount of time for his Adjournment debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I just say that most Members of Parliament will now want to intervene on the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)?

[Gavin Robinson]

That is exactly what I was going to say, because I fear there will be nobody in this Chamber to intervene at all, and therefore God bless “PARLY” tweets, because that will be empty—devoid of anything to say—this evening.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Perhaps the Deputy Speaker could give us some guidance on whether my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford will be allowed to intervene on himself during the Adjournment debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that, if there is nobody else here, he definitely will.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last night, you were concerned that we were descending into talk of bunkers; today we are perhaps going bonkers. But we will get there.

My parliamentary leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), has outlined our support for the Bill. We think that this is a necessary step that the public of Northern Ireland expect us to take. Indeed, there has been a great deal of frustration over the length of time it has taken to get to this point. The only greater level of frustration is that we do not have an Assembly and that all 90 Members of our legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland will be affected as a consequence of the actions of a minority within it. We cannot overlook that fact when we address the contents of the Bill.

Other Members will mention hard-working MLAs. Mention has been made of one from North Down and of another from Belfast South. My colleagues Joanne Bunting and Robin Newton are also hard-working Members of the Legislative Assembly. I would go further, however, and say that all five representatives in my constituency of Belfast East are hard-working representatives for their constituents—not just the Democratic Unionists but the Alliance party representatives and an Ulster Unionist as well. The same is true of Green representatives and of Social Democratic and Labour party representatives in Northern Ireland. All those representatives would have a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly established and working again tomorrow. They all stood because they believe in their constituents, in our country and in democracy, yet they are frustrated from doing their jobs. There might be a tad of frustration at the length of time it has taken to see action on MLAs’ pay, but MLAs and the public more generally want the MLAs to be active for their constituents and for their communities. Those MLAs want to get on with the job.

We are where we are, however, and there are a couple of questions about the Bill that I would like to raise with the Secretary of State. It has been clearly outlined that, should it be required, any determination on the basis of this legislation would be capable of being made again, even after the restoration and potential subsequent decline of an Executive.

[Karen Bradley]

If it is helpful, I can tell the hon. Gentleman the way this will work. Once the Executive are formed, the power to make decisions will move back to the panel, because it can be re-formed, but if the Executive were to collapse again, we in this House would retain the ability to make a determination here without the need for further legislation.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but clause 1(3) gives me cause for concern. It states clearly:

“The power to make a determination under subsection (1) or (2) ceases on the first occasion”

that the Bill is used to make a determination and an Executive are re-formed. If that power ceases when an Executive are re-formed, how can another determination be made? I have read the explanatory notes, and I see that the intention is that a determination can be made, but that seems to jar with the fact that the power will cease on the first occasion it is used when an Executive are re-formed. I understand that this question might not be able to be answered quickly, but if there is an intervention to be made, I will take it. If not, I will move on, but I hope that we can get some clarification on this as we continue our consideration of the Bill.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to indicate that she will immediately take steps under this legislation, if it is passed, to stop the £500 increase that is due to MLAs’ pay in April. That is a sensible decision, and I think that the court of public opinion would be aghast if Assembly Members were to receive another £500 increase.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The first determination does cease at the point that the Executive are re-formed, but we still have the power to make further determinations in this place if the Executive subsequently collapse. This determination will cease, so we may then need to make a separate determination.

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank the Secretary of State. That is exactly what was outlined earlier, but it still does not solve the problem of the terminology and the language. Clause 1(3) states that the

“power to make a determination”—

a fresh or new determination—

“under subsection (1) or (2) ceases on the first occasion after the passing of this Act”

when an Executive are formed. I accept that the determination itself could be renewed, but I seek clarification on whether there is the power to do so. I may be completely misunderstanding things, but the Secretary of State is indicating that the power will exist to make a new determination, yet subsection (3) indicates that the power “ceases”, so I would be grateful for some clarity.

[Karen Bradley]

I know that this is very technical, but I am trying to resolve this today, rather than have to come back to the hon. Gentleman. The intention is that a determination made in the current period would reapply in any future period, but the sunset clause means that the power cannot be used. Does that make sense?

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

It may be easier if we write to the hon. Gentleman with exactly how it works. The intention as set out is how we intend things to work, but it may be easier if we write to him with the technical details.

[Gavin Robinson]

That would be useful. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I parsed such issues last night to the point that he questioned my sincerity because of the breadth of the smile on my face. It is useful to seek clarity on the Floor of the House, because the House’s intention needs to be clear should there ever be cause for judicial consideration, and I think what the Secretary of State has said is making things clear. I do not claim to be an expert on such matters, but there is an issue with the wording of subsection (3), and I will take the opportunity, once I have concluded my remarks, to withdraw from the Chamber—if that is appropriate—for a discussion with the officials should there be any need to raise the issue again in Committee.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

If a determination was made to reduce pay by a third, for example, is the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that that determination would lapse when the Executive re-formed? If the Executive fell again, that cut of a third could be reactivated, but the power would not be there to change that third to a half or to something else. Whatever is done now is what will happen if the Executive ever collapse again, but we cannot change the amount.

[Gavin Robinson]

As I have outlined, my concern is that the power ceases once we make the determination and the Executive are re-formed. That is the difficulty. It is not that there would not be the intention or the willingness; it is that the legislation, as currently drafted, removes the power.

[Karen Bradley]

We do intend that to be the case—I recognise that we are going around the houses slightly—and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak to my officials. We would be very happy to go through things. If there is confusion or if something needs to be made clear, we can either put something in the Library or say something in the other place when the legislation is debated there.

[Gavin Robinson]

I know that you did not expect that exchange of views, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is important. If we are to pass legislation for Northern Ireland when we have a democratic deficit at home and if we are to use this accelerated process, it is important that we have the opportunity at least to probe and consider things to iron out the contents of any Bill that affects the people of Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to take the important step of bringing to a close the idea that MLAs will receive a pay increase of £500, and the public will support her. However, we are left in an invidious position by making a decision today without knowing how it will be rectified. If MLAs were doing their job today, the only reason why they would be getting an inflationary increase is that inflation and the cost of living are there and the value of the job has been assessed such that the salary should not just be fixed but increased in line with inflation.

I would love to know what happens when the Assembly is restored. Would Assembly Members receive adequate restitution if their pay rose in line with inflation, as it would for any other worker or public servant in this country? Will the Assembly be placed in an invidious position where, to secure the true value of MLA jobs, one of their first acts will be to rectify the decision not to introduce an increase in April? The indication that the Secretary of State gave today is right, but I am concerned that if that continued for an indefinite period the value and worth of salary attached to the role of MLA would be continually diminished.

[Karen Bradley]

Those are extremely good technical points, but I am assured that the determination that would be made to stop the £500 increase and a further determination to reduce pay would apply for the period in which an Executive are not formed. If the Executive are reformed, MLA pay will be at the rate it should be, including the £500 increase.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful for that clarification, which is important in two respects. During the stasis in Northern Ireland, we should not allow a diminution in the value of the role of MLAs or in the worth of their work. More importantly, it should not be for MLAs to set it back again.

That leads me neatly on to the representations that the Secretary of State has invited on whether she should proceed with Trevor Reaney’s outline proposals. Inviting representations is preferable to a full consultation, because all of us in public life recognise that MLAs, Members of Parliament, local councillors, Ministers and parties should not make determinations about their own pay. Having heard what the Secretary of State has said in our exchanges, I believe that she is mindful of that and does not wish to have a full consultation with parties in which they would determine how she should proceed. I believe that she will proceed in the full knowledge that she has our backing in taking appropriate steps today.

This measure is necessary because we do not have a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland. Even though a programme for government was agreed in October 2016, apparently agreement could not be reached two months later, and the Assembly was brought down as a result of selfish, particular, political, partisan pursuits by one party— Sinn Féin—which, for the past 14 months, has held the people of Northern Ireland and MLAs, along with their willingness and desire for a devolved Assembly, to ransom. It has done so against the needs of its own community for health reform. It has done so against the desires of its community when it comes to inspiring children, investing in their future, supporting education and reorganising our schools in Northern Ireland. It has done so against the wishes of all those who believe in community regeneration, as we do, and who believe in community development, as we do. We see the consequences of its actions coming down the tracks in cuts to neighbourhood renewal in my constituency and other urban areas affected by social deprivation. We cannot do anything about that in Parliament or in the Assembly, because Sinn Féin will not allow it.

That is pathetic. It is a disgrace that, while over the past 14 months in Parliament we have reflected on how shabby that is and how we would far rather have local government, there has been no pressure on Sinn Féin. Who decides that we need to coerce engagement or move on with those who continue to frustrate the development of peace, democracy and parliamentary representation in Northern Ireland? That is not a decision for today, but it is going to have to come, and I encourage the Secretary of State to be bold on it.

I asked the Secretary of State earlier about dark money. How do we get people to recognise that if they are not prepared to take up the reins of government in Northern Ireland, this UK Parliament will take the steps for them? Acting on Sinn Féin’s dark money is one way of doing that. For generations, millions of dollars have been flooding into Northern Ireland from the United States—and not just from there. In two weeks’ time, there will be a fundraiser for the Easter rising celebrations in Canada. At least $20,000—given the ticket sale price and the number of spaces available—will be raised there for Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland. Why do I say “Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland”? The answer is clear: the Irish Republic has had the courage to ban foreign donations to political parties within the 26 counties, and in Great Britain we have had the courage to ban foreign donations to political parties, but in Northern Ireland the door has been left open for Sinn Féin to benefit from dark money. We do not need to theorise or speculate about that, or to believe in conspiracy theories, because Sinn Féin’s own fundraisers in the US tell us that they pay for the literature in Northern Ireland election campaigns and pay the phone bills in constituency offices of Sinn Féin Members in Northern Ireland. These people raising money in Canada, America and Australia are continually funding the pursuits of a political party in this United Kingdom via the only part of the UK where this loophole has been allowed to remain open.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is right to press this issue with the Government. He will be aware that the website openDemocracy has written volumes about the Democratic Unionist party and donations we received in the Brexit referendum campaign, which we have declared to the Electoral Commission and which have been found to be totally valid and to have met all the lawful requirements of the UK. I have challenged openDemocracy to investigate the millions and millions of dollars in dark money that Sinn Féin brings into this United Kingdom to finance election campaigns here. I have asked it when it is going to investigate this issue and the reply is, “If you have the evidence and you pass it on to us, we will consider it.” Any organisation or website claiming to be balanced and fair-minded and wanting to probe in the interests of democracy should be examining this issue.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and I agree wholeheartedly. If a website wishes to indicate that it is investigatory, it should be jumping at the chance, heading off with its nose on the scent, following the trail and pursuing this money, which is coming in and corrupting democracy in this country. Although Members are kindly listening to this point in the Chamber, as they have for years upon years, I have yet to hear any definitive political will from colleagues throughout the House to deal with it. Many of them have raised questions about political transparency and donations attached to other parties, but precious few have ever sought to lance this boil and get us to a place where the same rules apply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the UK.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that this House has turned a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of pounds obtained by Members who do not take up their seats in this place yet benefit from the money available in this House? Most Sinn Féin MPs will claim, and have claimed, more on expenses for living in London than I have claimed, yet they do not attend this House. We do not have any action taken by the House as a whole on that. It is another loophole that ought to be looked at; this is another source of finance that Sinn Féin obtains that should be closed. Perhaps that is the way of putting pressure on Sinn Féin, because it seems to be keen on getting money from abroad, using electoral loopholes and getting money from this House even when its Members refuse to sit in it.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have focused on the dark money coming from abroad because it is something on which the Government can act; my right hon. Friend raises the representation money in this House, which is a matter for this House. Again, the same conditions apply: one might get a friendly smile or an acknowledgement of sorts—one almost of comfort rather than encouragement—for raising this issue, but we will put it to the test and table a motion for discussion by the House.

My right hon. Friend referred to hundreds of thousands of pounds. I got my figures from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who in turn got them from the Leader of the House, and they have been published and are a matter of record. We are considering taking steps to reduce MLAs’ salaries because Sinn Féin have not allowed them to do their work, but it is important that we also look at the money that Sinn Féin MPs get for doing work in this House, which they do not attend. In 2007-08, they got £90,036. In 2008-09, they got £93,639. In 2009-10, they got £94,482. In 2010-11, they got £95,195. In 2011-12, they got £101,004. In 2012-13, they got £105,850. In 2013-14, they got £109,135. In 2014-15, they got £112,076. In 2015-16, they got £99,415, and in 2016-17, they got £97,556.

When we are considering cutting MLAs’ salaries because they are frustrated in doing their work by Sinn Féin Members, it is appropriate that we bear in mind that this House has agreed to a situation in which over the past 10 years Sinn Féin have been given just under £1 million for representation work that they do not do. That is a scandal. The Secretary of State will be well aware of the public criticism and concern about making sure that we do something about MLAs’ pay, but where is the enthusiasm and encouragement in this Chamber to deal decisively with the loopholes in respect of representation money and dark money from foreign countries?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the point has been very well made. It would not be for this Bill to change that; it would be done in other ways. It would helpful if we tried to deal with things that the Bill can deal with.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful for that indication, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I have fairly outlined what the Government can do and what is a matter for this House but not for this debate, so we shall leave it there.

We must consider how we get to the stage at which MLAs’ salaries no longer have to be reduced, and I should say for the Secretary of State’s benefit that a poll was published today that indicates the level of support among members of political parties for the positions that the parties have taken. Some 80% of our electorate do not believe that an Irish language Act should be delivered. They believe in our position and have strengthened their resolve in our position since September last year. That is the political climate in which the Minister, the Secretary of State and others will have to resolve things. They are going to need a steely determination and a level of resolve that has not been seen in the past decade from the Northern Ireland Office. In dealing with Northern Ireland’s complexities and a divided community, they are going to need the willingness, fortitude and wherewithal to resolve things in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland—or if not everyone, at least everyone who wants to make it work. We stand ready to form an Executive tomorrow with no preconditions, no red lines and no partisan demands. What is more, almost every other party in Northern Ireland wishes for exactly the same thing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to resolve outside the Chamber some of the issues that I raised earlier on the Floor of the House. I am grateful to you, Sir, for giving me the time to expand on these issues in a way that is important for our consideration. It is important to press home not only the content of the Bill, but the issues that are pertinent to the current crisis, and, indeed, the resolve required to get to a better place in Northern Ireland.

16:20

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I put on the record that I am absolutely delighted that, at long last, the Secretary of State has taken legal powers to herself, through this Bill this afternoon, to cut MLAs’ salaries. She has made it quite clear that she is not going to cut the staff allowances, with which I agree, but she must be decisive. She has been given the powers in this legislation, which will go through all its stages by the fast-track procedure, and she should not shy away from taking decisive decisions about cutting MLAs’ salaries. The fact that she has made it quite clear today that the £500 pay increase that was due to MLAs on 1 April will not go ahead is absolutely brilliant news. People in Northern Ireland will be thrilled and delighted by that, but she needs to go further.

The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there was “clear public concern”—it was such a nice phrase—about MLAs being paid their full salary since the Assembly and the Executive collapsed 14 months ago. “Clear public concern” is a very pleasant way of describing what has been mentioned to me in the clearest terms of fury by my constituents and people beyond North Down. They have expressed their rage, disgust, anger and fury about MLAs receiving their full salary. Therefore, beyond announcing today that the £500 increase will not go ahead on 1 April, the Secretary of State must not dither any longer about using the powers that she will be given and entrusted with today to cut MLAs’ salaries.

Reference has been made time and again to “hard-working MLAs.” I do not detract from that—we do have hard-working MLAs—but let us just look at that title. MLAs are Members of a legislative Assembly. They are supposed to be legislating and taking Executive decisions. They have not been doing that for 14 months.

The Assembly collapsed in January 2017. It was exceedingly good of Trevor Rainey, a very distinguished civil servant, to come out of retirement to do his independent report on salaries and allowances, reflecting the disrepute into which this issue has brought the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many people have expressed to me their view that, if this issue were not dealt with firmly, why on earth would we have a Northern Ireland Assembly? So the issue of MLAs’ salaries is corroding public confidence and public respect in the Assembly and I do not want to see that. I want to see the Assembly and the Executive restored for the betterment of all of our people in Northern Ireland. Although I do not wish to detract from those who have been described as hard-working MLAs, they are not doing the full range of functions for which they are receiving their full salary. If they are not legislating and not taking Executive decisions, they absolutely do not deserve to receive their full salaries.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I would be very interested in the hon. Lady’s opinion on two key matters under consideration. First, as the abbreviation MP means Member of Parliament, does she agree that those so-called Members of Parliament who do not take their seats and involve themselves in the legislative process should not be entitled to the allowances and payments that they currently receive? Secondly, she talks about the restoration of devolution, and the DUP agrees with her that it is important for the people of Northern Ireland. Does she have a view on the Irish language Act, and does she believe that Unionists should concede to it to get the Executive functioning again?

[Lady Hermon]

Let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s very helpful points one by one. In respect of Sinn Féin, if the right hon. Gentleman, as a sort of homework, cares to look—as I am sure he does—at the written questions that I have submitted, he will see a long line of questions to the Leader of the House asking that representative money to Sinn Féin be considered by this House. In my most recent written question to the Leader of the House, I asked her which parties she had consulted regarding the thousands and thousands of pounds of representative money that is paid to Sinn Féin. I was astounded, to put it mildly, when the reply came back that the Leader of the House had apparently had no discussions with any political parties about the reduction of representative money to Sinn Féin Members, who do not take their seats in this House. I would be delighted to join in common cause with the right hon. Gentleman on this issue, so that we might, in fact, take it further because it is quite outrageous.

There are seven Sinn Féin Members of this House, who do not take their seats because of their political views. They receive representative money, which was invented—I stand to be corrected on this—in February 2006 by the then Prime Minister, and that irritates and grates on me, as an independent Member. As I am not a Member of a party, I receive no representative money, no additional Short money and no additional secretarial and administrative allowances, even though I do take my seat and represent my people from North Down. It is a bone of contention about which I feel very strongly and which I would like the House to address, so, yes, it is a good point for the right hon. Gentleman to raise.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me to address the issue of the Irish language Act, which is deeply divisive in Northern Ireland. However, I commend his party leader, Arlene Foster, who we know has made valiant efforts in this regard. We know this because the draft document, indicating the detailed discussions that have been taking place between Sinn Féin and the leadership of the DUP, was put into the public domain by some journalists, including Eamonn Mallie. This was very encouraging.

It is a great regret to me that the Irish language Act seems to have been the issue that brought everything tumbling down. It is divisive, but given the great good will from the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader and from the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland—although I am sure that the leader of Sinn Féin for all the island will also have to be consulted and have her penny’s worth—I would like to think that the generosity and leadership that were definitely evidenced by the draft document could be evidenced again and that we could get our Assembly up and running again. The Secretary of State would then not have to worry about explaining to the hon. Member for Belfast East whether this determination will come down immediately that the Executive are restored or whether it could be reinvented if the Assembly were to crash again. I do not want to prepare for the Assembly crashing again. I want the Assembly and the Executive up and running, so that this place does not have to take back powers. I hope that that answers the questions of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

It does.

[Lady Hermon]

In the meantime, the Secretary of State has been bold today. I encourage her to continue in that vein and to be very bold in terms of following the excellent recommendations of Trevor Rainey, bearing in mind the disrepute into which the Assembly brings itself if MLAs continue to receive their full salary. That is not doing MLAs any good at all, despite their hard work.

16:30

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to conclude this debate from the Back Benches.

I often feel like someone who is stuck on a merry-go-round and cannot get off. We have an election and Members are elected. They take their seats. An issue with a governmental scheme is raised. The opportunity is taken to collapse the Assembly and a new election is called. People are elected again and refuse to take their seats, not because of a heating scheme or because of a failure to build trust but because of a militant, politicised Irish language Act—nothing more, nothing less. Hospitals in chaos, schools in turmoil, and roads in ruin: all because of a militant, politicised Irish language Act. There is no discussion of the RHI scheme, only of a militant Irish language Act.

Here we are today discussing the cutting of MLAs’ pay, and all because of—let us all say it together—a militant Irish language Act. That is what this is about. We are not here to vote on giving the Secretary of State the ability to cut pay because the MLAs are incapable: quite the opposite; they are very, very capable. We have some of the most brilliant young minds, and bodies, trying to do the work but being prevented from doing so. I commend my colleagues Simon Hamilton, the former Economy Minister; Michelle McIlveen, the former Agriculture Minister; and Peter Weir, the former Education Minister. To be fair, we also have two other MLAs in my constituency: Mike Nesbitt from the Ulster Unionist party and Kellie Armstrong from the Alliance party. They all work extremely hard, but they are prevented from taking part in the Assembly.

When we were feeling the beast from the east in Northern Ireland, the girls in my office sent me pictures of them attempting to get in to work. An executive decision was then made by my parliamentary aide that the girls who had made it into the office could leave just before the amber warning took place at 3 pm to ensure that they were safe. I joked that I appreciated them using a half day’s annual leave to leave early. I did not mean it, of course—I just said it facetiously to give them a bit of a laugh. There was almost a revolution in the office, but that is by the bye. The options were open to me to penalise them, but obviously I was never going to do that because it would have been totally unfair. There is definitely a part of me which says that our MLAs, and those from all the other parties, are trying to do the work but being prevented from doing so, and it is unfair to penalise them for something out of their control. It would be easy to say that. However, returning to the office, if the girls were unable to come in for two days a week indefinitely, then I would obviously have to consider whether they would justify a full wage. Even though it was out of their control, I would have to come up with a new way of doing things. That is what this is all about.

I acknowledge that this is out of everyone’s hands—other than members of Sinn Féin, of course, whose only desire and aim is to break Northern Ireland and who do not care how this is achieved. Yet the consequence of these actions is that we must penalise all the MLAs. The constituency offices in my constituency are running at full speed. The MLAs are working extremely hard, as other Members of Parliament will confirm. I know that because I work very closely with my MLAs and the MLA team to handle the sheer volume of casework in the constituency that arises when there are no Ministers in place and no decisions taken by senior civil servants. There is no doubt in my mind that MLAs are continuing to work to the highest capacity that they can. I hear of them meeting constituency groups out of office hours, going above and beyond. They do that night and day. They are available Monday to Friday, and most weekends, too, as requested, yet they are paid to legislate at the Assembly and are not doing so. We recognise that, and that is why we are here to make this decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a considerable contribution to the debate and outlined the case that we all adhere to. It is with a heavy heart that I support the cutting of MLAs’ pay, because it is simply not fair. They want to do the work but are prevented from doing so. In the same way that, if a drunken youth throws a brick through your window and you have to pay for the repair even though you did not do it, it is not fair. This is one of those times when life is not fair.

When someone in other areas of work cannot come to do the job, they do not get paid for that day, and that is what will have to happen here. It is coming very close to that. I have a real fear that the longer this goes on, the more good young men and young women we may lose from our legislature. We have tremendous young talent in all parties in the Assembly who can do great things. We do not want to lose them from the political process for years. It concerns me as an MP, as I am sure it concerns other Members, that those people, with their breadth and depth of talent, could go and get a job elsewhere, and we could lose them forever from the political process, which would mean we have to start again.

Not getting a full wage may be okay for some people who have minimal costs, but for those who have full mortgages to pay and children to raise, a decision will be taken on whether they are better off in the paid job they had before trying to make a difference in the Assembly, with unsociable hours and massive pressure. That is the choice they made, and many will stand by that choice in the hope that decisions made in this place will shortly enable a full Assembly to be up and running, or clarify what we can expect from people who have been elected to do a job, yet are being prevented from doing it.

The thing that galls me most is that those who are responsible for no agreement are not here today to defend their cause. Their bodies have never darkened these green Benches, but they have darkened the halls of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East outlined clearly what benefits they have got out of that. They are never here to represent their people or their viewpoint, whatever that may be, and it is indefensible. They merrily continue to claim their expenses for not working in this place in Committees and so on like the rest of us, yet they have flights and so on paid. I am sorry, but at some stage, all Northern Ireland has to stop paying the price for their intransigency, and we must move forward.

The Bill provides the power to cut MLAs’ salary. That must be done, and done soon. The people are tired of inaction. I am tired of inaction, and it is important to note that the MLAs are tired, too. They want to do their job and are prevented from doing so. We should not for one second think that they are enjoying working outside of the Assembly. For a start, they are not working a three-day week. They are still working full-time, in the daytime and in some cases the night-time.

Furthermore, there is nothing enjoyable about meeting constituents and being questioned and asked to help when it is not possible to give them the help they need. They are not enjoying being lambasted by people who are beyond frustrated—and understandably so. They are not enjoying seeing some things happen and other things not happen. If the Assembly were allowed to meet, they would be allowed to do their work on that. They are not enjoying being held to account for something they are not responsible for, but they are doing their job, which is, more importantly, their passion.

We should give credit to all MLAs who work so very hard to create a working Northern Ireland where our children can be educated and have job prospects and housing, safe within the Union of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The future of our nation is in the balance, and that is why most are pushing through and keep trying, despite the unbelievable frustration.

In conclusion, Sinn Féin do not want to play ball. We should end the game and allow the pitch to be used by those prepared and anxious to play. Some time in the very near future, we will have to look at a different political process. If they do not want to be part of that process, they should step outside it and let those parties that want to be part of the process take over, have a Government and move forward. We should send the message today that direct rule looms, and indeed it is starting to happen today through this process. When your constituents feel that they are unrepresented, Sinn Féin, that is all on you and your militant, politicised Irish language Act.

16:40

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has been performing in Westminster Hall during most of this debate—he always performs so well—and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has already spoken, it falls to me to give a brief response to this excellent debate. As my hon. Friend said earlier, we fully support what the Government are proposing, and I echo the views of the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The hon. Member for Strangford said that this is being done with a heavy heart, but it is the right decision to cut MLAs’ salaries and we support it, and it is also the right decision not to cut the salaries of staff.

16:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I thank all Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate. While there has been some reluctance, there has clearly also been broad agreement that this is the right way forward.

Let me say at the outset that it remains our overriding priority—one that I know is shared by Members across the House—to see devolution restored. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the ongoing payment of full salaries to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly is a matter of public concern. The Bill will allow us to address that by empowering the Secretary of State to make a determination to change pay and allowances in the current period and to provide a safeguard against the present situation recurring.

I am grateful to the Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We often talk about Committee as the time when we undertake line-by-line scrutiny. In the hon. Gentleman’s case, the Secretary of State and I felt for a moment that we were in Committee, because his very sharp legal mind was going beyond line-by-line scrutiny to word-by-word scrutiny. That was certainly noted by all those present, but he clearly illustrated what a gain he is for this place and what a loss he is to the legal profession.

[Gavin Robinson]

Even if I was wrong?

[Mr Vara]

I was being charitable. The order of the day for this debate is very much that people should be brief—most were in line with that—and I will follow in that tradition.

We have taken advice on MLA pay and considered it, and we are now putting the Secretary of State in a position to act, pending any further representations from the Northern Ireland political parties. The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), received and published Trevor Reaney’s advice in December, and the current Secretary of State has considered it very carefully.

We are now at a point where we simply cannot go on paying MLAs at their current full salary. As the Secretary of State made clear, we want to decide and finalise our approach by the end of this financial year. The measures in the Bill are necessary and proportionate in the interests of public finances, public services and public confidence in Northern Ireland, in the absence of a devolved Government. For those reasons, it is important that we are ready to act on MLA pay.

I stress again the Government’s commitment to the restoration of devolved government. That is our overriding priority, and the measures in the Bill do not undermine or contradict it, with powers remaining firmly in the devolved space. We will continue to support the Northern Ireland political parties and to work with the Irish Government towards resolving the differences that have stopped the parties reaching agreement. This Government are steadfast in their commitment to the Belfast agreement, and we will work tirelessly to see the devolved institutions restored. This Bill will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to vary the pay and allowances of MLAs in the light of the lack of a sitting Assembly.

I am mindful of the fact that I do not want to detain the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) or prevent him from saying all he has to say in his Adjournment debate. I know that he has prepared a three-hour speech, which he will now have to cut because of the length of this debate. I am determined that he should be able to have his say, and on that basis, I urge that the Bill be read a Second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Bill considered in Committee (Order, this day).

[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 10 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.

Electricity

That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Powers of Seizure) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.

Animals

That the draft Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

Rating and Valuation

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.—(Julian Smith.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

16:47

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition for a new surgical centre at Musgrove Park Hospital, supported by 6,100 people from Taunton Deane.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Taunton Deane,

Declares that the current condition of some of Musgrove Park Hospital’s operating theatres are not up to the high standards expected in the NHS; further that the pre-1948 buildings that house the operating theatres, intensive treatment unit and high dependency unit are now outdated and are no longer fit for purpose; further that the hospital’s plans to build a new surgical centre in a more central location would complete the redevelopment of the surgical facilities and provide six new endoscopy rooms, eight operating theatres and a further twenty-two critical care beds; and further that the patients and staff at Musgrove Park Hospital deserve the very best facilities to enable them to maintain their outstanding rating for patient care.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the Petitioners in their efforts to raise the standards in Musgrove Park Hospital to build a new Surgical Centre.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P002122]

16:49

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition, signed by over 1,500 people in my constituency, to ask for the lanes around the villages and parishes of Ditchling, Westmeston and Streat to be designated as quiet lanes, with reduced speed limits, so that they are made safer for all road users. The petition was initiated after the terrible accident of horse rider Beverley Berrill in Spatham Lane just a few months ago, which left her severely injured; tragically, her horse had to be destroyed. The petition asks for Spatham Lane, Underhill Lane and Streat Lane to be considered for designation as quiet lanes as a starting point for making all the country lanes in the constituency of Lewes safer for all road users.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the current national speed limit in use on Spatham Lane, Streat Lane and Underhill Lane in the County of East Sussex is unsuitable as it is a danger to other users of the lanes, notably equestrians; further that the Petition follows an incident that took place on Spatham Lane during September 2017 whereby a car collided with resident of Ditchling Mrs Beverley Berrill, who was on horseback; further that the accident resulted in the temporary hospitalisation of Mrs Berrill and the termination of the horse; and further that the incident has resulted in distress for local equestrians who wish to exercise their use of the local lanes in safety.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reclassify said roads as quiet lanes, or alternatively reduce the speed limit of the said lanes from its current national speed limit classification, to ensure greater safety for equestrians and other users of the lanes.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002123]

16:50

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I rise to present a petition collected from the people of the town of Nairn, concerned at the closure of their Royal Bank of Scotland branch.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey,

Declares that proposed closure of the 4 branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Grantown, Nairn, Aviemore and Inverness will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002125]

Birmingham Commonwealth Games and Shooting

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

16:51

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been almost a year since I have had a personal Adjournment debate, but it has only been 24 hours since I was involved in one. This has been the week of the three Jims—Jim Fitzpatrick on Monday night, Jim McMahon last night and Jim Shannon tonight.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

One might argue that it is Jim Shannon day today, as you are on your third speech.

[Jim Shannon]

My speechwriter is exhausted.

I have been seeking this debate for eight or nine weeks, and I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. We are all very fond of her and grateful for the work that she does. She was a guest speaker at my association’s dinner in Strangford some time ago, and she had a chance to meet the Comber Rec women’s football team, which I know she enjoyed—my team enjoyed it, too. We look to the Minister for some guidance tonight on how we can take this forward. I have some suggestions that I hope might be effective.

I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing this issue to be aired, and I am glad to see many hon. Members in the Chamber to support it—I hope. They may just want to make an intervention to get their own back—[Laughter.]

Coming from Northern Ireland and with a neighbouring constituency whose Member refuses to take his seat, I am used to taking on issues that have an effect more widely than Strangford. Birmingham is slightly further than I usually stretch, but I am concerned about the issue of the Commonwealth games 2022, and I believe that other hon. Members here tonight are also concerned about it. It is not about Birmingham per se, but about the recognition of shooting sports and the fact that that entire category has been removed from the games without appropriate foundation.

I put on record that I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and of the Countryside Alliance, and have been for more years than I care to remember. I am also a member of several shooting clubs, and I served in the Army, which gave me a chance to shoot weapons legally.

The proposed sports programme for the Commonwealth games 2022 in Birmingham does not include any of the shooting sports. There is a large petition on this. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are here to put that on the record, because it is important. I hail from Northern Ireland, and there are those who say that we are too familiar with guns, but this is not an issue of gun control. It is an issue of sport—a sport at which I believe we are pretty good. Some might ask, why do the people of Northern Ireland excel in boxing and shooting? It is a hard one to answer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes.

[Tracey Crouch]

In part, I wanted to do that just to know what it feels like to intervene on the master of interventions, but I do have a serious intervention on his point about the success of shooting in Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating veteran shooter David Calvert, who, having first competed in Edmonton in 1978, has been selected for his 11th Commonwealth games? Having won eight medals in that time, including four golds, he has inevitably inspired many others to compete in Commonwealth and Olympic games.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for taking the opportunity to intervene on me—I quite enjoyed that. I also say how pleased I am that David Calvert is a member of Comber rifle club in my constituency. I have met him on a number of occasions, and he has been the most successful shooter for Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am glad that the Minister mentioned David Calvert. I was a member of Comber rifle club when I was about 12 or 13. I remember him coming and showing us his gold medal for Kuala Lumpur, and I remember just how inspiring that was for young kids such as me who were involved in target shooting, who wanted to progress and who wanted to do well. If shooting is not in the Commonwealth games, that inspiration for young target shooters will not be there in future. Perhaps my hon. Friend could reflect on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that up. I will not go far down memory lane, because I go down memory lane further than most, but the fact is that my introduction to shooting and target sports was as a young boy of about 10 years old in the ’60s—the late ’60s, I have to say, because that gives me a couple of extra years. My cousin Kenneth Smyth—hon. Friends will know that he was murdered by the IRA—was always an inspiration to me, and I particularly value the time that he spent with us as young boys, introducing us to shooting. Whenever we went down to our grandmother’s and ultimately to meet Kenneth, the highlight of that holiday for us was the .22 rifle and shooting at targets down on the farm. In those days, restrictions were a lot less rigorous than they are today, and the fact was that we were able to do that. That was our introduction to the sport. My hon. Friend said that he was introduced to it as a 12-year-old at Comber rifle club. That is very important as well.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

May I also say how much I enjoy the opportunity of being able to intervene back on the hon. Gentleman after all the times that he has intervened on me? He raises a really interesting point about youngsters shooting. A lot of people turn around and say, “Isn’t this abhorrent? You can’t have youngsters shooting,” but actually, I was taught how to shoot at a very early age. One of the great things about teaching children how to shoot is that they learn an incredible amount of discipline and an incredible amount of respect for each other and for sport. We end up with very responsible young adults coming out as a result of all the discipline and camaraderie that we get around shooting sports.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that. He is absolutely right. The introduction to shooting sports at a very early age puts a discipline in place and an interest. I will talk later about my boys and my children and the opportunities that we have had. My son Jamie and I shoot together. I took him shooting from a very early age, and he is a much better shot than I am, by miles. My granddaughter Katie—she is the third generation—is also interested in shooting. I see the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) across the Chamber on the front row—he takes his son with him when he goes shooting. I know how important it is for someone to have that relationship with their child and to have the chance to introduce a fantastic sport that can do so much. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for that intervention; it is exactly one of the points I wanted to make.

A joke often touted in my local shooting club, where I am a member, is that they have asked for a couple of my election posters for target practice. I never would say no if they wanted to do that. There were other election posters, but obviously I was in no position to offer any other than my own, so mine were used—I was just happy they were used and recycled in some way.

My local shooting club hosts a very successful event called “the Swaziland cup” at which amateurs and the more professional come together to win the cups and in the meantime raise hundreds and thousands of pounds for the children of Swaziland. The club also hosts the little choir when they come for an afternoon of safe fun and good food. We do it every year they come. I have never won the Swaziland cup, by the way, but there is always next year. That is how it works. It is the same with fishing: I have not caught that big fish yet, but I am going to catch it next year. That is how it goes.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The sport of shooting in my area is great. We have a rifle club not half a mile from where I live, and the young people who go along learn not only discipline but a great sense of camaraderie that they carry with them for the rest of their lives. It would be a retrograde step if they had not something to aim at—excuse the pun. Let us be honest: they get involved to improve and expand the sport and to take part in competitions—and what greater competition is there than the Commonwealth games? It is something they should be encouraged to attain to—something we should be inspiring them to achieve—so it would be a retrograde step to remove shooting from the Commonwealth games.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend, like others, reinforces what we all know: the introduction of the sport of shooting to young people from an early age develops character, friendships and accuracy—and, of course, we hope that some will attain perhaps even a Commonwealth medal.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has two hours before the House has to adjourn, given the number of interventions. On a serious point, however, I must note how many people are here for his Adjournment debate. I do not think that any other Member is held in the affection and warmth that we feel for him. I speak as a Glasgow MP. Obviously, we had the 2014 Commonwealth games, and we had shooting—not in the east end of Glasgow, but at Barry Buddon—and I commend his remarks tonight. We must make sure that this is not a retrograde step and that we see shooting at the Commonwealth games in Birmingham.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I am just pleased to see a goodly crowd here to support an important issue and a sport at which we excel.

Target shooting has a real place in our community, and the skills of those who play deserve recognition. This is a sport in which we are recognised. The connotations of gun violence must be removed from this discussion, because these are legitimate, law-abiding, licence-holding people who have the opportunity to shoot. Those who wish to use a gun for nefarious reasons are not target shooters; they do not follow the rigorous legalities that come with owning and shooting a gun; they are the ones who buy through the back door, instead of coming with a licence through the front door, and that should be said at the outset.

I wish to thank all those organisations and individuals who contacted me and sent me information on this subject, including the Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the sports societies. The following information was provided by the British Shooting, which covers a range of shooting sports and offers varying levels of support and expertise. I spoke to the Minister before the debate to say I believed there was something we could do, and I look to her now with genuine hope that she will take this in the direction we want. The following are the facts of the case: the 2022 games were originally awarded to Durban, South Africa, with a sports programme that embraced all the shooting sports—shotgun, rifle and pistol, airgun and full-bore rifle. The Durban organising committee was unable to obtain satisfactory financial guarantees from the South African Government, however, and unfortunately had no option other than to relinquish responsibility for the games.

The Commonwealth Games Federation sought alternative hosts, and a bidding process was opened. In England, the cities of Birmingham and Liverpool put forward outline bids. The Liverpool bid included shooting, after constructive dialogue with British Shooting and others. Birmingham’s bid team did not engage with British Shooting or, it appears, any other shooting body—that was very disappointing, and I do not think the procedure was followed correctly—and did not include shooting in its bid. It should have done so. The Birmingham bid was put forward to the CGF, and it was ultimately awarded the right to host the games.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate, and I am very concerned by the suggestion that there may have been an ulterior motive behind the exclusion of shooting from the Commonwealth games on this occasion that is being dressed up as a logistical problem—the problem that Bisley is too far away from the location. Has the hon. Gentleman any specific indication that the people who are hosting the games this time are in some way ideologically opposed to target shooting?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am always very wary about what I say, and I would rather put the facts of the case and let the right hon. Gentleman draw his own conclusions, but yes, some people would say that that is something that may be lingering in the background. When the Commonwealth games took place in Manchester, Bisley was used as a location. Why not use it this time, given that it is closer to Birmingham than to Manchester? That seems perfectly logical to me.

I am very pleased that Birmingham’s bid was successful, and, indeed, I supported it. By extension, it has benefited the whole United Kingdom. The Commonwealth games should benefit everyone, not just those in one particular place. To host games of this calibre is a feather in our cap, and well worth the money that it entails. I welcome Birmingham’s contribution and its efforts. In normal circumstances, however, the decision to award the games to a host city and a Commonwealth games association is made at a CGF general assembly, even when there is only one bidder. That usually takes place some seven years before the games.

Following the late withdrawal of South Africa, the CGF executive dealt directly with the decision to find a replacement, which meant that Birmingham’s bid and, significantly, its proposed sports programme were not subject to debate by the 72 member nations of the CGF that would be normal practice. I suggest that in this case normal practice was not followed and that it should have been. What I am asking, in so far as it is within the remit of the Minister’s responsibilities, is for that normal procedure to be followed.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being incredibly generous with his time.

I must declare an interest as a member of the National Rifle Association and the Rifle Club at Bisley. It seems to me that it would be perfectly simple for the shooting sports to take place at the National Shooting Centre there, not only because it is available but because that would provide a very good income for the National Rifle Association. Is the hon. Gentleman surprised as I am that the association is not pushing as hard as it can to ensure that we have shooting sports in the Commonwealth games? If it is not pushing as hard as it can, why not?

[Jim Shannon]

That question is in my mind as well. Why not? I believe that there are now many thousands of signatures on the petition. I hope that the CGF is listening to the grassroots, because they are saying, “Are we all swimmers? Are we all runners? Some of us are shooters, and we will not feature in the Commonwealth games.” I will not, certainly—but these are our games, and we want to see opportunities for all disciplines to feature there. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: that should happen, and the grassroots support for it is very clear.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I, too, should declare an interest. My nephew Joe Hendry will represent Scotland in the wrestling in the Gold Coast Commonwealth games next month. I am sure that Members will join me in congratulating him and wishing him well.

The hon. Gentleman is advancing a compelling argument about the need for continuity in sports. Young people taking part in sports need to know that there will be a future in the work that they are putting in. That should apply to all disciplines, including shooting.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is the first time he has intervened on me, but I have lost count of the number of times I have intervened on him. I thank him for attending the debate, and he is right that going to the Gold Coast games is a tremendous achievement. Wee Amy Foster from my constituency has just been notified that she has qualified for those games as well, so I know how important that is and how important it is to encourage young people to do these things.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Those of us representing Welsh constituencies share his great disappointment that shooting will not be taking place at the 2022 Commonwealth games. Do you agree that perhaps the UK Government could take the lead and organise a similar international competition somewhere else in the country?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As this is an Adjournment debate with several Members present, I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to address that remark to me rather than to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Chris Davies]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and what he says is absolutely right. I look forward to the Minister perhaps being able to exert influence in places we do not seem to be able to, to see whether that can happen.

In 2015, the CGF general assembly in Auckland approved a new strategic agenda, “Transformation 2022”. Approval of this general direction embraced, by default, much detail, including changes to the list of so-called compulsory sports as well as the overall quota of athlete places in the games. Shooting remained an optional sport, while many others attained compulsory status. It should be noted that the consequence of the decision did not have an impact upon the Durban bid, which included all shooting sports. Again, I suggest that that omission—or whatever it might be—needs to be looked at.

Shooting sports have been omitted from the games on only one occasion, in 1970. On other occasions, when shooting sports have presented logistical challenges to host cities they were addressed, particularly in England in 2002, when the option of Bisley was agreed upon even though the games were hosted by Manchester. As I have said before, I have had the privilege—at least once in my life, in any case—to shoot at Bisley, with the Army back in the ’80s, and I greatly enjoyed that experience. We were never going to win the encounter, by the way. It was like reaching the FA cup final: getting to the final was our big occasion, so we were very pleased to be there, even though we knew we were going to get walloped—and we were.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Bisley every year with the Commons rifle team, where we have the privilege of shooting against the Lords team. In passing, may I pay tribute to a now retired member of the House of Commons staff, Mr Gary Howard, who worked in the Vote Office for many years? For a long period he gave freely of his lunchtimes—week in, week out, and month in, month out—to tutor Members of both Houses of Parliament in shooting skills and was rightly rewarded with the British empire medal when he retired for his long service in the House, his service to shooting and his service to young people.

[Jim Shannon]

When my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I were elected in 2010 we joined the House of Commons rifle club; we really enjoyed getting the badge, to tell the truth, because we wanted to show everybody we were in it. We particularly enjoyed going down and shooting at lunchtimes, and I suspect that many other Members have also enjoyed those lunchtime engagements.

As I have said, in the Manchester games Bisley was a venue, and it can be again. Shooting is a traditional Commonwealth sport, and for many of the smaller Commonwealth nations shooting sports are among the very few sports in the programme that they can realistically select athletes for and therefore play a part in the games. Some of the countries that excel at shooting sports perhaps do not excel at any other sports, and I will name some of them, as I think that is important: Jersey, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Guyana, Norfolk Island and the Falkland Islands. Shooting sports are crucial to their meaningful participation in the games and to their way of life as well.

For larger nations such as India, Malaysia and Australia, the absence of shooting sports has a major impact on their team size and their medal winning. Closer to home, the teams of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all regularly secure a significant medal haul from the sport. Information I received from the Countryside Alliance states:

“Shooting contributed 15 medals to England’s medal tally at the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, and England has won a total of 168 shooting medals in all previous Commonwealth Games—more than any other competing nation and over 20 per cent of the medals available.”

That is even more than Northern Ireland!

[Mark Garnier]

Further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to come along to the match between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I am the captain of our team.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the contribution of the smaller Commonwealth countries, but he has missed an important point about shooting sports. We need to remember that this is the one sport in which men and women compete equally against each other. We have just had International Women’s Day, and it is really important that we should not be getting rid of sports in which there is no gender discrimination. We should be celebrating this sport.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

The 2018 Commonwealth games in the Gold Coast, Australia, which were mentioned earlier, will include four shooting disciplines: full bore, pistol, rifle and shotgun. The shooting programme will be held at the Belmont shooting centre in Brisbane, where 20 athletes from Team England—the mother country—will compete in 19 separate events. There needs to be a commitment not only for Birmingham in 2022; I am seeking a commitment from the Commonwealth Games Federation to include shooting in the 2026 games. We need to look forward and ensure that what has happened this time does not happen again. The Minister referred to David Calvert in her intervention. He will shortly be competing in Brisbane, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was inspired by him many years ago. I am sure that many other young boys and girls were inspired by him as well. That is why I am raising this issue today.

Two key international bodies oversee the shooting sports that appear in the Commonwealth games: the International Shooting Sport Federation and the International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations. Both have indicated a willingness to work with the CGF to find a solution to keep shooting sports in the games and on the 2022 programme. Both are willing to do more than most, and representatives met the CGF president in February this year. This is about finding solutions. When people come to me with problems, it is not about the problem; it is about the solution. We bring the issue to the Floor of the House to seek a solution, and we hope that that solution will be forthcoming. At Olympic level, the ISSF represents a category C sport, recognising its growing and significant contribution to the Olympic ideals and family.

Having four disciplines, shooting sports can be delivered flexibly, both in terms of which disciplines appear and in terms of location. The preferred position is, naturally, to embrace all four disciplines, and I would encourage that. That option could be delivered at Bisley, as was the case for the successful hosting of the 2002 Manchester games. Bisley has the capacity to do that. It is not unusual for some sports to be outsourced remotely in that way, with examples including shooting in Malaysia in 1998, shooting in Manchester in 2002, shooting in Glasgow in 2014 and track cycling and shooting in Brisbane in 2018. All those events involved shooting, yet we have a big void at the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth games. As London’s Olympic and Paralympic games and Glasgow’s Commonwealth games all showed, the UK is the world leader in providing low-cost temporary facilities to ISSF standards. It can be done, and it should be done; there are many out there who want it to happen. Equally, some shooting sports could be accommodated easily in Birmingham in the many existing arenas that the city is home to. I encourage the sporting authorities to consider that.

I have been reliably informed that the ISSF, the ICFRA and British Shooting are all willing, ready and able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the CGF and the host city to accommodate the sport in the 2022 games. Many organisations, individuals and right hon. and hon. Members are keen to add their support. I urge that the matter be considered and acted upon while we have the time to do so, and I look to the Minister to bring that about.

I did not intend to speak for the full two hours, and I am sure that everyone in the House is thinking, “Thank the Lord for that.” I will conclude with this point. My granddaughter Katie is nine years old, and I took my son Jamie shooting when he was younger than that and introduced him to a sport in which he is now fairly proficient and much better than his dad. My granddaughter Katie has started to go hunting with her dad and me. It is a family tradition, and if the tradition continues, perhaps the child will better the father. My son is a better shot than I am, and perhaps my granddaughter will be a better shot than my son.

[Dr Lewis]

This is positively the last intervention that I will make on the hon. Gentleman. In support of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the sport being gender-neutral, I should have declared an interest as the president of the Colbury rifle and pistol club in the New Forest, where the champion shooter is a young lady called Molly. I think she is still in her teens, and she has on more than one occasion shot 100 out of 100, something I have never managed to do and I fear I never will manage to do.

[Jim Shannon]

There is still hope—you just never know—but I think my days of shooting as accurately as that are a long time gone. We have a couple of young ladies at the Comber Rifle Club, and both are holding their own at that level against the men, which is good stuff.

[Chris Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time and letting me intervene yet again—I shall try to conform to the rules this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard a lot about male and female shooters and about young shooters, but we have not heard so much about those at the other end of the scale. A former constituent of Brecon and Radnorshire, the late Lord Swansea, won gold medals at both the Olympic and Commonwealth games at the grand old age of, well, his late 60s and early 70s, so shooting is open to everyone.

[Jim Shannon]

As I said, there is hope for everyone, and I think everyone has been covered now. Thinking of the Gold Coast games, it is significant that there is opportunity for disabled people. I know from my time as a shooter over a vast number of years that even those who are visually disabled or in a wheelchair can still excel, win and beat the able-bodied.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend spoke passionately about his granddaughter Katie pursuing shooting as a sport, perhaps in competition. He may be aware that when the Commonwealth games fell through for Durban there was some talk that Northern Ireland might make a bid to host the games, perhaps supported by our neighbours in the Irish Republic. Of course, they have not yet rejoined the Commonwealth, but we look forward to the day. Does my hon. Friend join me in aspiring to the day when his granddaughter will shoot for Northern Ireland as Northern Ireland hosts the Commonwealth games for the first time?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It may be aspirational, but it is something that we would all love. We always love to see our sons and daughters doing well, and we want to see our grandchildren do well. I want to see Katie beating her dad at shooting, and hopefully that will happen. I have no doubt that she would beat her grandfather every day, but I hope that she will beat her dad, too. I hope that Katie will be some shooter in the years to come, and I would love her to be a member of Team GB or of the Northern Ireland team at the Commonwealth games. We would also love to see the Republic of Ireland come back into the Commonwealth. That may be a bit aspirational and not terribly likely, but that does not stop us thinking about it and wishing for it to happen. The Commonwealth games will not be representative of our own wee Northern Ireland if games without shooting become the norm. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said, it should never be the case that we opt out of shooting when hosting the games.

We hosted Olympic shooting, and will do so again at the first opportunity. What an outcry there would be if there were no athletics—no long jump or high jump—or swimming. I believe that there should be an outcry out of concern about shooting sports. Let us do what we can and secure the sport for the future gold medallists among us—perhaps not us, but our families—and provide shooting in Birmingham in 2022. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) said, at the age of 68, you never know what you will do.

17:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing this important debate. I am grateful, too, for the contributions from colleagues, especially those who mentioned their fantastic shooting clubs. The Whip has asked me to mention that he, too, has a fantastic shooting club—Kelbrook shooting lodge in Pendle—which, I am sure, inspires many youngsters in his community and, indeed, older generations to become involved in shooting.

The hon. Member for Strangford is passionate about this issue from a personal, local and national perspective and I think that his speech has reinforced that view beyond the Chamber. I would like to wish our home nation shooting squads the best of luck at the Gold Coast games starting in 13 days, 16 hours and 33 minutes. Across the United Kingdom, we should be proud of our teams heading to Australia, and I know that they will do their best to succeed and to bring back gold, silver and bronze to showcase their respective nations.

Northern Ireland is sending 88 athletes and has a good record at the Commonwealth games. I hope that after a heavy day of discussion on legislative issues this debate will provide an opportunity to mention the positive power of sport and the inspiration it brings to many people, young and old, beyond the challenge of politics. Fast-forwarding to the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, we all welcome the positive opportunities that hosting an event such as the games can bring to Birmingham and the UK as a whole. The games will showcase Britain to the rest of the world, providing new economic growth and trade opportunities to the west midlands and beyond. In addition, the games will leave a legacy of new and refurbished sports facilities in Birmingham and the west midlands, including a fully refurbished Alexander athletics stadium and a brand new aquatics centre in Sandwell.

The Government have been working closely with its partners, Birmingham City Council, Commonwealth Games England and the Commonwealth Games Federation to begin plans for delivering a unique and exciting games in 2022. The appointment process for the chair of the organising committee was launched last week, and plans to deliver an amazing handover ceremony at the end of the 2018 Gold Coast games are also under way. We hope that, with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting around the corner, the handover ceremony will be a great opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the Commonwealth movement and to show the world what Birmingham has to offer.

Hosting the Commonwealth games is no small undertaking and a number of important decisions need be taken to ensure that the city of Birmingham delivers the best games possible. One of these decisions is the sports programme for the event. The programme proposed by the Birmingham 2022 bid team and approved by the Commonwealth Games Federation is now being put into action. I should explain that, when bidding to host the Commonwealth games, a bidding city is required to develop a sports programme within the technical requirements set by the Commonwealth Games Federation, which requires all host cities to include a number of prescribed core sports and then select additional sports from a list of optional sports.

Shooting is, and always has been, an optional sport, and that status was reaffirmed by the Commonwealth Games Federation general assembly in 2015. That motion was voted on by the federation’s members, in line with its constitution, and it is not a decision with which any Government can, or should, interfere. So the first thing to say is shooting was considered for potential inclusion in the Birmingham 2022 programme under the optional sport banner.

A number of other considerations have to be taken into account when developing a sports programme that best meets the needs of Birmingham 2022. For example, a fixed quota of athletes must be complied with. So it is not simply the case that all sports could be included, even if this were feasible. In addition, Birmingham was awarded the Commonwealth games with just four and a half years in which to deliver it, rather than the usual seven.

I have no doubt that the city will deliver an outstanding event, despite the timeframe, but this does mean a number of additional practical considerations must be taken into account, including what sports facilities exist across the UK, their proximity to Birmingham and the west midlands and the level of financial investment required to make them suitable to host the games within the timescale available. The city also considered its wider objectives of showcasing high-quality competition, gender equality in medal events and a strong and developing para-sport programme. In balancing all those considerations, the decision was taken not to include shooting in the 2022 Commonwealth games bid. Rather, the optional sports and disciplines submitted as part of the bid instead include three-on-three basketball and three-on-three para-basketball; track cycling and para-track cycling; mountain biking; diving; rhythmic gymnastics; and para-triathlon.

I am sure the whole House would agree that this combination of optional sports will complement an exciting and inclusive programme. If all of the other factors I have outlined did not apply, we would of course like to include a full spectrum of sports and disciplines. However, the important considerations relating to the size, scope, scale and deliverability of the games meant that Birmingham had to make difficult decisions. I understand the disappointment that many, including colleagues in this House and, especially, the athletes, will feel with this decision, but it is one that the Commonwealth Games Federation accepted the bid on.

The decision not to include shooting in 2022 should not be considered a reflection of the importance of the sport. After success in Rio and the trajectory of success across global competitions, UK Sport is providing £6.9 million of funding for the Tokyo 2020 shooting performance cycle—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tracey Crouch]

I think the “PARLY” app would explode if I did not.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I was trying to be helpful in asking for a copy of my speech to be sent to her Department before this debate and I hope that was done. The International Shooting Sport Federation and the International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations have indicated a willingness to work with the CGF to find a solution to keep shooting sports in the games and in the 2022 games programme. In February, so no more than a few weeks ago, they met the CGF president, and at an Olympic level they have been to see all these different people who they think they can influence. What I am really saying, if you do not mind my intervention being a little long, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that many people wish to make this happen. I am asking the Minister to use her efforts to see whether this is possible, ever mindful of the fact that Bisley wants to make its facilities available. As Manchester did it in 2002, I do not see why Birmingham cannot use Bisley, if it is made available and if all those organisations want to make this happen.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which gives me the opportunity to re-emphasise and make clearer the point I made: Birmingham put in a bid to the CGF with its optional sports programme and shooting was not in it, and the CGF accepted the bid without shooting in the programme. My fear is that, if the CGF and Birmingham were to change that, it would challenge the bid that has already been accepted. But I am sure that officials and the Birmingham team have heard that intervention. They will certainly have heard the passion with which he and other colleagues have spoken about shooting. Let me reiterate that we certainly recognise the importance of shooting. As I was saying, UK Sport is continuing to provide millions of pounds for both the Tokyo 2020 shooting performance cycle and for para-shooting in Tokyo.

The hon. Member for Strangford is a reasonable man. He will appreciate the technical rationale behind the difficult decision that Birmingham took as part of its bid process and appreciate that that bid was accepted by the CGF. I am always happy to discuss these issues with him further and to keep him in the loop in respect of the conversations with the federation and the international organisations. I am just not in the position to be able to say whether anything can change at this point.

[Chris Davies]

The Minister has acknowledged that the athletes will be disappointed that shooting is not happening at the 2022 games. Will she commit the Government to supporting British shooting beyond the Olympic games and show that they are prepared to support British shooting into eternity?

[Tracey Crouch]

I assure my hon. Friend that UK Sport continues to invest funding into elite-level shooting sports and that there will be funding for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic cycle. That investment will continue. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position about the period beyond that. The decisions for beyond Tokyo 2020 will come in the run-up to 2020; there is always an eight-year funding cycle for elite sport.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister and the Government reconsider the funding of the shooting part of the games, if that is part of the issue, and be ever mindful that Bisley wants to make its grounds available? I gently remind her that I referred in my speech to how the process for Birmingham was arrived at. I suggested that it did not follow normal practice. Let me mention what normal practice would be. When Durban was declared not to be available, Birmingham made its bid. The CGF executive dealt directly with the decision to find a replacement, such that Birmingham’s bid and, significantly, its proposed sports programme was not subject to debate by any of the 72 nations. I suggest that the process that should have been followed was not followed. With that in mind, I think it should be reviewed.

[Tracey Crouch]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, although the CGF worked on an expedited timetable, it certainly followed the process that it needed to follow, and Birmingham was the successful bid and was awarded the games. I recognise that he, other Members and athletes are disappointed that shooting will not be in the 2022 programme, but re-emphasise that that is no reflection of what we all think about the success of shooting. I shall continue to listen to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to make sure that these opinions are shared with the CGF and others.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Tracey Crouch]

I shall take one last intervention.

[Gavin Robinson]

To build on the question in my hon. Friend’s last intervention, given that there is a desire to encourage greater participation and that the Minister has obviously indicated the willingness of the Government to support shooting more generally, would the Government welcome a bid from the shooting fraternity in the UK to organise an international competition that could run alongside or coincide with the timetable of the Commonwealth games?

[Tracey Crouch]

We look at all bids from international sports and put them alongside other event strategy decisions. If there were a bid, we would pay attention to it in the same way that we do when we make decisions on lots of other bids. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to support many bids from Northern Ireland for whole island international sporting competitions.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

rose—

[Tracey Crouch]

No, I will not give way again. [Hon. Members: “Ahh.”] The hon. Gentleman had his chance much earlier on, before I got to the last sentence of my speech.

I recognise the disappointment that Members around the Chamber are feeling right now, but I do hope that the whole House will join me in wishing the hundreds of athletes representing the home nations the very best of luck at the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth games and will offer Birmingham continued support in its preparations for 2022.

Question put and agreed to.

17:39

House adjourned.

Draft Insolvency of Registered Providers of Social Housing Regulations 2018

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Nigel Evans

† Blackman, Bob (Harrow East) (Con)

† Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)

† Cunningham, Mr Jim (Coventry South) (Lab)

† Fitzpatrick, Jim (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)

† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)

† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

† Grant, Mrs Helen (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)

† Jenkyns, Andrea (Morley and Outwood) (Con)

† Letwin, Sir Oliver (West Dorset) (Con)

† Lloyd, Tony (Rochdale) (Lab)

† Masterton, Paul (East Renfrewshire) (Con)

Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)

† Morgan, Stephen (Portsmouth South) (Lab)

† Raab, Dominic (Minister for Housing)

Smith, Angela (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Tolhurst, Kelly (Rochester and Strood) (Con)

† Williams, Dr Paul (Stockton South) (Lab)

Claire Cozens, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 21 March 2018

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Draft Insolvency of Registered Providers of Social Housing Regulations 2018

14:15

[The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Insolvency of Registered Providers of Social Housing Regulations 2018.

It is an enormous pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

The regulations were laid before the House on 7 February 2018. Increasing the supply of homes is a top priority for the Government, and that includes increasing the number of homes for social and affordable rent to help people access decent housing in which to build and improve their lives. Since 2010, we have delivered more than 357,000 new affordable homes, including 257,000 affordable homes for rent. The Prime Minister recently announced an extra £2 billion of funding for affordable housing, which will increase the overall affordable homes programme budget to more than £9 billion. The new funding will support councils and housing associations to build more affordable homes where they are needed most—where families are struggling with rental costs and some are at risk of homelessness. Only last week, the Chancellor announced a further £1.67 billion to provide an extra 26,000 homes to further boost affordable housing in London.

Housing associations are a key part of the delivery of those new homes. Three things enable housing associations to borrow cheaply: a stable operating environment, a robust regulatory framework and the fact that there has been no default in the sector that has resulted in loss to lenders or investors. Insolvencies in the sector are rare. To date, there has only been one insolvency since the moratorium arrangements were introduced back in 1996. Both lenders and providers value very highly the no loss on default record of the sector, meaning that no lender has lost money in the event of a housing association insolvency. It is vital that we maintain that robust financial regime so that housing associations continue to deliver the homes we need.

We also want to protect tenants so that their homes are not put at risk should any landlord get into difficulty. That is why, in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, we introduced a special administration regime for the social housing sector. The regime will give the Secretary of State the power to apply to the court to appoint a housing administrator in the event of a private registered provider being at risk of insolvency proceedings. In introducing those changes, we were responding to concerns that the existing moratorium provisions were not suitable for modern, large, developing and complex housing associations that might conceivably get into financial difficulty. Although financial failure is extremely rare, the housing association sector has changed significantly in recent years. The level of private finance has grown from £48 billion in 2012 to £70 billion last year.

Having introduced the main provisions in the 2016 Act, the regulations extend the housing administration framework in that Act to registered societies and charitable incorporated organisations. For those who are unfamiliar with those terms, a registered society is defined in the 2016 Act as having the same meaning as in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. It is a particular type of legal entity. Registered societies include co-operative societies, community benefit societies and pre-commencement societies registered before August 2014. They need to be registered with the Financial Conduct Authority. A charitable incorporated organisation is defined within the 2016 Act as a charitable incorporated organisation within the meaning of part 11 of the Charities Act 2011. Again, it is a particular type of legal entity. There are four main types of charitable structure: the incorporated organisation, the charitable company, which is limited by guarantee, the unincorporated association and the trust.

Due to drafting complexities, the provisions in the 2016 Act apply only to those housing associations that are companies. That is the key reason we are here today. There are 1,483 non-local authority private registered providers of social housing in England, providing 2.6 million homes; 885 charitable incorporated organisations with more than 2 million properties; 336 companies with 380,000 properties; and 262 registered societies with more than 95,000 properties.

A further piece of legislation will be needed before the special regime can be enacted: a statutory instrument setting out the rules that apply to administrators’ conduct of a housing administration. That will follow the negative procedure.

Under the law at the moment, where a housing association gets into financial difficulty and steps are taken towards entering a formal insolvency procedure, a 28-day moratorium begins that restricts creditors’ ability to enforce their security during that period. If the regulator cannot reach a solution with creditors during that 28-day period, or during an extension, creditors are able to call in loans and seek to recover their debts through the sale of assets, which can include social housing stock.

At least in theory, that could lead to a fire sale of social housing, meaning the stock would no longer be regulated and tenants would lose the protections of the social sector, including rent regulation. Therefore, the 2016 Act gives the Secretary of State, or the regulator of social housing with the Secretary of State’s consent, the power to apply to the court to appoint a housing administrator. The administrator would manage the affairs, the business and the property of the registered provider of social housing for the duration of the housing administration.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister in mid-flow. I am not sure if it is the same in the rest of the country, but in London we are seeing a wave of amalgamations and takeovers of the smaller housing associations, apparently driven by Government policy, whether deliberate or unintentional. Is that part of the overall scheme? Does that fit into the protection that the Government are trying to introduce in terms of insolvency, or is that totally separate?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. One reason we are introducing these regulations is precisely because the housing association sector has changed. That does include some of the mergers and acquisitions—the consolidations—that we have seen with housing associations. It is ultimately a balance, but there is a real benefit to housing associations realising economies of scale in the way he has described, because that has a stimulus factor on the supply of new homes, which must be a plus.

Equally, as a responsible Government, we want to be mindful of any risks involved. The regulations can certainly be seen as ensuring that we have a strong regulatory regime in place so that we glean the benefits of the behaviour that the hon. Gentleman described, but also ensure that we mitigate the risk as best we can.

As with any administration regime, the main objective would be to rescue the organisation or return money to creditors. The crucial difference is that a housing administrator would also have a second important objective, which is to retain as much of the social housing as possible within the regulated sector. I think that goes to the point the hon. Gentleman alluded to. In addition, a housing administrator would not be constrained by a 28-day timeframe and would have the time to investigate the business and find the best solution possible in order to meet the objectives. We are ensuring that the process is flexible enough and specific to the housing association sector.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and apologise for interrupting his speech. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse raised the issue of amalgamations taking place. Something else being encouraged by the Government is for housing associations to borrow more money and, therefore, stretch their capability to pay down their bills and debts. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that, in the extremely rare event that a housing association were to go bankrupt or become insolvent, the tenants would be absolutely protected from losing their homes and from savage rent rises if the homes were sold in the private sector.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend and, I think, vice-chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for his intervention. He makes an important point. As with the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, my hon. Friend is right to raise this perfectly legitimate issue. The very reason for bringing in the regulations, which build on the primary legislation, is to ensure that we protect those social tenants in the way he described. The details of the regulations are technical and complex, but they hopefully serve precisely the objectives that the two hon. Members, who are from across the political divide, rightly raised. As with any administration regime, the main objective will be to rescue the organisation or to return money to its creditors. However, as I have said, it is crucial to protect the social tenants as well.

Turning to the specifics of the regulations, they extend the housing administration framework in the 2016 Act to registered societies and charitable incorporated organisations. They are complex but, simply put, they give effect to two schedules that apply certain provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986—with necessary modifications, of course—to registered societies and charitable incorporated organisations. To illustrate the nature of those modifications, they involve things such as modifying the Insolvency Act where it uses “administrator” so that it would read “housing administrator”, for where the court has appointed a housing administrator. They are quite technical changes and adaptations, but none the less significant ones, for this sector.

We carried out an informal consultation with representatives from insolvency practitioners, valuers, UK Finance and private registered providers and lenders prior to the introduction of the 2016 Act and again before laying the regulations. That group represented the organisations that have the main interest in housing administration, and they are keen to have this regime in place. It is important to say that the housing associations and the lenders and creditors—both sides—think this is an important piece of legislation to have in place. A fuller public consultation was not carried out due to the technical nature of the regulations and because the process of housing administration will only be required in the event of a housing association facing insolvency, which, as I have said, is an extremely rare contingency, but none the less one that we want to cater for.

The regulations apply to the whole of the UK. We want the regime to cover social housing stock in England, including any stock held by housing associations registered with the social housing regulator for England but that, as legal entities, are registered in devolved Administrations. To be clear, the provisions in the 2016 Act and in the draft regulations will only apply if there are English properties at risk from a housing association becoming insolvent. However, if, for example, a Scottish housing association had properties in England at risk from an insolvency, this housing regime would apply to that particular housing association.

These are important regulations in continuing to safeguard investment in social housing and, critically, protection for tenants. I commend them to the Committee.

14:42

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

May I, too, say what a joy it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans?

I reflected, as the Minister was speaking, that it is always good to be a lucky politician. The Minister will probably count himself as lucky. All his predecessors in the housing brief did not have the advantage of serving in a Government that have at last stumbled on the political importance of housing. In that sense, we all enjoyed the romantic introduction to what could otherwise have been a technical but important speech.

This is an important issue, and I reassure hon. Members—as much those on my own side as the Government’s—that we will certainly not seek to divide the Committee on this occasion. Nevertheless, I will probe some of the issues that the Minister raised. While the draft regulations are technical and sensible, we need to know that they will actually do the job that we and the Minister want them to do.

In that context, the Minister rightly raised something that the Department tells us in the impact assessment: that a failure to protect the social housing assets of an insolvent provider would mean that tenants were at risk of losing their homes or having their rents increased to market levels; that much-needed affordable housing would be lost; and that the taxpayers’ investment, through affordable housing grant, could be lost. We agree with the ambition to avoid that situation. In fairness, as was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for Harrow East, the protection of tenants is fundamental in this.

In that context, will the Minister clarify the operation of objective 1 on financial stewardship and objective 2 on the protection of tenants’ rights? It is right and proper that we have those two objectives, but my concern is that if objective 1 takes precedence over objective 2, and if realising market value, possibly for taxpayers but certainly for creditors, becomes the dominant issue under it, how will we operationalise objective 2—the protection of tenants’ rights and the transfer of any assets to another social housing provider? That will be the nub of the statutory instrument when it comes into operation. That is a technical point, but it would be helpful if the Minister talked us through exactly what that means.

Under any sensible structure, one of the duties placed on lenders is that they operate due diligence. Those lending to one of the companies caught under the statutory instrument have an obligation to protect their shareholders and owners—that is a legal duty—and to ensure that the housing company operates in a prudent fashion. Of course, the more we insure lenders against risk, the less due diligence is part of their motivating force, so it is important that creditors know they are responsible for ensuring that their lending to housing companies is prudent. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

My third point is perhaps the most important. When Cosmopolitan Housing Group almost failed in 2012, the regulator acted promptly and in a way that secured advantage both to the public weal and to the tenants of Cosmopolitan, who were transferred to the Sanctuary Housing Trust. That is the way the system ought to operate, and I congratulate those who were involved with it at the time. The best thing in such a situation is to ensure that we do not repeat Cosmopolitan’s journey to self-destruction.

In 2014, Altair published a report, which was commissioned by the Minister’s Department, looking at the lessons to be learned from Cosmopolitan, and it asked how we prevent housing associations from operating in an imprudent way that puts their organisation, and more importantly their tenants and public assets, at risk. That would potentially lead to the use of powers in this statutory instrument. Of course, we do not actually want the statutory instrument ever to be brought into operation. We want prevention, rather than remedy.

Altair’s report came to a number of conclusions about how the regulator and the boards of housing companies should operate, and about what duties should be imposed on those companies. My question to the Minister—he may not have chapter and verse on this—is, how far can we be assured that the governance regime that let people down in the Cosmopolitan situation is not being replicated by housing associations up and down the country? That touches on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse made. One of the drivers of this problem, to the cost of my erstwhile constituents, is housing associations that see their corporate objective to be growth, rather than growth that is consistent with their original purpose, which is to provide social and affordable housing for their tenants. We need to guard against such wrong ambitions, and we need to ensure that corporate structure and governance of housing associations is secure enough to guarantee that we protect tenants’ rights and public assets.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I am following the hon. Gentleman entirely. Does he agree that the biggest exposure is one that the report does not dwell on—I am not quite sure why not—which is that housing associations that match liabilities to rent are doing so on the basis of an unusually low interest environment? They have quite large roll-overs of their debt, which occur at various times. One could imagine not just one, but a swathe of housing associations, if they have not managed their financing portfolios correctly, hitting a moment when interest rates, for some reason or other, rise unexpectedly. I am quite worried—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is—that that is not one of the things on which the regulator for social housing appears to be focusing at the moment.

[Tony Lloyd]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, because that is where risk comes in. Frankly, not every housing association has the same depth of experience as the right hon. Gentleman on these issues. There has to be the capacity to ensure that the regulator is in a position to secure the public interest against precisely that.

There is another risk. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that borrowing against rental income is one form of exposure, a lot of housing associations have been asked to put themselves in this position. They accept that, in order to advance the interests of the housing association, they will build for sale and invest part of those proceeds in social housing. That is a legitimate and necessary operation for housing associations, but, of course, it is a different kind of risk from those that housing associations have been asked to consider in the past. Some will absorb the new culture well, but some may not. The question of financial risk is very real and that emphasises the point I was trying to make to the Minister. Given that prevention is better than remedy, we need guarantees that the regulator has absorbed the lessons of Cosmopolitan a few years back. In fairness, the regulator performed well at the time. However, having absorbed those lessons, we now know that across the whole piece of the housing association family we are measuring risk and are in a position to blow that early whistle, where appropriate.

There are three issues, essentially, for the Minister to address. First, how does objective 2—the transfer to another social housing landlord—operate with respect to the duties under objective 1? Secondly, how can we guarantee that tenants maintain tenancy rights, in terms both of the rent they pay and of the longevity of tenancies and so on? How do we guarantee that financial risk is being properly measured to prevent the need to use these regulations? Thirdly, the issue of due diligence is important. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s comments.

14:52

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I want to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and end up by addressing the question asked by the hon. Member for Harrow East about the security of residents—tenants—were things to go awry. In my part of the world, in Tower Hamlets, a proliferation and explosion of housing associations have arrived on the scene over the past 20 years. They are registered as social landlords, partly because of the restrictions on councils being able to borrow money to build homes.

In 1997, the Labour Government took the clear view that, with 2 million homes below the decency threshold, it was going to be a long, complicated task to change the rules of local government financing and house building, so we promoted housing associations, which did not have the same financial restrictions, to move into the vacuum and build, repair and refurbish. We spent billions—that is on the record—taking 1.5 million of those homes above the decency threshold, with new windows, new kitchens, new bathrooms, central heating, double glazing, security systems and the rest. Estates in Tower Hamlets in east London that had been neglected for decades are now model estates and mixed estates, with private sales subsidising new social homes and the refurbishing of all social homes. From my point of view, that was a huge success.

Subsequent policy since 2010, and most recently the Government’s insistence that housing associations require a payment of 80% of local market rents, has meant that market rents around Canary Wharf in my constituency are way above what ordinary local people can afford. That has created great difficulty for housing associations. The Government’s policy to reduce rents by 1% put a great strain on housing associations’ budgets and future planning, so there has been a real tussle.

My question for the Minister is whether the regulations are totally separate from any concerns about collapses. Are they totally incidental to the mergers and acquisitions? He made the point about sharing back-office functions, which makes sense, given the pressures on public finances.

One of the downsides, however, is that local control has been sacrificed because of the mergers and acquisitions. Many of my housing associations were voted for by former council tenants, because they saw the improvements that they would get. Rather than having a mono-tenure, 95% council-housing monolith, tenants realised that they could have smaller local housing associations, where the line of communication between the tenants or leaseholders and the housing association’s chief executive was two steps rather than seven, so the executives lost that total anonymity. Now, much bigger housing associations mean that the people who make the decisions are further removed from the tenants and leaseholders who pay the rents and service charges and who pay for the refurbishments.

As I have said, my final question goes back to that asked by the hon. Member for Harrow East. Will a threat or jeopardy be attached to the tenants and residents in the organisations if they suffer difficulties and have to take advantage of the new legislation? Is the legislation a totally separate initiative that was introduced by Government because they spotted a gap that needed to be plugged, rather than a response to a fear that such regulations would have to be brought in anyway because of the current danger in the sector?

14:57

[Dominic Raab]

We have had a good debate with some interesting technical interventions, and I am grateful to hear from hon. Members with a great deal longer experience of the sector than I have. The hon. Member for Rochdale made some kind remarks at the beginning and I appreciate his support of the regulations. He asked three specific questions, which I will endeavour to answer as best I can.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked how objective 1 and objective 2, as I described in the regulations, interact. Objective 1 is to rescue the business and service the creditors. Objective 2 is to look after housing, including social tenants. It is right that in one sense, the overriding objective 1 takes precedence over objective 2, because it is an insolvency proceeding. As a result, the housing administrator cannot do anything that results in a worse distribution to the creditors.

In all cases to date, the creditors have recognised that it was of the best value to them to save the properties in the sector. Having a social housing regulator and a specific regime for insolvency proceedings in the sector ensures that objective 2 shapes and influences the way in which objective 1 is delivered, which will provide materially greater protection for social tenants. If I understood correctly, that was key to what the hon. Gentleman was getting at.

The hon. Gentleman asked about lenders’ responsibility and due diligence, which is an important point. It is crucial that lenders take the initiative and ensure that their due diligence is in place, not only in relation to commercial transactions but in the social housing sector.

There has been a swathe of new regulation since the financial crash. I do not think it is a zero-sum game—I know the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting it was—and we need to do both. The protections in relation to due diligence and the regulation of lenders are in place, and lenders support the extension of the 2016 Act through the regulations. We can do both of those things, and that will create an increased tier of protection for tenants.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the lessons learned from Cosmopolitan, and the previous report commissioned by my Department. The Cosmopolitan Housing Group was a large private registered provider of social housing. It owned or was managing more than 13,000 homes in the north-west. It had serious financial difficulties, as described by the hon. Gentleman, in part as a result of its involvement in non-social housing activity. None the less, the regulator at the time, the Homes and Communities Agency, carried out intensive regulatory engagement with Cosmopolitan to resolve the situation. That engagement concluded with Cosmopolitan being taken over by Sanctuary Housing, which was a large and more financially robust provider. The specific situation was dealt with, and afterwards, in terms of the lessons learned—the crux of what the hon. Gentleman was getting at—the Homes and Communities Agency carried out an independent review of its handling of the Cosmopolitan case. As best as possible in the aftermath of such a financial challenge, lessons have been learned. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that prevention is better than cure, and that is what the regulations will help achieve.

[Tony Lloyd]

Can we be clear, though? In the end, it is the regulator who acts as the public eyes and ears with respect to the housing associations, to make sure that their behaviour is consistent with common sense and prudence. Are we certain that the regulator has the capacity to do that? That is not a malicious question. These are new duties on the regulator, but the general duty to cover the extraordinary range of different types of housing associations is a real one. It is important that we know that the regulator has both the competence and the capacity. I am confident in the competence, but I do not know about the capacity.

[Dominic Raab]

That is a perfectly legitimate question. Of course, the regulations are partly about making sure that the regulator has the capacity and the legal powers to deal with the whole sector. I hope that was addressed in my opening remarks.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse spoke about the history of housing associations in his constituency with great knowledge and insight. He also spoke about the pressures on rent. I accept that, particularly in London and urban areas. In the past year, we have seen 217,000 new homes delivered, which is the highest number in all but one of the past 30 years. That is important not just if someone wants to own their own home, but because supply is a key factor in bringing down the affordability of rent. There is other proposed legislation coming down the pipeline on the quality of rented accommodation as well.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether this is a protective measure. It is. It cannot be entirely dislocated from what is happening in the social sector and the evolution of that sector, so I suppose it is a response to both the regulatory gap and the evolving nature of the sector, making sure that as it grows and the structure of the sector changes, and we see the dividends in terms of supply and the economies of scale that build up, we also make sure that we have a careful safety net in place. Hopefully that is the right balance and the prudent course to take.

In conclusion, I say again that we imagine that the occasions when this legislation would be necessary, if ever, will be very rare. The introduction of the regime reflects the nature and the scale of the sector, which has changed and will continue to change. It is not a commentary on the state of the sector as it currently stands. Housing associations continue to be key partners in fixing the broken housing market that this Government are absolutely dedicated to addressing. It is right that we ensure the regulator has the tools and the capacity to do the job to maintain lender confidence and to protect tenants as far as possible should a potential insolvency occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Insolvency of Registered Providers of Social Housing Regulations 2018.

15:04

Committee rose.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mrs Madeleine Moon

† Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con)

Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Lamont, John (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)

Nandy, Lisa (Wigan) (Lab)

† Pidcock, Laura (North West Durham) (Lab)

† Robinson, Mary (Cheadle) (Con)

† Shapps, Grant (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

† Stephens, Chris (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

† Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con)

Streeting, Wes (Ilford North) (Lab)

† Watling, Giles (Clacton) (Con)

Rob Page, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 21 March 2018

[Mrs Madeleine Moon in the Chair]

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2018

14:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, we continue to ensure that the lowest-paid in our society are fairly rewarded for their contribution to the economy. Raising the minimum wage is one way that our industrial strategy creates an economy that boosts productivity throughout the UK, and provides good jobs that increase people’s earning power.

This morning’s employment figures are a testament to the success of that policy. We have a record employment rate of 75.3%, and our unemployment rate of 4.3% is the joint lowest in more than 40 years. The Government are increasing the tax-free personal allowance to £12,500 by 2020, both to ensure that workers keep even more of their income, and to take more of the lowest-paid out of paying tax altogether. Between 2016 and 2017, thanks to the Government’s introduction of the national living wage, the lowest-paid 5% of full-time workers saw the biggest increase in pay.

I am proud to introduce the latest set of inflation-busting increases to the national living wage and the national minimum wage, which will give more than 2 million low-paid workers a well-deserved pay rise next month. I am particularly pleased to announce that the biggest increases in the national minimum wage rates—the largest for more than a decade—are for younger workers.

The regulations increase all national minimum wage hourly rates, including those for workers who are entitled to the national living wage. The national living wage rate for people aged 25 and over will increase by 33p to £7.83, and the rate is on course to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020. The increase means that a full-time worker in receipt of the national living wage will receive an annual pay rise of more than £600.

The rate for 21 to 24-year-olds will also increase by 33p, which means that people in that age group will be entitled to a minimum rate of £7.38—an annual increase of 4.7%. The annual earnings of a full-time worker in that age group will also increase by £600 a year.

People aged between 18 and 20 years old will be entitled to a minimum of £5.90 per hour, which is an annual increase of 5.4%. People aged 16 or 17 years old will be entitled to a minimum of £4.20 per hour, which is an annual increase of 3.7%. Apprentices aged under 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, will be entitled to £3.70, which is the largest annual increase of all the hourly rates—5.7%. We estimate that more than 2 million workers will get a pay rise. Finally, the accommodation offset will increase from £6.40 to £7 per day.

I place on record my gratitude for the work of the independent Low Pay Commission. It brings together businesses and workers to form a consensus on the rates, and advises the Government accordingly. It is asked to recommend the highest possible increase in the national minimum wage, without damaging the employment prospects of low-paid workers by setting it too high, and to recommend a national living wage rate that will ensure that it reaches that 60% of median earnings by 2020, subject to economic growth being sustained. It has carried out extensive research, consultation and analysis, which have informed the rates recommendations in its 2017 report. It recommended each of the increases that I have announced.

We recognise, though, that as the minimum wage rises, so does the risk of non-compliance. The Government will ensure that every worker in the UK who is entitled to the national minimum wage or national living wage receives it.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Minister knows from my written parliamentary questions that 25% of posts in the national minimum wage compliance unit at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are vacant. Can he tell us whether those posts will be filled by HMRC?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman raised that issue just a few days ago—in a Westminster Hall debate, I think. He will know that the Government have doubled their investment in enforcement of the national minimum wage. There is, of course, always a turnover of staff, but we intend to have the compliance enforcement unit up to its full potential as soon as possible. We are actively taking steps to tackle non-compliance, sending a clear message to employers that minimum wage abuses will not go unpunished. We have invested £25.3 million in that this year—almost double what was invested in 2015. The Government have also invested £1.5 million in an awareness campaign to highlight the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers.

We have seen a jobs miracle in this country. More than 400,000 more people are in work than were a year ago, showing that the labour market remains a key strength of the UK economy, and proving that the UK can accommodate a higher minimum wage. The economy has grown continuously for more than four years, and UK businesses have created a record number of jobs. I pay tribute to the workers and employers who made that happen.

According to the Resolution Foundation, the national minimum wage and the introduction of the national living wage have contributed to the elimination of extreme low pay. The Government estimate that more than 2 million workers will directly benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage and the national living wage next month. Raising the minimum wage is just one part of the “good work” agenda that underpins our vision for a more productive and motivated workforce. Between April 2015 and April 2017, the wages of the lowest-paid have been increasing fastest, thanks to the national living wage, with the wages of those in the fifth percentile of the earnings distribution growing by almost 7% above inflation. That is faster than at any other point in the earnings distribution.

The Prime Minister committed that this would be a Government that worked for everyone. It is right that the lowest-paid workers in our society are fairly remunerated for their contribution to the economy. I commend the regulations to the House.

14:38

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I have a somewhat different take on the state of the economy from the Minister. Real wages, excluding bonuses, are still down by 0.2% and are still £15 a week lower than 10 years ago. That is a starkly different picture from the one painted by the Minister.

No one would expect me to oppose this increase in the minimum wage for working people, and the increases to the minimum hourly rate. However, this small rise in the minimum wage cannot go without comment or critical analysis; I wish that the Government would do some critical analysis of the growth in employment, the nature of that employment, and how precarious, insecure and low-paid it still is, specifically in the north-east, the region I represent.

I acknowledge that this increase in the minimum wage will be helpful, but it certainly will not be transformative for the many who are the lowest-paid. The Government seem obsessed with keeping the minimum wage at the lowest level at which it is possible to maintain a subsistence existence—it is called the Low Pay Commission for a reason. Perhaps the Government do that because they mistakenly believe that keeping wages low is good for business, or that it is not the state’s job to set wages, but rather the law of the markets that does that.

What the Government fail to acknowledge is that increasing wages, particularly of the lowest-paid, will immediately increase demand in the economy, which in turn will stimulate production, retail and services. It will also decrease Government expenditure on subsidising low pay, while increasing Government revenue—for example, where tax thresholds are exceeded. Improving the quality of life and economic wealth of the least well-off is not a cost, but an investment in society.

No Government should ignore—though the Minister did ignore it—the huge pressure on wages due to the fact increases in the cost of food, energy and transport, and other living costs, have outstripped increases in wages over recent years. The 33p an hour increase for those over 21 is, I repeat, a help, but not the transformational change we need to help working people in very difficult times.

Let us briefly talk about what might bring about that transformation. I am sure the Minister has read the Labour party’s manifesto in depth, so he will know that Labour would set the minimum rate of pay at £10 an hour by 2020.

There can be no more inspirational story about low pay than that of the striking McDonald’s workers. I met some of them on Monday evening, when they eloquently expressed the hardship that they endure working for the minimum wage. What an injustice it is that people work extremely hard each week to create enormous wealth for the McDonald’s corporation, yet their pay scarcely affords them an existence. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those workers who took industrial action and achieved a 6% pay rise, and will he encourage fellow fast-food workers, and indeed any group of workers, to take collective action against their employers if their pay does not afford them an existence?

On an associated point, what exactly is the rationale for the sharp decrease in minimum wage when we move between age brackets, and in particular for the difference between the rates for those in the 18 to 20 bracket, and those in the 21 and above bracket? It would be really helpful if the Minister set out the assumptions that led the Government to conclude that workers aged 18 to 20 should be paid a different rate from those aged 21, for exactly the same work. That would be instructive; that way, the the voting public, young and old, could understand our different political positions on this. As he knows, the Labour party is committed to a minimum wage of £10 an hour for all workers aged 18 and over by 2020.

The pay changes that will take place in April are a result of recommendations by the Low Pay Commission, as has been said. It is important that the state sets a minimum rate of pay based on the commission’s recommendations, but does the Minister agree that it would be so much better, and so much more dignified, if workers had direct control over setting their pay, through national sectoral collective bargaining? It is workers who understand their work intimately, and who ultimately are best placed to bargain over what they are paid for that work, within a negotiating framework.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech, and she is making some very powerful points, but could she clarify something? Does the Labour party support the Low Pay Commission or not? From what she is saying, I am beginning to doubt that it does support the commission.

[Laura Pidcock]

I have said twice in this short speech that of course a rise in wages is welcome, but we have a completely different philosophy on how wages should be increased.

[Andrew Griffiths]

And the Low Pay Commission?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will address the Minister’s point: we support the Low Pay Commission’s making these recommendations; that is absolutely right. However, we would prefer that power to be in the hands of workers, through national collective sectoral agreements, so that they could bargain over their terms, pay and conditions. Our position is that that would be preferable.

I support these increases—I say that for the third time—but it is my priority and responsibility to be critical of low pay in this nation. The Minister must acknowledge that even with these changes, there will still be people in poverty, struggling, and that there are other solutions to low pay. I support these increases within the limited parameters of today’s discussion and decision-making process.

14:42

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure, Mrs Moon, to see you in the Chair.

I associate myself with many of the shadow Minister’s remarks, and while I do not plan to oppose the recommendations, I have questions to ask and points to make.

I thank the Minister for confirming that there will be an increase in staff at the national minimum wage unit. That is important, because the latest National Audit Office report demonstrates that 208,000 people are not being paid their proper wages. That is a massive challenge, so I hope that the Minister will give us more of a timetable for what is happening.

The Low Pay Commission makes recommendations based on parameters set by the Government. It was not the commission that decided to set different minimum wage rates for different ages. Can the Minister provide a justification—as the Government failed to do when we discussed the matter last year—for applying the national living wage only to people of 25 and over? The age of 25 seems to have been plucked out of the air with no justification. Many people younger than 25 have the same commitments and the same bills to pay. Are the Government looking to review the difference in national minimum wage rates depending on age?

My only concern about the wage rates that we are agreeing today is that the wage gap between the youngest and oldest workers seems to be increasing. Is the Minister looking specifically at that? Does he believe, as I do, that we should narrow that gap, not widen it?

14:47

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable and detailed comments. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the hon. Member for North West Durham talks down the state of the economy. She may view a pay rise of £600 a year as “small”—I think that was the word she used—but I do not. I draw her attention to the fact that the annual earnings of a full-time minimum-wage worker will have increased by more than £2,000 since the introduction of the national living wage in April 2016. I do not think that that is small; I think it is important.

[Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister has fully taken into account the impact of the increase in the amount that people can earn before they pay any tax at all. My recollection is that it was £6,475 back in 2010; perhaps he will tell us what it is today.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My right hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. The fact that we have taken so many people out of paying tax altogether has made a huge difference to the money in their pocket at the end of the month. Through the national living wage and through changes to taxation, we have made a huge contribution to the take-home pay and the bank accounts of the people we represent, particularly the poorest in society.

[Laura Pidcock]

It is not a victory to take people out of tax if they are still so low-paid. Would the Minister not prefer that they were paid more and therefore paid tax?

[Andrew Griffiths]

What I am concerned about is ensuring that the lowest-paid in society keep more of their money, so that they have more money to decide what to do with and to look after their families with.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Whether the threshold is £13,000 or £10,000 does not really make any difference to someone on £5,000, does it?

[Andrew Griffiths]

That is why, as a result of the decisions we make today, those people will be £600 a year better off.

The hon. Members for North West Durham and for Glasgow South West both raised the issue of differences in pay according to age. Let me explain the rationale behind that. The age-related rates protect younger workers, who are more vulnerable to the labour market. For example, between November and January, the unemployment rate for people aged 16 to 24 was 12.3%, compared with 3.1% for those aged 25 or over. We are rightly cautious for this group and do not want to harm young workers through the policy, which was intended to benefit them.

Nobody wants to see people paid less than they would hope for. When coming to its conclusions, the Low Pay Commission bears in mind the impact that its decisions will have on the lowest-paid in our society, but it also has a mind to the impact on jobs, the economy and the businesses that have to pay. Bear in mind that this is employers’ money that we are spending; it is they who have to bear the brunt of the decision we make. Unlike the hon. Member for North West Durham, who seemed to be quite negative towards the Low Pay Commission, I pay tribute to it and the work that it has done.

Our industrial strategy aims to build a country that works for everyone, wherever they live and wherever they work. It recognises that it is people who drive success, whether they are innovators, entrepreneurs or workers. Good employers have long recognised the value of investment in their workforce. Ensuring that we have a fair minimum wage is just one way in which the industrial strategy is working to build and support the investment in people. The Government continue to build an economy that works for everyone. Making work pay for the lowest earners in our society is a key part of our commitment. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

14:52

Committee rose.

School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Albert Owen

† Chalk, Alex (Cheltenham) (Con)

† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

Coffey, Ann (Stockport) (Lab)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

† Gibb, Nick (Minister for School Standards)

† Graham, Luke (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)

† Hall, Luke (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)

† Hoare, Simon (North Dorset) (Con)

† Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab)

† Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

† Knight, Sir Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con)

† Milling, Amanda (Cannock Chase) (Con)

† Platt, Jo (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con)

† West, Catherine (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)

† Whately, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)

Joseph Watt, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 21 March 2018

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018

08:55

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 10).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Owen. I can feel the palpable energy in the room, among Members and officials alike, from being in the House this early for a Statutory Instrument Committee.

The context for the debate is the Conservative manifesto statement:

“Under a future Conservative government, the amount of money following your child into school will be protected. There will be a real terms increase in the schools budget in the next Parliament.”

That pledge was repeated, and the previous Prime Minister was clear about what it meant:

“I can tell you, with a Conservative Government the amount of money following your child into school will not be cut.”

But the Government are not keeping that promise to the British people. Under the present Government, schools face the first real-terms cuts to their budgets in nearly 20 years, despite the Secretary of State’s having inadvertently claimed the opposite in the House last week.

The National Audit Office has said that under the current spending settlement there will be

“an 8 per cent cut in pupil funding”

between 2015 and 2020. The same conclusion was reached by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That means that every school in every region and town will lose money because of the Government’s failure to protect funding in schools. The so-called fair funding formula—there we are at last—is simply a redistribution of a sum of money that is already inadequate to support schools and provide children with the excellent education that they are entitled to.

The National Audit Office has also said that the Department for Education expects schools to find a total of £3 billion savings in the course of the Parliament, yet it has failed to communicate to them how to achieve it. Of course I support the principle that all schools should receive fair funding, and there are progressor elements in some of the regulations before the Committee, but the answer is not to take money from schools and redistribute it when budgets are being cut across the country.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some schools now tell parents that they have to close at 1 o’clock? They give various reasons, but we all know that they do not have the money to pay teachers in the afternoon. Does he agree that although that may not be unlawful, specifically, it takes vital study time away from young people?

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more. Schools are having to make heinous decisions. In the Minister’s county, West Sussex, some are already threatening a four-day week because of the budget cuts.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the real-terms funding increase that schools across the country are getting between now and 2020?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Lady was recently quoted in KentOnline boasting about a 0.5% real-terms increase in school funding, but when inflation in education is running at 3% or 4% that will be a massive cut for schools in her area.

[Helen Whately]

It is a real-terms increase.

[The Chair]

Order.

[Mike Kane]

The solution is to invest, to help every child receive an excellent education. The Government’s stated aim in revising the schools funding formula is fairness. There should be fairness in the formula, and there are good things in it, such as the emphasis on high need, a deprivation index—albeit using a crude measure—and a focus on prior attainment. Why would the Opposition not welcome those things? However, there is nothing fair about a proposal under which funding will be cut from high-performing schools in deprived areas.

A fair approach would take the best-performing areas in the country and apply the lessons from those schools everywhere. It would look objectively at the level of funding required to deliver in the best-performing schools, particularly in areas of high deprivation, and use that as the basis for a formula to be applied across the whole country. Unfortunately, though, the Government are not listening to the voices of schools, teachers or parents. Evidence from the general election suggests that 750,000 people switched their votes to Labour because of the impact of school funding cuts on their local communities.

We only have to look at the impact already being played out. Under this Government more than half a million infant schoolchildren are in super-sized classes, and new research by leading education unions shows that class sizes are rising in the majority of secondary schools in England as a result of the Government’s underfunding of education. There is a particular problem in secondary schools because of the shortfall in funding of £500 million a year for 11 to 16-year-olds between 2015-16 and 2019-20, plus the deep cuts to sixth-form funding of more than 17% per pupil since 2010.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Subjects such as music are now offered at A-level only in one school in a large area. Is it therefore any surprise that under 44.1% of the Royal Academy of Music’s intake come from state schools?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am a product of the Manchester music service, and the music education that I received as a child is nowhere near what we now provide in our schools. We now have secondary schools in Yorkshire charging parents for music GCSEs. My final point on class sizes is that 62% of secondary schools in England have increased the size of their classes.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend brought up Yorkshire, it would be remiss of me not to intervene. He also talked about 16-to-18 colleges, and another hit for them is that they are charged VAT. Thomas Rotherham College, a great college that gave a broad curriculum, had to cut its curriculum size right down, and giving a holistic education has become so unviable that it has been forced to become an academy. That makes one wonder if there is a grand plan at play.

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more. The curriculum is being narrowed for a whole series of reasons, but the main one is severe funding cuts in our schools.

I have talked about class sizes, and the second huge impact is teacher numbers. Staff numbers in secondary schools fell by 15,000 between 2014-15 and 2016-17 despite their having 4,500 more pupils to teach. There is a huge recruitment and retention crisis. The Times Educational Supplement says that we will be short of 43,000 secondary school teachers in the next few years. The figures are being masked by the greater supply in primary schools. That equates to an average loss of 5.5 staff members in each school since 2015. In practical terms that means 2.4 fewer classroom teachers, 1.6 fewer teaching assistants and 1.5 fewer support staff in every school.

Cuts to frontline teaching posts are happening at a time when pupil-to-teacher ratios are rising, which means bigger classes and less individual attention for children. Research published only last week by the Education Policy Institute shows how many schools have been struggling financially and are now in deficit.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cuts to other public services and mental health services in particular are putting undue pressure on our schools, given their teacher resource capacity?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extraordinarily valid point. We know from our postbags that a rising number of parents cannot get special educational needs and disability provision for their children because schools are having to cut that and less specialist services back at local authority level. Local authorities have been cut—they have lost around 30% to 40% of their budgets—which has had a direct impact on the services that schools can buy in.

The number of local authority maintained secondary schools in deficit has nearly trebled, which means that more than a quarter of all such schools are now in deficit. In 2016-17, the proportion of primary schools in deficit increased significantly, to 7.1%. The average primary school deficit also notably increased, from £72,000 in 2010-11 to £107,000 in 2016-17.

Perhaps the most worrying finding was that a large proportion of local authority maintained schools are now spending more than their income, and 40% of those secondaries have had balances in decline for at least two years in a row. Similar figures are found for local authority maintained primaries; in 2016-17 more than 60% were spending more than their income. A quarter had had a falling balance for two years or more.

The Education Policy Institute report points to the inevitable outcome of the growing budget pressures. Staff account for the majority of spending by schools, at around two thirds. It is therefore likely that schools will find it difficult to achieve the scale of savings necessary without cutting back on staff. What is the Government response? Only last week we found that the new Education Secretary had been forced into an embarrassing U-turn after he claimed wrongly that school spending is going up. That is the message they would like to put out. The constant delay of the fair funding formula led to constant Conservative press releases about fixing funding in our schools, but that has been far from the case.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that in places such as Bradford West, where we have an excellent cluster of maintained nurseries, we are still not sure where the funding is coming from? If it is coming, will it be to meet the existing deficit—from special needs, early years and so on—or will it be new money?

[Mike Kane]

The biggest impact we can have as civil society and government on the social mobility and educational attainment of our young people is in the early years, but our Sure Start centres have been decimated over the past few years, with no guarantee—absolutely none—of what their future will be. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

The Secretary of State originally said:

“We know that real-terms funding per pupil is increasing across the system, and with the national funding formula, each school will see at least a small cash increase.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 536.]

Last week, however, he had to respond to the House on that. What had Sir David Norgrove, head of the UK Statistics Authority, pointed out? He had said that funding was being frozen in real terms until 2020, not increased. The Secretary of State therefore had to write to correct the record.

I have a few questions for the Minister. One of the major issues is whether he will confirm that the regulations allow for a 1.5% cut in funding per pupil in cash terms. Our evidence suggests that they do, so that is a fair funding formula that allows for a 1.5% cut in funding in cash terms. Will he confirm that the Government will not increase overall pupil funding? As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, the additional £1.3 billion announced after the election last year keeps funding basically flat in real terms over the next two-year period. Will he confirm that? Will he also confirm that funding has fallen in real terms since 2015? For example, the National Audit Office reports an accumulated £2.7 billion cut from school budgets since 2015, despite the regulations before us.

The national funding formula consultation has been delayed and delayed, and pushed back and pushed back after the election. Looking at the regulations, the formula has been a colossal waste of time, effort and money, and has come with that delay. The Government have come to a conclusion that only tinkers with the edges of the funding crisis in our schools. For now, I will leave it there.

09:09

[Sarah Champion]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Owen.

I want to put some real figures into our debate. We keep hearing about “real terms” funding and savings, so let us put some real figures in there. Rotherham has 88 primary schools and 14 secondary schools, and there have been real cuts to their funding in the past couple of years. In 2015-16, income was £4,150 per primary school child and £5,876 per secondary school child. However, by 2017-18, funding had dropped to £3,954 for that same primary school child and to £5,587 per secondary school pupil. Looking forward to 2019-20, under this funding formula, schools will receive £3,965 per primary school child and £5,518 per secondary school child. Collectively, the primary schools in Rotherham are losing £4,404,897, and the secondary schools are losing just over £5 million. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said there had been a real-terms increase. I am sorry, but funding has fallen in real terms since 2015.

[Naz Shah]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those cuts are landing in places with the most deprivation, such as her constituency and mine?

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were hoping for a funding formula that recognised the different pressures in different areas. A blanket funding formula does not recognise the real issues we have in the north of England in particular.

The IFS states that overall, school funding will have fallen by 4.6% in real terms between 2015 and 2019. We do not know the real impact of the next round of cuts, but perhaps the Committee can make an informed assessment by looking at what happened in the previous two years. Between 2014-15 and 2016-17, class sizes rose by 54% in primary schools and by 50% in secondary schools. In the same period, the ratio of pupils to teachers rose by 61% in primary schools and by 71% in secondary schools. The ratio of pupils to teaching assistants rose by 58% in primary schools and by 79% in secondary schools.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is having a big effect on morale in schools? Did she know that a position to learn to be a teacher in a primary school in my constituency that once attracted 150 applicants now attracts 10?

[Sarah Champion]

I did not know that, but it pains me to hear it. When I was going through school and university, people aspired to become a teacher. Teaching was a secure career in which people felt they were giving something back to their community. Now, it is seen as something to try to escape from, and we do not attract the best people to be teachers. That is such a shame. The impact on future generations is immeasurable.

Why has there been such a dramatic rise in the ratio of pupils to staff? It is not rocket science. To try to bridge the gap between their costs and the income they get under this Government, schools have had to lose staff. In the same period—2014-15 to 2016-17—staff cuts in primary schools increased by 44%, and cuts to secondary teaching staff in Rotherham rose by a staggering 93%.

Using that as my evidence, I guess that class sizes in Rotherham will increase again for the next two years under this Government. Schools will be forced to cut more staff, so the pupil to staff ratio will increase. There is no evidence—if anyone can show me some, I would welcome that—that bigger classes lead to a better education. I have not discovered evidence of that anywhere in the world. To be honest, all the evidence points to bigger classes leading to worse education.

Are children in Rotherham worth a good education? Is it a surprise that we have some of the highest rates of exclusion and youth unemployment when there is not enough money to pay for an adequate number of teaching staff? I am afraid that things will only get worse under the regulations. The minimum funding guarantee in the local formula is currently set at minus 1.5%. That is a guarantee that no school can lose more than 1.5% of its per pupil funding year on year as a consequence of changes to the local funding formula. Paragraph 8.4 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“The new level of flexibility around the MFG set out in these Regulations will allow local authorities to set the MFG at any value between -1.5% and +0.5%, allowing them to replicate this element of the national funding formula at a local level if they choose.”

The second stage of the consultation underlined the importance of stability in funding levels for schools. As a result, the national funding formula will allocate a cash grant of at least 0.5% per pupil for every school. This new MFG flexibility will enable local authorities to pass those gains on to schools, but here is the but—as of yesterday the CPI inflation rate dropped, woohoo, to 2.7%. Even if the local authorities had the cash to apply the maximum funding of plus 0.5%, schools would still be losing 2.2% in real terms. Perhaps that is why paragraph 10.3 of the explanatory memorandum says:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument.”

One wonders why.

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

Because it does not affect the private sector.

[Sarah Champion]

I appreciate the clarification from the Minister.

I would now like to ask him a couple of specific questions, if he can answer them. Let me quote part 3, chapter 1, regulation 13(3):

“The date for ascertaining pupil numbers is 5th October 2017.”

I will give an example of why that is likely to present problems in my constituency. In an area of Rotherham called Eastwood, we have quite a large Roma population and I have spoken to a number of my primary schools to discover what happens. Children tend to be signed up for the autumn term and start in September but then go missing, reappearing later in the year. I am concerned that class sizes might have increased after 5 October but the funding might not follow that.

In addition, because we have a lot of cheap privately rented accommodation, a lot of asylum seekers are sent to Rotherham. They come throughout the year, so what happens to pupil funding if, again, they arrive after 5 October? I am not sure whether the Minister has some money ring-fenced for when classes ebb and flow but his response would be most helpful, because I know it is an issue for my schools.

Regulation 18(3), in the same chapter, states:

“For the purposes of this regulation, a child is disabled if he or she is paid or entitled to disability living allowance by virtue of section 71 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East mentioned special educational needs and how late children are now getting statements. In my constituency it is getting increasingly hard to get statements because of access to the services that can do the assessment. A child might enter a school without a statement but after a couple of years get a diagnosis, for example, of autism. Would the additional money follow through with that child, once the diagnosis is in place?

My final point concerns chapter 2, regulation 27, which discusses how funding will be clawed back from maintained schools if a child is excluded. Does that provision also apply to academies?

09:19

[Nick Gibb]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I am pleased to be able to discuss the school and early years finance regulations at a time when local authorities are about to receive their first grant payments calculated by the national funding formula—an historic and necessary reform.

The regulations set out how local authorities should distribute between local schools the £33.7 billion of funding that they collectively receive through the schools block of the dedicated schools grant. Before I turn to the regulations, it is important to place them in the context of the historic change that the Government have made to the broader funding system. The introduction of the national funding formula means that, for the first time, this £33.7 billion of funding will be distributed between local authorities based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country.

The Government are determined to create an education system that offers opportunity to everyone at every stage of their lives. That is the key to raising standards for all and improving social mobility. We are making significant progress: more schools than ever before are rated good or outstanding, the attainment gap is beginning to close and we have launched 12 opportunity areas to drive improvement in parts of the country that we know can do better. However, those achievements have been made against the backdrop of the old, unfair funding system, which we have reformed. Under the old system, schools across the country with similar pupil characteristics have received markedly different levels of funding for no good reason.

[Catherine West]

Will the Minister explain whether more schools being rated as good or outstanding, which is happening in many of our constituencies, is linked to a higher rate of exclusions?

[Nick Gibb]

We have launched an exclusions review, conducted by our former colleague, Ed Timpson. He will look at precisely those issues. We actually raised the bar for Ofsted’s judgments on schools. Despite our raising the bar for academic standards, we are still seeing more schools rated as good or outstanding.

In the hon. Lady’s constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green, schools would attract 0.9% more funding if the national funding formula were implemented in full, based on the 2017-18 data. Under the national funding formula, schools in Hornsey and Wood Green will be funded at £5,671 per pupil, compared with the national average of £4,655 per pupil.

[Catherine West]

In that case, will he direct two schools that insist on closing at 1 pm on a Friday, which parents have raised with me as an issue, to open their gates until 3 pm?

[Nick Gibb]

As she will know from the figures I just cited, schools in her constituency are being funded at significantly higher than the national average.

[Catherine West]

That does not answer the question, Minister.

[Nick Gibb]

I am coming to the hon. Lady’s question. Given that schools in Hornsey and Wood Green are being funded at significantly more than the national average, and given that the vast majority of schools are not doing the things she talks about, there is no reason for schools in her constituency to take that action.

Across the country, schools with similar pupil characteristics have received markedly different levels of funding. That is why our promise to reform this unfair, opaque and outdated school and high needs funding system and introduce a national funding formula has been so important, and I am particularly pleased that this Government were able to deliver on that.

This reform represents the biggest improvement in the school funding system for more than a decade. From April 2018, the introduction of the national funding formula will put the funding system firmly on track to deliver resources on a consistent and transparent basis, based on the individual circumstances of every school in the country. Following extensive consultation, in which we carefully considered more than 25,000 individual responses to our proposals, last September we were able to publish full details of the school and high needs national funding formulae and the impact they will have on every local authority.

Those proposals were underpinned by an additional £1.3 billion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, over and above the funding confirmed at the 2015 spending review. School funding is at a record high because of the choices we have made to prioritise school funding, even as we faced difficult decisions elsewhere to restore our country’s finances.

[Naz Shah]

I visited the launch of the Bradford for Teaching initiative, trying to get teachers in. The truth is that when I talk to teachers, and those amazing people who want to teach, I hear that the funding formula does not allow the schools to get the best teachers in. It is not just about the children; the impact on the level of teaching in places such as Bradford West really needs to be looked at. These solutions are just not good enough.

[Nick Gibb]

There are two points. First, we have only been able to deliver these high levels of spending on schools, rising from £41 billion this year to £42.4 billion next year and £43.5 billion the year after, because the way in which we have managed the economy means we can afford to do so. A Labour Government, particularly a Labour Government under the current leadership—any future Government led by the party opposite—would bankrupt our economy and there would be no chance of any of these increases in funding coming into our public services. We have to have a strong economy first of all. Secondly, responding to the hon. Lady’s point, schools in Bradford West, as she should know, would attract 1.3% more funding if the national funding formula were implemented in full, based on the 2017-18 data. That is equivalent to £1.4 million more funding for those schools.

[Helen Whately]

Having campaigned for the fairer funding formula on behalf of my Kent constituency, I welcome the formula. For many years, similar schools with similar pupils in other areas were getting significantly more money than schools in my area.

[Mike Kane]

It is 0.5%.

[Helen Whately]

It gives children in my constituency a fairer chance of getting the good education they need, coupled with rising funding. It is truly welcome.

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said from a sedentary position that it is 0.5%. Schools in Faversham and Mid Kent would attract 6.4% more funding if the national funding formula were implemented in full based on the 2017-18 data. That is equivalent to £2.7 million, so I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent made her intervention.

The new funding formula will be fairer. The additional funds mean, as I have said, that spending will rise from £41 billion this year to £43.5 billion by 2019-20. As the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, that will allow us to maintain schools and high-need funding in real terms per pupil for the next two years. I hope that answers the comments made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. As the IFS also pointed out, by 2020 real-terms funding per pupil will be 70% higher than it was in 1990, and 50% higher than it was in 2000.

[Sarah Champion]

When the Minister was talking about the increases over the next two years, I did a quick bit of maths. The increase seems almost to keep up with inflation, but there does not seem to be any additional money on top of that. Does the Minister agree?

[Nick Gibb]

I will come to the cost pressures that schools have faced in the last two years, particularly the increase in the employers’ contribution to teachers’ pensions—we regard teachers’ pensions as very important—and the higher level of the employers’ national insurance contribution. Again, the higher employers’ national insurance contribution is about raising more tax revenue to help close the historic deficit we inherited. Achieving the reduction of that deficit to 2% of national income, from 10% when we came into office, has enabled us to maintain a strong economy. We acknowledge that there have been cost pressures on schools in that period. Those cost pressures have now been absorbed and schools will see real-terms increases across the board in their funding, taken as a whole.

[Catherine West]

The Minister is extremely generous in giving way to me a second time. Will he comment on the increase to NHS staff today? Will we hear a further announcement in a few months’ time that there may be more money for teachers, given that there tends to be a knock-on effect when one public sector group gets a pay increase? Not that any arguments were won last June, I hasten to add.

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. We have given evidence to the School Teachers Review Body; the Secretary of State gave oral evidence a week ago. We will receive its recommendations, I think, in May and we will respond to them then. It is important that these issues are dealt with by independent pay review bodies.

With the additional £1.3 billion that we were able to identify last summer, we have been able to ensure that all schools and all areas will attract some additional funding over the next two years while providing for up to 6% gains per pupil for the most underfunded schools. That significant extra spending in our schools demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that each child receives a world-class education. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East cited our manifesto; we have gone further than our manifesto commitment that no school should lose funding as a result of the national funding formula. Now, every school in every area will attract at least 0.5% more per pupil in 2018-19 than it received in 2017-18, and 1% more in 2019-20.

We also heard throughout our consultation on the formula that we could do more through our formula to support those schools that attract the lowest levels of per pupil funding. We listened to those concerns, and our formula rightly will direct significant increases towards those schools. In 2019-20, the formula will provide minimum per pupil funding of £4,800 in respect of every secondary school, and £3,500 in respect of primaries. In 2018-19, as a step towards those levels, secondary schools will attract at least £4,600, and primary schools £3,300. These new minimum levels recognise the challenges of the very lowest funded schools.

There was considerable debate during the consultation on the funding formula about how much funding it was appropriate to direct towards schools with higher numbers of pupils likely to need additional support—I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for that element of the national funding formula—as a result of a disadvantaged background, low prior attainment, or because they speak English as an additional language. In our final formula, we have been able to protect this funding—£5.9 billion in 2018-19—while improving its targeting. Alongside that, we will continue to deliver the pupil premium— some £2.5 billion a year—to provide additional support to schools to narrow the attainment gaps and to promote social mobility. As I mentioned earlier, we have closed the attainment gap by 10% in both primary and secondary schools since 2011.

The dedicated schools grant provides local authorities with funding for their high needs provision and for early years. We are absolutely committed to supporting children who face the greatest barriers to their education. That is why we have also reformed the funding for children and young people with high needs, by introducing a high needs national funding formula. That will distribute funding for children and young people with high needs more fairly, based on accepted indicators of need in each area.

The additional spending that we have announced means that every local authority will see a minimum increase in high needs funding of 0.5% in 2018-19, and 1% in 2019-20. Underfunded local authorities will receive gains of up to 3% per head a year for the next two years. Overall, local authorities will receive £6 billion to support those with high needs in 2018-19. We are also determined to support as many families as possible with access to high-quality, affordable childcare. That is why in 2019-20 we will spend a further £6 billion on childcare support—a record amount of support. This record spending includes £1 billion a year, delivering 30 hours of free childcare for the working parents of 3 and 4 year-olds and funding the increase in rates that we introduced in April 2017.

[Sarah Champion]

I welcome the fact that the Minister talks about childcare, as that is one of the quickest and most effective ways to bridge the gender pay gap and to get women back into work. The National Audit Office says that Sure Start funding, which is very close to my heart, has been cut by £763 million since 2010. How does that fit into the Minister’s attempt to support all children?

[Nick Gibb]

We have to marshal our resources. A lot of the statistics cited on Sure Start are to do with buildings and not the provision of services in those buildings. Schools in Rotherham would attract 4.5% more funding if the national funding formula were implemented in full, based on the 2017-18 data, coming to £2.9 million. Under the national funding formula, schools in Rotherham will be funded at £4,982 per pupil, compared with the national average of £4,655.

[Jo Platt]

Does the Minister agree that losing investment in early intervention and prevention is having a huge knock-on effect on school readiness for children, and therefore on attainment? Should the NAO figures on the closure of Sure Start centres not be taken seriously, and should we look again at investing in early intervention and prevention?

[Nick Gibb]

We take those issues seriously and the hon. Lady raises an important point. However, the attainment gap between those from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more fortunate peers in primary schools has closed by 10%, and there has been a huge increase in children’s ability to read. We are moving from joint 10th place to joint eighth place in the international reading surveys of nine-year-olds, and there has been a huge increase in the proportion of six-year-olds who pass the phonics check—in 2012, 58% passed, but 81% passed in 2017.

[Jo Platt]

Look at the social mobility figures. Why are a record number of people unable to get on when they leave if attainment is good in our schools?

[Nick Gibb]

We have some of the lowest levels of young people not in education, employment or training —lower, certainly, than under the previous Labour Government. We have very low levels of youth unemployment compared with other countries in the European Union, and we have the lowest level of unemployment in this country for 42 years. That is the consequence of proper stewardship of our public finances and our economy. That is how we provide opportunities and social mobility, ensuring that more people have the opportunity to earn a pay packet, and pay their rent, mortgage and bills. I will give way to the hon. Member for Rotherham.

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister is incredibly kind and intuitive, and I thank him for giving way without my asking—[Laughter.] He could see that I was willing him to do that; he is a good man. I would love him to come to Rotherham. I am grateful for the £20 uplift per primary school child that comes on top of the cuts we have sustained for the past eight years, but £20 will buy us a book and a couple of pots of paint; it will not deal with the decades of deprivation faced by my constituents. I understand that the Minister is genuinely trying to come up with a fair funding formula, but life is not fair. In Rotherham we have had so many knocks and lost so much industry that a small increase is not enough to get us to the standard of a school in Surrey, for example. I urge the Minister to reconsider.

[Nick Gibb]

I would be delighted to go to Rotherham again. I was the candidate there in 1994 in a by-election. I thoroughly enjoyed my stay, and I was delighted narrowly to beat Screaming Lord Sutch. The hon. Lady raises an important point, and the £2.9 million extra funding is equivalent to about £214 per pupil in Rotherham. I would be delighted to come and see some schools in Rotherham soon.

[Naz Shah]

Given that the Minister is in the mood to travel to Yorkshire, perhaps he could come to West Yorkshire and visit my constituency of Bradford West. We have had this discussion previously, but the real-term cuts to SEN, and the immense pressures on local authorities to deliver on education have had a real impact in my community. I would appreciate the Minister coming a few miles up the road to West Yorkshire so that I can introduce him to headteachers of schools in my constituency.

[Nick Gibb]

I would be delighted. The hon. Lady and I have discussed education in her area, and I know how passionate she is about improving academic standards in schools in her constituency. I would, of course, be delighted to visit some schools in her constituency with her in the very near future.

Under these regulations, the national funding formula will allocate the schools, high needs and central school services blocks of the dedicated schools grant fairly to local authorities. The school and early years financial regulations govern how local authorities can distribute that funding between schools and early years providers, and they apply for the coming financial year. Regulations that have recently been made will replace those for 2017-18.

In 2018-19 and 2019-20, local authorities will continue to set their own local funding formulae for schools, which will determine individual schools’ budgets in their areas. Those formulae are set following consultation with local schools. It remains the Government’s clear intention to move, in time, to a system in which each school’s individual budget is set directly by the national funding formula without local variation. That will ultimately ensure that similar schools will receive similar funding, regardless of where they are situated.

However, by continuing to allow a small but important element of flexibility for local authorities over the next couple of years, the regulations will be able to help to smooth the transition to the national funding formula at a local level. They set the rules within which local authorities must operate as they set their local formulae. The changes we have made to the regulations for 2018-19, compared with 2017-18, enable local authorities to mirror the national funding formula for schools in their local formulae. Unless we make these regulatory changes, they would not be allowed to do that. Many local councils have decided that they should replicate the national funding formula in their local formulae. We support that decision, which is a strong vote of confidence in the principles behind our national funding formula.

The regulations need to be made each year, and for the most part, the 2018 regulations simply ensure that the rules set in the 2017 regulations will continue in place. The changes we have made are intended to enable local authorities to mirror the national funding formula.

The changes on school funding are, first, the introduction of an optional minimum per-pupil funding level—the £4,600 I mentioned—which local authorities can now use as a factor in their local funding formulae to ensure that every school receives a minimum amount of funding for each pupil. Unless we pass the regulations, local authorities would not have the discretion to do that.

I do not understand why the Opposition prayed against the regulations. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the -1.5% minimum funding guarantee. That is the current position. Currently, if a local authority wants a minimum funding guarantee to smooth the effect of any changes to the local formula, to ensure that no school can lose more than -1.5% per pupil when a local formula changes, it can introduce that minimum funding guarantee. We have changed that in the regulations to give local authorities more flexibility, so that, instead of the option of -1.5%, they can now also vary the amount, up to +0.5%, which is the minimum funding guarantee in the national funding formula.

By praying against the regulations, the hon. Gentleman is entrenching in the rules for the local funding formula a minimum funding guarantee of -1.5% and preventing local authorities from having a +0.5% minimum funding guarantee, which we have introduced into the national funding formula. Secondly, the regulations on indicators of deprivation have also changed. Local authorities can choose to use a combination of the free school meals, Ever 6 free school meals and income deprivation affecting children index—IDACI—formulae. Thirdly, there are also some technical changes regarding looked-after children and the scaling factor used to set funding for pupils with low prior attainment.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also raised issues about significant growth in pupil numbers in constituencies. She cited regulation 13, which is designed to tackle precisely the problem she refers to. Regulation 13(4) states:

“Where (a) there is or may be an increase to the published admission number at the school; or (b) the school is subject to a prescribed alteration that may lead to an increase in the number of pupils at the school, the authority may, instead of ascertaining pupil numbers on 5th October 2017, include an estimate of pupil numbers.”

That will help schools to ensure that they have the proper funding as a consequence of a growth in their numbers.

The change to the high needs regulations removes an adjustment that was previously made to schools’ five to 16-year-old pupil numbers to reflect the number of places that the local authority has reserved for children with special educational needs. From 2018-19, five to 16 year-old pupils in such places will attract funding to their school through the local formula on the same basis as all other pupils at the school. Local authorities will have additional funding of £6,000 for each place from the high needs budget.

We introduced a new early years funding formula in April 2017; therefore, the regulations for 2018-19 are largely unchanged from 2017-18. The changes we have made in these regulations implement previously announced policy or are amendments intended to bring greater clarity to existing policies. For example, when we introduced our new funding formula, we announced that from 1 April this year, local authorities must pass on 95% of the national funding formula funding allocation to providers. That is up from 93% in the previous year, and it is an important change in these regulations.

How funding is used in practice is just as important as its fair distribution. We are committed to helping schools to improve pupil outcomes and promote social mobility by getting the best value from all their resources. School efficiency must start with, and be led by, schools and school leaders, but the Department provides practical support, deals and tools that will help all schools improve their efficiency. We will continue our commitment to securing national deals that procure better value goods and services in areas that all schools purchase. Schools can already save an average of 10% on their energy bills and around 40% on printers, photocopiers and scanners. Those deals have already saved schools over £46 million.

Across school spending as a whole, we are improving the transparency and usability of data, so that parents and governors can more easily see how funding is being spent and understand not just educational standards, but financial effectiveness. We will continue to expand our package of support for schools so they can ensure every pound is achieving the best outcome for pupils.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the question of teacher numbers. We have record numbers of teachers in our schools: we have 457,000, up 15,500 since 2010. Last year we achieved 89% of our secondary target for graduate recruitment and 100% of our primary target. Returners are rising, from 13,000 in 2011 to 14,200 in 2016. We have tax-free bursaries of up to £26,000 for priority subjects. People often talk about retention; 70% of teachers are still in teaching after five years and 60% are still in teaching after 10 years, but the important point is that that figure has remained broadly constant for the last 20 years.

Class sizes have not shifted very much: they are about 27.1 in primary and 20.5 in secondary schools, on average.

[Mike Kane]

Will the Minister confirm that there are more teachers because there are more pupils, that one third of teachers have left teaching since they trained since 2011 and that education authorities have not filled one third of vacancies for teacher training courses next year?

[Nick Gibb]

There were a number of points there. First, the pupil numbers have increased; we have created 735,000 new school places since 2010, and one of the first things we did in 2010 was double the amount of capital spending on creating new school places. The previous Government had cut school places, particularly in primary schools, where 200,000 places were cut during that period despite knowledge of the increased birth rate.

The hon. Gentleman’s figure of 33% leaving teacher training who joined in 2011 is the 30% figure I was referring to; there are 70% still in teaching after five years. That is broadly the same figure that it has been for the last 20 years. People change their minds after starting a profession, and that figure has not changed significantly over the past 30 years.

I forget what the final issue was that the hon. Gentleman raised, but he also mentioned the report by the Education Policy Institute, which I think came out last week. We do not recognise the findings of that report, because the latest figures show that schools hold surpluses of more than £4 billion against a cumulative deficit of less than £300 million. We trust schools to manage their own budgets, and only a small percentage are operating a cumulative deficit. We are providing support to help those schools get the most out of spending.

I thank the Opposition again for securing this debate. For this Government, providing a high-quality education for every child is a top priority. The additional funding we have announced, together with the introduction of a national funding formula, will provide schools with the resources they need to deliver that. The school and early years finance regulations represent a vital piece in the funding jigsaw, making it possible for local authorities to make funding fairer at a local as well as a national level. By doing so, we can continue to drive school standards ever higher.

09:49

[Mike Kane]

So there we have it—that is the silver bullet, and a way to get the Government out of the political hole that the previous Government got into over getting fair funding for schools; we are left with a variance of 1.5% down or 0.5% up. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in the room, and I hope that he had a good weekend, by the way—it seems to be a great festival. However, he has been quoted by Gloucestershire Live as saying that the national funding formula needed “major surgery”. What we are considering is not even a minor intervention.

The Minister said that the manifesto commitment was that no schools would lose money. That was the commitment—not that no schools would lose money because of the national funding formula. Manifesto commitments are not something that can be made up as you go along. It is incredible that there can be a funding formula with so much variance, so that schools can still receive a cut because of it.

The Minister was good with his facts, and in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green he talked about schools in her constituency. Perhaps I may point out the £82,000 cut affecting St. Catherine’s Catholic Primary School in his constituency, and the reduction in pupil funding of £355 per pupil. Schools in West Sussex are threatening a four-day week. That, in the Minister’s back yard, is incredible.

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about his facts. I tend to know the schools in my own constituency quite well, and every school in my constituency will receive an increase in funding according to the national funding formula. Many of the schools there are receiving significant increases—way above the 0.5% that some schools are receiving.

[Mike Kane]

Again, that is a sophist argument that some schools will receive an increase, but not in terms of the general level of cuts since 2015; and it is nothing in comparison with what the Minister rightly pointed out about budget pressure and inflation. All the schools in his constituency will be taking a cut over the next few years.

[Catherine West]

A similar problem has been mentioned to the one in my constituency, where schools are cutting the school day, and I hope that the matter will be raised again, to prevent a domino effect that might lead to a four or four-and-a-half-day week. That would have a huge impact on productivity in the economy, as much as anything.

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate on behalf of schools in her constituency. The way she stands up for them will be on the record.

There is only one party represented here today that has had a reprimand about dodgy stats on schools: the Secretary of State received one from the UK Statistics Authority last week. The Opposition will not take lectures on statistics at the moment. The funding formula has been a colossal waste of time and effort and has not got to where the Minister wanted. I can see from the reactions of some Conservative Back Benchers that the same situation will continue. Schools in their constituencies will be under enormous pressures, and what has been done has not ended the situation.

The Minister talked about having to rescue the economy. The Government have led us to a nearly £2 trillion deficit in the economy.[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Mike Kane]

The reason the Opposition will vote against the regulations is that Labour was extraordinarily clear, with a fully costed manifesto at the general election. [Hon. Members: “To increase the debt.”] There is a lot of tutting from Conservative Members, but the only numbers in the Conservative manifesto were the page numbers. We had a well costed manifesto. At the general election, our policy on school funding was to reverse the cuts. That is what we said in June.

[The Chair]

Order. We have had a great opportunity for wide-ranging debate. The hon. Gentleman is now concluding it. If hon. Members want to carry on, they can do so in the Tea Room.

[Mike Kane]

Thank you, Mr Owen.

That would have led to an increase in real terms, which would have left per pupil funding at a record high and cost about £4.8 billion in the final year of this Parliament. That is what Labour committed to: investment in schools and our pupils, compared with disinvestment and cuts from the Government Benches.

Question put.

Division 1

Ayes: 9

---

Conservative: 7

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 7

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018.

09:56

Committee rose.

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 21 March 2018

Education

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Ministerial Corrections

Funding Higher Education

The following is an extract from an intervention by the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), during the Westminster Hall debate on funding higher education on 28 February 2018.

[Mr Gyimah]

I would like to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance now. He is absolutely right: the widening participation funds—£1,000 out of every £9,000 paid by students in fees—go towards access.

[Official Report, 28 February 2018, Vol. 636, c. 351WH.]

Letter of correction from Mr Gyimah:

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) during the Westminster Hall debate on funding higher education.

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Gyimah]

I would like to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance now. He is absolutely right: the widening participation funds—£720 out of every £9,000 paid by students in fees—go towards access.

Petitions

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Petitions

Wednesday 21 March 2018

Raunds Library

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Petitions

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that Raunds Library should remain open.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to compel Northamptonshire County Council to ensure that Raunds Library remains open.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tom Pursglove, Official Report, 23 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 518.]

[P002114]

The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock):

The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (the Act) requires all local authorities in England to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. In considering how to deliver this statutory duty, each local authority is responsible for determining, through consultation, the local needs to deliver a modern and efficient library service that meets the requirements of their communities within available resources.

The Act requires the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries as conferred on them as library authorities. The Department therefore monitors library service changes to support the Secretary of State in the discharge of these functions, and the Act provides the Secretary of State with powers to order a local inquiry if, after careful consideration, there is serious doubt that a local authority is carrying out its statutory duty.

The Government recognise the importance and value of public libraries for all members of the public. Libraries support the transformation of individuals, communities and society as a whole. They provide access to books, opportunities for people to learn and improve, and bring communities together to support integration and tackle loneliness. In addition, they provide practical help and guidance, including for digital skills, literacy, health and wellbeing, and business development.

The Government are therefore committed to helping public libraries in England prosper, including through the support of the development agency for libraries, Arts Council England. In addition, the Government, with the Local Government Association, established the Libraries Taskforce in 2015 to provide leadership and support to public library services in England. The Taskforce has published a range of information and guidance, including toolkits and case studies to assist local authorities and their library service.

In December 2016, the Taskforce published “Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016–2021” that sets out the Taskforce’s vision for public libraries in England. This is endorsed by central and local government and describes how library services in England support and add value to a range of local and national policy priorities, providing practical examples of existing good practice.

The Government recognise that local authorities are seeking to modernise and innovate library services to ensure they remain relevant and meet the changing demands of their communities. Local authorities are encouraged to work with Government and local people to consider the range of options available to deliver a comprehensive and efficient library service and to ensure that it is sustainable for the long term.

Northamptonshire Council Council’s (NCC) Libraries and Information Service has provided a range of community services to local people. This has been delivered through 36 static libraries, a mobile library service, and other digital services and resources. However, NCC carried out a review of its Library and Information Service, and from 20 October 2017 to 13 January 2018 it consulted on three options for the future of the service. NCC has since analysed the consultation responses and recommendations were considered by NCC’s cabinet on 27 February and by the full council on 28 February.

The Department understands that the changes agreed by NCC include the retention of 15 staffed static libraries (eight large and seven medium libraries), with the remaining 21 static libraries, including Raunds library, to either close or become independent libraries (operating outside the Council’s statutory service). NCC has indicated that it will discuss with local community groups the option of these taking over their local libraries, where such interest was shown during the public consultation.

The agreed changes also include the closure of the mobile library service and the intention to extend the current outreach “Library to You” service for library users who find it difficult to access a static library. NCC expects to develop a decommissioning plan and timetable for the changes, to be implemented from 1 April 2018, and an amended library timetable for the libraries remaining in NCC’s statutory service.

With effect from 1 March, following spending controls in place across council services, NCC has revised opening hours at all its libraries across the network, with the intention that they are open for at least three days per week. Raunds library is open for 5 days per week Tuesday to Thursday (inclusive) 10 am to 6 pm, on Saturday between 10 am and 2 pm and on Sunday 11 am to 2 pm.

The Department continues to closely monitor NCC’s library service provision. In response to representations from CILIP, the Secretary of State has written to the Council to confirm that the Department is treating the correspondence as a complaint under section 10(1)(a) of the Act, that NCC is failing to carry out its duties relating to the public library service imposed on it by or under the Act. The complaint will be considered on its merits to decide whether an inquiry is required to determine if the Council is meeting its statutory duty.

It should also be noted that on 9 January 2018 the Secretary of State for the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced the appointment of an independent inspector to better understand whether NCC is complying with its “best value” duty under the Local Government Act 1999—a legal requirement to ensure good governance and effective management of resources. The inspector reported to MHCLG on 15 March 2018 and has concluded that NCC has failed to properly comply with its best value duty.

The Secretary of State for MHCLG is considering whether or not to exercise his powers of intervention under section 15 of the 1999 Act. My Department is engaging with MHCLG to determine whether decisions taken by their Secretary of State have any implications for the consideration of this complaint.

Thrapston Library

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Petitions

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that Thrapston Library should remain open.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to compel Northamptonshire County Council to ensure Thrapston Library remains open.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tom Pursglove, Official Report, 1 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1176.]

[P002107]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock):

The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (the Act) requires all local authorities in England to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. In considering how to deliver this statutory duty, each local authority is responsible for determining, through consultation, the local needs to deliver a modern and efficient library service that meets the requirements of their communities within available resources.

The Act requires the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries as conferred on them as library authorities. The Department therefore monitors library service changes to support the Secretary of State in the discharge of these functions, and the Act provides the Secretary of State with powers to order a local inquiry if, after careful consideration, there is serious doubt that a local authority is carrying out its statutory duty.

The Government recognise the importance and value of public libraries for all members of the public. Libraries support the transformation of individuals, communities and society as a whole. They provide access to books, opportunities for people to learn and improve, and bring communities together to support integration and tackle loneliness. In addition, they provide practical help and guidance, including for digital skills, literacy, health and wellbeing, and business development.

The Government are therefore committed to helping public libraries in England prosper, including through the support of the development agency for libraries, Arts Council England. In addition, the Government, with the Local Government Association, established the Libraries Taskforce in 2015 to provide leadership and support to public library services in England. The Taskforce has published a range of information and guidance, including toolkits and case studies to assist local authorities and their library service.

In December 2016, the Taskforce published “Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries in England 2016-2021” that sets out the Taskforce’s vision for public libraries in England. This is endorsed by central and local government and describes how library services in England support and add value to a range of local and national policy priorities, providing practical examples of existing good practice.

The Government recognise that local authorities are seeking to modernise and innovate library services to ensure they remain relevant and meet the changing demands of their communities. Local authorities are encouraged to work with Government and local people to consider the range of options available to deliver a comprehensive and efficient library service and to ensure that it is sustainable for the long term.

Northamptonshire Council Council’s (NCC) Libraries and Information Service has provided a range of community services to local people. This has been delivered through 36 static libraries, a mobile library service, and other digital services and resources. However, NCC carried out a review of its Library and Information Service, and from 20 October 2017 to 13 January 2018 it consulted on three options for the future of the service. NCC has since analysed the consultation responses and recommendations were considered by NCC’s cabinet on 27 February and by the full council on 28 February.

The Department understands that the changes agreed by NCC include the retention of 15 staffed static libraries (eight large and seven medium libraries), with the remaining 21 static libraries, including Thrapston library, to either close or become independent libraries (operating outside the Council’s statutory service). NCC has indicated that it will discuss with local community groups the option of these taking over their local libraries, where such interest was shown during the public consultation.

The agreed changes also include the closure of the mobile library service and the intention to extend the current outreach “Library to You” service for library users who find it difficult to access a static library. NCC expects to develop a decommissioning plan and timetable for the changes, to be implemented from 1 April 2018, and an amended library timetable for the libraries remaining in NCC’s statutory service.

With effect from 1 March, following spending controls in place across council services, NCC has revised opening hours at all its libraries across the network, with the intention that they are open for at least three days per week. Thrapston library is open for five days per week Tuesday to Friday (inclusive) 10 am to 6 pm and on Saturday between 10 am and 2 pm.

The Department continues to closely monitor NCC’s library service service provision. In response to representations from CILIP, the Secretary of State has written to the Council to confirm that the Department is treating the correspondence as a complaint under section 10(l)(a) of the Act, that NCC is failing to carry out its duties relating to the public library service imposed on it by or under the Act. The complaint will be considered on its merits to decide whether an inquiry is required to determine if the Council is meeting its statutory duty.

It should also be noted that on 9 January 2018 the Secretary of State for the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced the appointment of an independent inspector to better understand whether NCC is complying with its “best value” duty under the Local Government Act 1999—a legal requirement to ensure good governance and effective management of resources. The inspector reported to MHCLG on 15 March 2018 and has concluded that NCC has failed to properly comply with its best value duty.

The Secretary of State for MHCLG is considering whether or not to exercise his powers of intervention under section 15 of the 1999 Act. My Department is engaging with MHCLG to determine whether decisions taken by their Secretary of State have any implications for the consideration of this complaint.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 21 March 2018

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

Welfare Reform and Work Act

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. This debate marks two years since the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act, which received Royal Assent on 16 March 2016. It brought in several key changes: the four-year benefit freeze, a further reduction in the benefit cap, a cut to the family element of tax credits and the introduction of the two-child limit, and removal of the work-related activity group component from employment and support allowance. It also saw changes in the work allowance within universal credit, leading to a 63% taper, and further housing benefit cuts. Those cuts had hit people in the private rented sector previously, but were now brought in to hit the social rented sector.

The problem is that we cannot look at the 2016 Act in isolation, because it comes on top of the cuts in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and, in fact, Budget changes going right back to 2010. We have seen eight years of relentless attacks on the most vulnerable in our society. Two groups particularly hit were the disabled and children. In 2008 incapacity benefit was changed to employment and support allowance; and, as the National Audit Office has highlighted today, 70,000 people were underpaid because their right to income-related employment and support allowance was not recognised. The Government are undertaking to pay back all that money by next year, but people have spent nine years without money that they were owed. Interestingly, the Government will pay back only to October 2014 and not any earlier arrears. That is a bit funny, because when we have to pay the Government, somehow there is never a statute of limitations.

In 2013 there was the move from disability living allowance to personal independent payments. Those are meant to cover the additional costs relating specifically to disability; they are not meant to be work related. They are also meant to allow someone with a disability to study or work and achieve the best that they can.

Both employment and support allowance and personal independence payment require a fair assessment of someone’s disability, or indeed ability. Instead, people got work capability assessments. Those are really the key problem for people who are disabled. The process was outsourced initially to Atos and is now outsourced also to Capita. The Government aspire to depend predominantly on face-to-face assessments. A key issue is the gradual reduction in sourcing other evidence, despite the claimant assuming that the Department for Work and Pensions will source other evidence regarding their underlying condition.

I can accept that we would want to look at someone’s capability and not pigeonhole them, but knowing what underlying condition they have can tell us whether that is something that will change, improve or never improve. There have been repeated assessments of people with chronic conditions and deteriorating conditions, congenital abnormalities and permanent injuries, such as amputations or spinal injuries. People with terminal diseases have been recalled for repeated assessments.

There is a particular problem regarding the assessment of people with mental illness or learning disability. I am sure that every MP will have had cases in which there has been poor recognition of how a mental illness affects someone’s abilities. I had to raise in this place the case of a constituent who had complex post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in the Gulf war—to the point where he struggled ever to leave the house. He was on DLA at the highest rate. He was moved over to PIP at the highest rate and then called for reassessment, at which point he was moved to the lower rate. He appealed, which of course many people do because of the high rate of change of assessment when people appeal. That shows how poor the original assessments were.

However, following my constituent’s appeal, all his points were taken away, and what my caseworker heard back when inquiring was, “PIP is really for people who can’t carry out the basic tasks of daily life. People with mental illness can of course wash themselves, cook, clean and shop.” Well, that is said by someone who has never seen profound depression, which looks like the batteries have simply been taken out of someone. That issue appears again and again in all our casework inboxes. The other conditions we are talking about are those that wax and wane. Someone may attend for assessment on a good day and they are often bullied into saying what they can achieve on their best day. That is not a realistic assessment of what their life is like.

As Scotland takes over some of the benefits, we are aiming to treat people with greater dignity. We will ensure that we have sourced the medical information and try to ensure that the assessor is equipped with the clinical skills to assess the person they are viewing, because that process has become really traumatic for people who are suffering from disability.

Under PIP, more than half of people have lost some or all of their benefits, particularly the mobility element. Many of us have been involved in trying to hold on to mobility cars for some of our constituents. We have seen the distance that people need to be able to walk reduced to 20 metres. Frankly, that is the distance from the car park into the supermarket; it is not a distance that would allow someone to walk to their nearest bus stop, or to walk from the bus stop at the other end to wherever they are trying to go. Then people’s unpaid carers lose carer’s allowance. That means that the impact on a disabled family can be huge.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent report commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission called “The cumulative impact of tax and welfare reforms”? It showed that, overall, the changes to taxes, benefits, tax credits and universal credit meant that households with at least one disabled adult and one disabled child would lose more than £6,500 a year, which is more than 13% of their annual income.

[Dr Whitford]

I am, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The problem with all the changes, going right back to 2010, is that there never was a proper cumulative impact assessment to look at what changes on top of changes have done and what happens to people who are in more than one group. We know that lone parents are impacted by changes, but what if a lone parent is also disabled?

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that all the changes in the welfare legislation should be seen in the broader context of other policies, such as the rise in the national living wage, which is lifting some of the lowest paid people in this country out of poverty?

[Dr Whitford]

I will come to that point later in my speech, if the hon. Lady is happy to wait.

In addition, carers are now subject to conditionality and treated as jobseekers, regardless of what their caring commitments are. That means that they may be open to sanctions. In 2013 we had the infamous bedroom tax, which thankfully in Scotland we have been mitigating, but which has impacted on people with disability, who will lose 14% of their housing benefit if they are deemed to have a spare room. Many disabled people require additional space, whether that is for complex equipment or because they need to sleep separately from their partner, or because they routinely or occasionally require someone to stay over when they are not well.

With the Welfare Reform and Work Act we also saw the removal of the work-related activity group component from employment and support allowance. We spoke out against that repeatedly. Taking £30 a week away from someone who has been defined by DWP assessors as not fit to work will most certainly not get them back into work. That impacts particularly on people recovering from major illness. As a cancer surgeon, I have seen for myself the impact on people who have gone through a year of intense surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy and the time it takes to get back to work. We are talking about extra heating, because they are at home. In England, we are talking about prescription charges and car parking charges at hospitals, both of which, thankfully, patients in Scotland do not have to pay. Is it any wonder that this Government have been criticised by the United Nations for breaking the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities? It has been a relentless attack.

The stress has increased the mental health issues suffered by people with disability. A survey has shown that over 40% have at some time considered suicide. What kind of society are we, if we are not willing to look after those who are vulnerable? We can judge a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable. As these disability benefits come to Scotland, it is our aim to use a human rights approach and ensure that dignity is at the centre of how we treat people.

Carers should also be supported and valued. They save the state millions of pounds by providing virtually free care. In Scotland, one of the first Acts that will come in next year will increase the carer’s allowance to at least the level of jobseeker’s allowance. It is little enough, but it is at least a declaration of intent. It is envisaged that employment support allowance is to support those who, due to their disability, are simply unable to work. PIP is meant to allow those with disability to reach their full potential. We should not be sticking people in their houses, because we take away their mobility, and then saying, “We are trying to get them into work.” People with disability who are working have extra costs, and that is the whole point of PIP, so the Government should put their money where their mouth is.

We also know that child poverty is rising and is expected to rise further. We have seen it climb by about 5%. The poorest areas in the UK now have child poverty rates of around 50%. How can that be right, when we know the impact that will have on children? But while we talk often about child poverty, we should recognise that it is actually family poverty, and that children cannot be separated from the experience of their family. Their income has been hollowed out since 2010. We saw the benefit cap in 2013 set for families at £26,000 a year. That affected about 20,000 families. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 cut that to £23,000 in London and to £20,000 elsewhere in the UK. That affected 88,000 families, who lost either £3,000 or £6,000 from their income.

In 2011 we saw the local housing allowance brought in to cut what was paid for those living in the private sector. It reduced housing allowance from the median in their area to 30%. But in 2016 that was frozen and in a third of areas it does not even come close to 30%. In London, housing benefit for those in the private rental sector will cover only 16% of their housing costs, meaning that they fall about £1,000 a month short. That is significant for anybody’s wallet, but for those at the lower end of income earnings it is a severe hit. That has led to over 4.5 million people in the private rented sector struggling as rents have soared.

In 2016 the Government cut the family premium that was allowed with a new claim or a new birth, leading to a loss of £907. The bedroom tax also affects families, particularly in situations of separation or divorce, because the parent with minor caring responsibilities is not recognised. For example, a man—most likely—now living on his own in a small flat is not allowed a bedroom that would enable his children to stay over when he has them for the weekend. What does it say about us that we are not trying to strengthen families, but actually trying to undermine them?

Tax credits, which had such a big impact on child poverty, have faced attrition since 2011, when the first thing to go was the baby element, removing over £500. The 2012 changes saw families over £700 worse off. We all remember the haggling in the Chamber about changes to tax credits and the Chancellor stepped back from doing it after the Lords objected, but that was because he knew that those tax credit changes were simply hidden within universal credit and that, therefore, eventually they would hit everyone. The Government have removed the family element for the first child, again over £500, and now tax credits are claimable for only the first two children. The third child in a family loses out £2,780 a year. That has a huge impact on such families.

Universal credit has also reduced the work allowance. That means that it will often not be worth the while of the partner in a family—the second earner—going out to work, because they would lose so much and, particularly when childcare is taken into account, could end up worse off than if they did not take the extra work. The Government always talk about making work pay, but they do not always follow through.

The policy from the 2016 Act that has had the biggest and widest net, dragging more people into poverty, is the benefit freeze. Again, that comes on top of a 1% cap that was in place from 2013. The holding down of all working-age benefits has been in place for a number of years.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Will the Scottish National party and the Scottish Parliament use the powers they have to raise taxes in order to end the freeze on benefits in Scotland?

[Dr Whitford]

We are already looking to raise more money to mitigate some of the cuts from here but, frankly, with our budget dropping over 8% between 2010 and 2020, it is simply not possible for a Government to mitigate everything that comes from here. This place has to take responsibility. We are already spending £450 million on mitigating changes that came from here. So all the hon. Gentleman is asking is that the Scottish Government should keep sending their budget back to Westminster.

[Alex Burghart]

If the benefits freeze was to be unfrozen in Scotland, people in Scotland would be receiving additional benefits that people in the rest of Britain would not receive. Consequently, it would seem fair if that came out of Scottish tax take. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to raise taxes, but the hon. Lady is declining to do so. Why is that?

[Dr Whitford]

That is what I am saying; we are already mitigating £450 million in benefit cuts from this place. We are not here to talk only about Scotland; we are actually talking about the suffering right across the UK. Some hon. Members in this place like to imply that Scottish National party MPs do not care about people in the rest of the UK, but I have friends and family here, as many of us do. The source of the benefit freeze is the Department for Work and Pensions—this place—and it has to be fixed at source.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her meticulous and erudite speech. Does she agree that the benefit freeze, even by its own measure, is going beyond what was predicted? That is suggested by the DWP’s own figures and the figures that the SNP has obtained from the House of Commons Library, which suggest that the increase in inflation means that £3 billion extra will be saved by the DWP from the benefit freeze.

[Dr Whitford]

Yes. That is exactly what I will move on to. Obviously, the former Chancellor, George Osborne, justified the benefit freeze because at the time inflation was 0.3%, but inflation now, due to Brexit and the fall in the value of the pound, is officially 3%, as measured last September. By 2020, low-income families will be over £830 worse off, just due to the benefit freeze. If we look at the cumulative cuts, an average family will be £1,300 worse off. But if we drill down into families that have three or more children, that builds up and becomes eye-watering.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous in giving way. I want to ask about the principle behind what she is saying. I was not an MP when the benefit freeze was introduced, but I believe the logic was that at that point benefit spending was rising much faster than average earning. Does she think it is right that spending on benefits should go up faster than the average earnings of people in the country? Does she think that should be the case, and is she advocating for that to continue now?

[Dr Whitford]

I am advocating that inflation is now ten times what it was when the policy was brought in, and that therefore this policy should be re-thought. It was never imagined to have such a punitive impact. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said, the return to the Treasury has been much greater than planned, so the Government could easily afford to unfreeze benefits. That measure is having a particular impact on the poorest.

Like the point raised by the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), the Government and the Conservative party claim all the time that they are helping the poorest through other actions. The number one thing that is always quoted is the national living wage: not the real living wage, which is 95p an hour higher, but the pretendy living wage. The Office for Budget Responsibility, however, points out that this does not offset the benefit cuts. The increased earnings owing to the national living wage will be £4 billion a year by 2020. The benefit cuts are three times that: they will be between £12 billion and £13 billion a year. I am sorry, but the Government and the Conservative party cannot hide behind that claim. They are still taking £8 billion from the poorest families.

The other thing that is always quoted is the raising of the personal tax allowance. That obviously has a bigger impact if someone pays tax, but only £1 out of £6 spent by the Treasury on raising the personal tax allowance will end up being for people in the lower half of the income distribution curve. Unfreezing benefits would be much more targeted—even excluding child benefit from that and focusing on all the other benefits would have the biggest impact on helping poor families.

Other benefit cuts have specifically impacted on children and families with children. The health in pregnancy and Sure Start maternity grants were both cut, even though we know the importance of the first 1,001 days after conception. That is about the health and nutrition of the mother and the early years of the child. We know that the impact of poverty affects children life-long; it reduces their educational attainment and tends to limit their job prospects. They are much more likely to end up on benefits in the future. It also affects their health. They have higher rates of physical and mental health issues than those in affluent families. They are at greater risk of addiction, of ending up in the criminal justice system, of committing suicide and of being in a road traffic accident or a house fire.

All that costs money. Mitigating in later life the issues that come from child poverty is estimated to cost the Treasury almost £6.5 billion a year. If there is no change in direction from the Government, we expect 200,000 more children to be growing up in poverty by 2020. I suggest to the Minister and the Government that they do not spend £6.5 billion mitigating suffering in later life, but invest in early years now.

09:53

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow her speech, which raised some very important issues. As Members of Parliament, we all want to ensure that the welfare system operates correctly. I am a strong believer in what the Government are doing on welfare and find myself, once again, in a debate about welfare reform. I am glad to be here, because one of the Government’s most important jobs is looking after those who are unable to look after themselves. I am proud of what this Government have done during the time I have been in Parliament, and of the record since the 2010 coalition Government and the Conservative Government that followed.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady talks about how proud she is of this Government’s actions, but by the time this debate concludes, at 11 o’ clock, St Stephen’s church café in Redditch will open as a food bank. Does she not understand that there is a clear correlation between this Government’s actions on welfare reform and the food banks in her constituency?

[Rachel Maclean]

I visited the food bank and have spoken to the people there, but time does not permit me to talk in depth about those issues. I have an ongoing dialogue with both the people who run the food bank and the people who use it. I understand very well what is happening in my constituency of Redditch and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for moving on, I will speak about some of my experiences with universal credit and the jobcentre there.

I will focus my remarks on universal credit because it is a key plank of the Government’s reforms. Since my election, I have made it a priority to understand what services exist for my constituents who face challenges, whether those are unemployment, poverty or physical and mental health problems. As a constituency MP, I understand very well what is going on. There are areas of deprivation in Redditch, as there are in every constituency up and down the country. It is up to the Government to ensure that the help is on the ground, where it is needed.

It is important to revisit the principles behind the drive to reform the system that we inherited from the last Labour Government. In that system, people had little or no incentive to get back into work. When they did, they found themselves worse off and liable to lose money if they took on more hours or a better paid job. How could that be right?

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talked about tax credits. It is my understanding from DWP statistics that tax credit spending ballooned from £1.1 billion at its introduction to £30 billion a year by 2015. I do not think it is right to spend such a rapidly escalating amount of GDP on benefits. That indicates there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of the system.

There is widespread public support for the principle that welfare should be not a life sentence, but a lifeline as someone transitions through difficult circumstances or the loss of a job. The old welfare system had become labyrinthine in its complexity, with a number of different benefits adding to the confusion over what someone was entitled to. It was not a system that gave people a ladder to a better life, but rather one that trapped them in worklessness and poverty.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that more than 60% of people who require support are working, but are stuck in low-income jobs? Surveys show that very few of them are out of working poverty 10 years later.

[Rachel Maclean]

I do not agree with that, because the evidence does not bear it out. Universal credit is an agile system that is designed not only to get people who are out of work into work, but to support them as they look for better-paying jobs. I will come to that in my speech.

I accept that reforming welfare is difficult, as the hon. Lady said. There can be no MP in this House who has not come across heart-breaking cases where the system has failed. Those are wrong, and we all stand up for our constituents, but they are not evidence of a failing system—rather, they are the inevitable consequences of a large and challenging public sector reform process. Since I have been in this House, I have seen Ministers listen to problems and make changes to fix the system. Recently, we have seen adjustments reflecting concerns raised on both sides of the House, which are welcome. We hear much criticism from the Opposition, both the SNP and the Labour party, on this. It is extremely easy to criticise from the Opposition Benches, but no real constructive alternative is offered.

I have made it my priority to visit the jobcentre and speak to local people on the ground in Redditch. These are just a few of the experiences that I have heard. My local jobcentre manager has worked there for 30 years. She described the system as “working very well” for her clients. She said that it is “the best system” she has seen in her 30 years as a jobcentre manager and that it helps people “who really need help”.

The first example is a customer who was seen by a work coach when universal credit first went live. The customer had a very difficult personal background. She was totally disengaged when she saw the work coach and she was quite difficult to work with. The work coach encouraged the customer to gain upskilling in maths and English. With the work coach’s help, she found work. The customer is now working in a role where she wants to help others to find work. She even shares knowledge of vacancies with her former work coach to encourage other people to find work.

Another example is a customer who had been on and off benefits since 2012 and was working with a work coach. This customer struggles to make eye contact and lacks confidence. Over time, the work coach established a rapport and helped him to gain confidence. They referred him to work experience with a local retail outlet. When he attended, the work coach asked if there had been any changes. The customer looked them in the eye and said, with a smile on his face, “Would that include the fact that I’ve got a job?” The coach said that they are “delighted” and “so glad” that they referred him to the retailer in the first place, and:

“Seeing the customer smiling about his success really made my day.”

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

This must be the last intervention. I am aware that others wish to speak.

[Drew Hendry]

In that case, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She is recalling the experiences of DWP managers in her case studies, but how many claimants has she spoken to directly to get their stories?

[Rachel Maclean]

I have spoken to claimants in local organisations on the ground.

[Drew Hendry]

How many?

[Rachel Maclean]

Many. I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise numbers, if he would like me to.

I will touch on another example. A qualified hairdresser had been a carer and was a single parent to her disabled children. She found it difficult to find work to fit around her responsibilities. Her work coach suggested that she consider self-employment and she was referred to the new enterprise allowance in February 2016. She commenced self-employment, hairdressing in care homes, from April 2016.

By April 2017, she had expanded her business by 200% and was nominated for entrepreneur of the year by learndirect. At the ceremony on 4 July, she won the award. She was delighted and said it was all down to the initial push and referral from her work coach, followed by support.

After the meeting, she sent an email to the work coach, which said:

“Thank you for meeting with me yesterday, I felt very positive after our appointment. This is the first time I have ever been out of work and in this situation so was dreading the whole ‘Job Centre’ scenario. I don’t know what people complain about, so far everyone I have encountered has been really helpful and proactive.”

Is it not time that we had more such stories in the media, instead of the negativity we are always hearing from this place?

At the heart of the system are the work coaches, who offer tailored, individualised support to help people. Last week, I was privileged to open Redditch Nightstop, a centre for young people living in family-supported housing, where I did indeed meet claimants of the system, which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) asked about.

I talked in depth with the local jobcentre manager. Her feedback was that she was able to join up the local courses offered by Redditch Nightstop with some of her clients, who would otherwise struggle to cope with basic life skills. That type of system is a positive step forward that enables people on the ground, who know the local sources of support, to access them and to gain confidence. Universal credit works with those clients, not against them.

I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks about older workers brief. I have often spoken in Parliament about the discrimination faced by older workers in our society. I am an older worker myself, but age should not be a barrier to entering a new career or occupation, retraining or upskilling, provided that it is a positive choice.

In addition, because skills shortages affect many businesses now that we have virtually full employment—thanks to the work of this Government—many businesses are realising that youth is not everything when it comes to employing staff. B&Q has long been a champion of that policy, and it has reaped many accolades in the process, but other household names are now championing it too.

The Government have introduced many measures, including the fuller working lives strategy, to provide real support for the objective of achieving human potential at any age. The strategy states that ageist stereotypes should be challenged and older people should be allowed to contribute, as many want to. I believe, as do the Government, that work is not just an economic proposition. It allows people to have a purpose in life, to improve their mental health and wellbeing, and to retain their independence and autonomy.

To support that with practical measures, the Department has expanded the older claimant champion network in all 34 Jobcentre Plus districts. The champions work collaboratively with more than 11,000 work coaches and employer-facing staff to raise the profile of older workers, highlight the benefits of employing older jobseekers and share best practice. Recent research indicates that older claimants found that support useful. Further analysis of the provision for older claimants is ongoing. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us when the Department will publish the impact assessment, which was promised for spring 2018?

Anne Willmot was recently appointed as Business in the Community’s “Age” campaign director. She speaks of the challenges that an older population faces. Ageism is rife; a 50-year-old is 4.2 times less likely to be invited to interview than a 28-year-old. We need to support those with health issues and caring responsibilities to prevent them from leaving their jobs, and to deal with the discrimination and bias in recruitment that have made it so hard for the over-50s to secure employment.

I welcome any update from the Minister about what more the Government can do on that issue. Taken together, those policies, and many others, will help to achieve the aims of a welfare system that works for everybody, at all stages of life.

10:04

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this important and timely debate. I have come to the debate to offer my views from a practical, not an ideological, point of view. I pride myself on being a constituency MP. When I go to my surgeries in Parkhead, Baillieston, Easterhouse or Cranhill, people do not tell me how wonderful the system is. When I go to the jobcentres that are left in my constituency, because the UK—

[Alex Burghart]

I am also a constituency MP and I take my casework very seriously. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not the nature of casework that people come and tell us when things are working? People come and tell us when things are not working. Naturally, we see an unrepresentative portion of the population.

[David Linden]

As well as being a constituency MP who does surgeries, I spend two hours every week door-knocking in my constituency. I do not regularly find people opening their door and saying to me, “This welfare system is absolutely fandabbydozy.”

This week marks two years since the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 implemented some of the most punitive cuts from this Government. Some of those were a fresh round of cuts, and some built on the cuts made in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This debate allows us the opportunity to shine a bright light on the damage caused by those punitive welfare reforms, which have had a direct impact on some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency. I will address two policy areas in my remarks: first, the punitive benefit freeze, which leaves people out in the cold, quite literally, while the cost of living soars, and secondly, the medieval two-child policy and abhorrent rape clause.

Figures commissioned by the SNP and put together by the Library show that, based on the spring statement 2018, between 2018-19 and 2020-21, the benefit freeze will save an additional £3 billion compared with what was forecast for those years in the summer Budget 2015. In November 2017, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the benefit freeze means that between 2010 and 2020, a couple with two kids will be £832 a year worse off. It has also said:

“The freeze is the single biggest policy driver behind rising poverty by the end of the Parliament.”

The impact of the poverty premium means that people on low incomes face higher costs as a proportion of their income than those on higher incomes, due to the nature of products and services. People on low incomes often cannot pay for goods or services by fixed direct debit, but for many things, such as mobile phone bills, energy bills and bank cards, companies only offer discounts based on people signing up for a direct debit.

Economic shocks such as the breakdown of a car or a washing machine are far more significant for people on a low income. I know that from direct experience, having spent two years working at Glasgow Credit Union. One of the most heart-breaking things about being in that job was people coming to me for loans to pay for a washing machine that had broken down or for school uniforms.

Sadly, that is the reality we are now in. I am disappointed that that lived experience did not come into the previous speech. We see it week in, week out when we do our constituency surgeries. With all those factors, the benefit freeze is an additional financial burden on disadvantaged people. The Government must urgently restore the real value of benefits by scrapping the freeze.

The second issue I will raise is the Government’s medieval two-child policy that would frankly make China blush. The idea that in 2018, we are saying to families, “Two children in your family—that’s it. The state won’t pay for any more than that,” sends a strong signal from this place. [Interruption.] If the Minister is unhappy with that, I am more than happy to take an intervention—absolutely not.

[Dr Whitford]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Linden]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend, though.

[Dr Whitford]

Does my hon. Friend accept the basic premise that we have an ageing population and we need people to have children so we can balance that? Instead, we are relentlessly punishing people who have children.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. The Government have often spoken about their family test for policy. I do not think that turning round to a family and saying that they can have only two children is appropriate, given that family test.

The Women’s Budget Group has said the cut to child tax credits will disproportionately hit black, Asian and minority ethnic women, who tend to have larger families. The idea that we put victims through the trauma of having to prove to the Department that their child was born as a result of rape sends a strong signal from the other side of the House. It is not something we would do in Scotland.

That is precisely the point, because this legislation, which has been on the statute book for two years, genuinely has an impact on the “just about managing” families that the Prime Minister spoke about when she took office. It is not too late for the Government to think again and implement a social security system that delivers social justice, fairness and, above all, dignity for the most vulnerable in our society.

10:09

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this debate on a very important subject. Although I disagree with her on several points, I fully respect the tone in which she delivered her remarks.

Something that has not yet been spoken about today is the context in which many of the welfare reforms since 2010 were introduced. In 2010, as we all remember, we faced a broken economy and a broken welfare system. We had a deficit that was spiralling out of control. There was a very real threat to public finances and a danger that if Britain did not control its spending, the international bond markets would take action against us, further undermining our ability to pay for our essential public services. That was acknowledged across the House at the time and still holds true.

At the same time, but for entirely different reasons, the welfare system that we inherited was not fit for purpose. Over many years, through no grand design, it had grown into a system of great complexity that was confusing for users and expensive to administer. It had to be reformed. Peculiar, perverse disincentives had arisen, not because anyone had wished for them but because different benefits clashed at different points in the system. The most obvious and regularly cited example is that people were disincentivised from taking more than 16 hours of work, but many people were also disincentivised from moving into the initial stages of work at all. Unfortunately, the system often trapped people out of work or in low wages. That was completely unacceptable, because we all know the importance of work.

[Neil Gray]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously still attempting to use the banking crash to justify the cuts to welfare? That is what they are: reform would be one thing, but these are cuts to social security. Are the bankers seriously still to blame for the projected 7% rise in child poverty over the next few years?

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from my opening remarks, there are two issues at play. The first was the broken economy. As I have said, if the Government had not taken action to dramatically reduce public spending—[Interruption.] Our deficit has been cut. The hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position that that was in 2008 and the situation is different now. Our deficit has been much reduced by the actions of this Government and the coalition Government over the past eight years, but it has not yet been fully eliminated.

Once the deficit is fully eliminated, we will be able to do the most important thing, which is to start to reduce debt as a proportion of GDP. That is essential, because at the moment we are spending more on servicing our debt than on defence, on education or on our police forces. None of us wants that. Effectively, we have created a new “Department of Debt” that sits in Whitehall and gobbles up money. I want to see the budget for that Department cut year by year, but only the steps that this Government are taking will achieve that.

Let me return to my point about the broken welfare system. Regardless of what happened in 2008, it was essential that the welfare system be reformed to encourage more people to take more work and benefit from all the associate factors surrounding it. We all know that there is great dignity in work and that it provides pride, purpose and a great example to children. It is what we want for ourselves and for our constituents.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he recognise that well over half a million fewer children are living in workless households now than in 2010? Children are five times more likely to be in a low-income household if they are in a workless household than if they are in a household in which all adults work. There is a knock-on effect for the next generation.

[Alex Burghart]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for stealing my thunder and taking away my next paragraph. Yes, I am fully aware of that fact and she is right to emphasise it. One of the great things that has happened since 2010, which must be acknowledged in a balanced debate on the subject, is that we have achieved record employment in this country. Unemployment has fallen substantially—in all constituencies, I believe—but it is unfortunate that so far my hon. Friend has been the only hon. Member to welcome that in this debate.

It is right to talk about the full package. Yes, there have been cuts and freezes to welfare payments but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, they must be seen alongside increases to the national living wage, increases to the tax threshold, a new offer on childcare and the creation of universal credit, which enables people to progress in work without the disincentives that existed before. Alongside all that, the most important thing that has happened is that far fewer people are in out-of-work benefits. When we talk about assessments that people may have lost money under the welfare changes, we must always acknowledge that this is a dynamic system. The whole point is that people move into work and progress in work so that they earn more money. I fear that that has not been acknowledged in this debate.

The Welfare Reform and Work Act introduced several changes, as hon. Members have already mentioned, but they must be seen in the context of fairness. The welfare cap limited the amount of money that some families receive, because it was deemed by Parliament that it was unfair for families out of work to receive more than families in work. It was not just a parliamentary majority of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who agreed with that; regular polling has found that 77% of the population do, too.

I am delighted to draw attention to a new report by Policy in Practice, “Low Income Londoners and Welfare Reform”, which has examined the effect of the welfare cap on 600,000 low-income people in London. It shows that there has been a positive impact on employment outcomes for those families and no measurable impact on homelessness in comparison with a control group of similar households. The welfare cap is working in London, and the most serious piece of analysis so far conducted upholds that. It is a good example of how adjusting the welfare system carefully can create work incentives to help people to make positive choices to improve their lives and those of their families.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned the four-year benefit freeze. I acknowledge that inflation is now higher than it was when the freeze was set. I also acknowledge that it is now falling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, the value of benefits increased by 21% between 2008 and the 2016 Act, while the value of wages increased by only 11%. The freeze is therefore not quite as stark a corrective as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire makes out.

On the two-child limit in universal credit, it is only right that we have a welfare system in which people who are out of work have to make similar decisions to people in work. However, it is extremely important that people in the welfare system understand the potential consequences. I have become concerned that there may be people who are thinking of having a third child but are not aware that they will not be entitled to further benefits under universal credit. The system cannot work as intended if people are not aware of how it works.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Member seems to have a basic misunderstanding of the impact of this measure. Does he not appreciate that many people start planning their families from a very different perspective from where they end up? We cannot continue to punish people who have fallen on hard times, as he is suggesting should happen.

[Alex Burghart]

I think the word “punish” is entirely wrong in this context. I think we have to say that if people are aware of the consequences of their actions—that there are benefits available for certain decisions they make but not for others—they can make their own decisions. It is up to the state to decide where the balance of benefit lies.

[Dr Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I am conscious of time. At least two other Members wish to speak. They will not be able to speak if there are any more interventions and if the hon. Gentleman does not conclude his remarks soon. I intend to start calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am.

[Dr Whitford]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I intervened merely to point out that people’s circumstances change, so if they end up redundant, ill, or whatever, and then apply for benefits and have three or more children from better times, they will not receive that support.

[Alex Burghart]

No, but they will have additional support to get back into work and they will have the benefit of universal credit to progress in work when they do.

I will go back very quickly to the Scottish perspective, because something that is obviously completely unacceptable in the position of the Scottish National party is that they want to fix the problem but they do not want to do it themselves. I find that very peculiar from a party that seeks independence, because of course if Scotland was independent the only way that it could get rid of the freeze would be by paying for it out of Scottish coffers, which would require an increase in tax, and that is something they have declined to do.

I was very surprised when I questioned Jeane Freeman, the Scottish Minister for Social Security, about this issue in a Select Committee. She failed to answer the challenge, just as SNP Members have done today. The SNP can raise taxes now to pay for this, but it chooses not to. It has therefore decided not to prioritise this policy.

Obviously there are always steps we can take to improve the welfare system. Universal credit, which is coming online, will help people to overcome major barriers to employment. It will help people overcome addiction or mental health problems and move back into work. On disability, we have an admirable aim to halve the disability employment gap, and I believe that assistive technology will help us do that. I would like to see us increase work incentives by adjusting the taper as and when the budget allows.

10:22

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I want to allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) to speak, so I will be extraordinarily brief. I hope that, following this very good debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has secured, we will get the answers to some questions.

One question that I would like the Minister to answer today relates to something that would cost virtually nothing to implement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire for raising the issue when she said that we judge society on how it treats its most vulnerable. She raised the issue of people who are terminally ill having to go for reassessments. Will the Minister say today that the Government will deal with that and remove that requirement? It is unnecessary and cruel.

Two years on from the introduction of the 2016 Act, the UK Government must end their obsession with their punitive policies in the name of austerity. The backdrop for people in their own houses is absolutely horrendous, in terms of their struggling on benefits. The average household has lost £7.74 per week because of higher prices for goods. These are real things—bread, milk, cheese. Meat prices are up 3.9%; vegetable prices are up 5.7%; and coffee, tea and cocoa prices are up 8.5%. When someone has very little money, these things have a dramatic impact on their household budget.

The continued freeze of benefits, in the context of sky-high consumer prices index figures at 3%, is trapping thousands of families and children in poverty, and all they have to look forward to at the moment, in terms of this benefit cap, is that financial noose tightening year after year.

I came to Westminster Hall today to speak about the effects on my constituency, where since 2013 we have seen the roll-out of universal credit and the direct impact on people. However, I also wanted to speak about Scotland. I find it absolutely bizarre that none of those Scots Tory MPs or Scots Labour MPs who were so exercised on the issue of the welfare situation in Scotland is here today. Where are they? They are nowhere to be seen. Once again, it is going to be left to the Scottish National party to fight the corner for people in Scotland.

Government Members have said that things are not happening in Scotland. If I had the time—I will have to sit down at the end of this sentence—I would read the list that I have prepared of actions that the Scottish Government are putting in place today, through Jeane Freeman, our Minister.

10:25

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thank you very much for fitting me in, Mr Gapes. I have pulled myself out of my sickbed to be here today, partly because the Minister who is here today is one who I have not yet challenged on the two-child limit and the rape clause; he deserves a fair go on those things as well, as a new Minister.

Earlier, Members mentioned the sort of false premise that people on benefits should face the same choices as those supporting themselves through work. However, that completely fails to recognise that 70% of families on tax credits are working and that the cuts that have been made are making them poorer and putting them into poverty, even though they are in work. They just cannot earn enough to make ends meet, and that is absolutely despicable. They are trapped and they cannot do anything about it, and it is driving children into poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 10% more children will go into poverty as a result of the two-child limit alone, which is absolutely despicable.

Through my own constituency work, I have found that the two-child limit has also had an adverse impact on the uptake of Healthy Start, because that entitlement is claimed through the child tax credit system and third children are not getting it. Food is literally being taken out of the mouths of children because of this Government’s incompetent policy.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission report that was published last week has evidenced properly that the two-child limit is having a disproportionate effect on those from ethnic minorities, which the Government have failed to acknowledge all the way down the line with this measure. Three quarters of Pakistani families are losing out as a result of the changes and the two-child limit. Bangladeshi families will lose out by around £2,150, and Pakistani families will lose out by £1,900. That is absolutely unacceptable.

I will talk today particularly about the rape clause, because it is an issue that I have been campaigning on since 2015. We all know that the Government are embarrassed by this policy, because they have refused scrutiny of it on every single occasion. They were forced into having a consultation on it. People submitted their responses to the consultation, stating how unacceptable the policy is, and because the Government knew that and knew that they could not avoid it, they snuck out the results on the day of Trump’s inauguration, because they knew that the eyes of the world would be elsewhere. They are thoroughly embarrassed by this policy and they have not accounted for it. They have ducked scrutiny of it on every single occasion.

The Government have also failed to acknowledge the particular situation for women in Northern Ireland, because if women in Northern Ireland make a claim under the non-consensual sex exemption—or the rape clause, as I prefer to call it, because that is what it is—they face being criminalised under the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 if they even make a claim. That is evidenced in the form they have to fill in, which states:

“Please be aware, that in Northern Ireland, if the third party knows or believes that a relevant offence (such as rape) has been committed, the third party”—

the person who verifies the claim—

“will normally have a duty to inform the police of any information that is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing, the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of someone for that offence”.

No woman in Northern Ireland wants to put herself through that; it is absolutely appalling and the Government have failed on every occasion to account for it.

It is unacceptable that women have to fill in a form that states:

“I believe the non-consensual conception exception applies to my child”,

and that they have to fill in their child’s name on a form to say that that child was born as the result of rape. The Minister should be thoroughly embarrassed about this.

I have cross-party support against this policy, as well as support from the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nurses, and a whole wheen of women’s groups, charities and trade unions. The Government still have time to do something about this policy. It has gone to judicial review. If the judicial review finds in favour of the people who have brought it, will the Government accept that? Will the Government not appeal it, because I think they are embarrassed and they should do something about it?

10:37

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on securing this debate and her magnificent speech, which set out perfectly the issues before us. I also thank Emily Cunningham from the SNP research office. She has helped to drive this week of campaigning on the pernicious Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. I also thank our press office, led by Catriona Matheson, which has helped to highlight our campaign.

This is rather pertinent to some of the issues being discussed this morning, but today is World Down Syndrome Day. They are out of sight, but I am wearing colourful odd socks to help celebrate difference, and I hope others are, too.

I remember well the great frustration and anger—some of that has been brought back to me by some Conservative contributions today—I felt when speaking at the various stages of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I remember the anger I felt when we put across the evidence from the expert charities and those arguments were ignored. I remember the meticulousness with which the former Member for Banff and Buchan, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, dismantled the Government’s basis for introducing the Bill and the erudite way she evidenced what the impact would be.

We warned then that the four-year freeze to social security would mean a rise in child poverty, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. We warned then that cutting disability employment support would hurt those who need the support most, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. We warned then that introducing a two-child limit to tax credits would push low-income families on the edge into poverty, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. We warned that lowering the benefit cap would arbitrarily hit low-income families, women and children the hardest, but we were ignored; the Government marched on. Sadly, on all those areas the Government knew what was coming. It was not just the SNP telling them; all the expert charities lobbied hard against the Bill, but they were ignored, too.

Two years on, we can start to see the impact of the arbitrary, austerity-driven cuts to the DWP that have forced arbitrary austerity-driven cuts to social security. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire covered that well. She also gave a very good, if sad and desperate, history lesson on the cuts from 2010. In addition to the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, cuts have hammered the incomes of the sick, the disabled and those living on low incomes. She also gave constituency examples of people who have been affected by this Government’s policies and said there was no cumulative impact assessment of the Government’s cuts to various elements of social security.

The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) did not have time to talk about the correlation between this Tory Government’s cuts and increased food bank use, including at St Stephen’s church in her constituency—that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden)—but I do. The Trussell Trust has highlighted a clear correlation between cuts or delays to benefits, low incomes and those using its food banks. Mary Anne MacLeod’s report, “Making the Connections: A study of emergency food aid in Scotland”, made the very same connections. I encourage the hon. Member for Redditch to read those reports before coming to another debate like this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made another good speech based on his lived experience and what he sees in his constituency. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said he appreciated the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, but did not agree with much of it. My hon. Friend quoted many facts, so the hon. Gentleman can disagree on policy,

“But facts are chiels that winna ding”.

The facts show clearly how low-income families, children, women, the sick and disabled are paying the price of this Government’s cuts. At the end of his speech, he made a number of inaccurate statements not only about the social security system we are building in Scotland, but his Government’s policies. The UK Government sadly no longer wish to halve the disability employment gap. That policy was removed in the manifesto he stood on.

[Alex Burghart]

I am looking to the Minister for confirmation, but I believe it is still very much our policy to halve the disability employment gap.

[Neil Gray]

I am looking to the Minister to intervene, but he is looking down at his notes sheepishly. As of the Conservative party’s last manifesto, it is clearly no longer an aspiration to halve the disability gap; it merely wishes to reduce it. Rather embarrassingly for the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, that commitment was removed at the time of the last election.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) focused on universal credit, as he has done so diligently for years. He also called out the empty Tory and Labour Benches. That is most stark when compared with the debate last night, when Scots Tories and Scots Labour MPs teamed up to try—they failed—to attack the Scottish Government’s policies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has been a diligent and award-winning campaigner on the two-child policy and the rape clause. Perhaps this Minister will be the one who finally listens on that pernicious policy.

We know that in Scotland things could have been much worse had it not been for the Scottish Government’s intervention and early action. We have already stopped anyone paying the bedroom tax, and we have ensured the continuation of council tax benefit, which has been stopped by the UK Government in England. The Social Security (Scotland) Bill has just completed its Committee stage. With that, we have seen some of the actions we will take to help build a new and fairer social security system with the limited powers at our disposal in Scotland. We will develop a new benefit to overcome the removal by this Government of housing benefit for most 18 to 21-year-olds. We will make assessments fairer, with no private companies involved and a reduced need for face-to-face assessments. We will set up an independent scrutiny body to ensure that this Scottish Government and future Scottish Governments adhere to human rights and scrutinise social security actions.

More will come out on what we have planned in the areas we control, but it will be a stark departure from the UK Government’s approach to social security. Sadly we cannot clear up all the mess that the UK Government have left for Scotland, and that is why we want social security devolved to Holyrood in its entirety. Until that happens we will keep fighting from Westminster for fairness for people across the UK who need that safety net.

This has been a perfectly timed debate brought to the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire. It has highlighted the desperate need for the Government to revisit their punitive and indiscriminate social security cuts. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 led to international condemnation of the UK Government, led by the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which highlighted grave and systematic violations of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The Government have lost court battles on their social security cuts, and just today the National Audit Office said that the DWP has underpaid an estimated 70,000 people on employment and support allowance by an average of £5,000 a person. That is yet more evidence of how this Government are letting people with disabilities and long-term health conditions down. It is time they acted. It is time they helped low-income families. It is time they properly supported people with disabilities. It is time they looked again at the Welfare Reform and Work Act. If the Prime Minister is still serious about tackling burning injustices, this is the place to start.

10:37

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on her measured and comprehensive speech and her focus on the devastating impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 on sick and disabled people and the importance of the work done by carers.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) made some extraordinary claims about the track record of the SNP in Scotland, which voted against Labour’s measure that would have lifted thousands of children out of poverty in Scotland.

[Drew Hendry]

rose—

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Margaret Greenwood]

I will not give way, because I am short of time. I refer the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and others to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) that showed clearly and in detail how Labour has led the fight for a social security system that supports people in their time of need.

[Hon. Members]

Where is he?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. We can do without the heckling.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 is having a profound impact on the lives of many of the most vulnerable in our society—the disabled, single parents, pensioners and children growing up in poverty—through a range of policies, accompanied by severe reductions in social security introduced in the 2015 Budget and what we are seeing with the roll-out of universal credit. There is the cut to employment and support allowance for disabled people, which is falling by £30 a week to the same level as JSA, leaving them with just more than £70 a week. There is the abolition of the family element of child tax credit and the equivalent in universal credit, which is worth up to £540 a year for new claimants.

We have a cut in the level of the benefit cap; the four-year benefits freeze; the abolition of targets to tackle child poverty, which Labour had introduced; the two-child limit on new claims for child tax credit and the child element of universal credit; the change in support for mortgage interest from a benefit to a loan that will be particularly hard on pensioners and disabled people; and the cuts to work allowances in universal credit in the summer Budget of 2015, which we call on the Government to reverse. So we see that the claims that the Act rewards hard work and is fair to working households simply do not bear scrutiny.

[Neil Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

No, I am going to make some progress.

In-work poverty has risen to record levels: 8 million people, including 2.7 million children, are in poverty, despite being in a working family, and 67% of working-age adults and children in poverty in the UK are in working households. Many people are stuck in a low pay, no pay cycle, where they may pass from employed to unemployed and back again several times in the course of a year.

A study of in-work poverty published by researchers at Cardiff University found that

“those in working poverty are three times more likely to become workless than people living in non-poor working households.”

It also found that not everyone who finds work progresses to better paid employment. The reports states that

“one quarter of those families where somebody finds work, exit worklessness only to enter in-work poverty. Lone parents are over-represented in this group, as are families with three or more children.”'.

I recommend the report to the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean).

The cumulative impact assessment by the Equality and Human Rights Commission published last week, which several Members have rightly referenced, states that the measure that has the most impact on households on low income is the four-year benefits freeze introduced in April 2016. When the benefits freeze began in April 2016, inflation was 0.3%. Despite a fall in inflation last month, it is still at 2.7%, and food prices went up by well over 3% in February compared with the year before. So it is little wonder that the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority has warned of increasing household debt built up simply by trying to cover basic household bills.

The Resolution Foundation estimates that by 2019 a lone parent in work with one child will lose £420 a year as a direct result of the freeze alone, and a couple with a single earner and two children will lose £570 a year. If the Chancellor was justified in his claims in his spring statement for improvements in the public finances, will the Government abandon the benefits freeze that is pushing households into poverty?

Housing benefit was first cut in 2011 and is also one of the benefits now frozen by the Act, but private sector rents have continued to rise rapidly. Between 2011 and 2018, private rents in the UK increased by more than 15%—and by more than 12% even if London is excluded. The Act also severely cut the levels of the benefit cap so that it is now hitting the whole of the country, and the cap in practice operates through a cut in housing benefit. The benefit cap is supposedly designed to incentivise work by exempting people who start claiming working tax credits. However, 45,000 households that had their housing benefit capped in November 2017 were single-parent families, and 35,000—

[Neil Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

No, I am really short of time.

Thirty-five thousand of the single-parent capped households had at least one child aged under five, including 15,000 with a child aged under two.

The Act also requires the main carer of a child to look for work once their youngest child turns three, rather than five as previously. Many parents of very young children would actually like to work, but it can be almost impossible for them to find affordable childcare or work that fits around caring for young children. That brings me to one of the most contentious parts of the Act: the abolition of the targets to tackle child poverty set by the previous Labour Government in the Child Poverty Act 2010.

The previous Labour Government lifted 1.1 million children out of poverty through a cross-Government strategy that included Sure Start centres and year-on- year increases in social security, which went hand in hand with employment support targeted at specific groups such as lone parents. There was no thought that people should be left trapped on welfare, as the then Work and Pensions Secretary termed it when the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was being debated.

Labour’s policies achieved results. Between 1997 and 2010, the employment rate for lone parents with dependent children in the UK increased from 45% to 57%. That cross-Government approach has long since been discarded by the Government. The Child Poverty Unit set up to oversee it has been dismantled, and renaming the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission “the Social Mobility Commission” in the Act, thus excluding child poverty, says much about the purpose of that Act.

All four members of the board of the Social Mobility Commission stood down in December in protest at the lack of progress in creating a fairer Britain, including Baroness Shephard, deputy chair of the commission and a former Conservative Education Secretary under John Major. Will the Minister tell us his Department’s assessment of what contribution the Act has made to social mobility?

In February, the End Child Poverty coalition published new figures that showed that more than 50% of children in some constituencies are growing up in poverty and that 4 million children are in poverty after housing costs are taken into account. The Government claim their figures show that child poverty is actually decreasing, but they do not have up-to-date figures. The End Child Poverty coalition figures compiled by Loughborough University are for 2017-18, yet the Government’s official figures, to be published tomorrow, will cover only the year before, 2016-17. That time lag is important because, although the benefits freeze came into effect in April 2016, other parts of the Act that are likely to lead to an increase in child poverty, such as the two-child policy, were introduced only in April 2017, and so we have yet to see the full impact of them.

[Neil Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

No.

The main provider of food banks in the UK, the Trussell Trust, has highlighted that food bank referrals have risen by 30% in areas after the full service has been introduced. The EHRC report published last week estimated that 1.5 million children will be living in poverty by 2021-22 as a result of tax and benefit changes, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted in November that the proportion of children growing up in poverty is expected to rise from 30% in 2015-16 to 37% in 2021-2022. It really is time the Government listened to the informed opinion that is available out there.

The two-child limit on new claims for child tax credit and the child element in universal credit is one of the most controversial and, to my mind, one of the most offensive parts of the Act. The idea behind it seems to be that people claiming social security should have to think twice before having larger families, but in the real world unplanned pregnancies happen to people, and people might be unexpectedly made redundant having planned a larger family. Moreover, we should value children and not see them as a burden.

Faith communities are especially concerned about the two-child policy because, for many people of faith, reproduction, use of contraception and family size are determined by beliefs. The policy would originally have also covered children born as a result of rape. The Government were forced to back down, but the exemption still requires a woman to disclose sexual violence, which we know many women understandably find extremely difficult because of, for example, the trauma that they have experienced, a need to protect themselves and perhaps their children, and a fear of the perpetrator.

Someone claiming the exemption must also not be living with the person responsible for the sexual violence. Again, we know that women can be at severe risk at the point when they leave an abusive relationship. It should be the woman who has suffered abuse who decides when that should be. She should not be pushed into doing so at the wrong time by the DWP. The Government have not told us how many people have been affected by the two-child policy or how many have claimed exemptions, even though the policy has been in operation for almost a year now. Will the Government publish those figures and abolish the rape clause, which requires women who want to claim the exemption to prove that they have been a victim of sexual violence? Will the Government abandon the disgraceful policy that treats one child as though they were somehow worth less than another?

In a little over a fortnight, support for mortgage interest will be turned from a benefit into a loan. The Government have left it so late to contact people claiming SMI that at the beginning of March more than half of claimants—53,500 out of 110,000—had still not received a follow-up phone call to the initial letter sent out by the DWP. The delay echoes the fiasco of the pension changes affecting women born in the 1950s, where again people were not given enough time to prepare. Forty-one per cent. of people claiming SMI are pensioners. Turning it into a loan risks pushing them into poverty.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Margaret Greenwood]

The Government have made it difficult to trace the overall impact of the Act with all its complexity because they have failed to publish a cumulative impact assessment.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Lady is not giving way. She is coming to the end of her remarks, so I will be grateful if people do not try to intervene when it has been made clear that she is not giving way.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Even the impact assessments for each part of the Act are out of date. Civil society organisations such as the IFS, the Resolution Foundation and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have done the hard work and the evidence is damning. If the Government do not like the figures that other organisations publish, they should make sure they publish their own and that they are up to date. The Act uses language such as fairness to working households, a sustainable welfare system and life chances, but it is punitive, not progressive. The groups hit time and again by the Act are those most at risk of poverty: lone parents, larger families and disabled people.

09:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a great pleasure to be in your capable hands this morning, Mr Gapes. I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for securing the debate, and all Members who have participated this morning and continue to take an interest in the issues of welfare reform and work.

When the Welfare Reform and Work Act was first debated, in the summer of 2015, Ministers spoke of three principles that underpinned the legislation: first, work is the best route out of poverty, enabling people to take control of their lives and achieve their full potential; secondly, spending on welfare should be sustainable and fair to the taxpayer, while protecting the most vulnerable; and thirdly, people who receive benefits should face the same life choices as those who do not get the same support from the state. We remain committed to those three principles. Indeed, in the two years that have passed since the legislation became law, we have been putting them into practice.

Many of the measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Act that hon. Members across the Chamber have highlighted this morning form part of a package of policies through which we have been increasing incentives and support for people to find work, stay in work, build a career and progress.

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

Not at the moment.

With the national living wage we have been helping people to earn more. From April 2018 the Government will raise the national living wage by 4.4% to £7.83 an hour. At that point, the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker will have increased by more than £2,000 a year since we introduced the national living wage in April 2016. Since April 2015, the lowest paid have seen their wages grow by almost 7% above inflation.

With increases to the income tax personal allowance, we have been helping people to keep more of what they earn. Next month we will raise the personal allowance in line with inflation to £11,850. A typical basic rate taxpayer will pay £1,075 less income tax in 2018-19 than they did in 2010-11. Compared with 2015-16, there are now 1.2 million people who, as a result of our changes to the personal allowance, will no longer have to pay any income tax at all.

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not going to give way, because I want to address some of the specific questions, and give the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire a chance to respond.

With universal credit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) touched on during the debate, we are providing claimants with a simpler system that ensures that work always pays. It offers families more generous childcare, and gives parents access to tailored support from personal work coaches to find, and then progress in, work. Three separate research studies have shown that universal credit is having a positive impact on employment outcomes. Compared with jobseeker’s allowance, our evidence shows that people on universal credit are 4% more likely to be in work after six months, put more effort into finding work, apply for more jobs, and do more to increase their hours and earnings. Universal credit is being introduced in a careful and co-ordinated way, allowing us to make improvements along the way. We are listening to the concerns of our stakeholders and making changes where necessary.

The topic for today’s debate invited us all to reflect on what impact this Government’s policies are having. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire rose to give her opening speech, the Office for National Statistics published its latest release on the state of the labour market in the UK. That release presents a striking picture, with 32.25 million people in employment as of this morning—a record high. The employment rate for women stands at 70.9%, which is also a record high. Unemployment is down to the joint lowest level since 1975, and 876,000 vacancies are open to people in search of employment, which is also close to a record high.[Official Report, 28 March 2018, Vol. 638, c. 4MC.]

The figures are particular significant when it comes to children—many hon. Members have spoken about children today. The evidence is clear: children living in households where no one is in work are five times more likely to be in poverty than those where all adults work. The chances of a child being in poverty where one parent works full-time and the other part-time is one in 20.

In 2014-15, 75% of children in families where no one is in work failed to reach the expected standard at GCSE compared with 39% for all working families, and 52% for low-income working families. We are supporting parents to find and stay in work with record spending on childcare, which will reach £6 billion in 2019-20. In England, working parents of three and four-year-olds can now get 30 hours of free childcare a week, saving those using the full 30 hours around £5,000 per year in total.

[Neil Gray]

rose—

[Kit Malthouse]

We are making good progress. Nationally, there are now about 880,000 fewer households where no one is in work, and around 600,000 fewer children living in such households compared with 2010. The number of children living in absolute poverty on a before-housing-costs basis is down 200,000 since 2010, and the UK is now the highest spending of all OECD countries as a percentage of GDP on family benefits, standing at 3.5% against an average across the OECD of 2%.

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Gray, the Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way. He does not have to give way, so I would be grateful if you would allow him to carry on.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have lots to get through. I want the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to reply, and the Scottish National party has had a lot to say today.

The hon. Lady majored fairly heavily on disability benefits in her speech. We are committed to ensuring that more of the money goes to the people who need it most. We have continued to increase benefits for people with disabilities and health conditions, and we will spend £800 million extra in 2018-19 to do that once again. For people in the employment and support allowance support group, that means £720 more per year than in 2010. For recipients of the monthly rate of disability living allowance, paid to the most disabled children, it is more than £1,200 a year more.

At the same time, we are determined to break down the barriers to employment faced by disabled people. The hon. Lady spoke about the removal of the work-related activity component under ESA. The old system, as we all remember, was failing to help disabled people and those with health conditions into work. Only one in 100 ESA work-related activity group claimants leave the benefit each month. We believe that disabled people and people with health conditions deserve better than that.

We believe that the changes, working in tandem with a £330 million support package over the next four years, will provide the right incentives and support to help new claimants with limited capability for work. Taken as a whole, our policies to help people with disabilities to find employment have been making good progress. More than half a million more disabled people are now in work than four years ago, and on a before-housing-costs basis the absolute poverty rate among people living in a family where somebody is disabled is now down to a record low.

On the underpayment of ESA, the hon. Lady asked about paying back further than 2014. We are actually legally restricted from recalculating payments back beyond 2014. Statute governs that position, which we are not allowed to exceed. The hon. Lady also raised the success rate of personal independence payment claimants who go through the appeals process. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of PIP decisions do not go to appeal. Some 2.9 million PIP claims were decided on between April 2013 and September 2017, of which only 8% of initial PIP decisions were appealed against, and only 4% were overturned at appeal. A decision being overturned does not necessarily mean that the original decision was incorrect; often it is because the claimant has provided more cogent oral evidence or other new evidence that has allowed a more accurate assessment.

In a forensic speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) dissected the case against welfare reform very ably. In particular, he pointed towards the benefits cap, which a number of Members have criticised. Of course, the numbers show that the benefits cap has been extraordinarily successful as an incentive to get into work. Over the last couple of years, tens of thousands of people have come out from under the benefits cap, because of course it does not apply once someone moves into work. The amount at which they are capped has dropped significantly too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch asked about older claimants and when an impact assessment was likely to be approved. I am informed that we will publish the evaluation of the two Jobcentre Plus interventions for older claimants in the spring of 2018—I assume before the summer recess. Those will look at the impacts of sector-based work, academy and work experience interventions.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) raised the issue of reassessments for those who are terminally ill. He will know that in both PIP and ESA we have a fast-track process for any claimants who have fewer than six months to live. In ESA we introduced a severe conditions criteria last autumn, which means that people with the most severe degenerative conditions will not need to be reassessed. It is more complex in the case of disease, but if those individuals qualify for the highest level of ESA under the support group, and there is no possibility of improvement, they do not need to return for reassessment. I am more than happy to keep that under review and have another look at it in future.

Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised the rape clause, which is an issue on which she has campaigned. Obviously, it is a very difficult and sensitive issue, which we are more than happy to keep under review. As she knows, a third-party model has been put in place, but if particular issues are being experienced by women accessing that model, I am more than happy to look at it again. As she also knows, there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. My undertaking to her this morning is that I am happy to meet her, if she wishes to discuss it with me, to try to find a way through this issue.

It has been an interesting debate, although it has put the House into two polar opposite groups: those who thought that welfare reform was required, and those who did not. One of the things that I have found most disheartening about such debates since I was appointed to my job is the implicit defence by those who are opposed to welfare reform of an old benefits system that was frankly fraudulent. It was trapping people in poverty, and insisting that it was trying to help them when, in fact, it was holding them back.

We believe in treating everybody with dignity, and giving them the power to take control of their lives and find their own way forward, for them and their families, in work. We believe in giving them all the tools that we can to do that, whether they are disabled, single parents, families, or older people who wish to access work. The way to a dignified future for everybody is to give them control, not to make them vassals of a welfare state.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Dr Whitford, you have five seconds to wind up.

09:15

[Dr Whitford]

We did not defend the old system. If work is to pay, the Government should look at children in working households in poverty.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Children’s Playgrounds

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of children's playgrounds.

Looking at the weather outside, I am sure hon. Members will have noticed that spring has now arrived, or is at least a little closer. Parents across the country are now hoping that they can finally get their children outdoors to run around and go to parks with friends, and to burn off some energy on the weekends and in the fantastic lighter evenings, in their local playgrounds, which is the topic of this debate. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to talk about this subject today.

Times are quite tough, as we know, and resources are squeezed. I want to raise in the debate today the pressures on the availability of local outdoor spaces and playground areas, which are declining at an alarming rate.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

On that point, I want to raise the issue of the playground near Strand Street School in the East Marsh area of my constituency. It has fallen into significant disrepair, and a group of local mums, the East Marsh mums, is now pulling together and trying to raise the funds to establish a brand new playground. Seeking those funds is incredibly difficult; they are looking to lots of different community funding pots to try to raise that money. It will take a significant amount of money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of the playground is an enormous loss to the children of the East Marsh area?

[Mr Leslie]

Yes. I know that my hon. Friend is a real campaigner for grassroots neighbourhood issues, and she will know the programme in question more than I do. I will come on to talk about what parents can do when faced with the retreat of the traditions of municipal provision, when they have little choice but to somehow find a voluntary alternative. It is very difficult and resources are quite scarce.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Parks are not just important for allowing children to let off steam. They also play a vital role in combating loneliness. Is the hon. Gentleman going to comment on that?

[Mr Leslie]

Indeed I am. One of the great things that we are all very nostalgic about from our own childhoods is communal open spaces, and facilities that are largely taken for granted and rarely discussed. Not just children gain enormously from the opportunity for outdoor exercise and socialisation; new parents get to meet other parents, and playgrounds help reduce isolation. They build new friendship networks for new mums and dads. It is a great watering hole for people to come together, meet and form new bonds in the community, particularly at a big life-changing moment.

Playgrounds are a great British tradition, mostly developed in the 20th century. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Charles Wicksteed’s playground equipment company near Kettering. When I mentioned to my eight-year-old daughter that I was leading this debate today, she encouraged me to call for more bars, because she is such a gymnastics enthusiastic who would go round and round on them all day long if she could, but playgrounds are also about sandboxes, swings, slides, climbing frames and roundabouts, and there are many other fantastic municipal facilities with even more exciting innovations—trampolines, paddling pools and all sorts of fantastic amenities.

[Melanie Onn]

Will my hon. Friend congratulate North East Lincolnshire’s Labour council on introducing a parkour facility at the Duke of York playground area, which introduced playgrounds to a whole new generation of young people? Unfortunately, we have seen that falling into disrepair, even though it was brought in only about four years ago. It was a really exciting initiative and my ten-year-old son absolutely loves playing there.

[Mr Leslie]

There are different fashions and trends in play, particularly in the younger teenage years. Skateboard parks were a particular thing a decade ago and trends change. In Nottingham, in my constituency, a new play area has just been installed in Shipstone Street, and Nottingham is trying its best to roll out more facilities. It has improved 75 play areas, with three more set for improvement works shortly, and the city has 54 Green Flag Awards, the greatest number in the country.

Resources are still an underlying problem. Since 2009, Nottingham has had to cut its parks and open spaces budget by £3 million, with a further £300,000 to be cut in the next financial year. Like a lot of local authorities, it has had to start looking elsewhere to plug that gap, looking for grants from other charities and funding bodies over the past 10 years. That is a story repeated across the country. For example, Knowsley Borough Council has had to make a decision to sell off some parks and green spaces, which is a real shame, as childhood obesity levels are very high in that part of the world. Other local authorities are being forced into similar choices—half of the councils in north-west England, according to a BBC report, are considering selling off parks or finding other organisations to maintain them over the next three years.

Nationally, we are just not replacing playgrounds at the same rate as they are disappearing. Some 92% of park managers report cuts to their budgets over the last three years, and research undertaken by the Association of Play Industries has uncovered a sharp decline in playgrounds across England: 214 playgrounds have been closed, with a further 234 playgrounds earmarked for closure by local authorities. That is 448 playgrounds closed or closing, which is an alarming downward trend in play provision. There is no longer dedicated funding for playgrounds from central Government, or grants from the third sector, so playground provision falls to local authorities, whose budgets are of course squeezed.

Play really does matter and it is worth underlining what to many of us might seem obvious. Playgrounds are one of the best ways of encouraging children to do physical activity. Childhood obesity is at epidemic levels. More than one fifth of reception children are overweight or obese; by year 6 that rises to over a third. Children living in deprived areas are more than twice as likely to be obese than those in more affluent areas. For many children, playgrounds represent the only chance to play outdoors. Children living within 1 km of a playground are five times more likely to be of a healthy weight than children who are not near a playground.

Play is fundamental to the wider wellbeing of children. If play is restricted, that is likely to have a profound effect on physical and mental health, now and into the future. There is a crisis in children’s mental health, with some reports saying that as many as 20% of children have some degree of mental illness and that problem might be rising. Without adequate access to play, children cannot develop the important emotional skills needed to protect them from anxiety and depression. Research from the charity Fields in Trust shows, for the first time at national level, a direct and statistically significant link between the availability of public parks and green spaces and health and wellbeing.

That is why I called this debate today. We must not take playgrounds and play facilities for granted. We have to talk about them. This is an area of policy that could fall between the gaps. It was difficult even to decide whether I should target this debate at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education, or the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, so this is not owned as much as it should be.

I have four requests of the Minister, and I will be as specific as I can. The first is about resources. I do not like to bang on about money constantly because I know the situation is tight, but we should invest to save. Investing a pound in good play facilities now will yield better returns and savings for the health service and the education system in the long run. We cannot rely on developers’ section 106 contributions for new play facilities. They make a bit of a difference, but only in areas in which development is taking place.

[John Howell]

On section 106 contributions, has the hon. Gentleman thought about using the powers in the neighbourhood planning regime to designate open and green spaces for that use?

[Mr Leslie]

I think that is absolutely vital. A lot of local authorities and councillors care about these issues and do exactly that. We gain from having open spaces for free-style play, but having structure in playground provision costs money, and we need to think about investing in such facilities.

If I were to ask for a sum of money from the Department, I would urge the Minister to think about what a mere £100 million could achieve. It would deliver 1,600 playgrounds and play spaces. That is the sort of level we are talking about to counter the downward trend in the statistics I mentioned earlier.

Secondly, children’s voices should be better represented as policies are developed. The parks and green spaces sector has not had a dedicated national voice or leadership in Government since the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment was merged with the Design Council back in 2011, and the closure of the charity GreenSpace in 2013 was a great loss. The lack of a dedicated national leadership agency on this issue is holding back the development of children’s playgrounds, parks and open spaces. The Department set up the parks action group, but it does not focus specifically on children and the importance of play. I ask the Minister to think about how we can increase the representation of this issue in that forum.

The other day, the Minister and the Secretary of State launched the integrated communities strategy, which relates to how we can help communities to come together. We talked earlier about the social cohesion gains that could come from that. Although the “Integrated Communities Strategy” Green Paper mentioned bringing neighbourhoods together, it could have focused much more on play. I ask the Minister for parks to think about adding play to his portfolio to address the real threats that exists. Taking action to open up the mental and physical health benefits of outdoor play to the widest possible range of children from all backgrounds will make a real difference.

Thirdly, I ask the Minister to help us get more allies for the play sector. That is similar to my second ask of the Government. The Heritage Lottery Fund recently removed its “Parks for People” programme. It is one of the greatest ironies that, after the financial crisis, the lottery provided some of the most stable funding for community development, and we have relied on it for the past decade. That was the only dedicated parks restoration fund, and without it there is less opportunity to bid for grants.

Fourthly, I want to ask the Minister about the evidence and research he will need to arm him in his discussions with the rest of Government, with his Secretary of State and around the Cabinet table. We need to prove that every pound spent on children’s playgrounds will lead to great returns. Next month, the charity Fields in Trust will publish a report that shows that the value that lower socioeconomic groups place on parks and green spaces is higher than the national average. A reduction in the quantity and quality of those spaces may disproportionately affect those who need them most. This is not just about money. We need to gather that evidence together. The alarming statistics in the Association of Play Industries’ report, which I mentioned earlier, combined with the continued increase in child obesity, lead me to ask whether we can commission a deeper and more thorough report into the state of play facilities and open spaces across the entire United Kingdom. Research with a particular emphasis on the prevalence of obesity and other health issues in certain geographical areas will allow us to examine the correlations and help us to make more appropriate decisions about play policy.

I believe there is a strong correlation between higher instances of obesity and mental health issues in childhood, and the deprivation experienced by areas where free-play opportunities are limited or lacking. That is a significant challenge for public policy makers. A well-maintained and loved community play and recreation area fosters social cohesion, as hon. Members said, encourages children to be active and lifts the spirit and mood of the whole community. I hope the Minister agrees and helps to drive forward a renaissance in children’s play across the country.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) on securing this important debate. I enjoyed listening to him and thought he made a thoughtful contribution, as did the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell).

The breadth of my portfolio at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government means that I have the privilege of discussing a wide range of areas that affect people’s daily lives. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham East for raising the important issue of playgrounds. He spoke passionately about how such areas bring communities together and promote health, fitness and an appreciation of the outdoors. Like him, I am a father—I have two daughters—and I enjoy sports, so I recognise the value of having safe, welcoming, open public spaces.

Ensuring that playgrounds, parks and other open spaces are available and accessible is, in the first instance, the responsibly of individual local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. I want to say a few words about how my Department is supporting the sector in that area. I will touch on resources, which he rightly talked about, so I hope that will be of interest to him, and then I will draw on the work that is being done across Government. As he acknowledged, other Departments have a stake in this. I will bring their good work to the fore today.

On the issue of resources for local government, I would be the first to say that local authorities have done a commendable job over the past few years in delivering high-quality services, including adult social care and children’s services, and improving our roads, public spaces and playgrounds, in what has no doubt been a difficult financial climate. They should be commended for that.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) on securing this really worthwhile debate. Will the Minister join me in commending South Gloucestershire Council, which announced in the past couple of weeks that it will invest £460,000 in green spaces, including a number of parks and playgrounds around Yate and Chipping Sodbury, which will make a huge difference to the community? I want to put on the record my thanks to two local campaigners, Sonia Williams and Matt Lewis, who have constantly raised the issue.

[Rishi Sunak]

I would be delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend’s council. That is an example of communities working with their local authority, despite the difficult overall climate, to find creative solutions that will benefit the community. There are examples of that happening all over the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that example, and I congratulate all those involved in that positive outcome.

On resources for the sector overall, the recent local government finance settlement ensures that the sector will have £45.6 billion in the next financial year, rising from £44.3 billion in the financial year we are just finishing. Nottingham will have more than £500 million in core spending power over that spending review period, the last two years of which we are about to enter, and it will be for the council—whether in Nottingham or elsewhere—to decide how best to prioritise its resources among all the competing claims.

The settlement is the third year of a four-year deal, as I mentioned, and it was accepted by 97% of councils, including that of the hon. Member for Nottingham East. I am glad that they have benefited from the certainty and stability brought by knowledge of income over the medium term. That is something that local authorities have asked for. It allows them to think strategically. Indeed, in the hon. Gentleman’s area the Nottingham Open Space Forum, of which I know he is aware, is one such example of that longer term strategic thinking, and it highlights the point that local areas are best placed to decide how to use resources to promote the causes that their constituents care most about.

[Melanie Onn]

Is the Minister aware of the inquiry by the previous Communities and Local Government Committee, which I was part of? The public response in that inquiry was overwhelming—one of the biggest the Committee received for any inquiry it had undertaken. Is that a sign that parks should be much higher up the Government’s agenda?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work on that Committee. I read that report when I first got this job a few weeks ago. It was a very good report, and I hope that she is pleased to see that the Government responded very positively to its recommendations, through my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). I shall come on to those shortly, especially with regard to the parks action group and how we take forward the work recommended in the report.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East spoke a lot about children’s needs, and he is absolutely right to do so. There is more to do on tackling rising obesity levels and mental illness among our young people, but I am pleased that a great deal of activity is going on across Government in this area. We all want our children to be healthy and active, no matter their background, which is why it is important that we focus as a priority on what is happening in schools.

Having spoken to colleagues in the Department for Education, I am delighted to tell the Chamber that funding for the primary school PE and sport premium has doubled to £320 million a year from 2017. That will be a huge help in enabling schools to drive further improvements to sport provision. Furthermore, an extra £100 million has been promised to schools through the healthy pupils capital fund, which is a one-off fund provided from the soft drinks industry levy. That money will go to improving playgrounds and sports facilities across the school estate. Last week the Department for Education also announced the allocation of almost £1.5 billion in the forthcoming financial year to maintain and improve the condition of the education estate, including outdoor spaces.

As the hon. Gentleman noted, however, this is about much more than just funding. By making physical education a compulsory subject at all four key stages in the new national curriculum, the Government are helping to prioritise exercise and wellbeing. The positive experience of sport at a young age can create a lifelong habit of participation. It is important to foster that in young children. It is also important for our children to have role models whom they can look up to and who can inspire them to get fit and keep active. Darcy Bussell has spoken about that recently, and my constituent Sir Ian Botham has been a long-time advocate of children’s exercise, health and fitness.

The hon. Gentleman made the important point that there should be a voice for the parks and green spaces sector, a dedicated national voice to champion and advocate for it. He is aware of the parks action group established by my predecessor last year, and I would like to think that it is exactly that voice that the hon. Gentleman has called for. One of the points that I will take away from today is that we might need to shout a little louder about the important work of the parks action group. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) knows, that is one of the Select Committee recommendations that the Government acted on swiftly.

The action group draws on the expertise of a range of partners from the parks sector and a range of Departments. I will list some of those involved: the Association for Public Service Excellence, the Parks Alliance, Fields in Trust, the National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces, Keep Britain Tidy, Natural England, Groundwork, the National Trust, the Heritage Lottery Fund and bodies representing local and parish councils. I list them because I am especially pleased that such a wide range of organisations have committed their time and energy to work in partnership with the Government to raise the profile of the parks agenda.

I say to hon. Members present that I do not intend for the parks action group just to be a talking shop. It aims not only to take forward the recommendations of the Communities and Local Government Committee report from last year but to deal with wider issues facing the parks sector. The members represent the views of the local communities with whom they work and, through their contribution, we will ensure that all the issues that have surfaced today and many others are properly raised, represented and actioned.

The group will in the first instance identify effective and deliverable activities that can be undertaken to secure a better future for our green spaces for generations to come. It will focus on six immediate priorities for parks: standards, funding, vision and value of parks, empowering communities, knowledge and skills, and increasing usage. Those priorities pick up a number of the very pertinent points made by the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Leslie]

I am very interested to hear about the action group, which is an important organisation, but I must emphasise again play and playgrounds—the need for structured physical facilities within the parks. If the Minister can ensure that that is part and parcel of one of those six objectives, I would feel a lot happier.

[Rishi Sunak]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. I was about to come on to that, but he is right to raise it. I will ensure that a transcript of the debate, including his particular point about playgrounds and play, is given to all the members of the parks action group so that that is uppermost in their minds as they develop their work.

The action group will also explore how to improve equality of access across all ages and social groups. We all recognise that parks can play an important role in strengthening community cohesion, combating loneliness —my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) made an important point there—and promoting integration between diverse groups. The hon. Member for Nottingham East made reference to the integrated communities strategy published last week, and that highlights how the use of shared areas, especially by young people, helps to bring communities and neighbourhoods together. As a Department, we will welcome views on the proposals in that Green Paper and we will engage with individuals, communities, businesses and faith groups to help deliver those specific proposals.

With regard to loneliness, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I am a member of the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, which was set up in memory of Jo. The Prime Minister has championed this as a priority for her—there was a meeting only last week, in which we talked about the value of green spaces in combatting loneliness and about ensuring that open spaces feature heavily in the commission’s strategy.

The parks action group will also consider the various funding models that exist to support parks and green spaces, and it will share that information with the sector to support future sustainability. There are examples of innovation, particularly up in Newcastle and the north-east, which I am keen to visit reasonably soon to explore what is being done. I look forward to presenting an update to Parliament on the progress of the parks action group in due course. I encourage all Members to support its work.

[Melanie Onn]

When is the strategy group due to produce a report? I wonder how the parents of the Sixhills area of Great Grimsby will feel about the outcomes of that and how quickly they will start to see the results in their play area.

[Rishi Sunak]

The parks action group has met recently, this year, and I am due to attend the next meeting. I cannot give the hon. Lady a specific timeline, but the Government have committed to report regularly to Parliament with updates. I hope we will give an update before the summer recess, but I have not yet had my first meeting so I am loth to make a firm commitment until I know about the work streams and plans of the action group. The Government have funded the group with £500,000, which I hope will leverage in extra funding from the various partners involved to promote the agenda that the group is keen to embrace.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East made another point about social deprivation. He is aware of the pocket parks programme, which the Department has run in the past, where £1 million helped in cases such as the one the hon. Member for Great Grimsby mentioned. The programme helped to fund 87 small green spaces, including two in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham East, such as Frinton pocket park. That was a fantastic programme and I am looking to see what lessons we can learn from it, such as whether there is the possibility of replicating something similar in the future. It was brilliant at targeting money on areas with high social deprivation, removing those barriers to access.

I am conscious of time, but I hope that in the debate I have been able to demonstrate to the Chamber that the Government—not least me—are taking the subject seriously. With the parks action group, work is happening. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to put the issues front and forward on the agenda. I look forward to working with him and other Members to develop the green spaces that we all want our children to enjoy, not just today but for years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Future of the Commonwealth

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

14:30

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Commonwealth.

It is a particular pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and as a child of the Commonwealth and as the founder chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. The fact that so many Members are here—at least on the Government side of the Chamber—is testament to the enduring importance of the Commonwealth. Today is a good day to have this debate, because it is only a few weeks before the first Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in this country for 30 years.

Much has been written about the Commonwealth, and it has been written off many times, but we can be confident that a recent article in The Guardian entitled “Empire strikes back: why former colonies don’t need Britain after Brexit” was suitably disobliging. A 69-year-old multilateral body that spans all continents and has 54 nations, from the very large to the minute, some 2.4 billion people, great forests of diversity, billions of pounds of intra-trade, a headquarters in a royal palace and a logo that appears to be a globe swallowed up by a hedgehog does not need to worry too much about The Guardian. What the Commonwealth needs to do is ensure that it is looking firmly forward, surprising us with its constant reinvention, giving the younger generation responsibility and, above all, looking confidently towards a bigger, better future—one that the American poet Aberjhani called

“reinvigorated substance, a fresh flow of ideas, and splendidly revitalised colour.”

Let me share a few thoughts about what that might look like in practice and what Britain might contribute. I cannot today namecheck the more than 100 Commonwealth organisations based in London, or pay tribute to their individual contributions to this great brand that we all want to see shine ever more brightly, but I can start by welcoming the fact that Prime Minister Modi—he is the Head of Government in India, which is the Commonwealth’s most populous nation—will be at this CHOGM. It is the first time that the Prime Minister of India has been for 13 years. That is important.

In that context, I strongly support the Royal Commonwealth Society’s call for a new visa partnership with India, modelled on what a number of us worked hard to achieve with China only a few years ago. That partnership would recognise that we are such an important investor in and visitor to each other’s countries. Let us build stronger links with India and encourage her to take a bigger leadership role in the Commonwealth. At the same time, let us use our huge development reach through the Department for International Development to realise two big development goals across not only India, but all the nations of the Commonwealth.

First, we should have a vision to increase vision, using the technology of apps and the success there has been, primarily with cataract operations. That concept was brilliantly outlined by Peek Vision during the Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey, and it has realised huge success in east Africa and further south, especially in Botswana, whose Minster of Health was there beside our Prime Minister during the service. On that occasion, some Members will have heard the charity’s co-founder explain how the apps that have been developed can be used by teachers to diagnose what an impaired sight or blind person is suffering from and how they can be cured. There are more than 100 million people with bad or no eyesight in the Commonwealth and together, as a unified entity, the Commonwealth can help many of them, if not all, to have better vision.

Secondly, we could affirm the determination to eliminate malaria, not least through the charity Malaria No More. Across our Commonwealth and throughout the continent of Africa, malaria prevents so many people—especially the young—from reaching their potential or even enjoying a life beyond childhood. As someone who had malaria on his wedding day in east Africa, I feel I owe the mosquitos one. I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister will say more about Malaria No More.

By combining development funds with national programmes, international charities and the power of giving across so many countries, I believe the two dreams of giving almost everyone in the Commonwealth sight and ridding the Commonwealth—and ultimately the world, but let us start with the Commonwealth—of malaria could be achieved. That would unite the people of the Commonwealth in a shared understanding of what we can achieve together. By eliminating malaria, we can make real advances on an issue that I know the Foreign Secretary cares hugely about and loses few opportunities to advocate: delivering 12 years of education for the 130 million girls in the Commonwealth currently not in school. I hope that the Minister will say more about what we can achieve to ensure that every girl in the Commonwealth gets the chance to go to school.

Nor is what the Commonwealth can achieve limited to change that directly affects humans. We can make the Blue Charter project come alive in islands in the Caribbean and the Indian and Pacific oceans. On land, we can protect more forests through the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy scheme. I hope that the Commonwealth will commit to that during CHOGM and bring that Blue Charter project alive.

These visions, projects and development causes will strike a light with many young people in different nations, and I agree with those who want to bring alive the values of the Commonwealth by doing more to promote gender equality through, for example, the Commonwealth Youth Gender and Equality Network. Of course that will sometimes prove controversial and uncomfortable in parts of the Commonwealth, as have other similar causes, but I hope we will not be shy in promoting the values that all nations have signed up to in the Commonwealth charter. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making a brilliant speech, as usual. All the values that he speaks of—aid, co-operation, travel and so on—are fantastic, but is there not a case to explore military co-operation and intelligence sharing, given the threats we all face? The Commonwealth can perform a role in its own right.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I did not know him better, I would assume that he must have cyber-attacked my speech, because he has brilliantly anticipated what I was about to say.

Development on its own—this is where my hon. Friend’s point comes in—however noble, is not enough of a cause to realise the full potential of the Commonwealth. One of the key things is to tackle civic society changes as part of an embracing of all talent and good business practice. That boosts economies, security and standards of living for all. On the business side, I do not think that a future Commonwealth-wide free trade agreement is practical—I am sorry to disappoint those who believe it is. We might be able to make a start with a small coalition of the willing, but I doubt it would expand across the full panoply of the Commonwealth in the way that many of us would like.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He set out some of the reasons why today is a good day to have this debate. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I want to add that today Cyril Ramaphosa is signing an Africa free trade agreement. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the potential for free trade within Africa, combined with forward-looking trade agreements with the UK that put economic development at the heart, are real opportunities for the Commonwealth?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; today is an exciting day. I think it is called the continental free trade area. It brings together 21 African nations, so by no means everybody in Africa, but it is a huge leap forward. In a sense, I am leading on to that.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Graham]

I of course give way to the previous Minister for the Commonwealth.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another reason to be optimistic is that the incoming President of South Africa was a major figure within the Commonwealth family? He believes in the Commonwealth, he gets it, he is coming to London and hopefully he will make South Africa a far bigger player in the Commonwealth family than has hitherto been the case.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; he will be very welcome here. The changes in southern Africa, both in Zimbabwe and South Africa itself, give us all hope that the direction of southern Africa is on a positive trend, in the sense that in both cases the changes have been done bloodlessly. I very much hope that South Africa will be a keen part of the Commonwealth again, and that perhaps next year we will be able to welcome Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth family, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) would welcome, too.

Although the Department for International Trade wants to see, precisely as both hon. Members have mentioned, the benefits of intra-Commonwealth trade spreading more widely across the Commonwealth and reaching forward to a world where free trade agreements could be more possible and practical, the biggest challenge to the ease of doing business is in the non-tariff barriers. At some point we must try to do more about the practical challenges to benefiting from cross-border trade in the way that Malaysia and Singapore, two far east Commonwealth countries, trade together over each other’s borders.

It is amazing that we have not yet made more progress—by “we”, I mean the Commonwealth in this context. I first started working on these issues with the then Minister for the Commonwealth, Lord Howe, a great champion of the Commonwealth since its birth. With Lord Marland leading the charge at the reinvigorated Commonwealth and Enterprise Investment Council—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) is part of that team—we have the opportunity to help steer the Commonwealth in a more business-friendly direction that will advocate free trade.

The potential for our own free trade agreements in the United Kingdom means that during our period of leadership of the Commonwealth over the next four years, there is no excuse for not seeing a sea change in the number of free trade agreements and direct bilateral business being done throughout the Commonwealth.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting and timely speech. I fully agree that the Commonwealth is unlikely to form some kind of new trading bloc, but does he agree that it is an important framework for intergovernmental co-operation in improving the investment environment? That is the way that it will help to aid trade: by working together on things such as infrastructure, the business environment, the rule of law and governance. All those things will help to improve our trading relationships in the long term.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that her experience in the International Trade Committee bears on that. Those non-tariff barriers: the ease of doing business, infrastructure issues, blockages at ports, and bureaucracy and paperwork involved are all things on which we and the Commonwealth as a whole can make huge progress. She is quite right; it would make a big difference.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous with his time. Does he agree that improving the regulatory capacity in Commonwealth countries is an important factor in supporting and increasing trade in services? Although most businesses want to make a positive impact, some are looking to exploit the lower regulatory barriers in some developing countries. The Commonwealth can make a real difference in ensuring that the legal and regulatory frameworks in Commonwealth countries enable a free and frank negotiation of regulatory agreements.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. The question of standards and regulatory resource capacity and implementation, which ultimately boils down to the rule of law, is critical. If we say, as we often do, that among the shared values of the Commonwealth are those of democracy, language, the rule of law, accounting standards and so on, we should not be complacent about assuming that they are all the same in every Commonwealth country and that they are equally well implemented. That comes back to one of the issues from the report by the Eminent Persons Group in 2013, which the Minister will remember well because he was in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time. A commissioner was going to be appointed to look at the quality and the implementation of democracy in its widest sense, including—in my interpretation anyway—the rule of law. The business of standards is absolutely critical. The Minister may want to comment on that when he speaks.

We are hearing from across the Chamber an enthusiasm for more business, and not just for business’s sake but as a catalyst for improving living standards for millions of people across all continents. We in the United Kingdom may want to look at what more we can do with our resources. It was mooted in a recent House of Lords debate that perhaps we should have more trade envoys with Commonwealth member responsibilities. I think there are seven of us at the moment who are trade envoys for the Prime Minister with Commonwealth countries, but there may be a case for increasing that number, to see whether the team would benefit from further recruits, especially from those with close links to the Commonwealth countries to which they might be appointed.

There could also be a real effort by the United Kingdom to open doors and opportunities through our large, thriving financial sector. For example, we have great fund managers such as Standard Life Aberdeen or Schroders, but I am not aware of any investment opportunity into a Commonwealth-branded fund. That would be an obvious potential opportunity. Perhaps it should be done by one of our smaller and nimbler venture capital or private equity outfits, but a Commonwealth fund could have real emotional appeal and could attract a large amount of funding that, if focused on venture capital, could encourage a resurgence of Commonwealth entrepreneurs.

At the same time, with our new and invigorated UK export finance, where we have announced huge sums of money available, particularly for the region of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, where I have trade envoy responsibilities, surely there is an opportunity at this CHOGM to make an announcement that UK export finance will provide a large fund of perhaps £2 billion to £5 billion of finance available as insurance credit for business partnerships around the Commonwealth. That would be a good start and would demonstrate our commitment to promoting greater intra-Commonwealth trade.

Behind that, there are what I might call the two step-brothers that are critical to every country across the Commonwealth: cyber and FinTech. In these sectors, the UK can offer a huge lead for, and partnership with, other Commonwealth countries. We already do so, particularly with Singapore in the far east, but there must be greater opportunities for doing so with Commonwealth partners, particularly in Africa.

I recommend that the Foreign Office—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, rather; let us not forget the C—proposes to the Commonwealth secretary-general, my former fellow trade envoy, Baroness Scotland, that she considers setting up a new Commonwealth cyber body as soon as possible to bring together expertise from the UK and other member states, and considers ways of increasing capacity for the protection of all digital facilities, Government and non-Government, in member states.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am sure that he already knows this, given that he is trailing heavily with his tailcoat, but I understand that the cyber proposal he mentioned has already received considerable support, and that a large number of our fellow Commonwealth members will take it up during CHOGM.

[Richard Graham]

In fact I did not know that, but it makes logical sense. If that work is already under way, I am delighted. Perhaps the Minister can say more about it, because that is exactly the sort of initiative we need. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

The next stage, which brings me back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said, is the whole business of training and skills. For everything I have mentioned—standards, fund management, export credit, cyber and FinTech, and promotion of development causes—we will need more skills, and not just in this country but throughout the Commonwealth. Training courses and the handover of skills through higher education and vocational qualifications are critical to the way the Commonwealth moves forward. The UK has a huge amount to offer in that context through organisations such as TVET, but specific sectoral skills also need to be passed on, and there is arguably no sector more important than the armed forces and the police. Widening our security links with Commonwealth countries and improving their security will be crucial to the success of those sovereign states and to ensuring that there is less volatility in governance than there has been in some of them in the past few years.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making important points, and I commend him for bringing forward the debate. I was astonished to learn in preparation for the debate that more than half the population of the Commonwealth is under 25. One can hardly begin to imagine the potential of the creative energy of all those wonderful young people and what that could do not just for the countries of the Commonwealth but for the whole world.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although with that goes the challenge of ensuring that those people have opportunities, and the skills and qualifications to take up those opportunities. I add another caveat: if countries such as China are going to play a greater role in the development of infrastructure in the Commonwealth, particularly in Africa, I very much hope that the resultant job opportunities are not purely for large ships full of Chinese who come over to develop that infrastructure, but for the people who live in those countries.

There we are. I have touched on prosperity and security, partly because, alongside fairness and sustainability, they are two themes of CHOGM, but also because, in the absence of security and the ability to become more prosperous, the future of individuals, families and nations is always set back. This is an important time and these are important themes.

Let me quote:

“By pledging to serve the common good in new ways, we can ensure that the Commonwealth continues to grow in scope and stature, to have an even greater impact on people’s lives, today, and for future generations.”

That was said by she who will shortly host the greatest number of Heads of State and Government seen in this country since the 2012 Olympics: our own Queen. I believe that this CHOGM is partly to recognise, and perhaps to celebrate, Her Majesty’s incredible service to the Commonwealth and to ensure that the baton is passed on. I very much hope that the Prince of Wales and his sons and their wives play an increasing role in serving the Commonwealth, as our Queen has for so long.

Ours is a nation with much to give the world. I hope that the Government, business, charities and other organisations rise to the occasion of our hosting this year’s CHOGM, welcome India’s enhanced engagement and Gambia’s rejoining the Commonwealth, and consider all the ways we can ensure that that incredibly important and precious organisation goes from strength to strength.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I need to begin calling the Front Benchers as close as possible to 3.30 pm, so I will impose a time limit of four minutes. That will take us a little beyond that time, so I emphasise that the limit might have to be cut if Members make interventions—I hope that they will refrain from doing so wherever possible.

14:56

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will do the best I can in the four minutes available.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. In the last Parliament, I was a vice-chair of the all-party group on the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, I missed its annual general meeting this year, but it does good work, and he can be assured of my support for it. I also served on the executive of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is one example of the many organisations he spoke about that are brought together by the Commonwealth and help to facilitate its various aims.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the Commonwealth’s good work on tackling malaria and about sight and vision. We had the Commonwealth Development Corporation at the all-party group on Malawi not that long ago. The opportunity for co-operation there is very important.

At the same time, it is important not to get misty-eyed. CHOGM gives us the opportunity to look at whether the Commonwealth’s options for the future are challenges, opportunities or both. The concept of the Commonwealth is not unrelated to the old Scots concept of the common weal. Of course, it is the Scottish National party’s ambition for Scotland one day to become an independent member of the Commonwealth in its own right. The very definition of an independent country is how it relates to and co-operates with other independent states. I note that 31 members of the Commonwealth have a population of 1.5 million or less, and no one seems to argue that they are too small or poor to be independent, or that they need to come back to the bosom of mother Britannia.

Scotland already enjoys special status in the Commonwealth. We participate in the Commonwealth games, and we have hosted them—in Edinburgh in 1970 and 1986, and in Glasgow in 2014—and I am proudly wearing the demure and sober 2014 Commonwealth games tartan. The legacy of the Commonwealth games in host cities is another advantage of the organisation. It is notable that venues are refurbished and brought back to life, which contrasts with the grandiose venues that are sometimes constructed for Olympic games.

Scotland also has a relationship with Malawi, and today I welcomed the honourable Juliana Lunguzi, MP for Dedza East, to the House. I thoroughly agree with the idea of improved visas for India, but that should be extended across the Commonwealth. Far too often, people from Commonwealth countries, including politicians, do not have their visas granted in time. That happens time and again with Malawi.

CHOGM presents a number of questions and opportunities. If the Commonwealth is to continue to be a force for good, members must be willing to be frank with one another. That means there are opportunities to press for action on human rights—particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights—remembering that some of the oppressive laws in Commonwealth countries are a legacy of empire.

The question of the head of the Commonwealth is clearly under discussion, too. Even if the ceremonial head remains the monarch, perhaps there is a way of democratising the choice of the secretary-general and involving the Parliaments of member countries in that decision. On future membership—I was going to say that I joked about Scotland, but I did not; I am very serious about Scotland—there is a question about whether Ireland might come back in. We have welcomed Irish observers at recent CPA events—although, given Ireland’s record in the rugby, I am not sure whether we want its participation in the Commonwealth games.

Trade is vital. We must remember that 52 of 54 Commonwealth countries make up only 9% of our exports. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, the Commonwealth is not a trading bloc per se, and Canada already has a deal with the EU, so we must be careful about how that is taken forward.

There is an opportunity not for misty-eyed, rose-tinted harking back to the past but for building a 21st-century organisation looking at human rights and democracy.

15:00

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I also pay tribute to him for his obvious passion for eradicating malaria and for the education of young girls across the Commonwealth.

In the Commonwealth’s near 70-year history, it has been an incredibly difficult organisation to define. That is understandable. It is not, as some might have us believe, a remnant of empire. It is not simply an organisation that organises brilliant sporting events every four years. It is not a military organisation like NATO, it is not a free trade organisation like the North American Free Trade Agreement, and it is not a political, economic and monetary union like the EU. Instead, it is a free association of member states including some 54 nations, with more than 30 republics, five separate monarchies and 16 Commonwealth realms lucky enough to have Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State. It is scattered around the globe on all inhabited continents. It is 11,566,870 square miles—20% of the world’s land area. It has an estimated population of 2.4 billion people—and growing—which is nearly a third of the world’s population, and in 2014 it produced a nominal GDP of $10.45 trillion, representing 14% of gross world product.

In researching for the debate, I stumbled upon this quote from Wisma Putra, Malaysia’s Foreign Affairs Minister. He said:

“The Commonwealth has played a catalytic role in strengthening society’s capacity to manage disparity and diversity through its emphasis on the shared values and principles as enshrined in the Commonwealth charter, its good offices role, various programmes and activities as well as assistance in building democratic institutions, good governance, credible and transparent elections.”

Mr Putra has summed up in one sentence what the Commonwealth is and stands for: shared values and principles; managing disparity and diversity; and encouraging sound democratic institutions and good governance. Above all, the Commonwealth fosters dialogue and discussion where otherwise, in many cases, there would be none. For the last 70 years, that has been the case. These disparate states, bound by a common history and shared endeavours, encouraged, supported and—most importantly—talked to one another.

That is the present and the past, and today we are talking about the future. Britain today is at the beginning of a new chapter of its island story. As we leave the European Union and look to foster alliances around the world with allies old and new, we look to strike trade deals and partnerships in Africa, Asia, South America, North America and Australasia. I put it to hon. Members that no country has ever been in so fortunate a position—or had a better starting point at such a juncture—as the United Kingdom today. We are a member of an organisation that spans every corner of the globe and encompasses some of the fastest growing economies in the world; that comprises 54 nations that share our values—we believe in free and fair trade as a means to grow prosperity and eradicate poverty—and our desire to build a better world for our children and our children’s children. For far too long—for understandable if regrettable reasons—this country has paid far too little attention to the organisation. I am glad that, through the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and beyond, we will begin to right that wrong.

It will not be a smooth ride—nor should it be. We do not and never should engage with Commonwealth member states as some sort of imperial master. They are bound to us by nothing but good will, a shared history and common values. We go to them as equals, but we do so from a terrific starting point. In the next few years together, the Commonwealth, with common cause and purpose, and with Britain—for the first time for far too long—at its true heart, can be the forum where, through trade, common endeavour and dialogue, we build a better future for all our peoples and make the 21st century truly the Commonwealth’s century.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we go to the next speaker, may I ask the Front Benchers if I could cut them down to eight minutes each so that we can hear more from the Back Benchers? Is that agreed? Given that we have not had any interventions yet, and the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) has agreed to withdraw, I can extend speaking time to five minutes for everyone else.

15:04

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your patient chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on introducing the debate. This is a timely discussion about the role of the Commonwealth in relation to the United Kingdom as we look to the future.

My most endearing memory of involvement with the Commonwealth was as a volunteer at the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, where I participated in the medal ceremonies. That was a fantastic experience. Aside from getting a free kilt out of it, I had the chance to work closely with Prince Tunku Imran, who was involved with the Commonwealth Games Federation and the presentation of medals to numerous teams. It was wonderful to see the diversity of participants, from world-class athletes such as Usain Bolt to people who were participating in formal competition in their sport for the first time. It was marvellous to see that diversity imbued in the Commonwealth. That is what gives it its unique flavour: it is not just a series of diplomatic member states in a secretariat but a huge synthesis of human relationships that go much deeper and build a great degree of influence and good will across the world.

That is vital in today’s globalised world, where we face major challenges and huge global inequalities. The Commonwealth’s structure transcends that remarkably and provides a great forum and mechanism through which Britain can contribute to improving the condition of mankind across the world. That is why it is so relevant and critical today.

I hope that at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting we will see a reaffirmed, firm commitment to achieve the UN sustainable development goals through Commonwealth action by the target date of 2030. Recently, I was pleased to meet the high commissioner from Malawi who came to the House of Commons to discuss Malawi matters and how vital Scotland’s contribution has been to promoting development in Malawi. That was a great, heartening discussion. We had a debate on that topic in Westminster Hall recently, too. The depth of good will in the Commonwealth and the huge commercial trading and developmental opportunities that exist are clear. That is critical, and we must reaffirm our efforts to improve them and their resilience in the years ahead.

It is wonderful that as of last month Gambia has rejoined the Commonwealth. I offer my congratulations. I also hope that Zimbabwe will rejoin in due course; I believe discussions are ongoing to that effect. It is great to see the restoration of members within the Commonwealth, and that countries such as Mozambique, which were never part of the British empire and did not have a previous imperial relationship with the United Kingdom, saw the benefits of the Commonwealth and have joined it. That is a wonderful demonstration of what the Commonwealth now represents. It is not a hangover from empire but a relevant organisation. It is important that it continues to adapt and prove its relevance.

One of the key ways in which it can do that is by looking at how we deal with the challenge of AIDS and HIV across the world. We must be robust with other countries in the Commonwealth—particularly around anti-LGBT laws and how they adversely affect access to the prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS across the world—and use Commonwealth mechanisms to make headway against that epidemic. I hope the Minister will raise those issues with his counterparts in the Commonwealth as part of our effort to deliver on the global goal of a world free from AIDS.

Many Members and previous leaders such as Gordon Brown have made the point about the relevance of the Commonwealth, particularly in dealing with huge global inequalities. Natural disasters contribute to $8 billion of economic losses per year in the Commonwealth, and the combination of many of the smallest nation states in the world with many of the largest and fastest-growing nation states gives us a huge opportunity to use the Commonwealth to redistribute wealth and power globally in favour of the most marginalised people in the world. That is where our focus should be: how we use forums such as the Commonwealth games, diplomatic networks and development networks to see a redistribution of opportunity, wealth and power in favour of the weakest people in the world today. With 2.4 billion people—a third of the global population—and the fastest growing cities in the world, there is a huge opportunity to be grasped.

Engagement with the Commonwealth is vital for Britain. We must look at how we can redouble our efforts. We see opportunities for close relationships between states such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand—the more developed nations of the Commonwealth with which we share a common language and other cultural links—and we must use that wealth to redistribute across other nations of the Commonwealth and ensure global redistribution of wealth and power. That is where the Commonwealth can re-establish and reaffirm its relevance in the 21st century.

15:08

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. We are on the eve not only of CHOGM—for the first time in 30 years it will be held in this country—but of the Commonwealth games. As a recently appointed non-executive director of Commonwealth Games England, I want to dwell a little on that aspect and the importance of the games in bringing interaction between very different nations that are part of the Commonwealth family.

There are key strategic objectives over and above winning a lot of medals, which we hope our sportsmen and women will do. We need to deliver that success not just at the Commonwealth games, but at the Youth games that follow, which often give smaller nations an opportunity to host and benefit from everything that the Commonwealth games have to offer.

One of our key objectives is to create an English Commonwealth movement to promote personal achievement and our core values of equality, diversity and inclusion. Precisely because so many Commonwealth members are of such a young age, it is a very important opportunity to promote those values with successive new generations of citizens throughout the Commonwealth. Another objective is to be one of the most effective, respected, best-governed and well-managed sports associations in England and the Commonwealth.

As a west midlands Member of Parliament, it is a particular delight to note that Birmingham has stepped up to take the baton, which unfortunately had been dropped in the preparation for the 2022 games. The whole of the west midlands region will benefit from the opportunity to host the games and to bring many Commonwealth citizens to that part of our country. I am confident that we can do a good job.

It is significant that sport gives the opportunity to promote the benefits of Commonwealth membership. The sheer sight of two countries, North Korea and South Korea, taking part in a sporting event together under a single flag is the most recent demonstration of the opportunity that sport affords of bringing people together, which can be replicated at future Commonwealth games. It gives me the opportunity to touch on one important example of the way in which, coming together as sportsmen and women, we can also explore quite difficult subject areas together on such occasions.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which does such a splendid job in this place, is currently delivering a modern-day slavery project: a two-year multilateral project funded by the Home Office. Through seminars and workshops, the project is designed to support Commonwealth parliamentary colleagues in developing and strengthening modern slavery legislation in their own countries. I chaired a seminar on that very subject and I found it informative to hear from MPs from other Commonwealth countries what they are doing to tackle the very difficult problem of modern-day slavery. It was significant that a Nigerian MP who took part in the seminar went back to his own country and in February introduced legislation in the Nigerian House of Representatives to start to tackle the problem of slavery both at home and abroad.

There are also challenging messages that we have to be prepared to hear from other Commonwealth members. The Ghanaian Member of Parliament said that in his view the Italian Government were doing a better job of trying to tackle trafficking at source from his country than our own Government were prepared to do. We have to be willing to listen—it is a two-way conversation in the Commonwealth—and to explore where there is best practice in terms of tackling such a difficult problem as modern-day slavery. We may have been the first country to introduce legislation, but the problem is by no means sorted. Working together across the Commonwealth, which contains some of the most populous countries in the world, where, sadly, trafficking is a problem, we have a chance of dealing with it.

I hope that hosting the Commonwealth games will give us an opportunity to promote the best of British values across the Commonwealth and that at the same time we will tackle some of the difficult issues that beset all Commonwealth members at whatever stage of their development. Together we can produce a better outcome for all the countries involved.

15:13

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this important debate and making an excellent speech. This is a timely debate at a moment of importance in the affairs of our country, as we face a crossroads following our decision to leave the European Union. Britain is in a state of flux as we work out how we are to play effectively our global role in a new world. This is therefore an extraordinarily good moment to have this debate and to look forward to CHOGM and all that it will mean for the future of the Commonwealth and for its presence in this country.

We maintain a truly excellent but rather reduced diplomatic service, which, incidentally, must be properly resourced for its new duties, and a still highly effective military—I endorse entirely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester—on whom we will need to spend more money in the years to come to cope with the myriad threats. But one of our most important positions is to be at the very heart of the Commonwealth with our Queen at its head. The organisation has tremendous possibilities for its members and as an institution in the years to come. It comprises 53 nations and there are more than 100 Commonwealth institutions in London alone.

The bonds of history, language and political and other institutions shared by Commonwealth members are matters of celebration and could indeed represent great opportunities for Britain in a post-Brexit world, but they should never be taken for granted. Britain should be aware that in the 45 years since we joined the European Union, the world and the Commonwealth have both changed markedly in their perception and action towards the others. Finding areas of common interest in free trade across highly sophisticated and developed economies such as the UK, Canada and Australia will be a serious challenge.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Marland, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) and others who have driven forward the visionary work of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. I very much look forward to working with them over CHOGM.

Above all, in respect of the Commonwealth or any other trading organisation, we need to put flesh on the bones of global Britain, which at the moment is a slogan in pursuit of a strategy. It remains the case that there is a Commonwealth advantage. With its shared values, regulatory systems and language, there is no doubt that it has the potential to greatly increase intra-Commonwealth trade by possibly up to 20%, and could substantially cut the cost of doing business between member states. However, we need to keep a proper sense of proportion.

In 2015, 44% of our total UK exports of goods and services went to the European Union, while 9.5% went to the Commonwealth. This is a very big ask and a very important one. The biggest trade challenge for post-Brexit UK is not to get better trade deals with the rest of the world, although that would be good, but to get deals that are as good as those that now exist, most of which are multilateral and regional. We must remember that geography trumps history. This will be fiendishly difficult. Trade agreements are not something that happen at the drop of a hat; they take a lot of time and are complicated and deeply transactional.

I endorse very strongly the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester about India, which is interested in doing more trade with the United Kingdom. We have a long-standing and important relationship, but India will have its own demands on how many migrants are able to come here and the ease of getting visas to work. Surely to God we can work that out.

I wish to conclude and not take up my full time, but I wish to endorse again what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said in an outstanding speech about the great debt that the Commonwealth and this country owe the Sovereign for her work in keeping together the Commonwealth through thick and thin and some very difficult times indeed. I hope that the gathering of the Commonwealth family will recognise that astonishing work and will see to it that, as my hon. Friend said, the succession is passed in good order. Finally, I hope—may all of us hope—that at a correct and goodly time Zimbabwe will return to the family of the Commonwealth.

15:18

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech, particularly his focus on the United Nations sustainable development goals.

The UK’s trading future on the international stage is promising, and nowhere more so than within the Commonwealth. As a group of 54 nations, we are part of a collective comprised of 2.4 billion people—a third of the global population—and occupying about a quarter of the world’s land mass. By building on our relationships within the Commonwealth, we will further the goal, set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of becoming a truly global Britain.

The Commonwealth has strong foundations rooted in seven decades of collaboration. It has helped support smaller nations develop, strengthening economies and democratic institutions. Our collective economic strength is significant: a shared gross national income of more than $10 trillion, and internal Commonwealth trade is expected to grow to $1 trillion by 2020. As we seek to develop new opportunities further, we do so from a platform of shared histories. In many cases we have a common language and a common legal structure. We should therefore in theory have fewer barriers to overcome in reaching agreements. Already, 80% of Commonwealth countries benefit from preferential access to the UK’s market. Furthermore, the Royal Commonwealth Society has highlighted the fact that there are already significant trade advantages within the bloc. In a recent study it found that transaction costs between two Commonwealth partners are 19% less than they are between non-Commonwealth nations: that is driven largely by language and legal systems.

When we consider bolstering our trading relations internationally, we need to do it strategically. I am pleased that the Department for International Trade is working with many of our partners to lay down the basis for future trade agreements. However, we are limited by our capacity to broker deals. Free trade agreements are clearly an ambition, and rightly. However, they do not always meet expectations. In most cases deals are designed around goods, but if we are to capitalise on our competitive advantages they will need to include service markets. The reality is that for businesses that trade internationally there are several non-tariff barriers that free trade agreements often do not address, such as licensing agreements, capital controls and ownership rules. The British Chambers of Commerce identified non-tariff barriers as the most important area of concern for business in non-EU third-party agreements.

[Julia Lopez]

One of the difficulties that businesses have faced in recent years, particularly in trading with such places as Australia and New Zealand, is the movement of personnel. Because we have had such free and easy migration arrangements with Europe, it has been a problem to try to get movement from those other countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that an interesting idea to consider is something like a realm visa, which would give easy access to people from countries where the Queen is the Head of State, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada?

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes, I do agree. As we design an immigration system to meet the needs of the country, we will not have either artificial numbers or systems that do not meet the needs of businesses or our skills agenda.

Today the EU has, or is negotiating, trade deals with more than 80% of Commonwealth countries, in part thanks to the efforts of UK Governments, so we must ensure that we develop bilateral agreements to replace them. Bespoke deals could do just that. Singapore, for example, is a tech business hub for its region and could be a potential gateway to other Asian countries for British businesses. Like finance, technology consolidates in hubs, around talent and investment. We already enjoy a prominent position in the sector, with 18% of global data flows passing through the UK, so there is opportunity to grow. Singapore is currently finalising a deal with the EU.

We therefore hopefully have a foundation from which to work, with the potential for it to be more tailored to our national interests. Canada, too, has a basis from which to work, with the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Furthermore, we are Canada’s largest export market within the EU, and therefore there is a great mutual benefit to striking a deal.

In 2015 UK Commonwealth exports were £47.4 billion, with five larger economies—Australia, Canada, India, Singapore and South Africa—accounting for 70% of our Commonwealth exports and 65% of imports. There is therefore scope to expand our working relationships with the smaller developing Commonwealth nations. Technology, regulation, standards and skills training can act as a gateway to greater investment and openness in developing economies and provide career opportunities for large numbers of young people.

The Commonwealth provides the UK with a great opportunity for the further development of economic, diplomatic and cultural ties with nations that already have much in common with us. As the Prime Minister said last year, we face new and unprecedented joint challenges, and we all have a responsibility to work together as partners to ensure that the Commonwealth has the institutional strength to face them. Our trading relationships, if executed strategically, will drive prosperity both here and throughout the Commonwealth.

15:24

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on obtaining the debate and on an excellent and thought-provoking speech.

This is an important time for our future as members of the Commonwealth. There is little doubt that the United Kingdom is at something of a turning point in its relations with the world, as several hon. Members have mentioned. It is at times of strife and change that we look to our steadfast and historic Commonwealth allies to provide some sort of security. Those nations represent peoples around the world with whom we have an affinity and share a history, and whose values are similar. Our shared history makes our shared future, through our dealings with the Commonwealth in the years to come, uncontroversial. We have a bright future in which to work with new and old alliances around the world, to secure our future place in it. I contend that we must be careful that we do not look to the Commonwealth only in extremis. We must not become known as a friend who calls only when they want something. It is not in crisis or strife that we want to build our future together; it is on the basis of a conscious decision to change our view of the world from a European perspective to a more global identity.

The potential for the UK to forge ahead in global terms offers significant advantages to the economy in the shape of new emerging markets in the Commonwealth, to sell our products to and to buy from. It offers investment opportunities in economies of all shapes and sizes, in which we can place investments, and where we can seek investors in our economy. House of Commons Library research states that the Commonwealth is already a significant and important part of our economy, representing £21.6 billion of exports in 2017. In Scotland, where we have strong affection for the Commonwealth, the figure is £2.7 billion. That is not a small part of our economic mix.

However, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester did not miss the mark when he pointed out the challenge of creating a mix between mature consumer economies such as Canada and Australia and developing economies, and other Members also commented on that. There is huge benefit for all concerned to be gained by working together. Beyond that, there is also immense potential for us to develop cultural and social links. As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend, more than half of the Commonwealth population of more than 2 billion is under the age of 25.

I want to end by returning to the words of Her Majesty the Queen that were quoted earlier, which I find inspirational. She recently said in Westminster Abbey:

“By pledging to serve the common good in new ways, we can ensure that the Commonwealth continues to grow in scope and stature, to have an even greater impact on people’s lives, today, and for future generations.”

In the spirit of that idea of the common good, I want to ask the Minister two questions about the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. How do the Government intend to use CHOGM to raise the profile of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, which they have championed? Also, how shall we raise the principle of freedom of religion and belief through CHOGM? Sadly, it is not universally observed in the Commonwealth in accordance with article 18 of the United Nations declaration of human rights.

I hope that in the spirit of Her Majesty’s remarks we shall now turn as a faithful friend to our friends in the Commonwealth, nurture friendship and family connection with the Commonwealth, and reverse the neglect that we have shown for decades. In doing so, we can fulfil Her Majesty’s stated hopes and aspirations for the Commonwealth and further enhance her wonderful and lasting legacy.

15:28

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council.

I want to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). My old friend is a stalwart proponent of all things Commonwealth. It is very good that we have Commonwealth debates from time to time. When I was the Commonwealth Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it became difficult, at times, to persuade officials and others of what an important opportunity the Commonwealth was, although people are finally waking up to that. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames): the Commonwealth cannot replicate the EU, but it is certainly a vital bolt-on part of Britain’s future, in terms of our economic and trading development.

The debate is timely, coming on the eve of the Commonwealth games, which will start in Brisbane shortly. I was the Minister when the games were hosted by the British Government and the city of Glasgow—the Labour city of Glasgow—which hosted them so well on behalf of us all.

As we look forward to CHOGM in just under a month’s time, I am sure there will be a huge turnout from Heads of State, not least because Her Majesty is entertaining at home. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised—this is all I will say—if there is an extremely high level of participation by all members of the royal family.

In the time remaining, let me give an unashamed plug for the work of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council and the stalwart job our small team is doing. We will have 800 senior businesses in London, and we will hold a series of sessions, including on accessing modern financial services, easing the pathway for business and growth, harnessing Commonwealth technology and innovation, creating a new attitude to sustainable business, mobilising an export economy, and attracting inward investment. Those things are important not only to the United Kingdom, but right across the Commonwealth.

The combined GDP of the Commonwealth will reach $14 trillion by 2020. Intra-Commonwealth trade was $525 billion in 2015, and that is set to rise to $1 trillion by 2020. We have heard a lot of statistics today about what the Commonwealth stands for, but I believe they are worth repeating. The Commonwealth is currently a group of 53 countries. I echo the desire for Zimbabwe to return to the Commonwealth fold one day soon, after having been thrown out because of Mr Mugabe. In a rather different way, the Maldives exited itself from the Commonwealth, and I very much hope that it, too, will return to the Commonwealth family, where it surely belongs. There is a road to redemption, as evidenced by Fiji, which was out of the Commonwealth for a while but now plays an increasing role within it. I suspect it will play an even bigger role in the years ahead.

It is worth bearing in mind when we talk about the Commonwealth that we are talking about a quarter of the world’s GDP and a third of the world’s population, 60% of whom, as we have heard, are under 30. At 1 billion people, the middle class of India alone exceeds the population of Europe. These are huge numbers.

I think that the Commonwealth has a rosy future. We are looking forward to the business forum that will take place over three days from 16 to 18 April, just before CHOGM. I think that will set the pace for a good Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. When it is all over, hopefully we will all congratulate ourselves, but that is when the real work begins. I hope that we can persuade colleagues in the Government to give the same attention to the Commonwealth after the Heads of Government meeting as they have suddenly been giving it in the last few weeks, in the run-up to that meeting.

15:33

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to begin the summing-up. I commend the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing the debate and for his knowledgeable and informative introduction to it.

I am pleased to see so many people from Scotland here, because that accentuates the place that the Commonwealth has, and will continue to have, in the hearts of the people of Scotland. It also explains why, for the first time since I have been in Parliament, and possibly for the first time in recorded history, the Chair actually increased the time limit for a speech. However, I noticed, Mr Davies, that you waited until two of the Scots had spoken before you did so. I will try to leave time for them to get an extra minute each before the debate concludes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a well-informed speech, as would be expected given his long and dedicated track record of service to Commonwealth countries. A number of Members have mentioned the fantastic experience that was the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. When the world’s friendliest sporting event pitches up in the world’s friendliest city, we can be sure there’s going to be one heck of a party. I was pleased to attend, although unlike some Members, I did not get a uniform and I had to pay for my own ticket, but I enjoyed myself just the same.

I do not have time to mention the contributions from all the Members who have spoken, but I will pick up one or two points. I commend the dedication of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) in taking on another commitment and promoting the success of the Commonwealth games, but I must take issue with the idea that winning medals matters a jot at the games. The Commonwealth games are a much greater spectacle and common humanity event than the Olympic games because, although the vast majority of spectators want to see the best, there is no jingoistic determination to get more medals than the next person. It would be a tragedy if we allowed the Commonwealth games to be soured by that mentality. We expect everybody who turns up to do the best they can.

Some of the most excited people I saw in Glasgow were the bowls team from Niue. It has a population of 2,000, but it managed to find a bowls team that gave Scotland a heck of a hard game. They and their compatriots went home without a medal between them, but they had a brilliant time and made a lot of friends. That is what the Commonwealth is about. Once that was what the Olympic games were about, and we are all poorer for the fact that that does not happen.

My deep worry is that there seems to be a thread running through the debate that the purpose of the Commonwealth after we leave the European Union might be about restoring our trading links. The Commonwealth is not there just for us to trade with to enrich investors and business owners in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North pointed out, this should be about “common wealth”, and the big problem with the Commonwealth is that, despite the benefit of hundreds of years of benign colonial intervention from the mother of all democracies, the vast majority of it is still a desperately impoverished place.

Half the GDP of the Commonwealth comes from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia—they have barely 5% of the population, but half the GDP. Two thirds of Commonwealth citizens live in countries whose GDP per head of population is less than a 10th of the world average. If we were to use one description to characterise the lives of the vast majority of citizens of the Commonwealth, it would be “desperate, desperate poverty”. Surely, in the name of God, if we are looking to achieve something with new trade links and by expanding world trade links, lifting those 2 billion people out of poverty must be more important than further enriching investors who hide their money in tax havens elsewhere.

[Mr Sweeney]

There has been much rhetoric about free trade, but this must also be about fair trade and redistribution of wealth, as much as anything else.

[Peter Grant]

That is absolutely correct and a very valid point. We must ask ourselves where this new trade will come from. The list of countries with which the European Union—and therefore the UK—has a trade deal or will have one by the time we leave, already includes a lot of the Commonwealth’s economic powerhouses, such as South Africa, Canada, Singapore and the large but unequal economy of India. We are effectively looking for trade deals with poor countries full of poor people. Are we saying that we will start having trade deals that benefit those people, rather than ourselves? I hope so.

[Julia Lopez]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I do not have time to take too many interventions—I apologise.

I have a deep interest in the Commonwealth. My mum was from a very large family, and a lot of her younger sisters took the £10 single ticket to Australia. As happened in those days, they all changed their name when they got married, so none of them bears my grandad’s name. However, I am delighted that the descendants of the “Mighty Quinn”, a humble plumber from Newarthill in Lanarkshire, now run into the hundreds and contribute to the economic and social wealth of the great country of Australia. When I was putting my notes together, I actually forgot that my wife is the daughter of an Asian Commonwealth immigrant—perhaps that is what happens when we think of people as who they are, rather than where they came from and what colour their skin is.

As I said, Commonwealth countries collectively comprise some of the poorest citizens in the world. If we want to keep our entitlement to talk about the Commonwealth, we must do something to make it a bit more common to all. Some of the suggestions about the way that trade can be used are beneficial, but we should be careful about some of the others. One thing that most Commonwealth countries have in common is that their people were once exploited for the benefit of Great Britain. We cannot and must not allow that to happen again. If we want to contribute to the future of the Commonwealth, we must talk honestly and openly about its history. Some parts of that history do not make Britain or its constituent nations look particularly good, and I include Scotland in that, because the role that it played in the oppression and exploitation of citizens in other countries is something that none of us can be too proud of.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned the close links with Malawi—an example of how the new relationships can be made more positive. I am happy to place on record the extraordinary contribution to that link that was made by Jack McConnell, the then Labour First Minister of Scotland. His drive and determination created what is now probably the closest and best-developed bilateral link between any two nations on the planet. An astonishing 46% of people in Scotland know somebody with direct personal involvement in Malawi. Much of that is due to the fact that Malawians are eternally grateful for the part played by David Livingstone in abolishing the slave trade in their part of Africa and in helping to lead to its abolition elsewhere.

I cannot mention Malawi without singing the praises of the astonishing Mary’s Meals organisation. If hon. Members have not heard of it, they should hear about it. From literally nothing a few short years ago, it is now feeding over 1 million starving children every day—an extraordinary achievement by some extraordinary people. I hope that is the kind of spirit that can lead to the Commonwealth going from strength to strength.

The Commonwealth is not particularly a trading organisation, and I do not think it ever should be. It is not just about the Commonwealth games, but if the only thing the Commonwealth did was the Commonwealth games, it would still be worth celebrating. As I have mentioned, I was delighted when the games came to visit the city of my birth.

Leaving aside seeing the team from Niue, one of the things that we sometimes forget about the Commonwealth games is that it is not just 53 countries that take part, but 71. The Commonwealth Games Federation recognises the status of countries that are not officially countries according to the United Nations or the International Olympic Federation. For example, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man can compete in their own colours. The Commonwealth games are the only major competition in the calendar where world-class track or field athletes from England can compete in the colours of England. I think that is great.

The spirit of the Commonwealth games was best demonstrated by the lad from England who finished 10th in the marathon—didn’t he get a medal? His doctor said to him 18 months earlier, “You’re 6 stone overweight. Exercise or die.” So he exercised and exercised and exercised, and finished up the best-placed competitor for his country in the marathon in that great city. If the Commonwealth and our membership of it can inspire us all to put that amount of dedication into contributing something, whether to the Commonwealth games, the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit or Commonwealth-based organisations, the Commonwealth very much has a future ahead of it. I am proud to stand here as a citizen of the Commonwealth, and I hope to remain a citizen of the Commonwealth for the rest of my days.

15:42

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to follow the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate. We have heard many excellent speeches today; it has been an interesting debate.

Like the hon. Member for Glenrothes, I think there have been too many contributions for me to acknowledge every single one, but I was particularly struck by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and her words about the importance of the Commonwealth games. I know the benefits they brought to my home city, Manchester; I look forward to the upcoming games in Australia and wish Birmingham all the best for 2022.

There were many important points made. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) also spoke about the importance of the Commonwealth games and the pleasure he took in participating and obtaining his free kilt, which maybe we will see him wearing one day. He also spoke clearly about the serious challenge of AIDS and HIV and how that is influenced by anti-LGBT laws. That is an area we need to look at in our relationships with the Commonwealth.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the benefits of trade arrangements with the Commonwealth. While I appreciate that in this post-Brexit world we are looking toward increasing our trading relationships with our Commonwealth partners, at the heart of the Commonwealth, as so many have said, is good will and co-operation, shared values and shared legal systems. We must remember that, and we must keep the sustainable development goals at the heart of everything we do. That does not preclude trade arrangements—sustainable development goal 9 talks about industry, innovation and infrastructure—but we must balance those things with reducing inequality, eradicating poverty, zero hunger and the important goal of ensuring that girls have access to 12 years of education by the year 2030, which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred to in his speech.

The question of who should be the next Head of the Commonwealth has arisen; I was interested to see that referred to in the House of Commons Library research paper, because I was not aware that it was in dispute. According to the House of Commons Library, it is not a foregone conclusion that Prince Charles will become the next Head of the Commonwealth, and that will feature in the CHOGM discussions in April. It will be interesting to keep an eye on developments there; I was not aware of the matter, and I had assumed it was a natural succession, but it seems some Commonwealth countries are saying they would like to elect a different Head. That will be an interesting one to keep an eye on.

It is particularly apt, as many hon. Members have said, that we are having this discussion prior to the CHOGM meeting in April. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association hosted the Commonwealth Parliamentarians Forum here in Westminster at the end of February, which gave parliamentarians an opportunity to engage with the overarching CHOGM theme, “Towards a common future”, with its key objectives of a more sustainable future, a fairer future, a more secure future and a more prosperous future, and its cross-cutting themes of youth, gender and inclusion.

The Commonwealth abides by the Latimer House principles, which guide governance, Parliament, the judiciary and the law-making process. It is also guided by its own charter, which commits to democracy, human rights, international peace and security, as well as recognising equality, the role of civil society, sustainable development and the importance of young people, who, as already mentioned, make up 60% of the 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth.

To summarise, in an era of uncertainty, changing economic circumstances, new trade and economic patterns, unprecedented threats to peace and security, and a surge in popular demands for democracy, human rights and broadened economic opportunities, the potential of, and need for, the Commonwealth as a compelling force for good and an effective network for promoting development and co-operation has never been greater.

15:48

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and a particular pleasure to respond to such a debate, where there has been a common thread among colleagues and where the speeches have all emphasised different aspects of a remarkable institution to which this House and all its Members are deeply committed. It is a joy to be able to respond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate at such an important time for the Commonwealth, and for a charming and erudite speech in promotion of its values and everything else.

As my colleagues from the respective Front Benches said, there was too much in the speeches to cover everything, but I will try to pick out individual points. I must say that my sense that the Commonwealth is in good hands, as far as colleagues in the House are concerned, is very much enhanced by what all have said in picking out the different aspects of this extraordinary relationship that we all wish to enhance. That task within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office falls to Lord Ahmad; I speak here on his behalf. I praise the work he has been engaged on over the last few months. He was worked tirelessly in relation to CHOGM and continues to do so.

Many colleagues have spoken warmly of the connections we all share with other members of the Commonwealth, and of the organisation’s enormous potential for good. My family is no different from any other. Three cousins in Dundee looked at their futures in the early 1920s. One went to South Africa, one went to Canada and one stayed in Scotland. That is not an unfamiliar family pattern, particularly for my family north of the border. Families and other close ties cover so many different aspects of the Commonwealth relationship. As I will make clear, there is no sense that the only particular focus is on the trading relationship. It covers so much more, as almost all the speeches made clear.

The belief in the organisation’s potential as a force for good is shared by the Government. I will set out how we would like next month’s CHOGM meeting to agree ways in which together we can drive progress in realising the full potential of the Commonwealth. Next month promises to be a wonderful celebration of the modern Commonwealth, starting with two weeks of friendly athletic endeavour at the Commonwealth games in Australia’s Gold Coast.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) may like to explain his concept of a medal-less games to the Australians. I wish him joy in that. However, his point was well made; it is indeed “the friendly games” and always has been. However, there is importance in winning. When I was a 15-year-old cross-country runner and Ian Stewart won the 5,000 metres in Edinburgh in 1970, that made us all incredibly proud. Winning matters, but the spirit of the Commonwealth games clearly matters far more, as the hon. Gentleman was right to put it.

I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) very well for the games coming up in Birmingham. She was right to flag how important that is and how important it will be for the city, just as it was for Manchester and all that was contributed there. That sense of athleticism and of joy that is created around Commonwealth games and Paralympic sport is something we all value hugely.

The week after the Commonwealth games, there will be a summit here in the UK, and the month will conclude with celebrations marking the 92nd birthday of Her Majesty the Queen. I put on the record, on behalf of the Government, our admiration of the extraordinary contribution made by Her Majesty over the years. The Westminster Abbey quote used by several colleagues emphasises how much the Commonwealth means to her. Indeed, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, whose commitment to the Commonwealth, and the passion with which he speaks about it throughout all his charitable work and other endeavours, speaks for itself. We should be very proud of the contribution made by both Her Majesty and His Royal Highness to the Commonwealth.

For the summit we will have the privilege of welcoming to the United Kingdom national leaders, Foreign Ministers, business and civil society representatives and, perhaps most importantly, young people from every corner of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a unique global network. Its member countries together cover more than a quarter of the world’s land mass, are home to a third of the world’s population and account for a fifth of the world’s trade. Perhaps most importantly for the future of this great institution and the wider world is that more than two thirds of the Commonwealth’s people—around a billion people; one in seven of the world’s population—are under 30 years of age, as has been mentioned. Those figures show the Commonwealth’s immense potential to be an influential player on the global stage in the years ahead.

We have seen the tremendous impact that the Commonwealth can have when it acts as one, as it did in helping South Africa to transition from the injustice of apartheid to the free and democratic society it is today. At the last summit in Malta in 2015, we saw how Heads of Government came together to press for the ambitious climate change agreement forged in Paris just one month later, and we witnessed the valuable work of the Secretary-General and Commonwealth secretariat in helping to broker a political agreement in Zambia.

However, if the Commonwealth is to continue this important work and remain strong, relevant and fit to face the challenges of the 21st century, it must have a clear purpose that is supported by all 53 member states. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), in his excellent speech, which set out what the Commonwealth is not, managed to indicate what it is: this coming together of states, nations and peoples for no other purpose than their wanting to be together, which is so important.

All member states have agreed to focus on four clear priorities at the summit next month—to reassure hon. Members, each priority is as important as the other—and they will all be focuses on which the leaders will agree action. The first aim is to build a more prosperous future by making the compelling case for free trade as the best way to promote higher living standards around the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire)—a former Minister for the Commonwealth—made clear, when talking about the Commonwealth business forum, what needs to be done. He spoke of the real work that will follow the summit, and he is absolutely right.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), in talking about global Britain and the opportunities of that, made the point that global Britain is fine as a slogan, but that we have to deliver. The Commonwealth provides an opportunity, in conjunction with other work we will do, to do just that. Again, the commitment to the Commonwealth shown by both my right hon. Friends over the years has been extraordinary. We are in their debt.

The second priority is to build a safer future by addressing new security challenges, such as cyber-terrorism and online extremism. A cyber agreement is being discussed as we speak. The third aim is to build a sustainable future by helping small island and vulnerable states to mitigate the effects of climate change and by helping the Commonwealth to face other crises. In that context, we can look at some things mentioned by colleagues as they look at other crises. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester talked about malaria, which is a serious health concern for many Commonwealth countries. No decision has been taken on what will be raised at the summit, but we are pleased to note that Malaria No More will hold a malaria summit. It is a matter of great concern.

The final aim to be talked through is to create a fairer, freer and more inclusive future by promoting the values, enshrined in the Commonwealth charter, of democracy and good governance. So many things were mentioned about that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden spoke of the importance of addressing migration and modern slavery. That will absolutely be right up there. The summit is also certainly an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on the education of women and girls, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned. It will certainly be raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) raised two questions: freedom of religion and belief, and the preventing sexual violence initiative. Both subjects will very much be raised at the summit and we anticipate discussions on both. We will use the summit to uphold the values of the charter, which are so important to many here. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) raised the sustainable development goals— I am glad to see her wearing the badge—and the CHOGM summit will be important to that. I know that this also matters to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who raised the importance of LGBT issues. Those are other issues of real value. Although some of the subjects are difficult, he can be assured that the values are clear and that the determination will be strong.

The summit is a priority for the Government, and our ambition is encapsulated in the theme, “Towards a Common Future”: to reinvigorate the Commonwealth and to help to make it an even more active and influential global network. We want the summit to be an important milestone for the Commonwealth—a point in its history where it shows it is fit and able to take on the challenges of the 21st century. If the speeches today are anything to go by, I am sure it will be.

15:58

[Richard Graham]

This debate has shown the House at its best, coming together in support of a great cause and great organisation and having a great discussion about what the future contribution of our country and the House can be towards helping the Commonwealth on its journey towards a really exciting future. I am grateful to all those who joined the debate, to the Minister for his response, which was helpful in both tone and content, and to you, Mr Davies, for chairing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the Commonwealth.

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Combined Planning Applications

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson in the Chair]

15:59

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered houses in multiple occupation and combined planning applications.

I am sure that I will not be the last person to say what a pleasure and delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I apologise to Westminster Hall for bringing a planning matter before it. I realise that many of us who have served in local government dread planning issues: there seems to be no good news; we seem always to be trying to balance the perfectly reasonable requirements of the developers with the protection of our constituents. However, in relation to the concern about the cumulative impact of applications for houses in multiple occupation, I am entirely confident that this is a matter of such significance that it should be brought to the attention of the House, for two particular reasons. One is that a consultation is currently under way on the national planning policy framework—I was delighted to see on the Government website that the consultation period ends at 11.45 pm on 10 May 2018. I profoundly hope that the Minister will be able to carry some of the comments made in this debate forward into that consultation process.

I realise that the Government issued in July last year a briefing paper entitled “Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) England and Wales”, and the Welsh Government produced an extremely good document in May 2015. However, those documents refer to houses in multiple occupation from the point of view of structure, safety and planning enforcement. I am here because of a group of residents in my constituency, in Perivale—a part of the world that many people will breeze by effortlessly as they glide along Western Avenue, along the A40. They probably do not even know it is there, but it matters to us and to the people of Perivale.

My constituents, in Ribchester Avenue and Wyresdale Crescent, suddenly discovered a couple of months ago that a group of linked companies—some of them seem to be based in two continents other than our own—are buying up properties in those quiet suburban streets. Just to put you in the picture, Mr Hanson, they are 1930s buildings—the typical stucco-fronted 1930s suburban buildings that are so close to my heart. They are semi-detached, by and large. Suddenly they were being bought up—in some cases with cash—and converted into houses in multiple occupation.

Under present planning law, houses in multiple occupation are classified as class C4 if there are between three and six unrelated individuals living there. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 is pretty clear on the subject, and I do not argue with it, but what the legislation does not do is consider the cumulative impact of a large number of these developments springing up on the same street. The Minister will doubtless refer to article 4 directions. I can come on to article 4 directions in a moment and show why that is an utter waste of time—it is a mere sop. It is a total and utter irrelevance when it comes to addressing the issue because—

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I just wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s response will be to the NPPF consultation, in view of what he has said about houses in multiple occupation. What will he propose that we change, and how would he like to see that turn out?

[Stephen Pound]

May I implore the hon. Gentleman to hold his patience for a moment? If he does, he will hear exactly what I propose. I propose entirely new legislation—an amendment to article 4 directions. I know that the Minister will seize it and rush from this building with it clutched in her hand to change the law immediately, because she is on the side of the angels on this issue.

One of my constituents found that the house next door—the semi-detached property—had been bought by a series of linked companies, and they proceeded to convert it into an HMO. I have to say that the place burnt down during the works, which is unfortunate but it has happened. There was no party wall agreement, which is extremely unfortunate. More sinisterly, when my constituent went to see the planning officer, she discovered, as did I, that every single HMO application in that tight little suburban backwater is considered individually. There is no consideration under planning law of the cumulative impact—what I would call the saturation—in these cases.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend could be describing a situation far from Ealing, on Birches Head Road in Stoke-on-Trent. The frustrating thing with all this is that they are considered as individual applications. Does he agree that when companies make it known at the outset that they intend to buy up one, two, three, four or even five properties in small residential areas, that ought to be taken into consideration?

[Stephen Pound]

I have never knowingly disagreed with my hon. Friend ever since I took part in his by-election campaign, which was a success—that probably had nothing to do with my involvement. I absolutely agree with him. Let us get one thing straight: the Mayor of London and most strategic planning authorities recognise that there is a place and a role for HMOs, and London councils are quite keen on the idea. There is a recognition that HMOs can provide low-cost housing for people, particularly as starter homes. I have no problem with that. The issue is the fact that there is no lateral linkage. At the very least, the law should require companies that are linked—circuitously or laterally—to declare that they are the same company, and we should consider the cumulative impact of applications.

Mr Hanson, if you were building a block that would accommodate 40 or 50 people, you would have to go through an entirely different planning regime. There would have to be section 106 provision, a community infrastructure levy, an impact assessment and consideration of sewerage, light, water, education, health—all the surrounding issues—and rightly so, because they would have an impact on the local community. You would have to look at the local school provision and health provision. But with multiple HMOs that is not the case. They can spring up like toadstools after a spring rain. They can come up all over Perivale and there is no consideration of what will happen to Selborne Primary School, Perivale Primary School or St John Fisher Primary School. There is no consideration of what will happen to the Hillview surgery, the medical centre. That cannot be right—

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Pound]

And I am sure the hon. Gentleman will tell me why it cannot be right.

[Andrew Lewer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. The relocation of the University of Northampton has caused a surge in planning applications for HMOs and a lot of unease among the residents of Far Cotton. Although Northampton Borough Council has a policy of restricting HMO density to 15% within any given area, that has been complicated by planning appeal decisions and a rise in unlicensed HMOs in the area. The community accepts that some change will take place; it is the scale that has caused the problem, as he has explained. How would his proposal assist this problem?

[Stephen Pound]

I seem to have struck a nerve. This issue is not unique to Perivale. Perivale may be unique, but in this matter it is not, quite clearly. The point is that at the moment local residents are profoundly disturbed because they see the character of their area changing and there is nothing that the planning officers can do. Last Sunday week, Councillor Tariq Mahmood, a local councillor, and I met the residents in the street, in Wyresdale Crescent, and to my horror I discovered that three local residents—families I have known for years—were selling up and moving out because they could not stand the character of their street changing from a quiet residential backwater into a row of houses in multiple occupation, and of course that then accelerates the process. Those three sell up, and before we know where we are we have a constant row of them.

I am not implying for a moment that the people who live in HMOs have riotous parties all night. This is about the number of people. There are issues of parking and refuse collection, as well as the drain and demand on local services. When Councillor Mahmood and I and the other two Perivale ward councillors, Councillors Charan Sharma and Munir Ahmed, went to see the chief planning officer at Ealing, David Scourfield, he said in effect, “My hands are tied; there is very little I can do,” and he referred to an article 4 direction, which I will come on to in a moment. Despite the fact that it is a total and utter waste of time and a complete irrelevance, it happens to be statute law and therefore I shall refer to it.

In the situation that I have described, what recourse is left for local residents? One of the residents has done an enormous amount of investigation and discovered that five of the properties, each one registered with a different company, are in fact all related to the same company. They all come back to the same addresses, in two cases outside the United Kingdom, and even outside the continent of Europe. Why could it not be a legal requirement for people to say that when making these multiple applications? If one company—David Hanson plc of north Wales, for example—decided to build 50 HMOs in Perivale, it would have to declare it. You would also have to declare it to the House authorities, Mr Hanson, but that is neither here nor there. However, at the moment companies do not have to declare that, because each application is considered individually.

The draft London plan, to which I referred earlier, does recognise the importance. It says in “(H12) 4.12.7”:

“Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are an important part of London’s housing offer, reducing pressure on other elements of the housing stock. Their quality can, however, give rise to concern.”

Here is the issue: quality. Quality is not an issue, because building enforcement can apply in these cases, but more importantly, the fire brigade has to certify. Therefore, there is the certification process and the licensing process, but that does not solve the problem. Why does it not solve the problem? It is partly because planning permission is not required in order to be a licensed HMO. Even worse, in London there is actually a numerical limit on the number of HMO licences that a local authority can give—I cannot speak for Reading, Stoke or Northampton. That means that once that ceiling is reached, the pressure of withholding a licence cannot be used by a council to make a difference. That seems to be an anomalous situation. I can understand why and how it has come about, but it is not helping the people of Perivale, and I do not think it is helping the people of Stoke, Northampton or Reading either.

The article 4 directions are what are normally flagged up. They are normally considered to be

“backstop powers to require developers to apply for planning permission for HMO conversions”.

Councils may use them

“in cases where they have concerns about the impact of a concentration of HMOs on local objectives in an area.”

Marvellous! That is music to my ears—absolutely delightful. This is where the council has backstop powers where there is a concern about the impact of a concentration of HMOs. Sadly, all is not well. It might appear good, but this is the curate’s egg. There might be a good bit, but most of it is completely rotten.

The plan continues:

“A council has to give 12 months’ notice before it can use an Article 4 Direction”—

meaning that the powers have no use whatsoever

“for reacting swiftly or efficiently”.

It goes on:

“If a council cannot wait 12 months to use an Article 4 Direction because it would risk the best interests of their residents…they must pay compensation costs.”

I need hardly say that local authorities are under unprecedented financial pressure and simply to take the risk of having to pay in these particular cases would be untenable.

Equally:

“If a council uses an Article 4 direction, it will not necessarily prohibit the development or change of use.”

What use is it? That is ridiculous. It is as much use as a chocolate teapot. I see no more purpose in it whatsoever. It simply means that local people may have an opportunity to make representations and the elected representatives can decide on the development’s merits, but after the horse has bolted.

Article 4 directions must be reduced to get rid of the 12-month notice period and the compensation provisions. These are handcuffs. These are a ball and chain on local councils. It is impossible for a serious, sensible and concerned local council to actually act in the ambit of the article 4 direction, if 12 months’ notice must be given, plus the concentration provision. It simply makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that the Local Government Association has made representations to the Minister and her Secretary of State on this matter.

Planning law has to balance the two priorities. In the case of HMOs, I think we tended to look at it through the prism of student accommodation, or accommodation in some rundown, old areas, where it seemed to be a regeneration and gentrifying tool—in some cases it was; in some cases it was not. In the case of Perivale, it seems to me that someone has constructed a financial algorithm that says, “Because house prices here are lower than in the rest of west London, for the moment, where you can buy a three-bedroom suburban house for under £700,000”—that might raise eyebrows in Stoke but, believe me, it is pretty good value for money in west London—“if that is split into six units, you will get about £1,000 a month in rent.” Do the maths, as they say. It will work out as a very profitable arrangement. One of the people behind these companies is based in Brooklyn, New York, which is not normally closely linked with the London borough of Ealing, let alone Perivale. That suggests to me that this is a straightforward financial consideration that someone has made.

I am in no way opposed to people making a few honest bob. Good luck to them. I am quite new Labour about this. I think that people should be able to make money, but not at the expense of suffering constituents and residents, who wake up in the morning to find that what was their home—their parent’s home, in many cases—their neighbourhood and their area have changed utterly beyond recognition. What about the people moving in there? The young professionals or students moving into an HMO in Perivale are not going to be welcomed, wanted, liked or loved; it is going to be damn difficult for them.

What worries me most of all, however, is the fact that people look to their local authority, just as they look to us as Members of Parliament, to protect and defend their rights and interests. We must do that. The law should work for people, not against them. In this case, by tightening up an article 4 direction and maybe having a look at some of the other regulations within the use classes order, we can solve this problem. Now is the right time to solve this problem, because the national planning policy framework is subject to consultation at the moment.

I want my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to make a brief speech. Mr Hanson. I hope that I have not been overly emotional, but I cannot stress too strongly the impact of this sort of development on quiet, decent, ordinary suburban people, who have not asked for this, do not want it and cannot endure it much longer. I look to the Government to come to their rescue.

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

I will call Mr Rodda to speak, but we must remember that the debate finishes at 4.30 pm and the Minister has to respond.

16:19

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hanson, for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I welcome the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on this important issue and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I want to speak briefly in support of the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and make two points.

The first point is about the sheer proliferation of HMOs in urban Britain today. In my experience as a former councillor and now as an MP for a town in the country some way from London, the scale is quite significant and might not be fully recognised by all colleagues. Some 28% of the housing in Reading is now privately rented, and a significant proportion are HMOs. The typical issues that we face in our town may well be familiar to colleagues representing similar sorts of towns with similar street layouts. We have a lot of Victorian and 1920s housing. We have a limited amount of street space for parking—it is not like a rural area, with driveways or land at the side of buildings. One of the big challenges that we face—I suspect that other hon. Members may face it in their constituencies—is the sheer volume of cars generated by HMOs, in what are already densely populated areas.

The second serious and practical problem is the large number of additional refuse bins that are created. That might sound like a mundane matter, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North pointed out, a sudden change in the housing ownership on a quiet street can dramatically alter its appearance. It can be quite disturbing for local residents to suddenly see large numbers of new bins popping up in front gardens and large numbers of cars. The other issue is that many small front gardens become overgrown and much less attractive. It can be quite a dramatic change for residents who are used to living in a settled urban environment—and who are often from a range of age groups, from young couples and single people to elderly people—to suddenly have a proliferation of very often temporary residents who are unable to stay in the area for long and, as a result, unfortunately unable to put down roots.

I would also like to speak up for the residents in HMOs and to consider things from their perspective, because part of the issue is the wider lack of housing supply in the country, particularly in hotspot areas. I do not know about Northampton, but I suspect that, like us, it may face a chronic lack of housing. Part of the problem is that there is just not enough affordable housing for young people and people moving into these areas. Although this is not quite at the rates found in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North, I know someone who recently had to pay £300,000 for a two-bedroom terraced house in Reading town centre. That is pretty expensive. What we really need is more affordable housing to buy and more affordable council housing to rent.

I urge the Government to look into this. The article 4 directions offer some ability for local councils to intervene, but they are wholly inadequate. If the Minister can comment on that and suggest ways of enhancing legislation, I will be extremely grateful.

16:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on securing this important debate. I welcome the wide-ranging discussion and recognise many of the concerns about the impact of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, in certain areas.

I thought it would be helpful if I set out clearly the wide range of housing and planning controls that exist to control both the creation and operation of HMOs. I hope this will demonstrate that local authorities have an effective array of tools to ensure that any adverse impacts from HMOs can be properly addressed. Before discussing those controls in detail, it is important to acknowledge the wider context: the pressing national need to increase the supply of all types of housing.

As we set out in the housing White Paper, the Government are determined to boost the supply of housing and, over the longer term, create a more efficient housing market where outcomes more closely match the needs of all households. Our actions are already delivering success. Since 2010, we have delivered more than 357,000 new affordable homes, and around one quarter of them are in London.

The Prime Minister recently announced an additional £2 billion funding for affordable housing, which will increase the affordable homes programme budget to over £9 billion. The new funding will support councils and housing associations to build more affordable homes where they are needed most—where families are struggling with rental costs, and some are at risk of homelessness. But there is more to do.

The Government recently published a revision of the national planning policy framework for consultation, which implements around 80 reforms announced last year. It will ensure that planning remains locally led and that all local communities get the homes and infrastructure they need. It represents an ambitious step forward in our aim to tackle the housing crisis by bringing forward more land for housing in the right places. The consultation runs until 10 May at 11.45, that is 23.45—

[Stephen Pound]

A quarter to midnight!

[Mrs Wheeler]

At 23.45.

Subject to being properly planned, constructed and managed, the provision of additional HMOs can make a small but important contribution to housing supply in some areas. That is particularly true for those entering the market for the first time.

One final point of introduction: hon. Members will appreciate that because of the Secretary of State’s role in the planning process, I cannot comment on specific cases raised today. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that my comments will therefore cover the issues in general. I hope, none the less, to reassure hon. Members that the Government take proper control of HMOs seriously.

HMOs play an important role in the private rented sector. They provide a cheaper alternative to other private rented accommodation and flexibility. However, they sometimes pose greater management challenges than single household accommodation. That is why mandatory licensing of HMOs was introduced in 2004 for properties with three or more storeys that are occupied by five or more people. Since its introduction over a decade ago, it has been successful in raising standards and enabling local authorities to tackle overcrowded conditions and poor management practices. However, significant growth in the private rented sector means that some smaller properties are being converted for use as HMOs. Those HMOs do not legally require a licence at the minute, and there are sometimes problems with standards. To address that, we are extending mandatory licensing, which we expect to come into force in October 2018.

I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Hanson, that the extended scope of mandatory HMO licensing will cover properties where five or more unrelated tenants share facilities, regardless of the number of floors in the building. We are also creating two new mandatory HMO licence conditions: national minimum sizes for rooms used as sleeping accommodation, and a requirement to comply with council refuse schemes.

[Gareth Snell]

As the Minister is outlining things that the Government are looking to do, would they be willing to consider a saturation limit? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, the issue is not necessarily the numbers, but the concentration in certain areas. If the Government were able to entertain that, I am sure she would find cross-party support.

[Mrs Wheeler]

There is not, in fact, a limit on the number of HMO licences a local housing authority can issue, so it can deal with it that way.

Good management of HMOs is important. Before a local housing authority can issue a licence, it must be satisfied that the proposed licence holder or landlord is a fit and proper person. It has to ensure that the landlord has no unspent convictions, has not carried out unlawful discrimination and is not in contravention of housing or landlord and tenant law.

Local authorities have the powers that they need to impose conditions on how landlords manage these properties, and to ensure that they do not cause overcrowding. Conditions can also be included to ensure that landlords maintain the upkeep of properties. The conditions can also make them responsible for such things as antisocial behaviour committed by their tenants. A breach of a licence condition is a criminal offence and a licence holder can receive a substantial fine if convicted. Repeated or substantial breaches of a condition can also result in the licence being revoked. That is a significant penalty.

Licensing HMO properties strengthens a local authority’s enforcement capacity. They have strong powers in the Housing Act 2004 to tackle poor property conditions and overcrowding in HMOs. They can serve improvement notices requiring landlords to carry out works to remedy poor conditions or make prohibition orders to prevent overcrowding. In the most serious cases, where the health and safety of tenants and their families is at significant risk, local authorities are under a duty to take action to combat the problem.

Landlords who fail to comply with an improvement notice or prohibition order are committing a criminal offence. Indeed, failure to apply for a licence is also a criminal offence. We have gone further in tackling rogue landlords by introducing new powers in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that mean that non-compliant landlords can face a civil penalty of up to £30,000. Furthermore, we have enabled local authorities to keep the income from such fines to support their enforcement capacity.

Ealing, specifically, has been proactive in licensing smaller HMOs by introducing an additional licensing scheme in 2017 to cover HMOs occupied by four people or more. Ealing has gone further in using licensing to raise standards in the sector. It has also introduced selective licensing, which allows it to license all private rented properties in specific parts east of the borough. That is with a view to driving improvements in the quality and management of such properties. Ealing has also previously been successful in securing additional financial support under our rogue landlord funding. Through that, it has carried out more than 1,500 inspections and 30 raids in partnership with the UK Border Agency.

However, I recognise that HMO accommodation can sometimes lead to problems for local residents who live in the vicinity. Many of the problems arise from the intensification of the use of the property. If there is a concentration of HMOs, the cumulative impact can affect neighbours’ amenities. The planning system also has a role to play in controlling such development. Permitted development rights allow a family house to be changed to a small house in multiple occupation for up to six people sharing facilities without a planning application. Where neighbours have concerns, they can alert the planning authority. It is then for the planning authority to determine whether the works are lawful, and if not what, if any, action to take.

I will get to article 4, but I am concerned about the time because the hon. Gentleman probably wants to respond.

[Stephen Pound]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman does not? That is really kind; I thank him.

I will talk more about enforcement. A landlord who deliberately rents out a house to more than six individuals would be in breach of planning control if they had not obtained planning permission from the local planning authority, so it could take enforcement action.

The Government believe that it is important to tackle breaches of planning control that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of an area. Local planning authorities already have a wide range of strong enforcement powers to do so. However, enforcement action can be taken only when a breach has occurred. It cannot be taken in anticipation of a likely breach; although, where a local authority considers that an unauthorised development is likely to occur, it can apply for an injunction to prevent that from happening.

Making full and effective use of all the available powers can also act as a deterrent. Taking action against the unlawful development of houses in multiple occupation in a targeted area, combined with licensing and building regulation enforcement if necessary, can send a strong message to other rogue developers and landlords that they will not be tolerated. However, it is up to planning authorities when and how they use these powers. I am encouraged to learn that the hon. Gentleman recently met the chief planner of Ealing London Borough Council to discuss the local issue. It is best placed to undertake these investigations.

To conclude, I hope that hon. Members are convinced that there are rigorous powers available to local authorities to ensure the control and management of HMOs.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

UK-EU: International Development

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s future relationship with the EU on international development.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the Minister for being here to respond to the debate, and hon. Members from across the House who have joined me for this important discussion.

This is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured, and I am proud to have done so on such a key issue. The UK’s future international development work will play a pivotal role in the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people. We cannot allow Brexit to undo the good work that we have achieved through overseas aid.

Before my election to the House, I ran a hospital and a community health programme in Uganda, on the edge of the Bwindi impenetrable forest, for almost five years. It offered HIV, malaria, and maternal and child health services to local communities. I have seen at first hand the difference that development programmes can make. We should be incredibly proud of the work that the UK and the EU do to save lives and end poverty around the world. We should also be proud of our continued commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid.

I called for this debate because we are at a crucial crossroads in the discussions about Brexit. In the next six months, the second phase of talks must agree what our future relationship with the EU will look like. Just as crucially, at the same time, the EU’s multi-annual financial framework—its budget—for 2021 to 2027 is under discussion.

Many questions remain unanswered. So much is still unknown and so little time remains. It is therefore right that this House should have a serious say in what the UK is trying to achieve, as well as on our negotiating position to get there. We have had very few opportunities so far to do that, so I welcome today’s debate.

I will talk about four key points: first, the impact of this vital work, and the many lives we already save and improve; secondly, the importance of working together with the EU to achieve greater efficiency and to add value to what we do; thirdly, the recognition that the UK is a world leader on development—we punch well above our weight and it is important to continue to provide that leadership; fourthly, the acknowledgement that other options and partnerships simply will not match up to what we can already offer. There is much at stake. Our future relationship with the EU on international development matters.

First, and perhaps most critically, the impact of this work is such that the lives of the world’s poorest and most marginalised populations depend on our getting it right. We must get the greatest impact and value for money out of every pound of the UK’s aid budget. If we do not, we will deliver fewer life-saving vaccinations, put fewer girls in schools and save fewer refugees from sexual violence.

In 2016, £1.5 billion—11% of our total official development assistance budget—was delivered through the EU budget and the European development fund. After decades of working with the EU, we know that it is one of the most effective delivery channels for spending taxpayers’ money to help the world’s poorest. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for that: in the Government’s multilateral aid review, the European Commission’s development and humanitarian programmes were assessed as “very good” in terms of matching UK development objectives, and “good” in terms of their organisational strengths. When the Ebola crisis happened, with leadership from the Department for International Development, member states worked together. By pooling resources, they could provide a much more effective response on the ground.

Secondly, partnership working with the EU allows DFID to improve where and how it works, and to help more of the world’s poorest. It has been said that every £1 of aid the UK spends through EU institutions is matched by £6 from other member states. The EU has operations in 120 of the world’s countries. Our partnership enables our aid budget to reach and respond in a far higher number of countries than we could ever achieve by working alone—often in places that other partnerships simply do not reach.

Anybody who, like me, has worked in international development or humanitarian response will say how important co-ordination on the ground is in responding to an emerging situation. The EU is a crucial in-country co-ordination mechanism for European donors to quickly share information and make decisions, so we must find a way to keep a seat at that table. By pooling resources and expertise with the EU and with European donors, DFID can tackle, at scale, much bigger crises than it could by itself.

Thirdly, our financial commitments to EU development and humanitarian programmes grant the UK enormous access and influence over international development globally. In 2016, EU nations spent more than €75 billion on official development assistance, but that figure could and should be higher. The UK and others led the way by spending 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, but many countries do not. We must persuade those who are still falling short to raise their game, but we can do so only if they listen to us.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend’s passionate speech, but he mentioned 2016 and I wondered if he had seen the International Development Committee’s report of that year. It points out that the Government should

“consider the ramifications of the UK’s exit on the laws and regulations designed to curb corruption both here and overseas”.

Anti-corruption was not one of his four pillars, but the report said that it should not be de-prioritised. Yet when the Government’s anti-corruption strategy came out in December, there was no mention of this. Is he as disturbed as I am by that gaping hole?

[Dr Williams]

I did not choose to talk about corruption, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. To ensure that our aid is spent effectively, and, perhaps more importantly, to maintain public confidence in the fact that we give 0.7% of national income to official development assistance, we have to work in any way we can, and with many partnerships, to root out corruption.

DFID is widely perceived as one of the top aid agencies, which raises the standard of aid effectiveness and transparency in Europe and around the world. It has a seat in Cabinet and it is supported by deep technical expertise. Many European partners do not have that, which means that it is often able to set the standard, raise the bar, and promote important principles, such as poverty reduction and the untying of aid.

Despite the key role we play in the EU’s international development, we would be naive to think that we could achieve just as much by going it alone. To withdraw from EU development and humanitarian programmes would be a mistake. Large proportions of the money we invest on the ground to help the world’s poorest would be likely to be swallowed up by the creation of costly administrative systems to distribute those funds outside existing structures.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria. The aims of our aid programmes and of the EU’s in that country are quite well aligned. How does the hon. Gentleman see that continuing? What happens when, as in central and eastern Europe, those aims diverge? The EU’s efforts in that area fell behind.

[Dr Williams]

I hope the Minister will tell us how we will continue to have influence and form partnerships that are in our interest. By working together on the ground, we can ensure that our aid spend is doubly effective.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing his first Westminster Hall debate on this very important subject. Does he agree that the scale and size of the UK’s contribution to international aid helps to mitigate some of his concerns? The big part that the UK plays in international aid will give us an important role on the world stage.

[Dr Williams]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Together with our EU partners, we are the world’s largest donor, but if we are alone we will fall down the pecking order. At least some of our influence comes from working with EU partners, but I concede that our role and our leadership as a stand-alone player are still very important.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making very good progress. Does he agree that it is not just money that is important to our influence in the EU? In the final stages of the sustainable development goal negotiations, there were four actors around the table: the EU, the US, the G77 and the co-chairs. Is there not a risk that if we do not come to an agreement with the EU, we will lose a seat in some of the informal negotiations that shape development policy?

[Dr Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that wise intervention. Yes, there is a risk that we will lose much of our influence if we do not get this right.

My final point is that we need to think seriously about what kind of country we want to become. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recently warned that the rhetoric of “global Britain” risks becoming nothing more than a slogan. Just a fortnight ago, DFID signed a controversial new humanitarian partnership with Saudi Arabia, despite what it is doing to put 8.4 million people in Yemen at risk of famine. When we form the wrong alliances, it could spell disaster for development. Some may say that we could form aid partnerships with nations such as the United States, but that would put our existing work at risk, especially in the light of the President’s Executive order that brings back the so-called global gag rule. We could find our ongoing progress on sexual health and reproductive rights held back by others’ beliefs.

Our partnership with the EU must surely be one of our top priorities. Given what is at stake and the risks of getting it wrong, we cannot afford to treat our humanitarian partnership as a bargaining chip in Brexit negotiations. The impact of our contributions on millions of lives and the amplification that they give to DFID are far too important to sacrifice in Brexit negotiations. I hope that today we will have a chance to put party politics aside and restate what I believe is a widespread commitment to moving forward with an ambitious and substantive partnership with the EU on international development.

To move forward, we need to fully understand the Government’s position, so I hope the Minister will paint a clearer picture of it today. In September, the Government published an ambiguous Brexit position paper, “Foreign policy, defence and development”, that made a commitment to an ambitious international development partnership with the EU. Six months on, however, the details are still lacking. Just weeks ago, DFID published a new paper that suggested that the UK will seek flexible engagement with different funds. It says that we will continue to seek influence and a seat at the table wherever we can—hardly a clear or compelling vision. Surely the public, our EU partners, non-governmental organisations and developing nations deserve more clarity than that.

I ask the Minister to provide some clarity by answering the following questions. What EU funds do the Government want to contribute to? Will the Government continue making contributions to the central EU budget, or only to ring-fenced funds outside it? Will they actively push for the European development fund to remain independent, ring-fenced and outside the scope of the central EU budget? I understand that that is far from certain. What influence would we need to secure from the EU in order to consider the negotiations to have been successful? What exact plans is DFID making for a no-deal scenario?

Tamsyn Barton, the chief executive of the UK international development network, Bond—British Overseas NGOs for Development—has already warned that DFID runs the risk that the EU will see it as cherry-picking. The Government’s new paper also urges so-called creative thinking. I hope that our negotiations in this important area of humanitarianism will not suffer from the same negotiating weaknesses that we have seen elsewhere.

I hope that this debate will be just the beginning of a meaningful discussion on the future of the UK-EU international development partnership. Questions remain about how Parliament will have a say on this crucial topic in the future and about how we will exercise real scrutiny over the Government’s position. The UK has collaborated with the EU for decades, with shared goals and values, to eliminate hunger, poverty, disease and inequality and to tackle conflict and crisis at scale. That partnership is too important to risk. We must now get on with the business of making sure that we preserve it once we leave the European Union.

16:46

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again this week, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on securing this important debate on an important subject.

International development has been one of the UK Government’s great success stories, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. We have met our commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid; we are one of just seven countries in the world to do so. Working bilaterally and multilaterally, we have made progress towards reaching the 2030 global goals. That success is to be applauded, and I have every confidence that it will continue after Brexit, when the £1.5 billion— 11% of our overseas aid spending—that we currently funnel through the EU’s development programmes comes under our control.

Of course, if we are to maintain our 0.7% target, we must continue to spend that money on overseas aid, but we do not have to spend it all in the same way. Arguably, the EU still sends too much of its aid to middle-income countries that benefit either from being candidates for accession or simply from being near the EU. In 2016, for instance, the top five beneficiaries of overseas aid from EU institutions were Turkey, Morocco, Ukraine, Serbia and Tunisia, all of which are very much middle-income countries.

One of this Conservative Government’s great achievements in aid is the rigour that we have brought to the Department for International Development, which ensures that UK aid is spent as wisely and effectively as possible. I look forward to the aid that we funnel through the EU being subjected to the same focus. It is important to note that a lot of EU overseas aid work is excellent and helps some of the world’s poorest people, but it also benefits middle-income countries, as I said.

Britain, the EU, other developed economies and organisations such as the UN are all in the same fight to eradicate poverty and hunger and build a better world. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are cases in which multilateral aid—whether given through the UN, through another global organisation or through the EU—maximises the impact of our aid money and helps it to reach places and people that we could not reach alone. We should therefore be willing to continue working and co-operating with the EU on certain international development projects that we deem appropriate. I hope that the UK Government will express that wish to EU leaders as we negotiate Brexit and as the EU formulates its post-2020 overseas aid policy. If the EU puts our common goal of a poverty-free world first, it should accept our willingness to join in with some projects.

I am optimistic about the future of our international development policy. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, Britain can hold its head high: we have a proud record of giving significantly more money than most EU states. I hope we will get the control we need to ensure that our money is spent in the best way possible, while leaving the door open to co-operation with the EU where it is best not just for us and the EU, but for the world as a whole.

16:50

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Hanson, for calling me to speak. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) for securing this debate, which is very important. Hopefully it will spur on the International Development Committee, which I sit on, to expedite its planned inquiry into this issue.

I will briefly touch on a number of issues, which supplement those that have already been raised, and which are particularly about the co-ordination of non-governmental organisations. At the moment, Britain and London are one of the leading hubs for NGOs and aid organisations around the world. Those organisations receive a number of substantial grants, from not only the British Government but the European Union, and they receive them because they have their headquarters or administrative offices in the European Union.

One thing we must ensure in any leaving of the EU is that we do not disadvantage NGOs that have decided to base themselves in Britain—very often because the British people have been so generous historically in supporting international development. We not only have Oxfam in Oxford, of course, but this city—London—is a leader for international development. Having a commitment that the Government will not only continue to support these NGOs from Government funds but go and bat for the NGO sector so that these NGOs are eligible for EU funds, even if their registered address is in London, will be vital to ensure that they continue their co-ordinated work. I hope that the Government will make a commitment on that.

On visits with many hon. Friends, I have seen how co-ordination on the ground is so important. Often, one of the big players—in other words, the EU or the United States Agency for International Development—takes a co-ordinating role between Government donors in countries, and Britain has often stepped up to co-ordinate EU efforts. Sierra Leone is one good example of that. Making sure that Britain is able to take the lead in co-ordinating Government efforts in-country, whether we are part of the EU or we have a memorandum of understanding with it, will be really important in ensuring that we continue batting like that.

The other thing I want to raise is the 2019 report to the high-level political forum. I welcome the fact that the Government themselves will report to that forum, which evaluates the sustainable development goals, but the EU will also report to it in the same year. How the Government feed into that report—feeding in the good work that Britain does—will be important, because it is international frameworks that help to leverage our money so that we have a bigger bang for our buck. However, if the EU report does not include British priorities, there is a danger that our voice will be diminished on the international stage. It would be really good to hear from the Minister on some of those issues.

I will finish by saying that very often, in my experience of international development diplomacy, and as I mentioned previously, it has been the EU that has led and co-ordinated, and it has been Britain within the EU that has helped to push the EU to be a leader in certain areas. I wonder whether the Government have had any significant discussions about how they will continue to play a leading role in “EU-plus”—I say “plus” because we will not be in the EU—co-ordination in New York when we are involved in these important negotiations. I ask that because there is a real danger, when we leave the EU, that if we do not have an arrangement with the EU to negotiate jointly with it, we will just not be “in the room”.

I leave Members with one anecdote. I was in the negotiations that set up the HLPF, and I remember that we went off into a small room. It was, as I mentioned earlier, the US, the EU and a few other big players. At the end of the negotiations, we had worked out a deal, but Switzerland came and said, “We’re not happy with that deal. We don’t like it.” The chairman turned around to Switzerland and said, “Well, I’m sorry, Switzerland. You’re not one of the big development players. You have a choice: you can either put up or you can shut up, but we are not changing our negotiated position now. You can vote against it and let the whole thing fail, and you will be the pariah of the world.” Switzerland decided to shut up and live with the negotiated text, which it was not quite happy with. There is a real danger that if we do not ensure that we leverage work with our partners in the US and the EU, we will become a poor relation, as Switzerland was on that night of the negotiations.

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench winding-up speeches. Given where we are now, I suggest that both Front-Bench Members take up to a maximum of 10 minutes each, and then I will call the Minister.

16:55

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

As ever, Mr Hanson, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who gave a very powerful speech, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), not only on securing the debate—I am glad that it is happening today, although unfortunately it is quite short, and I hope to hear more debates like it in the future—but on his incredible work in Uganda, which I am glad he told us all about.

The UK has a long history of working with European Union partners to help some of the world’s most vulnerable nations, and figures indicate that around 11% of our aid budget is channelled through the European Commission. However, serious choices for this Government lie ahead about whether and how to co-operate with the various development institutions of the EU after Brexit, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

The Scottish National party wants to see the closest possible relationship with the EU in relation to international development. Close co-operation with our European partners has had a hugely beneficial impact, not just here in Europe in terms of our relationships, but in the world, and it has allowed us to raise, pool and co-ordinate aid and expertise.

Working with others is essential for solving many of the world’s biggest problems, including achieving gender equality, tackling tax avoidance, using diplomacy to end conflict and promote peace, and, of course, tackling the devastating impact of climate change—fragile states are hit the hardest and have the fewest resources to cope with climate change impacts.

The EU functions as a bloc within the UN framework convention on climate change, with the UK as a leading member. After Brexit, if the UK does not maintain a close relationship with the EU, our influence on global environmental and climate change policies, which affect everyone, will be significantly reduced, and the world will be a whole lot worse off for it.

At present, many UK non-governmental organisations receive funding from the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations Directorate. Post-Brexit, they will not be able to apply for any of those funds, and they are already finding that grant applications are no longer being accepted. This situation undermines the global capacity to respond effectively to natural disasters, which is something that UK NGOs are among the best in the world at, including in terms of humanitarian recovery. All of us involved in this debate should be proud of that. However, we must make sure that Brexit does not impact the funding of those NGOs. Again, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that point.

After we, sadly, leave the EU—I have to say “sadly”—some will undoubtedly want aid funds to be reallocated away from foreign aid and into domestic expenditure. Can we be clear today what we are talking about here? UK aid alleviates suffering in some of the most climate-vulnerable, poverty-stricken and war-torn countries in the world. UK Government domestic expenditure policies —most notably austerity policies—are causing poverty and inequality in this country. That is a political choice and not an economic one, and it is one that the SNP does not support. We should not let these two things become conflicted.

As the UK remains committed to the 0.7% of gross national income aid target, funds that were previously channelled through EU international development activities will be reallocated to other foreign aid-related activities. However, there has recently been an alarming shift in the focus of the UK aid strategy, with increasing importance being attached to the promotion of the UK’s national interest. A key mechanism for achieving that has been to direct the aid budget away from the Department for International Development to other Departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. Let me be crystal clear: the foreign aid budget should never be used for defence, and this development appears to be a clear attempt to dilute our efforts to achieve our No.1 goal in giving aid, which is to fight extreme poverty.

Not only that, but the International Development Secretary previously pledged to use Britain’s aid as part of

“a bold new Brexit-ready proposition to boost trade and investment with developing countries”.

It is concerning that UK aid could be used to mitigate the negative impacts of Brexit, with the UK’s security and prosperity becoming key factors in deciding how aid is spent. This direction of travel will reduce the focus on global poverty alleviation, as well as raising concerns about the transparency and accountability of aid spending outside DFID.

It is well known that Brexit will have a huge impact on the UK, but if unchecked it will also have significant repercussions on the world’s poorest people. It is vital that the UK and the EU continue to support harmonised responses and co-ordinated action to humanitarian crises. The SNP will continue to urge the Government to prioritise international development as a key dimension of our global contribution to the international community —something that all of us in this room are proud of—informed by core values of fairness and equality.

International development is about being a good global citizen, which can be accomplished only through effective international collaboration. That is why the UK Government should seek the closest possible co-operation with our European partners.

16:28

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately and persuasively about what is at stake in our future relationship with the EU, and why we must get it right. We have heard a number of particularly useful contributions and points, which have been made forcefully. It is testament to how important this topic is that we would all benefit from additional time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), who talked about the importance of working with EU partners, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who reminded us that we should not disadvantage non-governmental organisations based in London when leaving the EU, given the work that they do, and the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who talked about the importance of our relationship with the EU, and the impact on our global capacity to respond to natural disasters if funding streams are not available to the sector.

We have heard today how important it is for the Government to lay out a clear and unambiguous position on what we want from a future relationship with the EU. That simply has not happened yet. We have a Government position paper from September, but it is remarkable only for its ambiguity. As of the end of February, we now also have the so-called “non-paper” that sets out the UK perspective on development instruments for the 2021-27 general EU budget. It provides a little more detail, but it runs the risk of the Government again wanting to cherry-pick, have our cake and eat it, and demand more “creative thinking” from the EU to solve the Government’s lack of imagination and focus.

We have heard today that our humanitarian and development partnership with the EU is too important, and has too great an impact on the lives of the world’s poorest people, to warrant dragging our feet, or sliding into a snail’s pace of negotiation. I believe that the House has heard loudly and clearly that decisions over future funding contributions to the EU must be guided not by short-term political horse-trading, but by their impact on the lives of the world’s poorest.

We must not allow the lives that are at stake to become simply a bargaining chip. We have heard today from Members that, although not perfect, EU development and humanitarian programmes are well proven as an effective, value-for-money, delivery channel for the UK. They have scored very highly in our own multilateral aid review, and they allow us to pool resources and expertise, to co-ordinate better on the ground, to reach a greater number of countries, to take to scale what we do, and to influence how more than €75 billion worth of aid funding is spent. That translates into real lives saved, real girls put in school, and real crises averted.

There is a groundswell of support for the UK remaining progressive, outward-looking, generous and a global leader on international development once we leave the European Union. We must not turn inwards. We must not abandon our partnership with Europe, even as we leave the European Union. I hope that the Minister will not give credence to those who disingenuously say they want to take back control of the aid budget from Brussels, only to stop spending it on helping the world’s poorest.

The Government now need to make up for lost time, set out an ambitious, bold, clear vision, and get on with it. There are just weeks and months to do that, and the clock is ticking. As we do that, it cannot just be the Government talking to themselves. We need to hear the voices of civil society, and of people in the global south who will be affected. We need to hear the voices of the organisations that know the EU’s development and humanitarian programmes best, and that understand the impact that decisions will have. We need to hear the voices of the thousands of international development workers whose jobs in the UK are at risk.

We also need to hear the voice of Parliament, and ensure that there is proper space and time given for Members to scrutinise the Government’s vision, debate it, and shape it. That must be much more than one Westminster Hall debate, which we are having thanks only to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, who forced it. I hope that the Minister will commit to significantly expanding the space for future debate on this topic in the coming weeks, because so far it has been woefully insufficient.

Our future relationship with the EU is simply too important to fail, and we need to get on with ensuring that it does not. I thank all hon. Members for their excellent contributions, and look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

16:28

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on securing the first Westminster Hall debate on such an important topic. I pay tribute to his work in Uganda prior to coming to this place. It demonstrates the incredible value that people with such experience bring to our Parliament—I wanted to put that on the record.

Today’s debate could not be more timely, because on Monday we reached a milestone in terms of publishing progress on the transition of our relationship with Brussels, including the important work that we do alongside the EU in helping the world’s poorest. I echo the vision that the Prime Minister outlined in her Munich speech: we very much want the European Union to succeed after the UK has left, because that is in all our interests, and we are seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership with the EU.

The UK will remain one of the largest development spenders and influencers in the world, as will the European Union, and we want to retain a close partnership in this area in the future. We share the same concerns, the same values, and the same commitment to the sustainable development goals, to the Paris climate change agenda, and of course to the Addis Ababa agreement on financing for development.

In UK law, we have legally entrenched our commitment to spending 0.7% of our gross national income on international development—spending that I assure hon. Members is strictly controlled by the overseas development assistance guidelines set out by the OECD. Of course, we will continue to want to work alongside the EU on new and innovative approaches for financing the incredibly important agenda of moving the billions that are spent on aid to the trillions needed to move countries out of a situation where so many people live in poverty. It is worth putting on the record that the UK is one of only five EU countries that meet the target of 0.7%, which was a United Nations resolution of many years ago. We are proud of being one of those five countries. Across the EU as a whole, the average is just 0.3%.

The UK’s development priorities are closely aligned with the EU’s. As is often said, that is because we have had considerable influence in shaping them during our membership of the EU. Our approaches to addressing the root causes of migration, for example, or to meeting humanitarian needs from the outset in a way that prepares for longer-term crises, and puts in place advance readiness for long-term crisis responses, are very much based on our common experiences and joint shaping of best practice in development programming. I was pleased to hear so many hon. Members acknowledge the UK’s leadership in this area.

It is very much in the UK and the EU’s interest that we work coherently together in the future in response to specific crises overseas, and continue to help the world’s most vulnerable. Good examples are our responses in Somalia and in the Sahel—two areas where we have joint interests in addressing the causes of conflict, and the development and humanitarian needs that arise.

It will also be important to continue to support each other where we agree on policy priorities, for example on our human rights stance at the United Nations—it is absolutely essential that we remain united on that—and at a country level. Where we hold shared commitments and objectives, it is in our mutual interest to find ways to continue working together on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that we can collectively draw on expertise and lessons learned, to achieve our global development objectives and to deliver the best value for money.

We published a future partnership paper in September, which set out our desire for future co-operation with the EU, that goes well beyond the existing third-country arrangements. We look forward to formal discussions as soon as the European Commission is ready to engage.

We have committed to meeting our financial obligations already made, during the period while we are a member, and we will continue to pay into the European development fund and other EU instruments until December 2020 when the implementation period ends. As good development donors, we will continue to honour all our commitments to the world’s poorest and to shape how those funds are spent through all the means available to us.

While we have clearly signalled to the EU our openness to a future partnership on development, the extent and depth of such a partnership will be contingent upon the current discussions between the European Commission and member states about how the EU will finance its international development after 2020. Colleagues will be aware that most of the EU’s development finance instruments do not allow participation from non-member states. They may also be aware that the Cotonou agreement on development, trade and political co-operation between the EU and the 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries is shortly to expire and that the EU is currently rethinking how it will finance development in the future.

A flexible, open and responsive EU is very much in everyone’s interests. For example, in deciding to open its migration trust fund to non-EU partners, the EU was able to respond swiftly and effectively to large-scale crises, working with the right partners in the right places, particularly, for example, in the horn of Africa and north Africa, where we have joint interests now and for the future. The EU’s humanitarian agency, ECHO, has shown flexibility to third-party participation in the Sahel, where the EU is the lead humanitarian donor and has a strong field presence. That has allowed key partners to boost the collective effort and coalesce around a flexible but co-ordinated approach in a region of strategic importance to both the EU and the UK.

We encourage the EU to design a new set of development instruments that builds on the positive examples of the last few years and creates an open and flexible enabling framework, within which it can work with its partners to tackle global challenges and build a secure, stable and prosperous world. We envisage that holding the development financing instruments open to third parties would enable the UK to work through the EU on a case-by-case basis, where we judge our development impact would be amplified. We have not yet made any decisions on that, and whether we actually pay in will be contingent on the kind of EU exit agreement that we finally secure.

While we remain a member state, we are fully engaged in discussions around the successor to the Cotonou agreement and on the shape of the future financial instruments, from a strategic perspective of what makes best development sense, and with a view to what will allow greatest flexibility for potential UK participation in the future. However, there would of course be certain expectations attached to any future partnership. If we opt into EU programmes when that is the most effective way to deliver our mutual objectives, we would expect to engage with the EU at a strategic level on programme direction and would need to be assured of adequate governance arrangements to allow us to track and account for our spending and the results we deliver. We are also clear that the UK’s world-class development sector should be eligible to implement EU programmes. We are very much fighting that corner.

In spite of all the uncertainty, one thing that is clear: the UK’s aid strategy and the Government’s manifesto commitments do not change in March 2019, and neither will our unwavering commitment to the world’s poorest nor our statutory commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income, in line with the official development assistance rules set by the OECD. We will look to deliver our aid strategy through the best range of possible partnerships open to us. The EU and the UK have policy and programming objectives in common.

Where it makes best sense, we will continue to work closely with the EU on development and to implement the sustainable development goals side by side—the difference is that this time we will work with the EU where we choose to, and where it is in our mutual interest. We will be able to ensure better value for money through that choice and through tracking the impacts of our development spending. We will ensure that we continue to engage with the EU strategically, to direct our UK funds, but also on those global public benefits that we are both deeply committed to, such as global health security or mitigating the impacts of climate change.

We have signalled our future direction of co-operation very clearly to our EU counterparts, and we now need them to respond in kind. We have made our position very clear. Both sides now need to work together to make that happen.

17:16

[Dr Williams]

I thank the Minister for that thorough response and for giving us some more assurance. It is important that we continue to have parliamentary scrutiny as we develop our future relationship with the EU, and I hope that this is not our final opportunity for such discussions.

I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for their contributions to the debate. We must continue to find a way to partner with some of the key funds, as the Minister hopes, and we must continue to exert our influence. We are global leaders in international development and we cannot let Brexit affect the world’s poorest.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK’s future relationship with the EU on international development.

17:17

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Written Statements

Wednesday 21 March 2018

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

In 2015, the UK became a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The AIIB supports economic growth in Asia and drives up living standards. The UK’s membership deepens economic ties with Asia and creates opportunities for British businesses.

At the ninth UK-China economic and financial dialogue in Beijing on 16 December 2017, the Chancellor of the Exchequer signed a contribution agreement with the AIIB, formalising the UK’s commitment, made at the previous EFD in 2016, to provide $50 million USD to the AIIB’s special fund for project preparation. This fund provides grant support to low income developing country members of the AIIB to prepare infrastructure projects for the bank to finance. China and the Republic of Korea have committed $50 million USD and $8 million USD, respectively, and the fund is open for more contributions.

The contribution agreement states that the UK will make four equal payments of $12.5 million USD by the end of March in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively. The UK’s contribution to the special fund will score as 100% official development assistance (ODA) as projects using UK money will only take place in low-income countries.

HM Treasury will make these payments, and any future payments to the AIIB, under the powers of the International Development Act 2002. The first payment will be made before the end of March.

[HCWS573]

NHS Workforce

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

The Government are committed to the delivery of world-class public services, and ensuring that public sector workers are fairly remunerated for the vitally important work that they do.

Public sector pay restraint was necessary to tackle the deficit left by the last Government. However, in September last year we ended the 1% pay award policy for public sector workforces, recognising that some flexibility would be required in certain areas, including in return for improvements to public sector productivity. There is still of course a need for fiscal restraint—our debt is the highest it has been in 50 years, and it is not fair to pass an increasing burden of debt onto future generations.

As a result of constructive dialogue over recent months, I am today announcing that I have agreed to NHS Employers and the NHS trade unions going out to consultation on a three-year pay agreement for NHS staff employed under the “Agenda for Change” pay agreement. This agreement covers over 1 million staff employed in the NHS excluding employed doctors and very senior managers and is a good example of where public sector employers and unions can work together to agree a pay rise in return for wider reform.

The three-year deal aims to ensure that every pound of the £36 billion pay bill delivers value for and is fair to patients, staff and the taxpayer. It targets recruitment, retention and capacity issues to support staff and help them meet demand within the NHS.

The deal will help ensure the NHS can continue to recruit the skilled compassionate workforce it needs by:

Targeting the greatest pay uplifts at the lowest paid in the NHS, affecting over 100,000 FTE staff, so that the lowest starting salary increases from £15,404 this year to £18,005 in 2020-21, through reform.

Investing in higher starting salaries for staff in every pay band by reforming the pay system to remove overlapping pay points; so a newly qualified nurse will receive starting pay 12.6% (£2,779) higher in 2020-21 than this year and starting pay for a midwife on moving to band 6 will increase by 18.1% (£4,800) as a result of pay band reform.

It will support the retention of staff by:

Guaranteeing fair basic pay awards for the next three years to the 50% of staff who are at the top of pay bands—a cumulative 6.5%.

Guaranteeing fair basic pay awards and faster progression pay for the next three years to the c.50% of staff that is not yet on the top of their pay band.

Through important reforms to pay progression, the deal will help improve staff engagement and ensure that all staff have the knowledge, skills and support to make the greatest possible contribution to patient care.

It will put appraisal and personal development at the heart of pay progression—with virtually automatic incremental pay replaced by larger, less frequent pay increases subject to staff meeting the required standards for their role.

Staff will be supported to develop their skills and competencies and demonstrate that they meet the required standards before moving to the next pay point.

The system will be underpinned by a commitment from employers to fully utilise an effective appraisal process.

The deal will release capacity for provider organisations:

The partners commit to working together to improve the health and wellbeing of NHS staff so as to improve levels of attendance in the NHS with the ambition of matching the best in the public sector. NHS Digital data suggests that latest sickness absence rate for the NHS is 4.13%. For AfC staff, this is estimated at 4.5%. Estimates suggest that a 1% drop in sickness absence could save the NHS £280 million.

Finally, the deal will encourage greater consistency and modernisation of terms and conditions:

New provisions will be agreed to give staff access to consistent child bereavement leave, enhanced shared parental leave (extension of statutory), and a national framework for buying and selling annual leave.

Steps will be taken to ensure that, over time, the calculation for sickness absence pay is the same for all staff.

There will be very modest changes to the value of the higher rates of unsocial hours pay for staff in pay bands 1 to 3 over the period of the multi-year deal to ensure the difference between these staff and all other AfC staff is narrowed over time.

Overall, this pay deal is fair to staff and taxpayers and will help to improve productivity through stronger evidence-based appraisal systems and through that, better staff engagement which we know can help improve outcomes for patients.

At the Budget in November my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that if discussions with health unions on pay structure modernisation for “Agenda for Change” staff were successful, he would protect frontline services by providing additional funding for such a settlement. I can confirm that through autumn Budget 2017, we set aside in the reserves £800 million per annum which funds the first year of the “Agenda for Change” pay deal. If the NHS trade unions accept this agreement following consultation with their members, the Government will release this funding. The Chancellor will provide for additional funding required to fulfil his commitment through the 2018 autumn Budget, and so make available the £4.2 billion over three years needed to fund the deal. This is all part of our balanced approach that keeps debt falling, while investing in our public services and keeping taxes low.

I will also be publishing a draft equality statement to meet my public sector equality duty. A final equality statement will be published when the agreement is implemented.

This agreement will be shared with the independent NHS Pay Review Body and I look forward to its report in due course.

[HCWS574]

Housing Investment

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Today, the Government are announcing are that we are now working with a further 44 areas across England to develop projects with the remaining £4.1 billion of the £5 billion housing infrastructure fund, with the potential to deliver over 400,000 homes in areas where housing need is greatest. This is in addition to the west midlands, where housing infrastructure fund funding for co-development was announced as part of a housing package at spring statement. These are strategic, long-term projects which will deliver housing not just for now, but for generations to come—creating new settlements, growing places and backing local authority ambition for growth and regeneration. They follow on from our announcement made on 1 February 2018 to take forward 133 marginal viability fund projects worth £866 million from the housing infrastructure fund to provide infrastructure to unlock up to 200,000 homes. This announcement reinforces our continued commitment to fix the broken housing market and support projects that would otherwise struggle to go ahead or take years for work to begin.

We are committed to helping to create a new generation of strong, vibrant communities where people want to live, work and build families. We are supporting the development of 24 new locally led garden cities, towns and villages, ranging in size from 1,500 new homes to over 40,000 homes. Over half of these settlements will go forward to the next stage of housing infrastructure fund forward funding co-development.

We also want to back places with ambitious plans for new homes where they are needed. Today the Government announce housing packages for Greater Manchester, who will commit to deliver 227,000 homes by 2035, and the west of England, to accelerate annual housing delivery to 7,500 homes over the next three years. Both of these areas will also go forward to the next stage of housing infrastructure fund forward funding co-development. This is in addition to the housing packages agreed with Oxfordshire and the west midlands. The forward funding component of the housing infrastructure fund was available to the uppermost tier of local authorities in England to bid into, with a focus on strategic, high-impact infrastructure projects.

The full area breakdown of successful forward fund projects we will be working with through co-development can be found on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-infrastructure-fund

As this is still a competitive process, success at this stage is not a guarantee of housing infrastructure fund funding. Shortlisted local authorities will submit their final business cases and successful funded bids will be announced from autumn 2018 onwards.

The housing infrastructure fund is divided into two streams:

A marginal viability fund—available to all single and lower tier local authorities in England—to provide a piece of infrastructure funding to get additional sites allocated or existing sites unblocked quickly. Bids have a soft cap of £10 million.

A forward fund—available to the uppermost tier of local authorities in England—for a small number of strategic and high-impact infrastructure projects. Bids have a soft cap of £250 million.

Housing packages are agreements between central and local government, in which local areas agree to build more homes in return for a package of support from Government.

Detail on the housing packages for Greater Manchester, west of England and west midlands can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/housing-deals

[HCWS572]

House of Lords

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 21 March 2018

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leeds.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day)

11:06

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 9th Report from the Constitution Committee

Schedule 7: Regulations

Amendment 242A

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

242A: Schedule 7, page 52, line 16, leave out “section 7(1), 8 or 9” and insert “this Act”

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 242A I shall also speak to Amendment 245A. These amendments aim to rule out the use of delegated powers to amend the protection of equality and human rights provided by EU law.

As a matter of constitutional principle, changes to fundamental rights should be made by Parliament by primary legislation, not by Ministers through secondary legislation. However, as it stands, the Bill does not rule out such changes being made by delegated powers. Delegated powers could be used to change the fundamental rights currently protected by EU law, such as rights to protection of personal data, children’s rights, the rights of disabled people, the right to human dignity and protection from discrimination, as well as workers’ rights, protections for pregnant women and nursing mothers, and rights to maternity leave.

There is a prohibition on changes to the Human Rights Act 1998. This is welcome as evidence of the Government’s commitment to the entrenchment of equality and human rights, but the Bill needs to do more if that commitment is to be reliably delivered. The Human Rights Act safeguards only rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Rights underpinned by EU law are different and need separate protection. To ensure this, it is essential that the Bill is amended to guard against excessive transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive and to ensure that any changes to fundamental rights are subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

It is important to be clear that the new scrutiny procedures introduced in another place, though welcome, do not address this concern. They provide a mechanism in the form of a new sifting committee to recommend that the affirmative scrutiny procedure be used. However, this procedure does not allow Parliament to amend secondary legislation. The fact that it does not provide for effective scrutiny is demonstrated by the fact that there have been only 10 occasions since 1950 when delegated legislation has not been approved by Parliament under the affirmative scrutiny procedure. That is equivalent to one every six or seven years.

Stronger safeguards are therefore required in the Bill to exclude changes to equality and human rights from the scope of delegated powers and to require a Minister, when laying secondary legislation before Parliament under the Act, to make a statement that it does not reduce any protection provided under equality and human rights law. A number of amendments have already been debated that would provide these essential safeguards. I refer in particular to Amendments 82 and 82A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which would prevent the use of secondary legislation under Clause 7 to make changes to the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010; and Amendments 101A, 133A, 161 and 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which would prohibit the use of secondary legislation made under Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 to change laws relating to equality or human rights. I support those amendments. However, I wish to speak to two additional amendments, Amendment 242A and 245A, which continue to be necessary.

Amendments 242A and 245A, which emanate from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, give effect to the Government’s commitment that current protections in the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 will be maintained once we leave the EU by placing it on the face of the Bill. In their White Paper legislating for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the Government promised that,

“all protections covered in the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010, and equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland …will continue to apply after we have left the EU”.

That welcome commitment followed the recommendation of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Select Committee that it is important that the Bill,

“explicitly commits to maintaining the current levels of equality protection”.

On the first day in Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister promised to introduce an amendment that would require,

“Ministers to make a statement before this House in the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation on whether and how it is consistent with the Equality Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/17; col. 904.]

That was in response to concerns raised in the debate by Maria Miller MP, chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. The Government made an amendment on this point in the Commons which is now at paragraph 22 of Schedule 7. However, it fails to fulfil the Government’s commitment to maintain current equality protections and has the potential to undermine understanding of Ministers’ existing statutory duties. The Government’s approach requires Ministers to make an explanatory statement, including in relation to equality issues, when laying secondary legislation made under Clauses 7, 8 or 9 of the Act. However, it does not require a statement that current levels of protection will be maintained. It merely requires the Minister to explain whether and how equality legislation has been changed and that “due regard” has been had to the need to eliminate conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010.

There is nothing to stop the Minister having had “due regard” to this need deciding to reduce protections. The duty to have due regard is already a requirement under the public sector equality duty and the Minister’s statement would do no more than confirm that she or he has partially complied with an existing statutory duty. Furthermore, the requirement focuses on the first duty in the public sector equality duty—namely, to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, presumably because of the emphasis that parliamentarians placed on ensuring non-regression during debates in the House of Commons. However, the public sector equality duty also includes other duties—to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity, and to foster good relations.

The focus on just one aspect of the public sector equality duty rather than the whole risks confusion about whether Ministers are obliged fully to comply with the whole of the public sector equality duty as opposed to just this single limb of the duty. This must be rectified to ensure clarity and compliance with existing statutory duties. Again, the requirement applies only to certain enabling powers in the Bill under Clauses 7(1), 8 or 9. However, changes could still be made, for example, under Clause 17, which provides a very wide power:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act”,


without the need for any explanatory statement.

Amendments 242A and 245A would remedy that deficiency by requiring a Minister, when laying secondary legislation before Parliament under any enabling provision in the Act, not just those clauses to which I have just referred, to make a statement that,

“it does not remove or diminish any protection provided by or under equalities legislation”.

I beg to move.

11:15

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and support Amendment 245A, to which he also spoke. He has given a very comprehensive explanation as to the origins of the amendments and why we believe that they are important.

Two weeks ago, when we were debating Amendment 70A and other related amendments, one suggested that there should not be any change to equalities legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in responding indicated that that might not be appropriate. He said:

“For example, the Equality Act refers in several places to EU or to Community law. These references are likely to need to be replaced with the term, ‘retained EU law’. As such, we believe that it is essential that the Clause 7 power is able to address these deficiencies so that we can ensure that the legislation that safeguards these rights and protections can continue to function effectively”.—[Official Report, 7/3/2018; col. 1168.]


The amendment gets around the practical objection that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, had to previous ones because, if all that was being done was changing terminology from EU law to EU retained law, clearly the test or certification referred to in Amendment 245A that the regulation did not,

“remove or diminish any protection provided by or under equalities legislation”,

would be quite easily met.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, indicated some of the background to this amendment. An amendment was brought forward in the House of Commons in response to concerns expressed by the Women and Equalities Select Committee. He also indicated that what the Government did in their response really did little more than to reiterate a public sector equality duty that was already there under the Equalities Act. One reason why we were concerned that that was an inadequate response was, as the Minister responding to this will be well aware, that the public sector equality duty goes much further than just the one that has been put in this Bill. Given that in bringing forward secondary legislation, Schedule 19 of the Equality Act 2010 indicates that the public sector equalities duty is on Ministers when bringing forward subordinate legislation, on the principle of inclusio unius exclusio alterius—

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

We talk of nothing else.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

They talk about nothing else in Harrogate, as my noble friend Lord Willis said. But this proposal is just for clarity’s sake, given that putting one public sector equality duty in the Bill could raise questions as to the status and validity of the other ones.

Another Latin maxim, if I am allowed, is ubi jus ibi remedium. In a number of our debates on equalities and human rights issues, we have heard Ministers talk about rights but say all too little about remedies—and when they do talk about remedies they do so in a way that gives some cause for alarm. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, time and again, reminds us that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is a smooth transition in law on our departure from the European Union. That entitles us to question what is meant by law.

On 5 March in a slightly different context, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said in response to an intervention from me:

“They will have rights but they may not have the same remedy, but that is quite distinct. We are talking about maintaining rights at the point when we leave”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 964.]


But is it right to divorce rights from remedies quite so easily? The noble and learned Lord will be familiar with Section 126(9) of the Scotland Act 1998, which states that,

“all those rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the EU Treaties, and (b) all those remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the EU Treaties, are referred to as EU law”.

For the purposes of the Scotland Act, EU law embraces both rights and remedies.

Too often in our debates, we have heard Ministers reassure the House that the Government are committed to retaining rights but they have sidestepped the issue of remedies. I believe that if there is to be a smooth transition from EU law to EU retained law, it must include rights and remedies. The Government have not given us sufficient reassurance on this. That is why these amendments are necessary and I commend them to the House.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 245A and 242A, and I assure your Lordships that you will get no Latin from me—maybe some Cockney rhyming slang, but certainly no Latin. I have added my name to these two amendments, which were so eloquently and powerfully moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and powerfully supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

Noble Lords will be aware that I spoke at Second Reading on the issue of rights and protections, and have returned to the same during Committee in your Lordships’ House. I make no excuse or apology for repeating what are grave concerns about the continuation of rights and equalities that we currently enjoy in the United Kingdom. As I have said before—it bears repetition—these rights have been hard fought for and, often, hard fought against. That they exist now is due to the hard work, persistence and sacrifices of generations.

These rights have been achieved through either recourse to law, proceeding through the courts to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg or through the Court of Justice of the European Union, or by legislative changes primarily introduced since the election of the Labour Government in 1997. As I have said, there is deep concern that this Bill, and particularly delegated powers contained within it, will ultimately be used to reduce rights and equalities in the United Kingdom—including in Northern Ireland, where consequent problems for the Good Friday agreement will arise. I will not return to the issue of the charter of fundamental rights today but I will on other occasions.

Amendments 242A and 245A seek to bring security of protection and non-regression by ensuring that delegated powers are not used to diminish protections in the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010. But I and other noble Lords, and people and organisations outside Parliament, also have concerns about other equality and human rights laws. The certification approach adopted in Amendment 245A could be extended to cover such rights, by requiring a Minister to certify that secondary legislation under the Bill does not diminish protection in equality and human rights law generally.

On Wednesday 7 March, we again discussed amendments that would restrict the use of delegated powers from making any changes to equalities and human rights legislation. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, raised an objection to the amendments that we were discussing on the basis that delegated powers would be needed to make technical changes to our laws to reflect exit from the European Union. He went on to state that the Government could not accept the amendments,

“as the legislation that underpins these rights and protections will contain many provisions that will become deficient after our exit”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; col. 1168.]

In his reply, the Minister offered examples where the Equality Act refers in several places to EU or community law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said, and that such references needed to be replaced with the term “retained EU law”. I will not detain the House further by extending the quotation, but I point out that Amendment 245A addresses this concern because it does not prevent a Minister making necessary technical changes to reflect our exit from the European Union, as these technical changes would not diminish existing protections.

In the same debate, the Minister referred to the government amendment tabled in the other place, now paragraph 22 of Schedule 7, saying that it will,

“secure transparency in this area by requiring ministerial statements to be made about amendments made to the Equality Acts under each piece of secondary legislation under key powers in the Bill. These statements will … flag up any amendment to the Equality Acts and secondary legislation made under those Acts, while also ensuring that Ministers confirm that, in developing their draft legislation, they have had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other conduct prohibited under the 2010 Act”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; cols. 1167.]

This statement does not answer the concern addressed by Amendment 245A: that the Government’s approach in the Bill does not fulfil their commitment to maintaining our current protections. It merely restates the existing statutory duty to have “due regard”.

In debate, the Minister has reiterated clear commitments that there will be no roll back of rights. Therefore, I say to the Government and to the noble and learned Lord the Minister: put the commitments, and the assurances given in this House and in the other place, in the Bill and end the uncertainty that is so widely shared. I ask your Lordships that, when we return again on Report to the issue of the protection of equality and human rights, as we will, we work together to ensure that the departure from the European Union does not signal the beginning of a departure from the rights and protections that we currently enjoy and which are continuously under threat.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 246 in this group—entre nous, I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Low; they are rather good, and I can well understand why colleagues have added their voices in support. My amendment picks up a slightly different point. It emanates from the excellent report from the Constitution Committee, which in its summary, at paragraph 33, recommended that the Government bring forward statements accompanying regulations which modify retained EU law so that they provide an explanation of the intention of the modification to guide the courts.

One of the endearing frustrations of this House, and no doubt the other place, is that we can have very little purchase on statutory instruments. Rightly, I think, they are unamendable, but clearly there has to be a way of improving the understanding of what a statutory instrument does. This legislation is riddled with Henry VIII powers and powers that I think go well beyond what a Minister should properly have access to in making, effectively, law by decree. That is the central concern of a lot of the recommendations in the Constitution Committee’s report. We are asking here for the Minister to ensure that, when a statutory instrument is brought forward, it has to satisfy a test of appropriateness under the relevant sections, state an intention of any proposed modification from the retained EU law that is carried over and provide guidance to courts to assist with interpretation.

Reflecting on some of the more recent debates on statutory instruments in your Lordships’ House—for instance, last night’s debate on free school meals—I wonder whether it would be helpful to your Lordships if we had a better understanding and explanation of those statutory instruments. The thing that always comes across to me when I listen to debates on SIs is this: there is very poor background information. The statistical data that is supposedly there to underpin the argument is often missing, the impact assessments have not been done, and we do not really understand the real effect of what is before us. In my book, that means that there is a lot of scope for the Government to get away with things. I do not think that is right or a product of good lawmaking.

11:30

I want to hear the Minister say that the Government will take the issue seriously. that they will consider bringing forward amendments to satisfy these points, because they need to be satisfied and the House will want to hear them being satisfied, and that in the future we will get clear statements of intent when there is a change and a variation through a statutory instrument that relates to EU law that has been carried across. That is important not just for lawmakers in your Lordships’ House, but also for the courts when they come to determine an issue. Given the volume of work they are likely to confront, certainly in the early stages, that is going to be extremely important.

It is a weird world—you wait for several weeks with an EU withdrawal Bill and all your amendments come at once. That seems to be my misfortune this morning. If the noble and learned Lord can give us some reassurances on the sort of information that is likely to be supplied with statutory instruments, I am minded not to debate Clause 17 stand part. In a sense, it is a follow-on, because in that debate I would hope to hear that the Minister would want to consider ensuring that when information is provided as background for statutory instruments, the appropriateness of that statutory instrument is very clearly spelled out. I am looking to hear from the Minister some other words of comfort on that issue. In those circumstances, I will not call for a debate on Clause 17 stand part.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had Latin from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and French from my noble friend Lord Bassam. Later in the day, somebody else might be able to say something in Welsh or Irish, but I cannot do either.

This group of amendments relates to topics that we have already discussed in Committee and no doubt we will do so again: the extent of delegated powers and the extent of protection of rights. When the noble Lord, Lord Low, moved his amendment very cogently, he emphasised points with which I absolutely agree. There is concern that rights should not be removed as a result of what is taking place in the Bill. We have also looked at this topic before in Committee and no doubt we will do so again. I have referred on several occasions to the promise by the Prime Minister that rights after exit will be the same as the day before.

These amendments concern a different aspect— the explanatory statements which are proposed to be used for statutory instruments. The technique of using statements to be laid before the House is a valuable one. I previously referred the Committee to the benefits of the requirements under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act for certificates on the face of the Bill that the provisions are, in the opinion of the Minister, compliant with the Convention rights. The significance of such a statement is that, first, it puts a personal obligation on the Minister to be satisfied that the Bill does what is being certified. What is more, it is a requirement that those conditions are met and not simply that there is an argument that they might be met. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his place. I have referred before to the memorandum that resulted in there being a requirement on Ministers when they come to certify under the Human Rights Act to do so on the basis of legal advice provided by government legal officers, or the law officers themselves, and also to be satisfied, at least more probably than not—I paraphrase and hope I have it right—that the requirement will be met in the case of a particular provision. That makes it not an idle requirement that the Minister should so certify but a very valuable requirement.

The idea of the statements is an important one. We have several questions here in relation to them. The first, raised by Amendment 242A, is that the requirement for such explanatory statements should apply to all cases where statutory instruments are being made under the Act and not simply those which are identified. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why the Government do not think, having taken the view that it is necessary, appropriate and right to have such statements in relation to certain statutory instruments, that it should apply to all statutory instruments made under this Act. Bearing in mind that it is not a requirement that stops the instrument being made, such a statement tells this House and the other place what the Government think they are doing—whether they think they are reducing protections or not—and puts both Houses in a position to take the steps that they think appropriate to deal with that in the light of what the Government say. Therefore, I look forward to hearing why the requirement for explanatory statements does not apply to all instruments under the Act.

The second amendment is the important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low, which asks why it is not right that the words,

“is satisfied that it does not remove or diminish any protection provided by or under the equalities legislation”

should be inserted in place of the much weaker words in the Bill providing that the Minister should have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, et cetera. As he rightly pointed out, this, in any case, deals with only one aspect of equalities legislation. I would hope that Ministers always had due regard to that, whatever the circumstances and whether or not the Bill stated it. Something more is needed: a requirement that the Minister is satisfied that this does not in fact reduce the protections currently provided. That amendment should be supported and we look forward to what the Minister has to say.

The third amendment, Amendment 246, has been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. It would be valuable for Parliament—whichever House —to be told what the intention of any proposed modification is and whether it is intended to reduce or change EU law. That is a valuable proposal, though it goes in a slightly different direction to the other amendments, which are concerned with rather more concrete statements as to whether or not rights are being retained.

The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, rightly referred to one aspect of the Bill that has been mentioned in Committee before. While the Government recognise that there needs to be special protection for rights protected by our Human Rights Act, which is drawn from the European Convention on Human Rights, it does not do the same for rights that come from other areas, in particular EU law. Again, we need to understand from the Government why they do not think the same sort of protection is necessary in relation to rights derived from EU retained law. One example is data protection. Nothing could be more pertinent at the moment, as we read today’s newspapers. We see that data is a critical area that needs protection. Very important protection comes from the EU at the moment. This will come into law, but do the Government take the view that it is subject to much easier removal, or should it not be subject to the same degree of protection as rights under the European Convention on Human Rights?

For those reasons, I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope that it will promise change. I follow my noble friend Lord Bassam in hoping to see an amendment brought forward on Report by the Government to deal with these important points.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to transparency before Parliament for the statutory instruments that will come under the Bill. We hope the statements we have already committed to in Schedule 7 will assist Parliament and deliver the due level of scrutiny required for secondary legislation. We have been listening to the debate and, for Report, we are looking closely at where these could be expanded to address some of the concerns raised in Committee.

Amendment 242A to Schedule 7, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Low, would extend the requirement for Ministers making secondary legislation under the Bill to make statements in respect of all the powers in the Bill. With respect, these statements are designed to apply only to the key powers under the Bill, and for good reason. The other powers in the Bill are tightly limited to specific purposes, such as allowing for challenges to the validity of EU law or making provision which is consequential on the Bill. These other powers will not be making the sorts of changes to which these statements are applicable and are designed to be applicable. We will debate these other powers in more detail in due course but I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord as to why we have proceeded in this way on the matter of statements.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, also tabled Amendment 245A, which would adjust the equalities statement in Schedule 7. Let me assure everyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that I understand and sympathise with the motivation behind this amendment, which I know is shared by many others on all sides of the Committee. The amendment looks very like the Government’s existing political commitment. However, the language of a political commitment does not necessarily lend itself to the very different context of the equalities statute book.

In the equalities area, it is not always straightforward to determine what is deemed to be “protection”—the term used in the amendment—for one group of people when it may exist in tension or potentially conflict with the protection of other groups. To take a simple example, looking at the operation of domestic violence refuges or rape counselling centres taking account of the provisions in the Equality Act that relate to women, how does that also relate to gender recognition? These are quite complex areas that we have to bear in mind. That is precisely why, for example, the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 are so detailed and granular rather than creating high-level rights that would potentially raise more questions than they answer. I note that the 2010 Act dwarfs the mere 68 pages of the Bill.

In these circumstances, we are concerned about the limits of the statement that would be required. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said about the scope of the public sector equality duty and the notion that perhaps only a part of that is expressed in Schedule 7. We will take that away for consideration before Report.

Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raises an interesting point regarding how further clarity can be provided on the effect of regulations made under Clauses 7, 8 and 9. As he observed, the point was mentioned in the recent report by the Constitution Committee. The Government want the Bill to provide certainty and clarity, and I have listened to his observations on this with some interest.

As we discussed on day five of Committee, Clause 6(3) provides that questions on the validity, meaning or effect of unmodified retained EU law are to be interpreted in accordance with retained EU case law. Clause 6(6) goes on to provide that modified retained EU law may still be interpreted under Clause 6(3) if that is consistent with the intention of the modifications. It is this point that the noble Lord’s amendment strikes at. It seeks to impose an obligation on Ministers by adding to the explanatory statement requirements in Schedule 7 to explain the intention of any modification, and how that modified law should be interpreted under Clause 6.

I understand the aim, but we have to be cautious before adding to the explanatory statement requirements in Schedule 7. Requiring a statement for each modification as to its intent and instructions to the courts on whether Clause 6(3) should apply to them could complicate matters. In that context, I merely observe that it is important to bear in mind that courts themselves will already have the text of the modification itself together with a statement explaining the reasons for it, the law before exit day that is relevant, and any effect of the modification on retained EU law. It may be that this could complicate matters.

I have listened carefully to the points raised on that matter and I can confirm that we will reflect on what I appreciate is a constructive suggestion in order to bring further clarity to these parts of the Bill. I hope that with that reassurance, the noble Lord may not have to engage in sequential groups of amendments in Committee this morning.

11:45

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in support of my amendments; there has been very heavyweight support, if I may say so, from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Goldsmith, and very valued support from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I also thank the Minister for his reply. Since he was kind enough to describe my amendments as “constructive”, it would be less than gracious if I did not say that I regarded his response as constructive. The Minister has recognised the need to look further at the scope of the explanatory statements provided for in the Bill, and I welcome that.

There is room for further discussion about the extent of the enabling powers in the Bill, which are underpinned in this legislation. The Minister thinks that my amendments go too far in the enabling powers that we are seeking to include, while I suggest that the Bill does not go far enough, so there may be some scope for meeting in the middle. Since the Minister has kindly undertaken to review the scope of the provisions in the Bill before Report, I hope he might agree that it would be beneficial if we could have further discussion to see whether there is not some common meeting ground in the middle so that we can go forward to Report in a spirit of unanimity. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Amendments 243 to 251 not moved.

Schedule 7 agreed.

Clause 17: Consequential and transitional provision

Amendment 252

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

252: Clause 17, page 14, line 14, leave out subsections (1) to (3)

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Adonis. He apologises for his absence this morning. I assure noble Lords that he is not having the well-deserved lie-in that many of us feel that we are entitled to; he is on a trip to Dublin with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and Sir Nick Clegg to see what can be done about the question of the Irish border and how to resolve that particular trilemma.

The purpose of the amendment is to draw the Committee’s attention to what is written in Clause 17. We hear lots of soporific, mellifluous legalese in these discussions, but I draw the Committee’s attention to what Clause 17(1) of the Bill actually says. The Minister can perhaps then give me a little tutorial on why it is necessary and not as dangerous as it appears to be to my eye. The clause states:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act”.


That is a sweeping enabling power for the Executive. The aim of the amendment is to establish from the Government the purpose of their having this sweeping power. This Bill is about Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. It covers, as we have seen in the debate about Brexit since the referendum, many different aspects of our national life, so what is meant by this clause?

To the extent that we have any bedtime these days, for my bedtime reading I am trying to read books that explain the rise of populism in Europe. In a way, Brexit is a general phenomenon of a rise of populism in Europe and the United States. One book that I am reading at the moment is Professor Richard J Evans’s first volume on the rise of the Third Reich. One moment that makes me proud to be a social democrat is that it was the Social Democrats alone who voted against the enabling Act that set up Hitler’s dictatorship. I am not for one moment of course suggesting that there is a parallel, but why do we as a House have to grant the Government this sweeping legislative power? Can the Minister please explain? I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, at the risk of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, thinking that I am adding to the soporific legalese, I support what he said. It is not just the noble Lord who is concerned about Clause 17. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee addressed Clause 17 at paragraph 206 of its report on the Bill:

“We agree that the Government may require a power to make ‘transitional, transitory and saving provisions’. However, we are concerned that the Bill creates a power to make ‘consequential provisions’ which is potentially very broad in scope, has the capacity to go well beyond what are ordinarily understood to be consequential matters and includes a Henry VIII power. If Parliament has approved, subject to detailed and appropriate circumscription, other broad delegated powers for ministers, it would be constitutionally unacceptable to undo these restrictions and protections by conferring a general power on ministers to make ‘consequential provisions’ to alter other enactments. We recommend that the power to make ‘consequential provisions’ in clause 17 is removed”.


The concern is that this Bill will confer enormous powers on Ministers under, for example, Clauses 7 and 9 to make delegated legislation. It is difficult, in the context of such powers, however amended, to see why it is also necessary for Ministers to enjoy this broad power, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, described it, to make consequential provisions. The concern is that the restrictions that Parliament will impose on the other powers that Ministers will enjoy under Clauses 7 and 9 may be evaded by Ministers by the use of this consequential power.

I am particularly concerned about the risk of that, because if your Lordships focus on paragraph 17 of Schedule 7 to the Bill, on page 51, you see a quite extraordinary provision, which states the following:

“The fact that a power to make regulations is conferred by this Act does not affect the extent of any other power to make regulations under this Act”.


Therefore, it seems to me, as a matter of law, that the fact that we spend hours—it seems like days—looking at particular provisions as we seek to restrict the power that Ministers will enjoy under Clause 7 will have no effect, by reason of paragraph 17 of Schedule 7, on the scope of the power that Ministers also enjoy under Clause 17.

I would welcome some reassurance from the Government that they are thinking about the Constitution Committee’s recommendation. I would welcome some explanation of why Ministers need these consequential powers to make delegated legislation and some assurance from the Minister that he is thinking about whether it is also necessary to include paragraph 17 of Schedule 7, or whether the Bill could make it absolutely clear that any power in Clause 17 must be interpreted consistently with the restrictions that will be contained elsewhere in the Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, with apologies to the Committee, I should have made it clear when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved his amendment that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 253 to 256, by reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I support strongly what the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Pannick, said. This is the underlying theme of the Committee stage of this Bill: what we are seeing is a proposed accretion of power to the Executive at the expense of Parliament. We have made this point numerous times over the past several days—it seems like years. It is crucial not only that my noble and learned friend the Minister gives some recognition and assurances today—we can ask for no less—but that the Bill is amended, preferably by government amendment, before Report. I have said this many times, but if taking back control means anything, it means taking back control for Parliament and not for the Executive. The Government have to recognise, in a way that, sadly, my noble friend Lord Callanan, seemed incapable of recognising the other day, that Parliament is supreme and that, in particular, the other place is where the ultimate decision should be made.

I do not want us to be on a collision course with government. I hope that the Government, recognising the fundamental constitutional importance of these issues, will agree to accede to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and delete this provision in Clause 17. It is incumbent on a Government who are concerned about the supremacy of Parliament to do precisely that and not to leave within the Bill a clause that gives, theoretically, untrammelled powers in many circumstances to Ministers. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give us some comforting words today but, however comforting the words may be, they will not be enough until this provision is removed from the Bill.

12:00

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I shall add to the compelling citation by my noble friend Lord Pannick of the Constitution Committee’s report on what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said about Clause 17. It pointed out that, unlike the regulation-making powers in Clauses 7 to 9, there is,

“no time-limit on the making of regulations under clause 17”.

It also said that the powers to make consequential provision,

“should be restricted by an objective test of necessity”.

That is the golden thread of appropriateness and necessity that has been running through a number of debates and I hope that a constructive way forward can be found on that before Report.

The Delegated Powers Committee also points out that, although paragraph 100 of the delegated powers memorandum says that the Henry VIII powers are appropriately conferred, and that,

“a large number of ‘fairly straightforward’ changes, including to primary legislation, will be needed in consequence of this Bill … that does not explain why it is appropriate for the negative procedure to apply in all cases including those which are not ‘fairly straightforward’”.

The committee concluded:

“Where regulations under clause 17(1) amend or repeal primary legislation, the affirmative procedure should … apply in accordance with established practice”.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others who have spoken. Normally, when something is about consequential and transitional provisions, your eyes glaze over, because what you are talking about is the sort of sweepings from the floor, in the legislative sense. But this is the most extraordinarily broad provision. It basically says that a Minister of the Crown can, by regulations, change virtually any provision in any Act.

As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, and as we have discussed, the effect of our membership of the EU has been like the tide rising across the legislative framework. It has gone into virtually every part of our legislative life. This provision, untrammelled as it is with any qualification at all, enables Ministers to amend by secondary legislation a whole swathe of legislation that is not directly covered by the earlier clauses of the Bill. No doubt the drafters of the Bill thought that this was a sort of belt and braces provision, because it covers everything else that might not have been covered by earlier clauses. However, as other noble Lords have said, it is surely far too broad.

The key definitional question is what the word “consequential” means. On a broad interpretation of it, any legislation that is consequential on our membership of the EU is covered by this provision, which is surely far wider than anybody in your Lordships’ House would wish to see. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us that, first, that was not the Government’s intention and, secondly, that they are willing to accept the recommendations of the two committees of your Lordships’ House. As this stands, of virtually all the provisions in the Bill, this is the one that gives Ministers the broadest unfettered powers to change primary legislation by secondary legislation and it clearly is not the will of the House that that should be allowable.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I was sort of reassured by some of the Minister’s words when we were dealing with the last group. I had the feeling that at last we have found a Minister on the Front Bench who is actually listening to what noble Lords are saying about some of the delegated powers provisions in the legislation. I hope that he can offer us some reassurance, but I share the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Pannick and Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Liddle.

Ministers are seeking to take an astonishingly wide power. If we start to apply it practically to some of the legislation being carried over from EU to UK law and think of some of the fundamental rights that that involves, and if Ministers then have the sweeping ability to bring forward anything that they think is relevant to change one of those provisions, we are getting into the territory of a statutory instrument that goes far beyond its original intention. The Constitution Committee was absolutely right to raise concerns about this and we need rather more than reassurance this morning on it. I rather share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: this is one clause that is probably fit to be withdrawn. I think that that would satisfy your Lordships’ House. We obviously have to listen to what the Minister has to say, but this is pretty profound, as I think he and the Government know. I hope that this is a try-on that we have seen off.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate—the devolution aspects will come later today—but if one looks at paragraph 17 of Schedule 7, on page 51, and the interplay that it has with Clause 17, on page 14, I read it that the powers exercisable by the Welsh or Scottish Ministers under Schedule 7 are subject to the orders that they can make but that, if they do not make them, they can be over- ruled by the provisions of Clause 17—paragraph 17 on page 51 gives a Minister the right to do that. Am I interpreting this rightly?

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, the provision indeed looks a bit innocuous when one first looks at it. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is absolutely right. But the more one examines it, as has been demonstrated by speeches from noble Lords in this short debate so far, it is much more than that.

Two ways have been proposed for dealing with this clause. One had been to follow the golden thread of “appropriate” and “necessity” that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to. Amendments 253 and 254, which have already been debated, touched on that and we will have to come back to those important proposals in due course. But this amendment goes even further in proposing that the power should be removed. As it stands, the idea that the Minister can, by regulation, make any change that he or she considers appropriate under this Act is extraordinarily wide. I therefore share the hope of other noble Lords that we hear from the Minister—having seen, as I am sure he has, how wide this provision is—that something needs to be done: probably something more radical than simply changing the words “considers” and “appropriate”.

We will listen to what he says. However, the powerful speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Cormack and Lord Wigley, and by my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Bassam, demonstrate that there is a real risk—as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, put it—that this is another example of the accretion of power to the Executive at the expense of Parliament. It is our duty to put the brakes on when that sort of provision is put before us. Again, I look forward to what the noble and learned Lord will say; I am sure he has seen the point—in all languages. We need a clear commitment, not just to comfort, but to a change that will satisfy this House that it is not being asked to sanction untrammelled power to the Executive in such an important area.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Government are always listening. The Government are concerned to ensure that we have appropriate powers to deal with the consequences of this Bill: to bring the statute book into line with the consequences of the repeals brought about—or intended to be brought about—by it.

The context is that the European Communities Act has been a central piece of legislation for the past 46 years and is spread throughout our statute book. So much current legislation stems from the ECA. Repealing the 1972 Act, and the other key EU-related Acts listed in Schedule 9, will leave many loose ends that need to be addressed.

The purpose of the consequential power is to deal with the consequences of the widespread changes to the statute book that may arise from the provisions in the Bill itself. I stress “in the Bill itself” in the light of the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Cormack that we are dealing here with “untrammelled powers”. In that context, I understand the expressions of concern about particular provisions—which can sometimes be read out of context—but I stress again that these consequential powers can be used only in consequence of the provisions of the Bill itself, rather than in consequence of our withdrawal from the EU more generally. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, frowning, but if he feels that a different interpretation can be placed on this provision I would welcome discussion on it, because that is clearly its intention. If, in his view, it goes further, I would be happy to listen to him on that.

[Lord Goldsmith]

In the light of his invitation, I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider this question. I take his point that the words are “in consequence of the Act”, but the Act includes the repeal of the European Communities Act and all that it has brought with it. He may not want to reply to this question now and I am very happy to have further discussions with him, as they are always useful and constructive, but does he not see that the repeal of the Act and the instruments under it may indeed give rise to very wide opportunities if all that is required is for the Minister to consider it “appropriate” to do something in consequence of that?

12:15

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

May I ask the Minister a further point? I am trying to help him. He seems to be suggesting that this provision is a mere tidying up facility that is available to a Minister as a consequence of this Bill. I understand that point, but will he describe the sort of tidying up that he envisages this power being used for? I think that is what acts as a driver of our concerns. I can understand if it is a practical measure to do with something that is clearly a defect, but I want some reassurance, which perhaps should be placed in the legislation. I want to understand what the provision will be used for and its consequences.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance, which is always welcome. I do not agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, regarding the breadth of the provision. This is a standard type of power contained in many Acts of Parliament to deal with consequential issues, such as those alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. A very similar power can be found in the Scotland Act 1998, in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in the Government of Wales Act 1998, and in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO. All these statutory provisions have a similar consequential power for the same purpose, so this is not unique, exceptional or unusual.

However, I understand concerns being expressed about the scope of the power and the way it will be used. I notice the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to the use of the term “appropriate”, which some, of course, often consider to be inappropriate in a statutory context. I hear what is said about making clear that this is a consequential power that will be needed to repeal provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked for examples. If we look at the various statutory provisions for accession of other countries to the EU—the Croatian accession is the most recent—which amend the ECA, it is necessary to address that sort of primary legislation. If we look at the provisions of the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He cited some other examples. I admit that I am not familiar with devolution statutes and the consequential powers in them, but we have to take account of the context in which this legislation is being made and the considerable worries about the potential use to which they could be put, which is surely more than the Croatian accession. The Government cannot ignore the worries that these powers—in the context of the Brexit negotiations, future relationships, trade deals and whatever—could be used in a way which could significantly affect existing rights and remedies.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, it appears to me that some of the fears being expressed are not about the use of these powers, but about their misuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, observed, we have to see this provision in context. It is to be applied to the consequences of the Bill becoming law.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked for further examples. There are many examples in primary legislation of where consequential amendment will be required. I will not elaborate on them at this stage. For example, there are provisions in all the accession Acts that would have to be regarded as necessary to clear up in the context of the statute book. There are provisions in such things as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which would again have to be addressed in this context as a consequence of our removal when the Bill becomes law.

What will be required is a meaningful indication of the type of change that is needed to keep the statute book in reasonable order after our departure from the EU. In my respectful submission, where there may be concern about the misuse of this consequential power we are of course alive to concerns that are expressed. It may be that it turns largely not on the way Clause 17(1) is presently framed, but on the use of a term such as “appropriate”. We will give further consideration to the use of that language and whether that is the way this consequential—I stress “consequential”—power should be employed in this context.

I hope that gives noble Lords some degree of reassurance about the intention here. I suggest that the removal entirely of the consequential power contained in Clause 17 would have a materially adverse effect on the way the Bill can be properly implemented to bring the statute book into proper order following our exit from the EU. I hope at this stage that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

The Minister has just used the phrase that it is “not our intention” to use these powers. That is one of the difficulties that the Committee has on many of the issues that we have raised. The Government repeatedly say that it is not their intention to abuse these powers, yet they are taking powers which clearly can be abused in the future.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that any responsible Government would contemplate abusing powers given to them by Parliament. Indeed, if they did, they would be brought up very short by a sovereign Parliament.

[Lord Wigley]

Could I press the Minister further on the point that I raised? Will he clarify whether the powers that are being accorded in this clause will enable a Minister at Westminster to overrule powers normally exercisable by Ministers in Cardiff or Edinburgh?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not believe that they would be employed to overrule powers that are legitimately being exercised under the devolved arrangements. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to make consequential amendments that will bring the statute book into line with our departure from the EU.

[Lord Wigley]

I am sorry, but those consequential amendments may well include the need to change an instrument that is being exercised in Scotland or Wales. If that does not happen, does it give the power for a Minister in London to exercise those powers?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Ultimately, the UK Parliament would have the power to ensure that the statute book in the devolved Administrations also reflects our departure from the EU.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

When responding to amendments, the Minister has, on a number of occasions, said that the Government will give further consideration to the points made. We are now coming towards the end of Committee and will then be preparing for Report. Could the Minister give us more of an explanation of what further consideration will mean on the very many points that have been made? When we come to Report we will have six days, and, as we all know, a large number of issues have been raised. Will the Government be consulting on these? Will they be able to tell us before we start Report what changes they wish to make or the date by which government amendments might be published? Otherwise, Report stage will be as lengthy and as difficult as Committee stage has proved to be.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Clearly, when I say that we will give consideration to these matters, I mean that I am making more work for myself in that context. Of course we are going to discuss with officials how best to structure this legislation to meet the concerns that have been expressed. That may lead to amendments, in which case they will be available before Report, and it may not, in which case I will be happy to indicate at Report why such amendments have not been brought forward.

[Lord Pannick]

Will the Minister address the concern I expressed that the breadth of Clause 17(1) is such that it could be used by Ministers to evade the restrictions that will be contained in the other powers that Ministers enjoy under Clauses 7 to 9, particularly in the light of paragraph 17 of Schedule 7? Will he consider that point?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I will certainly give consideration to that point, but it is not immediately clear to me that the clause could be used to evade those limitations. I will address it in due course.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

Before we conclude this part of our deliberations, I refer back to what my noble friend said. I have every respect for the Minister—I mean that. I am quite sure that he would never, with ministerial responsibility, go against the clear intention of Parliament with these residual powers. But are we absolutely certain, with all the unpredictability and turbulence of politics across the world today, that every possible Administration would act as responsibly as he would?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not sure that I am in a position to answer that question. Nevertheless, when we legislate, we must also legislate as to what a future Administration would do with that legislation. I quite accept that point.

[Lord Goldsmith]

The Minister’s self-effacing remark draws attention to the other aspect of this clause. It was helpful when he said—and I hope that we will see some concrete results from this—that the Government will look at the word “appropriate” and, I hope, change it to “necessary”, but that is only part of the problem in this and other clauses. There are two elements. One is that the Minister “considers” and the second is what it is that the Minister considers. In this clause, it is “the Minister considers appropriate”. Many of the amendments before the Committee want to see that it is changed to “is necessary”—an objective rather than a subjective test. Sharing, as I do, views as to the good will and intentions of the Minister who sits here at the moment, we need to have, as he says himself, more conviction about what might happen in the future. So will the Minister also consider in those circumstances not just changing the word “appropriate” to “necessary”, but removing the subjective element so that we are satisfied that there has to be a clear objective statement before the Minister can actually exercise these powers?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am not going to draft at the Dispatch Box and I will not give undertakings about any part of this clause at this stage. I am saying that we will look at it in the context of the observations that have been made in Committee, and we will do that responsibly.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I welcome that assurance from the Minister. I have been surprised by the passion that this short debate has aroused. It raises many serious issues about what powers the Government are giving themselves as a result of this Bill. The Minister is aware of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith about this power. To my non-legal mind, when my noble and learned friend talks about the power that is in consequence of this Act because it repeals the European Communities Act 1972, the potential scope of what could be done is extremely large. When we come back to this on Report I hope that the Government will be able to provide us with some assurance that the scope will not be impossibly big. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 252 withdrawn.

Amendments 253 and 254 not moved.

Amendment 255

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

255: Clause 17, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) But the power in subsection (1) does not allow a Minister of the Crown to determine whether particular pieces of EU retained law should be designated as primary or secondary legislation.”

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 364 follow the previous debate in the sense that they question powers that Ministers seek to take in the Bill which we in the Committee want to quiz and question and understand better. My concern is a simple one. Why do Ministers feel that they should have the right, and seek to have the right, to determine whether a piece of retained EU law should be designated as either, on the one hand, primary legislation or, on the other, secondary legislation?

12:30

I understand primary legislation, because it is what we deal with all the time. It is what we debate, consider, seek to amend, improve and all of those things. It is something over which we have much more control. When it comes to secondary legislation, as I said earlier, it is not so easily amendable. You have to either take it or leave it. Sometimes we can regret it, but we cannot do much else with it. The Minister is seeking a power in Clause 17(1) that is extraordinarily helpful to the Government. It says, “Let’s just shove this into secondary legislation. They can’t amend it there or tinker with it. They either have to take it or leave it”.

That is an extraordinarily powerful thing to be able to do if you are a Minister. I have sat in the seat that the noble and learned Lord sits in, and I am quite sure that I would have liked to have had that power from time to time. It would have been extraordinarily convenient and enabled us more speedily to get on with what we were seeking to do. I can think back to several Bills and subsequently Acts that I participated in putting on to the statute book and I can see how pleasant it must be to be able to do something rather more simply with secondary than with primary legislation.

We need to understand better exactly why the Minister feels that that clause is appropriate. The Constitution Committee raised this as an issue. Similarly, Amendment 364 is also in this group and handily co-signed by my noble friend Lord Pannick. That amendment seeks to remove paragraph 19 of Schedule 8, again on the recommendation of the Constitution Committee, because it relates to retained EU law which has been assigned the status of primary legislation.

We are looking for some clarification and transparency from the Minister on this because it seems an extraordinary power. He has helpfully quoted other pieces of legislation in earlier debates in aid of his argument about whether or not the powers that the Government are seeking under this piece of legislation are reasonable. Perhaps he can give some examples and explain to us the circumstances in which this particular power would be of value to this and other Governments. Maybe he can explain to us when it has been used in the past because that would at least enable us to understand the circumstances under which what on the face of it seems extraordinary would be acceptable. I am not happy about the powers sought here and neither was the Constitution Committee. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. It is essential that the status of retained EU law in our law should be determined by Parliament as part of this Bill. I supported an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved earlier to say that retained EU law should be treated as primary legislation. It is so treated by the Bill for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. It is highly desirable that this should be fixed definitely as part of the arrangements and not left to be decided, as it were, ad hoc from time to time by the use of the power to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has drawn attention.

Originally, the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposed covered the whole of this law. I am inclined to think that the Clause 2 provisions, which are already in our law, have the status given by our law already. Some of them are statutes and some are subordinate legislation. Having considered this a little further since we discussed this some long time ago, I am inclined to think it might be wise to restrict the provision that this should be regarded as primary legislation to the Clause 3 provisions.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, in the previous debate the Committee deliberated on the vice of Clause 17(1). The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, identifies a specific reason why Clause 17 (1) is so objectionable. When the Constitution Committee put to Ministers our concern, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just referred, that the Bill should identify the legal status of retained EU law, the answer from Ministers was that if necessary or appropriate they could use the powers conferred by Clause 17(1) to designate what legal status retained EU law would have, and designate different parts of retained EU law for different purposes. The Constitution Committee made its view very clear in paragraph 69 of its report:

“It is constitutionally unacceptable for Ministers to have the power to determine something as fundamental as whether a part of our law should be treated as primary or secondary legislation”.


We debated what legal status should be given to retained EU law earlier in Committee. I respectfully agree with the observations made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I emphasise, however, that it is the width of Clause 17 (1) that is so objectionable as it enables Ministers to assert that they could use it to make changes of such constitutional enormity to our legislation. I agree, therefore, with the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has expressed.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I will briefly add my support. I point out to my noble and learned friend, who gave a very sensitive reply to the previous debate, that a culture has grown up in Parliament in recent years: the proliferation of so-called “Christmas tree Bills”, which include very few specific proposals, allowing Ministers to hang whatever baubles they like on them. Together with the deep suspicion, that we all have, of Henry VIII provisions, I hope that that explains to my noble and learned friend why, with all the far-reaching consequences of this Bill, we are most anxious that the prerogative should remain with Parliament and that it should not be for Ministers to determine what is primary and what is secondary. I hope that building on his sensitive and—I do not want to sound patronising—sensible remarks at the end of the last debate, he will take on board what has been, and is being, said on this point.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that one way or another it must be for Parliament to decide the essential ground rules that should apply in the future categorisation of retained EU law, certainly under Clauses 3 and 4, although perhaps not under Clause 2 as it is already domestic law. As I made plain some weeks ago—it seems like months—in an earlier debate, I do not, however, subscribe to the view of the Constitution Committee that all retained EU law should be designated as primary legislation. We discussed all this at the time. If what I may call in shorthand Professor Paul Craig’s suggested solution to this problem is adopted by following the EU’s own categorisation, under both the pre-Lisbon and post-Lisbon arrangements, somebody will have to apply that ground rule to this mass of 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 instruments—however many they may be.

I suggested in an earlier debate, because this is what Paul Craig had said, that in fact four competent EU lawyers could carry out that whole process in a matter of three days. I may have those figures slightly wrong, but that is about it. But if that is left to be done after the passage of this legislation, some regulating power will have to be available to government to give effect to that process. The ground rules settled its application for regulation. I hold no particular brief for this being done under Clause 17(1); it may be that the better course would be to introduce the ground rules—as I say, Parliament’s specification of how basically the process is to be completed—within the legislation, and have a regulation-making power attached to that for the sole purpose of applying the ground rules. But I would not wish to leave unchallenged the Constitution Committee’s suggestion that the whole shooting match should be primary legislation.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, to some extent this is a continuation not just of the previous debate today but of previous debates that we have had on earlier days in Committee. That leads me to two observations, before I come to specifics on the amendment. One is on the very pertinent observation of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that if we do not advance at all before we get to Report we will have just as much time spent on Report as in Committee. Therefore, we very much hope that the Government respond to his suggestion or injunction to the Minister that we have some greater clarity on what the Government are going to do as a result of the consideration that they have been having for the last few days, when they have had time to consider some of these points. Indeed, I hope that it is not only the noble and learned Lord who is working on this—there are a lot more people in government who should and could be working on it. That is just one observation that demonstrates how much work there is to do, and how we need to move forward, hoping of course to do that in co-operation with the Government.

Secondly, I suppose people outside listening to this debate will wonder what on earth we are talking about. They expect that this Bill is about in or out and when and what the terms are, and the customs union. Those are important issues, too, but this debate illustrates how important some of the provisions in this Bill are. The question of whether something is to be regarded as a piece of primary legislation is fundamentally important; it has consequences for who legislates and how easy it is to amend that legislation, as well as for its effect in relation to other statutes. I draw this as a general view that has been expressed around the House, that it cannot be left simply for a Minister to decide. In previous debates, we have heard how many Ministers that could be. I made the observation—no one has yet contradicted it, although maybe it should be contradicted—that when you say that a Minister does something, under the Karl Turner principle that means that a civil servant can do it. I have the greatest of admiration for civil servants, but that would multiply the number very considerably. If we are talking about important constitutional provisions, about protection of rights and all the other things that the Bill is concerned with, it is not appropriate that decisions on who makes that decision should be left in this way.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for drawing attention to the fact, as others have too, that one consequence of this particular provision that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton has dealt with touches on the question of who decides whether something is primary or secondary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made a very important observation, and so did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Today is not the day to decide which should be primary; what we are talking about is whether it should be simply for a Minister or for his officials to determine whether a particular piece of law should be treated as primary or secondary legislation. That is what the amendment raises, and it is important that we should have clarity on it, I hope before we get to Report.

The summary that is given in paragraph 69 of the Constitution Committee’s report, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, puts it in clear terms, including the last sentence that, as it stands:

“This is a recipe for confusion and legal uncertainty”.


We cannot afford this Bill, when it has completed its passage through this House and the other place, to leave the country in a state of confusion and legal uncertainty.

12:45

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, as has been noted, this is in a sense a continuation of a lengthy debate we had in Committee in response to, I think, Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will not repeat all that was said from the Dispatch Box in the context of that debate but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will not think that, because I am taking this amendment relatively briefly, I am taking it relatively lightly. Indications were given at the time of that earlier debate as to our consideration of this matter.

EU law is of course comprised of many things, including domestic primary and secondary legislation, converted EU regulations, decisions and EU legislative and non-legislative provisions. Due to the breadth of retained EU law, it is therefore unique in its nature. That is why the Government deliberately chose to tread carefully and not simply to assign this new category of law, retained EU law, to a single category of domestic legislation. Treating all retained EU law as primary legislation may be possible but such a broad approach will inevitably raise unforeseen and uncertain consequences—the very thing we want to avoid. If one looks at an EU provision that deals with the content of a particular chemical and those contents are to change, are we to address that only by way of primary legislation? I suspect that if that were the case, we would be sitting much later than we have in the last few days of this Committee.

Again, treating it all as secondary legislation may also pose considerable difficulties because of the interaction between retained EU law and other domestic legislation which is in the form of primary legislation. This is not a straightforward exercise, which is why it was thought fit to identify certain areas where it should be treated as primary—for example, in the context of human rights—and other areas where Ministers would be allowed the opportunity to consider how best to deal with the issue, albeit as cases arise.

I notice that there is a concern about how the matter is to be approached but it is not one that identifies a universally approved approach. I noted what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said about the treatment of retained EU law in the context of a qualification with regard to what is brought into domestic law by way of Clause 2, for example, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said about Professor Paul Craig’s solution, which we discussed previously in Committee in reference to Amendment 33.

We have taken that on board and we believe that at present, the position we have adopted is the correct one for achieving maximum legal certainty after exit day and for ensuring the most appropriate outcome across the domestic statute book. Equally, we recognise the need to look at alternatives in the context of, for example, Professor Paul Craig’s proposals, and perhaps to look at it in a different context altogether: that of outcomes rather than, in the first instance, identification of whether it is primary or secondary. That is what we indicated we would do when this matter came up for debate before in Committee, and what we are doing. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment at this time.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I am intrigued by the Minister’s reply. I guess I shall have to look back at the debate on Amendment 33, which he referenced earlier, but I am far from satisfied on this point. While I have been sitting here, I have been thinking of an example of what Ministers can actually do with pieces of primary and secondary legislation, and one comes to mind.

Towards the end of our time in government, an amendment was passed in this House very much against my better judgment; I was rather horrified by it. It basically had the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to bring forward an order to give effect to the particular amendment. I went back to the department and said, “Look, this is terrible. We lost this vote in the House yesterday and it means that you will have to do something that we really do not want to do and that would be quite wrong”. The Secretary of State very simply said to me, “Don’t worry about it: I simply won’t bring forward the order”. That is a powerful position to be in if you are Secretary of State. The order was never forthcoming. I am sure there are many examples of a similar nature that will be adopted by Secretaries of State, not just now but in the future.

That makes me think that we may be giving a Secretary of State—a Minister—far too much by enabling them to decide what is and is not secondary and primary legislation. I do not know whether that was in the mind of the Constitution Committee when it particularly picked this out, but it was right to be alive to that concern. I was grateful for the support for the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, because he is long experienced in these matters. He has a very wary and thoughtful eye on legislation and what it is.

I accept that we are in somewhat exceptional circumstances in that we are dealing with EU retained law, but the Minister will have got the message that we are very concerned and the concern is rather broad. In the end, what we put in primary legislation makes a difference and has the effect of changing people’s lives. Giving too much power to Ministers to determine what they can sneak in through secondary legislation, where we can do far less about it and do far less to improve its quality, is a proper constitutional concern that this House might express. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 255 withdrawn.

Amendments 256 to 260 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Amendment 261

Moved by

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

261: Before Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Northern Ireland: the Belfast principles
(1) In exercising any of the powers under this Act to make any provision affecting Northern Ireland, a Minister of the Crown or any devolved authority must have regard to the requirement to preserve and abide by the principles and obligations contained within the Belfast Agreement and given effect by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (“the Belfast principles”).(2) The Belfast principles include, but are not limited to—(a) partnership,(b) equality, and(c) mutual respect,as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between the North and South of Ireland, and between the islands of Ireland and Great Britain.(3) In particular, in relation to this Act—(a) a Minister of the Crown must not give consent under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act before any provision is made by a Northern Ireland department except where the Secretary State has considered the requirement to preserve and abide by the Belfast principles and considers the provision is necessary only as a direct consequence of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, and(b) the powers under paragraph 16(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act to make supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision (including provision restating any retained EU law in a clearer or more accessible way) may not be exercised to do anything beyond the minimum changes strictly required only as a direct consequence of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.(4) Section 11(3) of this Act does not permit the Northern Ireland Assembly to do anything which is not in accordance with the Belfast principles.”

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of a number of other noble Lords. For many years, there has been a panel game on Radio 4 in which people are asked to speak about a subject of which they have not been given notice for a minute without deviation or repetition. I have sometimes thought how that would cut short our debates in this House and down the Corridor. I have managed to avoid listening to this programme for the several decades that it has been broadcast, but others may know the one I am talking about.

That may be a relevant point, given that we had an excellent debate on most of the issues that we are covering this morning only a week ago. It was an excellent debate in which we talked about the Northern Ireland border, the relationship between the Northern Ireland border and the Republic border in terms of economics and other issues. We talked about that border and its overall relationship with the European Union and the United Kingdom because it would be the only land border between the EU and the UK. And we talked about that whole issue in relation to the Good Friday agreement, which everybody accepts is one of the coping stones of the peace that has, thank heavens, returned to Northern Ireland for the past few years. There were a couple of notable speeches in that debate. The former most reverend Primate Emeritus of All Ireland made an extremely moving speech. I do not want to ruin his career, but the noble Lord who wound up the debate made an important and interesting speech as well. It reflected what has been said elsewhere. The noble Lord said in replying to that debate: “Let me be frank”. That is not always something that one expects Ministers to say and it sometimes invites the reply, “caveat emptor”. I certainly speak confessionally on that subject. He said “Let me be frank” and then he was. He said that,

“the Belfast agreement remains the cornerstone of the United Kingdom Government’s policy as they approach Brexit. Further, the Belfast agreement is enshrined in international law, so it has a basis that is broader than simply membership of the EU. A number of noble Lords have made the point that it is our membership of the EU which was a factor in the agreement, and I do not think that that logic can be faulted”.—[Official Report, 14/3/18; col. 1703.]

He pointed out that in the light of that there was a great responsibility on our Government, on the Government in the Republic and on the EU to do all they can to sustain the Good Friday agreement and to find a solution to the question of the border.

In saying that, I am sure that the noble Lord was aware that he was repeating what has been said by Mr Blair, Sir John Major, the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and Senator George Mitchell, all of whom played a very important role in the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the biggest achievements in post-war British politics without any question at all. There are Members of this House who played a role in securing that outcome.

Why is there a problem as we move down this path, like the chorus in “Fidelio”, into the sunlit realm of post-EU global Britain? There is a problem, for reasons which were explained very clearly. Some noble Lords used this quotation in the previous debate—quite simply, it is because of the challenge which the then Home Secretary referred to two days before the referendum when she said in reply to a question:

“Just think about it. If we are out of the European Union with tariffs on exporting goods into the EU there’d have be something to recognise that between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. And if you pulled out of the EU and came out of free movement, then how could you have a situation where there was an open border with a country that was in the EU and has access to free movement?”


I could not have put it better myself. Others have put it on both sides of the European referendum. It is the problem that the Government now have to address with some difficulty, because after the referendum result it was decided—I have read this in a book by the political editor of the Sunday Times, so it must be true—without any discussion or debate in Cabinet that whatever happened we would leave the single market and the customs union. So here we are, facing this very difficult problem.

Some people have said, “Well, you can deal with it quite easily because there’s no need for a border”. We have been told that there are technological solutions. They do not yet exist. They are somewhere down the road. Most of the people who suggest them have never been to Northern Ireland and have no idea what Fermanagh, South Armagh and that borderland are actually like. They point to other countries that they say manage without borders or any of the infrastructure of borders, or customs controls. Curiously, they sometimes mention America and its borders. Tell that to President Trump. It does not feel border-free if you are building walls or trying to get goods from Canada into America or from America into Canada. They talk about Sweden and Norway. We know what the Swedish Minister said about that the other day when she said that it was easier to get to the moon than to get goods into Norway.

Most experts have said very much the same thing, underlining the fact that borders, as we said during the earlier debate, are not principally about geography; they are partly about identity but they are also about the difference between legal regimes and regulatory regimes. I have to be careful about bringing a Frenchman into this debate, but somebody who perhaps knows more about trade negotiations than almost anybody—even more than Mr Fox—and who was Secretary-General of the WTO and before that a European Commissioner is Pascal Lamy. In giving evidence in this House and in the House down the street, he said that,

“at the moment the UK exits the customs union, there has to be a border”.

He went on to say that “frictionless, invisible borders” are a “fairy tale”, and that a virtual border does not exist anywhere in the world.

13:00

So we have an issue, and it is an issue that the British Government have not so far managed to resolve in our discussions with the European Union. Last week, we signed up to a backstop agreement on regulatory alignment, which we had signed up to in December and then denounced between when the European Union tried to put it into legal language earlier this week and the “consensus”—I think that is the word used by one of the Ministers for these things—in December.

There is a real issue about this, and perhaps it is worth recalling why the Minister thinks that this is relevant to the Good Friday agreement. It is not because anybody seriously believes that, if we do not resolve this, we will go straight back to the Troubles and see the sort of violence that some of us experienced in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. However, the chief constable of the Northern Ireland Police Service does think that if there is a hard border of any sort and there are customs officers, they will become a target for violence. That is not condoning that, it is just pointing out reality in the context of Northern Ireland and the Republic. Of course any sort of border would have an impact on the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and we know what the Good Friday agreement says about the importance of that economic relationship.

There is another area in which a border would have a profound effect on the continued integrity of the Good Friday agreement: the question of identity. As was said in our last debate, at the heart of the Good Friday agreement is a proposition that is difficult to put into practice—and it says a great deal for the negotiators of the Good Friday agreement that they managed it. People who had previously condoned and taken part in violence to try to change the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland accepted that, from now on, those arrangements could be changed only through the ballot box by constitutional means and with democratic accountability. In return for that, they were assured that their own sense of identity and loyalties could be expressed with the encouragement and endorsement of the authorities. For example, if they were republican, they no longer had to sign up to all the manifestations and symbols of a unionist state. They could be Irish or British, or they could be Irish, British and European, and they would not have a border as a symbol between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The Good Friday agreement is profoundly affected by what happens to the border.

Presumably recognising that, the Secretary of State for Brexit said after the negotiations the other day that it is,

“our intention to achieve a partnership that is so close as to not require specific measures in relation to Northern Ireland”.

Well, I can help him. There is a partnership that is available straightaway: go back to the customs union; join the single market. That will solve the question of the Northern Ireland border.

I am rather nervous about predictions. My favourite English footballer was Paul Gascoigne, who, having been asked on one occasion at half time to say what the result of the match would be, said, “I never make predictions, and I never will”. But one prediction I make is this: before this political jihad is over, before we have finished with this, we will be back in the customs union. We will get back into the customs union partly because I think that is what we will vote for in this House, but, even more so, because that is what enough people will have the courage to vote for down the Corridor.

But let us suppose that that does not happen, solving the problem of the border, as they say, at a stroke. Then there is a very strong case for belt and braces. If you are the emperor with no clothes, belt and braces may seem a little curious. But there is a very strong argument—just in case we do not find other ways of solving the border, the technology is not available or the blue skies are a little clouded—to write into the Bill the terms, provisions, values and objectives of the Good Friday agreement. What is not to like? It would not damage anything or anybody. It is an assertion of what, apparently, we all believe—that the Good Friday agreement has to be kept at all costs—unless you are a former Conservative Secretary of State and think that the Good Friday agreement could be changed, thrown out or forgotten about, which I do not think is the view of this House, even it is the view of a couple of Brexiteer former Secretaries of State. It should be easy for the Minister, who was so frank and helpful in his last intervention, to simply say that we will write the Good Friday agreement, as Amendment 261 suggests, into the Bill.

There may be some reason why the Minister does not have the authority to do that this morning. I was going to say that we have not had any of the duty privy counsellor Bench of Brexiteers here today, but I can see one. I am glad that they still do morning shifts. Even with just one here, he may have some difficulty in giving us the sort of assurance that we might like. But I very much hope that, if that is the case, the majority of Members of the House will come back on Report and make absolutely certain that we write the terms of the Good Friday agreement into the Bill if, by then, we have not had a satisfactory response on the border. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 308ZA in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Cashman. I also express my support for the other amendments in this group and for everything that has just been said in the thoughtful and amusing speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes. My amendment would alter the existing limitations on the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly, departments and Ministers to act incompatibly with EU law so as to include restrictions that protect the linkages between the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity protections within the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the human rights and equality protections of EU law as they apply in Northern Ireland.

I tabled the amendment at the request of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium—I am grateful for its helpful briefing—because it felt that we needed something more specific than the more generalised commitments in other amendments on the agreement, valuable as those amendments are. My amendment, in contrast, focuses specifically on the protections of existing EU-derived human rights safeguards that link to the agreement and peace process. It seeks more precisely to ensure that a key element of that peace process agreement continues to be protected, specifically that the human rights safeguards that exist in EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, continue to bind Northern Ireland institutions.

The amendment reflects the grave concerns of human rights bodies in Northern Ireland, both civil society organisations and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Indeed, the commission published a joint statement last week with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission under the auspices of a joint committee established under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which voiced their concerns about the impact of the loss of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The statement underlines:

“The equivalence of rights, on a North-South basis, is a defining feature of the … Agreement”.


It warns of a “diminution of rights” within Northern Ireland and a potential,

“divergence in rights protections on a North-South basis”.

It therefore calls for the safeguarding of,

“North-South equivalence of rights on an ongoing basis”.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record and being thrown off the panel show to which the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, referred, I ask for the fourth time how the Government will ensure that equivalence in the absence of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply. I believe that this amendment would do the job, which was why I was pleased to table it on behalf of the consortium.

In its briefing, the consortium makes the point that the complex web of EU-derived human rights and equality safeguards has had an important function in ensuring that people in Northern Ireland have access to remedies that would otherwise not be available in Northern Ireland law. This amendment is about shoring up those safeguards in the face of an unprecedented threat from the Brexit process. In addition, it reminds us that, unlike in the rest of the UK, the Equality Act does not extend to Northern Ireland and gives an example of how EU human rights law has provided alternative protection. For example, it ensures that carers for disabled people are not discriminated against in terms of how they are treated. In a recent local case, McKeith versus Ardoyne Association, a woman’s manager sent her home and denied her the opportunity to work because of her ongoing caring responsibilities for her disabled daughter. The tribunal stated that, in her manager’s mind,

“because the claimant had a disabled child, her position was not properly in the workplace. Her daughter was ‘her priority’”.

As there was no other satisfactory explanation for the dismissal, the tribunal concluded that Ms McKeith was dismissed specifically because she was the primary carer of her disabled daughter and that, therefore, she had been subjected to discrimination.

The consortium also reminds us that, under the terms of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements, there was a commitment to a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It writes that,

“the purpose of this was to build on the ECHR to create a strong and inclusive rights framework to build confidence in our institutions. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights binding our Assembly and our Ministers, EU human rights law has provided both an important limitation on power and a point of access for an extended set of rights. Those rights will not be available to the same extent under the current draft of the Bill (removal of the Charter etc) and the devolved competencies and restrictions will also be weakened (Henry VIII powers and Clause 11 changes etc)”.

When we discussed Northern Ireland issues on 14 March, I referred to how a number of organisations, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, are arguing that, in the light of the risks to the human rights framework, now is a key moment to renew discussions on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. I asked the Minister whether he would undertake to consider that. I know that he did not have time to deal with all the questions raised that evening—time was getting on—but I would be grateful for a response now.

The amendment reflects key elements of the phase 1 joint report of the EU and UK and the draft withdrawal agreement text as it applies to human rights in Northern Ireland. The approach that it takes is compatible with the principles of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement “in all its parts”, to quote from the phase 1 joint report, including its “practical application”, protecting,

“subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, and … the effective operation of each of the institutions and bodies established under them”,

as well as the commitment to non-diminution of rights.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the deep anxiety felt by human rights organisations in Northern Ireland in the face of withdrawal from the EU while the rest of the island of Ireland continues as a member. Indeed, some members of civil society groups in Northern Ireland are coming over on Tuesday to meet us to discuss those concerns. We have heard nothing yet to quieten those anxieties. I urge the Minister to undertake to consider these concerns and, failing a more general change of heart on the charter, either to take away the amendment or to come forward with other proposals to protect the equivalence of rights—identified, as I said, as a defining feature of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, reminded us, the Minister told us that the agreement remains the cornerstone of the United Kingdom Government’s policy as we approach Brexit.

13:15

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support the points made by my noble friend Lady Lister with regard to human rights issues. Before I speak about those, however, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on an outstanding and powerful speech this morning.

We discussed much of this last week: the relationship between the Good Friday agreement and the European Union and how the membership of both Ireland and the United Kingdom underpinned everything in the agreement. I will concentrate on a couple of points on how equality and human rights affect this Bill and the Good Friday agreement and the relationship between the two.

The Good Friday agreement, and the negotiations leading up to it, concentrated heavily on the issues of equality and human rights. When I took the 1998 Northern Ireland Bill through the House of Commons, a great part of it dealt with them. As your Lordships will know, the current impasse or deadlock between the parties in Northern Ireland rests partly on disagreements about human rights and equality issues. This is, however, no academic matter; it is central to the progress of the talks in Northern Ireland and the integrity of the Good Friday agreement.

My noble friend Lady Lister referred to the joint committee between the Republic and Northern Ireland on human rights and equality issues. Indeed, she referred to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is common to both parts of the island of Ireland. It does not take a genius to work out that, if we leave the European Union, what happens to the relationship between a country that remains in the European Union and one that has left is a considerable problem.

There is also the issue of the equality of citizens in Northern Ireland. This really is a difficult one. For many years, anyone born in Northern Ireland, or whose parents or grandparents were, has been entitled to an Irish passport. Under the new arrangements, they would still be entitled to an Irish passport but, in gaining it, would also be entitled to citizenship of the European Union. What about the unionist who is British? It is said that perhaps 35% or 40% of the unionist community in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. Would someone want to become a citizen of the European Union while regarding themselves as British? They will certainly not identify themselves as Irish.

This goes against a fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement: parity of esteem between the parties in the northern part of Ireland. It means, for example, that many people in Northern Ireland are entitled to citizenship but—effectively—many people are not. That goes fundamentally against the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to when he talked, quite rightly, about the issue of identity.

Again, what about the relationship between the north and the south in criminal justice and policing? The big issue is that 75% of those people who flee Northern Ireland because they are criminals end up in the south. What happens to the European arrest warrant? What happens to the remarkable co-ordination and co-operation between the two police forces on the island of Ireland? Special arrangements have to be made.

Those are particular points that we did not touch on in our debate last week. I know that the Minister, a firm supporter of the Good Friday agreement who understands its significance in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland over the past two decades, will take these issues away and come back to us on Report, at which point we will have reached the 20th anniversary of the agreement. I hope that that anniversary will be commemorated by recognition of these amendments.

[Lord Cashman]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 308ZA, to which I added my name to those of my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Judd. I am extremely pleased to follow the other noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Murphy.

The amendment is concerned with the equivalence of rights between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The approach outlined would allow for continued institutional alignment in Northern Ireland with the EU-derived safeguards and frameworks that underpin the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The protection of the Good Friday agreement needs to be considered in its detailed implementation as well as in its broad principles.

As I said, the amendment focuses on the protection of existing EU-derived human rights—safeguards that link to the Good Friday agreement. The equivalence of rights on a north-south basis is a defining feature of the Good Friday agreement. A further signal of the expectation of long-term north-south equivalence is seen in the duty of the joint committee established under the agreement to consider,

“human rights issues in the island of Ireland”,

as well as,

“the possibility of establishing a charter, open to signature by all democratic political parties, reflecting and endorsing agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland”.

The joint committee welcomed the commitment in the draft withdrawal agreement that the UK,

“shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity … results from its withdrawal from the Union”.

However, it stated that the Government’s approach would only ensure equivalence of rights on exit day from the European Union and said:

“There is a risk that … a growing discrepancy between UK and EU law will emerge, thus eroding the North-South equivalence of rights in Ireland”.


That would be as a consequence of either the UK or the EU adopting higher standards. The joint committee called for the withdrawal agreement to provide for continuing north-south equivalence of rights post Brexit, as established under the 1998 Good Friday agreement.

Furthermore, the joint committee is concerned that the failure to retain the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU equality legislation within the United Kingdom will result in a diminution of rights in Northern Ireland and potentially cause a divergence of rights on a north-south basis. The joint committee—it is worth restating this—calls for,

“the text of the Withdrawal Agreement to commit the UK to retaining in UK law the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and to enable the UK to keep pace with its evolving protections over time”.

For that reason and for so many more, I support the amendment and the other amendments in the group.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

I support Amendment 261 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I regret that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, because I was with your Lordships’ EU Committee in Dublin, Belfast and Londonderry and on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Just a little while ago, I was standing on a bridge across the border with traffic thundering past in both directions—EU lorries, Irish lorries and British lorries. It seemed to me inconceivable then and it seems to me inconceivable now that any kind of barriers could be put in the way of traffic moving freely across that lengthy and complicated border. It is extremely hard to see how we can avoid such controls if we are outside the customs union; that seems an extraordinarily powerful and logical reason why the right course for us to take is to stay within the customs union. It is equally clear that the continuing process of peace in Ireland—north and south—depends on the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and that the strength of that agreement will be greater if it is included in the Bill. For that reason, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patten.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, the temperature of our debate this afternoon reflects again the emotions expressed so recently in this House by those of us who live, work and have our being in Northern Ireland. We are sensitive as a people to the fact that your Lordships’ House is hearing on repeated occasions references to “our” problems and “our” difficulties. But this is taking on a different dimension, because what was traditionally our problem is becoming a problem on a much wider scale, for it is becoming the crux of the debate on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom as a nation from the EU.

The problems to which the Good Friday/Belfast agreement has done so much to provide an ongoing solution are so often taken to be not just a matter for the people of Northern Ireland but now central to what people are considering. The difficulty of the border, community relations, human rights—all that long list of human problems was once contained within the borders of Northern Ireland but, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, so rightly reminded us a few minutes ago, it is becoming crucial to the debate on the future of our withdrawal. None of us wants to apologise to this House for the fact that our local problems now take on international significance. When we listen once more to the experience of former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, we are reminded that the problems to which I have referred have taken on a dimension that we never envisaged, even at the height of the Troubles.

For that reason, when I read Amendment 261 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I began to wonder whether we were stating the obvious yet again. Are we stating the fact that the importance of the Belfast agreement is such that it is welcome to see it suggested as a part of the Bill? I began to wonder whether other issues deteriorate the importance of reference to the Belfast principles, et cetera. Then I listened a few minutes ago to a debate on another amendment, when we concentrated on giving what someone said were excessive powers to Ministers to look at secondary legislation and have wide-ranging powers to alter the details of policy without addressing the power and supremacy of Parliament. I began to wonder: whether it is possible to visualise the situation in years to come when something as sensitive as the Belfast agreement—something as sensitive as all that the agreement has achieved—could possibly be affected by what we listened to in that previous discussion.

13:30

At the back of all the detail we are looking at are the fundamental questions of what a devolved Administration is and what should be the relationship between the mother of Parliaments and the devolved Administrations. For that reason, I found I had sympathy for the wording of this amendment, for it is a safeguard to the sensitivities mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Murphy, which are very close to my heart having been through the whole process of the peace movement in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, attributed me as an “emeritus” this morning—a new description. Many things have been said about me in the past, but I thank him for this new honour. Emeritus I may be, but I am also speaking from my heart and from my experience of a lifetime working, I hope, in the building of bridges in Northern Ireland. For that reason, I find myself supporting the thrust of what this amendment seeks to do. I urge sensitive expression and appreciation of the amendment by your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am delighted, and privileged, to be able to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I had the great good fortune of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place between 2005 and 2010, working very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, when he was Secretary of State, and with his successor. I saw at first hand the invaluable work that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, did, particularly on the commission which he jointly chaired with Mr Denis Bradley.

An enormous amount of work was put into making the Belfast agreement work. It is one of the significant achievements of post-war British politics, as my noble friend Lord Patten said in his magnificent speech. I will always remember private meetings that I had with the late Lord Bannside—better known as Ian Paisley—who, together with Martin McGuinness, breathed new life into the agreement. It would be a tragedy—I use the word deliberately—if we put the agreement at risk, because it would also have the effect of shattering the integrity of the United Kingdom itself.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for whom I have great respect, talked about the co-operation between the two police forces. One saw that at first hand with my committee, travelling throughout Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Many things have been said recently about the fact that the border issue can be easily solved. However, talking as I did last night with a group of colleagues and with two Norwegians, one realises that it is not as simple as that. A proclamation that it is simple never makes anything simple. We really must be extremely cautious about dismissing on the basis of a slogan the one thing that can guarantee the continuance of the Belfast agreement and the integrity of the United Kingdom. That is some sort of customs union, be it the present one or another, because that alone can preserve a border that is soft and the opportunity for people to travel from one part of the island of Ireland to the other without impediment.

My noble friend Lord Patten did a great service to the Committee and to your Lordships’ House, not only in tabling his amendment but by what he said in moving it. I believe that nothing is at risk if we in effect, as he has suggested, write the principles of the Belfast agreement into the Bill. My noble friend the Minister will of course proclaim his firm allegiance to the Belfast agreement, and we will all be delighted when he does so because we know that, as he did last week, he will do that with total commitment and integrity. We know also that he will say he speaks for Her Majesty’s Government. So if that is the position of Her Majesty’s Government—and we all believe that it is—and there is no difference in this House between any party on this issue, why cannot it be put on the face of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Patten so powerfully and movingly argued?

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—who is definitely emeritus—said that this was the crux of the problem that we face; I fear that he is right. It is therefore crucial that there is flexibility in government to allow an arrangement that preserves the agreement by ensuring that the border remains as it is. In my view, that can only be in a guaranteeable form if we have a customs arrangement. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Duncan comes to reply, he will accept the logic of that argument and once again proclaim the Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement. I hope he will also agree to commend to his colleagues, since we cannot expect him to do it on the Floor of the House this morning, that the Patten formula—there have been good Patten formulas in the past—that the agreement should be in the Bill is adopted by government.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, particularly about the customs union. However, would he reflect on the fact that the customs union deals with the visible border but the invisible border of services can only really be dealt with by a common single-market arrangement? That is of course the majority of both economies on the island of Ireland. If we are genuinely to have an open border, visible and invisible, to put it in that language, then the single market has to apply across that border as well.

[Lord Cormack]

Tempted as I am by the noble Lord’s seductive words, we must realise what is achievable and what is not achievable. With both major political parties proclaiming that the single market cannot remain, we have to concentrate on what can remain or can be replaced by something essentially similar—a customs union. As I said, I am tempted. I am not unsympathetic, but we have to be realistic.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, who wills the ends wills the means. The Government committed themselves to an open border, to my knowledge, some 20 months ago. I was very happy to hear a previous Secretary of State make that commitment quite explicit in a public space. I then asked: how? We are still waiting for any answers as to how, and cynicism is growing. It does not seem that the Government are thinking about the answer to that question.

It is, of course, a number of questions. Borders do different things for the movement of goods, the movement of people, the movement of animals and many other things. But I point to three things that are important. First, on goods, the Government have suggested that there may be a technological solution by which tariffs do not require a hard border—meaning installations at the particular line of demarcation—but are dealt with, quite handily, by electronic means and previous preparation of detailed dossiers on the content of each, in this case, lorry rather than container. It is a seductive view, but it is radically incomplete.

The Government have also on occasion suggested that they would be happy to see small traders, as it were, fall below the radar for enforcement. In the island of Ireland we are quite good at subcontracting the movement of things to small traders if that is advantageous. It has been done for various commodities. One need only think of diesel for a good example. It has also been done to my knowledge for various other things such as getting double subsidies on animals—I will come back to animals in a moment—by having the headage payment both north and south of the border. We have to expect that, as we get divergence of legislation and regulation north and south of the border, the incentives for what I believe are these days called “imaginative arrangements” will grow and will be a matter of subcontracting to the small traders. I do not believe that the electronic fantasy is more than part of the solution to the movement of goods, which speaks directly to whether we expect a customs union or the customs union to continue or whether it does not. I suppose these small traders might be looking forward to the latter solution, but I do not think they really are.

The movement of peoples seems very important. We have entirely free movement of peoples on the island of Ireland. That has not always been so, but we have it again. It is fundamental to life. But if people enter from the European Union into the Republic of Ireland, where they will have freedom of movement, they can then go to the north—to the UK—and come over here without passports. I find that quite a lot of my noble friends are not really aware of that, probably because, when they go to Ireland, they go by air and have to show a passport. It is not necessary, however, to show a passport when crossing the Irish Sea. That is one of the meanings of the phrase “common travel area” and has been with us since the 1920s. It is, incidentally, much stronger than the Schengen arrangements because, in the common travel area, when we move across from one jurisdiction, the UK, to another, the Republic of Ireland, we can vote and we can serve in the armed services. These are real differences. This is a deep and long-standing arrangement. However, it means that people will have to identify themselves—for example, when taking a job or when going to a National Health Service hospital for an operation—to be sure that they are entitled. That is what that one word, “passport”, meant.

13:45

Passports are quite expensive, but we have to accept that these days they will have to be biometrically enabled. I think, however, of all the families who live in cities on either side of the Irish Sea and who travel to and fro, often with quite a large number of children. It is a non-negligible matter to think about the movement of people. There is another factor here. It is not only people who live in the north and in the Republic who will have to have passports or ID; it is all our fellow citizens on this island, because you cannot enforce entitlements unless the good guys as well as the bad guys are checked. That means passports for everyone. That means ID cards.

I am not against ID cards, and I think I even have a suggestion about how it might be done, taking a leaf out of the arrangements in a number of states in the United States, where they have invented a delicious document called the non-driving driving licence. The non-driving driving licence enables people who are non-drivers in, say, the state of Connecticut to get an equivalent licence in another state, which does not entitle them to drive but enables them to have a drink—so it is really important. One of our better bureaucracies is the DVLA, and it might perhaps be able to think out how a system of non-driving driving licences could be a model for the driving licence that has served as an ID card over here.

One obstacle to this is that many, but not all, on the Conservative Benches have a thing about ID cards. But one has to get real and get up to date. Many of my friends on the Conservative Benches carry smartphones, which give away far more details about what they are up to at any given moment than any driving licence, passport or ID document does. We need to start talking about these things and not just making gestures towards passports or electronic tariffs.

Finally, I want to talk about the movement of beasts. When I speak on this topic, I always come back to beasts because they are notably mobile. Much more importantly, plant health does not recognise borders. We must have arrangements for plant and animal health that will not depend on the enforcement of a border. I hear no discussion of this. For example, have the Government considered delegating what Brussels likes to call phytosecurity, and we prefer to call biosecurity, to Stormont—let us hope it is up and running—with the proviso that it may not go below EU or UK standards? That would put, as it were, a double lock on animal and plant safety and standards in Northern Ireland, which would not be the worst of worlds.

These are the sort of problems that need addressing soon and urgently if people are to have confidence in the Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement and the principles that underpin it. I do not wish to be alarmist, but I do not think we should take for granted anything that might happen if we do not address these questions. Recently, I have been reading about events just before and during the First World War, when we saw the Home Rule debacle, the Easter Rising, the Irish war of independence and the Irish civil war—possibly the most terrible of them all. We are playing with fire. I hope the Government are listening and I hope they will take the principles of the Good Friday agreement as setting a demand for action and not just for rhetoric.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am very privileged to have had the insights of those who really are part of the Irish community and to hear how they see things. That is invaluable. It has also been powerful to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, with all his experience and integrity.

I emphasise one point: those of us associated with the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett are very struck by how deeply perturbed those who are standing for, working in and developing the concept of human rights in Northern Ireland are about the absence of equivalence in the legislation, as things stand. The people of the Republic will have the reassurance of the charter. We are told that the charter is impossible in our future. What will be the equivalence of protection for the people in Northern Ireland—those who belong to the minority and are currently confident, having the concept of the charter behind them? We really must have an answer to this question. My noble friend has pursued it on at least three occasions in Committee without getting any convincing response whatsoever.

I do not mind saying that I was very moved by the words today of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I will never forget him standing at the Cross Benches last Wednesday, when he implored all of us involved in legislation, and the Government, to remember that we were dealing with the most sensitive issues—ones that went right to the hearts of ordinary people as they went about their lives. It is not just a fix—a management arrangement—that we are about, it is about being able to relate to people, their fears and anxieties, their hopes and aspirations.

In that context—I do not want to overplay it, but it is true—since Wednesday last week I have been thinking of the two words that the noble and right reverend Lord emphasised in his peroration. He spoke of the indispensability of consent and trust. We cannot build a future worth having in Northern Ireland—and in the Irish Republic—if something has been foisted on the people as part of a solution to a very complex political issue. It has to give them the feeling that they can develop their lives together in confidence. It has been very exciting for those of us outside Ireland to witness the amount of good work between the different communities in the context of the Good Friday agreement. I ask the Government to take these points seriously and I hope we will get an answer to my noble friend’s question.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, not only for the passionate and articulate way in which he introduced the debate on this group of amendments—particularly Amendment 261—but also for the lifetime of commitment that he has given to the issues of Northern Ireland. That length of commitment speaks a great deal to me, as someone from that part of the United Kingdom.

As the fourth musketeer, as it were, I want to say something slightly different about why I think this amendment is not just important but critical. On 6 December last year, on the fifth day in Committee, Lady Hermon, the honourable Member for North Down, spoke about the key principles of the Belfast agreement in an amendment almost identical to this one. When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Mr Robin Walker, responded, he kept talking about the agreement, the commitment to the agreement, and the way the agreement was backed up. Lady Hermon came back to him saying that the issue was not the agreement but the principles, and he really did not seem to get it, because he kept coming back to saying that they were committed to the agreement and would ensure that the agreement was there.

I want to say why I would go even further than the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, in saying that it is not just a question of whether this would be a problem or harmful but why this is absolutely essential not that the precise wording of all the amendment is included, but that the principles of the Belfast agreement are included. I shall explain why.

We have had many decades of trying to get agreements in Northern Ireland. We have had them before, and they did not work as a peace process because they did not address the key disturbed historic relationships in these islands. In many ways, this was the understanding that the European project stepped out with, with Monnet, Schuman, Adenauer and so on. They understood that it was the relationships between the different countries and communities that were essential—and, as we know, the whole complicated edifice was created in which there could be co-operation.

One frustration for me is that colleagues who, like myself, are committed to remain, have failed to address the question of why, after 40 years, one of the parties is seeking divorce and many others are very uncertain about whether they want to stick with it. My own view is that, as time went on and we moved from the first generation of those who were committed to those who were there later, we moved from the things that were put in place as the instruments to ensure the fundamental purpose of the project, which was to stop war and build relationships. The instruments were things such as the market, the common currency, and the opportunity for European political leaders to be at the top table of global affairs. Those instruments became the purpose of the exercise for many of those who were involved. When in any set of relationships the instruments of the relationship become a substitute for the purpose of the relationship, the relationship is already beginning to fail.

My concern is about the commitment to the Belfast agreement, a legislative agreement with a commitment to certain kinds of constitutional and institutional matters and a commitment, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, knows well, to changes in the administration of justice and changing policing—all the important things, including the things that are mentioned in the other amendment about human rights. Those things will not keep the relationships alive if we forget that the relationships are the key issue. That is why I want to see the principles written into the Bill.

When I was involved in the process, we came to a point of understanding this in a very long and painful way. Most of those with whom I was involved are no longer involved politically, or even around at all. As I look around, I see those political leaders who represent the three key relationships not understanding what it was about—the relationship between political leaders in Northern Ireland. We are a long way from the relationships between David Trimble and Seamus Mallon, never mind those between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Let us not forget that Dr Paisley was not too keen about the Belfast agreement when it came out in the first instance. But the relationship between the political leaders in Northern Ireland does not have the same constructive engagement now. In the relationship between north and south, we are being pulled apart—sometimes by those who say that they want to unite the island. What about the relationship between London and Dublin, between the British and Irish Prime Ministers? Think back to the kind of relationship there was between John Major and Albert Reynolds, or between Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern. We do not have that kind of relationship in either direction.

The European Union itself was the model and the inspiration; it was the container for the relationships that kept the British and Irish Governments together and working, so that when John Major and Albert Reynolds became Prime Ministers, they had already been Finance Ministers and worked together, and they said, “We know it’s impossible but we’re going to have a go”.

14:00

Another thing is that, if many of those in Brussels, and indeed in London and Dublin, who are saying that this and that is impossible had been around in Belfast 20 years ago, there would have been no Good Friday agreement, because they would have said, “It doesn’t fit in with our understandings of sovereignty”. Even on the rule of law, think of the people who would never have been let out of prison if others had simply stuck with the understanding of the rule of law as it was then. We had to be more adventurous and creative, just like you have to be in any relationship if it is to evolve, change, develop and, frankly, survive. When a Minister says, “But we are committed to the Belfast agreement”, I do not doubt that. Even when he or she says, “It’s implied in the legislation”, I do not disagree with that. But I do disagree with the idea that we do not have to put it in black and white, firmly and clearly, that the principles of the Belfast agreement and the relationship approach are critical and they need to be in the Bill.

I have spent a lot of my life going to other parts of the world. I am not long back from Colombia, where they have a peace process; just before that I was in India, and in a week or so’s time I will be out in Peru. In all those places, they are not looking to the Northern Ireland arrangements and the Irish peace process because they want our particular constitution or institutions, or our way of dealing with policing and the administration of justice. They are looking at the underlying fundamental principle, which was our discovery that these problems were ones of relationships—historic, disturbed relationships between communities of people—and that we had to find ways of addressing that creatively. Whatever kind of mechanisms we used, that was what it was about.

As I look around at home, coming up to the 20th anniversary, I see a whole generation of young political leaders who do not get that. They think it is all just about doing politics, like people do everywhere, and it is not. We need to put this into the Bill to make it absolutely clear to anyone who comes back to the question that, in the absence of that containing environment of the EU, which made it possible for us—I say that because it is very doubtful that we would have got the Belfast agreement without the context of the EU—we have to emphasise with even greater clarity than before the fundamental basis on which that agreement was reached. We have to hope and pray that we can work to find a way of maintaining those relationships and developing them through the stormy waters which undoubtedly lie ahead.

[Lord Carswell (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, partly because I was not present at Second Reading. I apologise to your Lordships for that but there were certain problems that I had at home. But I am impelled to do so by what has been said so very eloquently by many of your Lordships today.

I have lived the whole of my life in Belfast and been through a considerable amount in that time. I have lived there even longer than my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames, whom I have known, liked, respected and admired—no less so today—for many years of that time. I have known the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I like and respect what he has had to say. I am very happy to support the principles of what they have both said. I will come back to what I mean by “the principles” in a moment.

I was very close, personally and professionally, to what we have referred to by the usual euphemism of the Troubles. It was a dreadful time and I would hate with every fibre of my being to think that we might go back to that. The fact that we have had peace—maybe not perfect, but a great deal better than what we had before—for 20 years now has been of great importance in the life of the Province. That it should continue is also of great importance, not merely because it gives a better approach to normal life in the Province but because it conditions people to feel that that is the proper way to conduct their lives, which of course it is. If the continuance of the Belfast agreement helps in that, then I am emphatically on the side of those who say that it should be taken account of.

The only caveat I have is on the wording. The Belfast principles include certain things, uncontestably, but what else? A great deal of my professional life, both at the Bar and on the Bench, was spent in interpreting statutory wording and attempting to find its proper and expressed meaning—the way in which statutes should be approached—while trying to see either loopholes or where other people would look for loopholes. That is the great problem in drafting anything, particularly something as important as this. Therefore, that is the only reason I issue a note of warning. I would be perfectly happy to see a clause of the nature proposed on the statute book. But if it is to be done, I simply warn that defining the Belfast principles, or leaving them undefined, could allow the wording to be put to purposes which we might not think of today but which some other people will think of at some time. I leave this thought with the Minister who is replying and with your Lordships.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I have not spoken on this subject but today I am moved to do so: first, because I had the honour of serving in government with my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes before he was a Member of this House; and, secondly, because I held the responsibility for most of the justice arrangements in Northern Ireland for about 10 years in the middle of the Troubles. Therefore, I am extremely conscious of the difficulties of Northern Ireland and of the immense privilege of it having had a great degree of peace since the Belfast agreement and since John Major initiated the first talks, which was quite difficult to do, during my term of office.

I am convinced that the only real solution for the Northern Irish and Irish border is in some form of treaty to deal with customs matters and with trade. At the moment, we have a law under the jurisdiction of the European Union for these two matters. The Government have said, and I understand this, that we are leaving both arrangements. But it is possible to make similar arrangements under a treaty: we would not be part of the EU but part of a treaty arrangement with the EU, which would reflect that. I believe something of that kind is absolutely essential. The Belfast agreement did a terrific amount for the peace of Northern Ireland and long may it continue.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I have a few words to add to what has been a hugely interesting and entertaining debate, led off by the eloquent and entertaining noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who speaks with great knowledge and experience on this, as do many others. My amendment was stimulated by anger at those former Ministers who decided that it was worth the price of Brexit to suggest that we should rethink the Belfast agreement, which has brought so much peace, tranquillity and good order to governance in Ireland, and the north of Ireland in particular.

Amendment 316 seeks simply to ensure that, when this Bill passes, there should be some further thought because I do not think that much thought has yet been given. This is one of those debates that happen simply because of the unintended consequences of Brexit, and not enough was thought of by the Brexiteers in the run-up to the leave vote on 23 June 2016. That is why that amendment is there, although the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is far superior, because it takes us to the principles that are fundamental and lie behind it.

I can see that both Front Benches want to get on, so I shall speak only briefly to my amendment, but it is right that we have these things at the forefront of our minds. Perhaps when we come back at Report, we will have something there enabling us to focus on this and give it further thought, as well as enabling the Minister to say something better than what has been said before—that instead of the Bill being merely about transposing one set of legislative rules into a new set, we recognise what has happened before and the impact of the Belfast agreement on the future governance of our country post-Brexit.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bassam said, this has been an immensely interesting debate. I know that other noble Lords have referred to this as the second debate that we have had on Northern Ireland, but all the amendments in this group reflect the concerns that we have had, the degree of concern around the issue and the fact that we have not really had the answers to satisfy those concerns yet. The impact of Brexit on the Good Friday or Belfast agreement is profound. I understand that the Minister has a weariness about saying the same things as last time, but I hope that he will understand, from comments that I shall make now and that other noble Lords have made, why there is a need to return to these issues.

My noble friend Lord Bassam sums up in his amendment—which is entirely reasonable, and I hope that the Minister can accept it—that this is about the Government assessing the impact and publishing that. I go back to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, and his amendment, to which I have added my name. He referred to the radio programme “Just a Minute”, and I think that that is quite apt: this issue deserves “repetition”, and the Government should show “hesitation” and reflect, and perhaps come back with some “deviation”, moving from their current position and giving us some answers as to how the issue can be addressed.

There has been some journey from the Government to clarify the status of the December joint report on the progress of phase 1. Where the Government stand on regulatory alignment has been almost like a political hokey-cokey, and the current position, which is a backstop for what could happen, is probably fair. But the impact of a hard border in Northern Ireland would be profound and deep and have implications for the peace process. It is not just about the physical border—it is also about the psychological impact that it would have, and I think all noble Lords who have spoken today have understood that. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to the security implications, as I did last week, of what would physically happen if there were a hard border and how those border points would be guarded.

Look at the logic of the issue of trade and the hard border. The Government accept that there should be regulatory alignment between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, if you move on from that, the Republic of Ireland obviously has regulatory alignment with the EU, and Northern Ireland has regulatory alignment with the rest of Great Britain, so, surely, that means that there has to be regulatory alignment throughout the whole of that area, which to my mind sounds something like a customs union. I really do not understand why the Government have set their face against this and made it one of their red lines.

14:15

I discussed this with a senior government Minister recently and said that the lack of detail on this issue to your Lordship’s House and generally is why it has become such an issue. His view was that the statements made by the Minister and the Prime Minister about the need for a soft border, the absolute commitment from the Government to the Good Friday agreement, and the total rejection of a hard border are clear. I agree, but the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, hit the nail on the head with exactly the point that I made to that Minister at the time—how will it be done? Until the Government can say how, we remain in a sort of no-man’s land or Alice in Wonderland situation as to how it will happen. I was told that the Government could not say how they would do it until negotiations take place. But if it is a matter for negotiation, how are the Government able to make that commitment? I must say to the Minister that it is an unacceptable position to be in.

This may not satisfy all noble Lords, but to remain in a customs union would be part of the solution to this. The Government reject that and say that it is a red line that they cannot go beyond, but if they maintain that red line, I still cannot understand—trust me, I have tried really hard to—how the Government can achieve their objectives alongside it. We heard suggestions in the debates last week and from other noble Lords this morning about how that can be done, but I say to the Minister that it is the Government’s responsibility to tell us how it can be achieved. We need clarity and detail and to move beyond the warm words. We want something to happen and we have to make it happen.

The Minister and the Prime Minister have been clear and I do not doubt their sincerity in the statements they have made, but why are we having this debate? It is because saying something does not make it true or make it happen. There has to be legislative certainty around this issue. It is that legislative certainty that we are still waiting for and need to see. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, is one way forward. If the Minister has a better suggestion and wants to bring forward a government amendment to address the issue, I shall be very happy to see it. But in the absence of that, we will have to press this through our own amendment.

My noble friends Lady Lister, Lord Judd and Lord Cashman raise in their Amendment 308ZA the issue of the equivalence of rights on a north-south basis as being a defining feature of this agreement, and they referred to the essential nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Again, we have a government red line about that charter. I fail to understand that. Some red lines, such as the one about the agencies and the involvement of the ECJ, have been smudged a little pink now. Is this another red line that needs to be smudged pink? The Charter of Fundamental Rights is, bizarrely, the only specific exclusion in terms of the existing rights of citizens. That has a huge impact on those in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Lister has raised this question before, but how can the Government ensure equivalence of rights without that charter? She gave examples of real people, problems and issues. Unless we can give real answers to those people, we will find ourselves again in a vacuum of being able to give assurances.

My noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen brought to his comments not only his knowledge and experience but the great affinity he has with Northern Ireland through his service, both as Minister of State and—I would say this as one of his junior Ministers—a first-rate Secretary of State. He focused on the equality and human rights issues and backed up entirely what my noble friend Lady Lister was saying. These are central to the integrity of the agreement. We cannot fudge that or move away from it. We have to respect that integrity. The agreement was hard-fought, as those who were there at the time and involved would say. The Government have to respond to the details that he provided and the specific points around the fundamental principles. If the Minister cannot respond, there has to be discussion so that we get to a point that is in the right place.

I finish on the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on Amendment 261. As always, he brings to these debates both his life experience and a passionate commitment. I recall—as did the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—the Eames-Bradley report, by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the great Dennis Bradley. Both of them, in taking it through, were prepared to think the unthinkable, to do the right thing and to take on those challenging and difficult issues for the greater good. At times that was uncomfortable and not easy, but he did it. He is due the respect of this House: it should heed his words on these issues today.

The Minister has been clear on his commitment—which I do not doubt—to the Good Friday agreement, but I doubt that we have what the House and the legislation needs: the legislative certainty on the issue that gives us the confidence that the commitment will be not just in words but in deeds and legislation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate and I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, for facilitating it. It will be almost impossible for me to respond without some form of repetition, I am afraid, and I am nearly certain that I cannot do it within one minute—I am very aware of that. Last week, too, we had a wide-ranging debate that touched on a number of issues and I hope that noble Lords will have an opportunity to examine some of the answers and discussions. I will try to be as focused as I can in the time available.

One of my first repetitions—one that I cannot make often enough—is that the Belfast agreement is the cornerstone of the UK Government’s policy and so it will remain. It is important to stress that the United Kingdom Government and the Ministers in the devolved Administration are already bound in statute and treaty under international law as an obligation of that Belfast agreement. That binds not just the United Kingdom Government but also the Irish Government, so this matter rests comfortably in that space.

Amendment 261, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, would require both Ministers and Northern Ireland departments to have regard to the Belfast agreement and the wider principles when making any provision under this Bill that affects Northern Ireland. Those wider principles have been mentioned a number of times, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.

Subsection (3) would require the Secretary of State to refuse consent to reserved provisions under devolved legislations unless the provision was necessary only as a direct consequence of the UK’s exit from the EU. This would place a much greater constraint on a provision that could be made for Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the UK, even in circumstances where there was no impact whatever on the Belfast agreement. In the same vein, the Secretary of State would be prevented from making any consequential provision affecting Northern Ireland beyond the minimum strictly required only as a direct consequence of exit. That would substantially constrain what could be done to update the statute book in Northern Ireland, putting the jurisdiction at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the UK. That is why we would not be able to move forward on the amendment as it has been tabled.

I am conscious as we approach the 20th anniversary—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, stressed this—that we wish to see major progress, not least in the formation of an Executive. However, the noble Lord and other noble Lords raised wider issues, not least criminal proceedings and the European arrest warrant. In this context, I am conscious of the “beasts” of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. Each of these elements will form part of the ongoing sector-specific elements which we will be discussing and which will come before your Lordships’ House for that thorough examination.

Amendment 316, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, relates to an issue that has also been raised by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I say to the noble Lord that we will take on board his thoughts and give due consideration both to the committee’s report and to the issues that he has raised. We are conscious of that as a factor.

As to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has raised this wider issue on a number of occasions, as she reminded us, and I feel ill-equipped compared to those who responded to the point in the past. I will make two statements in direct response. The noble Baroness mentioned that next week there will be a delegation from Northern Ireland. I will be very happy to meet them, if that can be facilitated. I also give a commitment that I will take away her remarks from today and give them due consideration.

I could be repetitious at this point and say the lines that noble Lords have previously been given in response. I can give them again, but I think that noble Lords will appreciate that they will broadly stand where they did in the past. However, I am happy to engage directly with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, on these matters going forward. I hope that that will give some comfort, if not contentment, on this matter.

I am always aware of what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, brings to the debate. I think that he has captured the mood of the Committee as I do not doubt he has captured the mood of the entire island of Ireland in the past. His points are none the less correct. There is no doubt that the issues that we are facing now on Ireland will be the crux of the ongoing discussion. It is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, should have raised these points again in her remarks. She is absolutely correct when she says that we have a responsibility to tell this House what we will be moving forward. We will fulfil that responsibility. It will not be in the withdrawal Bill per se. The purpose of the withdrawal Bill is to create a functional statute book for day one after Brexit. However, for each of the elements that has been raised, not least those that are sector-specific, we will come back to the House with clear statements, which all noble Lords will have the opportunity to address. I hope that we can make that point going forward as best we can.

I am aware that a number of other noble Lords have raised important issues, not least my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. This has been a wide-ranging debate. I hope that there will be some comfort in my words, but I appreciate that they may not be as comfortable as the Committee would like them to be. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Patten of Barnes]

The Minister began his remarks last time by speaking from the heart. He spoke on that occasion without doing what I fear he did on this occasion, which was to deal as rapidly as possible with the “it says here” part of his brief. I commend the Brexit department for producing it, although I did not agree with the argument, which seemed to be more or less that if we accepted the amendment we would be treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the country. What does he think the Good Friday agreement is? The Good Friday agreement is about the fact that Northern Ireland unfortunately has been a casualty and a victim of our inability to share these islands peacefully together for centuries. I assure the Minister, whom I much admire, having seen him at the Dispatch Box being charming and on the last occasion reasonably convincing, though I think not on this occasion, that when we get to Report, Deo volente, if we are here, many of us will want to come back to this subject and, I hope, take it as far as a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 261 withdrawn.

Amendment 262 not moved.

Clause 10 agreed.

Amendment 263 not moved.

Schedule 2: Corresponding powers involving devolved authorities

Amendments 264 and 265 not moved.

House resumed.

14:30

Sitting suspended.

Police: Undercover Officers

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what communications they have had, over the last 30 years, with police forces regarding the tactic of undercover police officers forming sexual relationships to develop their cover stories.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, as part of its terms of reference the undercover policing inquiry is investigating the state of awareness of undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government since 1968. The Home Office is a core participant in that inquiry and is in the process of making disclosure to the inquiry of material relevant to the terms of reference. The inquiry will report its findings once all the evidence has been reviewed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which of course was not an answer to my Question. Is she aware that, over a period of 24 years from 1985 to 2009, almost every single year there was a state-sponsored sexual relationship between a police officer and a woman who at no point was accused of doing anything illegal—not arrested, not accused? I just do not understand how the Minister can think that this is all right. This strikes at the heart of the ethics and integrity of our police forces and our security services. I stress that the cases we know about are only the ones we have heard about: those are the only police names in the public realm. Until we know all the names of the undercover police we will not know how many victims there were. I am also concerned about the inquiry. The Minister may know that there was a walkout today by the whole legal team of the women involved and the women themselves. How will the Government restore the credibility of that inquiry?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness says “state-sponsored”. I refer her to the terms of reference of the inquiry, which state that it will,

“ascertain the state of awareness of undercover police operations in Her Majesty’s Government”.

That is precisely what the inquiry was set up to do. As for the walkout today, I have been made aware of that and I am aware that the hearings are still ongoing. I encourage all core participants—indeed, anyone impacted by undercover policing—to participate fully in the inquiry so that we can learn the lessons and get to the truth.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a very serious matter? Notwithstanding anything that comes out of the inquiry and the recommendations that follow, can she confirm that she is absolutely confident that robust procedures are now in place and that it can never happen again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I would love to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that certain things could never happen again, but nobody can legislate for the odd rogue undertaking or the malicious intent of people. Therefore, one cannot be absolutely certain that it could never happen again. What one can do is put measures in place to ensure, as far as possible, that it never happens again.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that undercover policing is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism and crime and that, provided it is properly regulated and standards are adhered to, we should not judge the majority of very brave police officers who go undercover by the misdeeds of a few?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I completely concur with the noble Lord. He is absolutely right; much crime has been unearthed by the use of undercover policing. As I say, there are now strict rules in place to prevent unacceptable behaviour going on and I could not agree more with him.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, we know that this inquiry has already taken three years, and it is expected that it will take another year before the victims get answers—campaigners walking out in protest today notwithstanding. We also know that the Special Demonstration Squad has been disbanded. But it would be naive to think that all embedded undercover work has ceased. What assurances can the Minister give that the culture, practice, instructions to and supervision of undercover officers have already changed to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, no man or woman will ever be subjected to these practices again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, because the policing Code of Ethics makes it clear that police officers should not use their professional position to,

“establish or pursue an improper sexual or emotional relationship with a person with whom you come into contact in the course of your work”.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides the legal framework for the lawful deployment of undercover officers as covert human intelligence sources. We also have the 2014 CHIS codes of practice.

In relation to the length of time that the inquiry has taken, the slight extension to that is purely due to the sheer number of pieces of information it has to look at.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the walkout from the inquiry was because of a sense that it was important that the individual police officers were identified by name. Will the Minister confirm that, by definition, undercover police officers have a cover name, and that, whatever the importance of getting to the bottom of what went on in this inquiry, it is important that they retain anonymity, because that is a pre-eminent part of what they do?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right—of course, it protects the safety of those people as well.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

Will the Minister also confirm that this is not just a matter of rules and regulations? If it went on for so long, there must have been a serious management failure, because the relationship between a senior officer and the person doing the job is crucial in terms of keeping a check on their behaviour. That seems to me—as an outsider—not to have happened, and it is what we ought to focus on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would not like to speak for the chair of the inquiry, but I am sure that some of the institutional failures that happened way back in the day will be looked at.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, in the walkout today, the leading QC representing the victims said that it was due to the legal teams not being able to participate in a meaningful way. How have we got to a position where this has been going on for three years and cost £9 million but senior QCs feel they cannot participate in a meaningful way?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the people who walked out will have their reasons for walking out, but I know that the Home Secretary has full confidence in the chairman to carry out the inquiry in a way that gets to the truth of what happened.

Commonwealth Summit: Human Rights

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked by

[Baroness Berridge]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their human rights priorities for the communiqué of the Commonwealth Summit in April 2018.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my interests as outlined in the register.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, Commonwealth member states are meeting, as I speak, in London to negotiate the communiqué. While it would be inappropriate to comment on those negotiations or speculate on specific outcomes, the UK believes that the promotion and protection of human rights should be of central importance. Encouraging member states to uphold the values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter, which include democracy, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and opposition to all forms of discrimination, will be an important part of April’s summit.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, on 28 February of last year the Prime Minister stated:

“We must reaffirm our determination to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practice their beliefs in peace and safety. And I hope to take further measures as a government to support this”.


That commitment, of course, is also outlined in the Commonwealth charter. While I am grateful for the Minister’s Answer, could he please provide details on how the Prime Minister’s commitment will be manifested in practical terms during the UK’s period of chair-in-office of the Commonwealth?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I acknowledge the formidable work my noble friend does, along with other noble Lords across this House, in the area of freedom of religion and belief. It remains a key priority for Her Majesty’s Government to focus on freedom of religion and belief in the context of the Commonwealth summit. During the summit week, various fora will be held, including the Commonwealth People’s Forum, where civil society groups will have an opportunity to directly raise issues, including freedom of religion and belief, and there will be an opportunity for Foreign Ministers and leaders to hear about the outcomes of those fora. The UK will be chair-in-office for two years. I assure my noble friend that we have received various bids and we will certainly be focusing on all elements of human rights, including—

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

If I may finish, including freedom of religion and belief.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I want to ask the Minister about two groups of people whose human rights are sadly violated. The first is LGBT people in many African countries, who are treated most shamefully, and the second is the Dalits and Adivasi or tribal peoples in India and other south Asian countries, who by every indicator are discriminated against most cruelly.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the latter group, I totally agree with the noble and right reverend Lord. We continue to raise these issues in the context of the Commonwealth but also bilaterally where those groups are discriminated against. On LGBT rights, I assure noble Lords that the Prime Minister herself has committed to raising issues around LGBT rights during Commonwealth Week. As I have also made clear on a number of occasions, we continue to raise these issues, particularly with those nations across the Commonwealth which still criminalise homosexuality. We continue to raise this both in the context of the Commonwealth and bilaterally.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister agree that the Commonwealth has been strong on declaration —Harare and the charter—but less strong in practice? For example, of the 58 countries in the world where capital punishment is legal, 36 are in the Commonwealth. The recent report of Open Doors shows that, of those 50 countries in the world where it is difficult to be a Christian, seven are in the Commonwealth. Is this a priority of the Government?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord that, on all issues of human rights and opposing the death penalty, the Government remain very clear and firm, including in the context of Commonwealth visits. For example, most recently I visited the Gambia and raised LGBT rights and the death penalty directly with the appropriate Ministers. We will continue to do so. I agree with the noble Lord that declarations from the Commonwealth are always strong but the actions have perhaps not delivered on those declarations. Together, working with the Secretary-General, it is our aim to revitalise and re-energise the Commonwealth.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative’s latest report will be launched in London by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth a week before the Commonwealth summit. The ambition is to make human rights, including modern slavery, a core concern of the summit by leading the international efforts to try to achieve this. I note the Minister has already pointed out that he cannot comment on the outcomes of the Committee of the Whole, currently meeting in London, but can he tell us whether he supports the work of the Human Rights Initiative and whether he will raise this issue with the Committee of the Whole to make sure that it does go forward into CHOGM?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the first point, yes I am committed to that. On the Committee of the Whole, the UK’s position, including on the broad spectrum of human rights, will be raised during the discussions, which, as I said, are taking place right now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I welcome what the Minister said in relation to the fora, and the voices in the fora actually being heard by the leaders. But can we do more to ensure that voices on human rights are not simply the British Government’s but that we work with other allies, particularly in Africa? For example, we will have the new President of South Africa—and I have raised this point with the Minister before—who wrote the constitution of South Africa, ensuring that LGBT rights were guaranteed in the constitution. Can we not do more to ensure that other voices are heard?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is of course quite right to remind me that he has raised this with me before. We have followed up on this, and I assure him that, although there is always more to do, we will continue to do so on LGBT rights, and more broadly across the human rights spectrum.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Berridge is quite right to focus on the promotion of human rights, as are the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. But can we make sure that promotion is done more by example than by lecturing—let alone by hectoring—which does not achieve the results we want at all? My noble friend has played a leading part in this forthcoming summit, which is full of opportunities. Would he not agree that prosperity and security are the best gifts we can contribute to the gigantic Commonwealth system across the world? In return, they can contribute to our welfare and our finding a role in the world.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord speaks from vast experience in this respect, and I agree with him. I would add that we can learn from the valuable experience of all 53 nations. The approach of Her Majesty’s Government, and indeed mine as a Minister on human rights, has never been one of pointing fingers. It is about learning from experience. Our own journey on gender equality, LGBT rights and the broader spectrum of human rights has been one where we have learned from example and through sharing experiences, whether we do it with other countries or countries do it with us. That is the value of the Commonwealth network.

Health: Medical Respite for Children

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:16

Asked by

[Baroness Brinton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance is provided to Clinical Commissioning Groups in exercising their duty to provide medical respite care for seriously ill and disabled children, following the High Court decision of 21 February.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, although there is no specific statutory duty on clinical commissioning groups to offer respite care, under provisions in the National Health Service Act 2006, CCGs must ensure that they secure health services to meet the needs of disabled children to a reasonable extent. Furthermore, the statutory framework introduced in the Children and Families Act 2014 requires CCGs and local authorities to work together to support all the needs of children with a special educational need or disability.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Despite the High Court judgment in the case being brought by the amazing Nascot Lawn parents, which made it absolutely clear that the very disabled children involved are entitled to individualised NHS support, it has now emerged that the Herts Valleys CCG’s so-called assessment for each case was a five-minute pre-assessment box-ticking and that the child was not even present. The CCG is still trying to dictate its contribution to the county for the care and is not consulting the families. Can the Minister explain what steps the Government and NHS England can take to ensure that Herts Valleys CCG makes appropriate provision for each of these children, when it appears it remains determined not to?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I congratulate the noble Baroness on her tenacity in raising the issue and thank her for giving me the opportunity to meet parents whose children use these services. First, it is incredibly important to be clear that there are rules for how the consultations that the judicial review said should be held should take place, and they must be abided by. More importantly, as I have just set out, there are legal obligations under the 2014 Act for joint commissioning between the CCG and the local authority. That is not one telling the other what to do; it is joint commissioning. Most important of all—the point that the noble Baroness makes—is that whenever these bodies are planning for the future, they have to keep the needs of the children in mind. That is what we, whether it is NHS England or the department, are imploring them to do through this process. Indeed, they are obliged to do that.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, legal obligations are all fine, and of course the Government and everybody else have to comply with them, but unless there is adequate funding for local authorities, health services and commissioning groups, it is impossible for these authorities to comply with the legislation. What are the Government going to do to ensure that enough money is available to provide respite care for these children?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. That is the reason we are providing more funding, both through social care budgets and through the NHS itself. More money was found at the Budget as well, but I do not think in this case the issue is necessarily funding. It is a case of the parties involved working together, as they are obliged to do, to find the right outcome and the right solution for these children.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in this case and declare my interest as the chair of Helen & Douglas House in Oxford, which was the first children’s hospice in the world. It covers a vast area of the Thames Valley and provides end-of-life care and respite care for children with life-limiting diseases, but the Oxfordshire CCG has completely refused to supply any funds to it. Would the Minister meet with me to discuss that situation?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Yes, I would be happy to do so. I am disturbed by the picture that the noble Lord has painted. He will know, I am sure, that the Government have set out our commitment to end the variation in end-of-life care, and of course this is a co-commissioned service. I would be very pleased to meet him to investigate that.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, what measures are being taken by the NHS to check that CCGs have the range of specialist expertise available to be able to make assessments individual by individual? These children’s needs are complex. From my experience, often the assessors may be expert in one area but not necessarily that of the case they are assessing.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is quite right. Many of the children we are talking about are receiving continuing care to meet all their needs, and delivering that is very complex. A national framework for continuing care is being revised at the moment, and it will provide the picture for the skills mix that is needed at local level to ensure that these children are properly served.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, my question is on the specific issue of parent carers, for whom funded respite care is vital to both themselves and the children they care for. The Minister mentioned the continuing healthcare framework guidance coming into force in October, which makes clear CCGs’ responsibilities to fund respite care for parent carers and breaks for families of severely disabled children. The High Court judgment clarifies the law and makes this duty clear now. What action have the Government taken to ensure that CCGs act on the Nascot Lawn judgment now?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is quite right. Local authorities and CCGs have a number of responsibilities. We are applying pressure and making clear to all bodies that they have those responsibilities. We have of course provided funding through local authorities and CCGs for that to happen, and we expect it to.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Royall, I have great respect for the Minister but how can we believe what he says about enough money being available when health authority after health authority throughout the country says that not enough money is available and some of them are forecasting deficits? Who is right, the Minister or those who are running our health service?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I do not deny for a minute that the health sector is under pressure—I have never once pretended that that is not the case. There is growing demand in all areas, whether that is children, adults or older people. We have provided more funding year on year during a difficult time of fiscal retrenchment, and indeed the Budget provided more money. Of course there is more to do, but I think that what I have said shows our commitment to funding the NHS as much as we can.

Gender Equality: Pay

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further action they intend to take to reduce gender inequality in pay.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has made clear that tackling injustices such as the gender pay gap is part of building a country that works for everyone. In 2017 the Government introduced ground-breaking regulations requiring large employers to publish the differences between what they pay their male and female staff in average salaries and bonuses. Greater transparency will help to identify barriers to achieving gender equality in the workplace so that employers can take action to address them.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s reference to greater transparency. Is it not time to be bold on this issue? If we are really going to tackle such inequalities as the gender pay gap, should we not do what is done in some Scandinavian countries and put all income tax returns into the public domain?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, certainly Norway has done this. The unintended consequence of doing so was that it was seen as a snooper’s charter, a way for people to snoop into the information of people that they did not like. I think publishing the gender pay gap will give employees a greater sense of the company that they are going to work for and whether there is gender equality across pay, as opposed to a huge database that cannot have the granular detail that the gender pay gap reporting will have but can perhaps be used with other intent from how it was designed.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, transparency is of course very important, and the reporting of gender pay gaps by organisations and companies is going to be valuable. However, what comes after that? Once we know the disparity between pay in these organisations, when can we expect the gender pay gap to be closed, and when can women expect to reach pay parity with men once we know what the problem is?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness asks an interesting question about what comes next. What will come next is that this will shine a light on which companies take their gender pay obligations seriously and which simply do not. If I were a graduate going to a company with a huge gender pay gap, I would start to think about what that company would mean for me as a woman. I think it will draw into sharp focus those companies that take their obligations seriously and shame those companies and public sector organisations that do not.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble friend undertake to look into the position at the BBC, where sick pay and maternity leave are being eradicated by the move to freelance contracts? Is that right? Surely employers should not be able to sidestep their employer obligations in such a radical fashion.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think what my noble friend refers to with sick pay—I am going slightly beyond my brief here—is the practice whereby people are not employees but freelance, more often than not, for companies. Given the press reporting that there has been on this, I am sure that this issue will be drawn into sharp focus.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, what does the noble Baroness think needs to be done on legislation on other matters to deal with this issue? The Equal Pay Act came on to the statute book 47 years ago. The gender pay gap is 14.1% and there is little evidence to suggest that it will close. I note what she said about shining some light on these issues, but I am conscious that with the statements under the Modern Slavery Act, many companies had a light shone on their activities but have done very little about the issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the full-time gender pay gap is 9.1%; I would like it to be nought. The noble Lord talks about the Equal Pay Act. Yes, it has been on the statute book for decades now— 47 years. I recall as leader of a council that many councils at the time had to sort out the issue of women doing the same jobs for less money than men. I think most local authorities have got to grips with that and, as I say, I look forward to the day when the gender pay gap is nought.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, where does the Minister suggest that we look for the next steps and action to be taken in those areas where equal pay still does not exist? Returning to our backyard, the public service—she just mentioned local government—is it not true that there are still significant elements of unequal pay within the Civil Service, the public service and local government? This is an area where we have control. What do the Government intend to do there?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am almost certain that most local authorities will have settled equal pay claims with their employees—mine certainly did. On what more is there to do on equal pay, if women think that they are not being paid the same as men for the same job, they are perfectly entitled to—and should—bring claims forward.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, when I joined the Civil Service in 1959 as a clerical officer, we had equal pay, and I was horrified to read that this no longer persists in Whitehall. Can the Minister explain why, given that the Act came in in 1970, Her Majesty’s Government and previous Governments have not done something about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I explained, Her Majesty’s Government have done something about it and encourage people who feel that they have equal pay claims to come forward. That certainly happens at local authority level, and in the Civil Service, we are looking closely at and continue to monitor people whose pay is not equal across the sexes.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, there are regional variations in gender pay, with London women in particular earning about £15,000 less than men. What action will the Government take once the audit is issued in April to ensure that those variations are reduced?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are encouraged by the number of companies that have so far registered for gender pay gap data: 90% in the public sector and 70% in the private sector. There are remedies if companies have not complied. If London is seen to have a particular problem then that will be thrown into focus when the figures are published.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is not so much about the difference at the individual job level as about the fact that, relatively speaking, so few women get to senior positions in those organisations? That is where we need to put the main emphasis, to help women to be confident enough, and to be mentored and supported to get into the most senior positions in those organisations.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with the noble Lord, which is why the Government—through Women on Boards, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch—have managed to increase the proportion of women on boards of the FTSE 100 from just over 10%, which was pitiful, to 28% now. I am pleased to report that there are no FTSE 100 boards without female representation. Of course, we have much further to go. We need BME representation on boards, and women need to see role models that encourage them to go for jobs for which they are capable and to get to the top if they can.

Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:31

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Committee: 9th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day) (Continued)

15:31

Amendment 266

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

266: Schedule 2, page 17, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) Sub-paragraph (4)(b) does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers with regard to matters that are within their devolved competence.”

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 266, which is in my name, is in a series of groups dealing with devolution. It is in the first of five groups dealing with rather technical points arising out of Schedules 2 and 8. They precede a lot of government amendments which are in the group following my groups. I suggest that the main discussion about devolution and its consequences is best reserved for the government amendments which are focused on Clause 11 and other clauses. I am afraid my groups are rather boring, because I am dealing with a whole series of little technical points which need adjustment to some extent in the light of progress that is being made in discussions with the devolved authorities, among other points.

The theme that runs through all my amendments is the need to respect the devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales. I am confident that the Government share that sentiment. It is all a question of how the matter is worked out in points of detail. The basic rule following our withdrawal from the EU, I suggest, is that returned EU competencies in the devolved areas should be distributed among the devolved authorities in accordance with the devolution statutes. That means that what falls within devolved competence should be treated as devolved, with all that that means, and what falls within reserved matters should be treated as reserved, with all that that means.

The statutes that form the foundation for the devolution settlements—the Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Acts, the latest of which was in 2017—were all built on the foundation of our membership of the EU. In each of these statutes, it was taken as accepted that it would not be within the competence of the devolved Administrations to legislate on matters relating to EU law or indeed to take executive action in relation to these matters either.

What we have in the Bill, in place of EU law, is a new creature called “retained” EU law, which is the law that comes back to us either because it is already present in the United Kingdom or is direct EU law that is coming back to us and is not yet built into our laws but requires being built in using the mechanisms described in the Bill. In the original drafting of the Bill, retained EU law is treated as simply a mirror image of EU law, so that in that original drafting—which can be seen in Clauses 11(1) and (2)—the same restriction on competence which applied in relation to EU law is applied to retained EU law. I am delighted to see that, in developing their thinking on this matter, the Government recognise that this really is not acceptable within the devolved arrangements. A much more nuanced approach to that topic can be seen in the government amendments that we will come to later this afternoon.

What I seek to do in the preliminary groups is to draw attention to various other passages in the Bill that need to be corrected in order to be compatible with the devolution settlements. In some of the groups—but not in the first—it is already clear from the government amendments that they are in almost the same position as I am as to what needs to be done.

I turn to Amendment 266, in the first of these groups, and also mention amendments 278 and 292, which raise exactly the same point in relation to different parts of the Bill. Amendment 266 deals with the power to deal by regulation with deficiencies arising from the withdrawal from the EU, which is the subject of Clause 7. It appears in Part 1 of Schedule 2 in the form that is appropriate for the activities of the devolved institutions in carrying out the exercise to which Clause 7 refers.

Amendment 278 deals with the power by regulation to prevent breaches of international obligations, which is the subject of Clause 8. The devolution mechanism for this is dealt with in paragraph 13 of Schedule 2. Amendment 292 relates to the power by regulation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the mechanism for the devolved Administrations is set out in paragraph 21 of Schedule 2.

The point to which these three amendments draw attention is a qualification that is to be found in each of these contexts on the power of the devolved authority to make provision by regulations regarding these three matters. The particular provision that I am concerned about is found in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 2:

“Regulations under this Part, so far as made by a devolved authority … (b) may not confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal)”.


At first sight that qualification cuts across the concept of devolution, the effect of which is that if a matter is within devolved competence, it is for the devolved authority to take its own decisions as to how to deal with that matter, in whatever way it regards as appropriate. Under the devolution statutes, the qualification that we find in this provision and its equivalents in paragraphs 13 and 21 is new: in my experience it has not been encountered before. To an extent, therefore, these three amendments are probing, to enable the Minister to explain why this qualification has been inserted in these paragraphs and, if no reasonable explanation is given, to suggest to her that maybe the qualification should be removed, on the ground that when it comes to exercising powers within the devolved area, it should not be there.

It is right to add that Part 1 of Schedule 2, for perfectly understandable reasons, contains qualifications. For example, paragraph 2 states that:

“No regulations may be made under this Part by a devolved authority unless every provision of them is within the devolved competence of the devolved authority”.


That is a perfectly sensible provision, and consistent with the devolution scheme. What troubles me is why the qualification that I have mentioned should be there. My question is: should it be there at all? And if it should not be there, should it not be taken out? I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, the Committee is indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his detailed analysis of the Bill as it originally stood, and the points arising. My name is on the amendment, but I would be happy to deal with the important issues of principle that prompted me to sign some of these amendments, in an attempt to honour the spirit of the original devolution settlement, when we deal with the group containing the government amendments. Obviously, however, I support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord has moved.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I too support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, and I entirely agree with his approach—that it is best to focus on a couple of larger debates rather than going through all the minutiae at this point. However, it is important to underline the principle—that matters coming back from Brussels that deal with devolved subjects should go to the devolved authorities. It is on that principle that I hope we shall concentrate as we move forward.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead for introducing this set of amendments, to which I have added my name, so concisely and well. I start the afternoon by placing on record my thanks to Ministers, especially the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the Secretary of State for Wales, who have been trying to keep us—certainly me—up to date in relation to Wales. I have had correspondence during the morning. I hope that the spirit of the debate today will recognise the importance of the devolved competences, and the need to respect them and find a way forwards. Like others, I will reserve my main remarks for later, in the larger debates.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I too will reserve my remarks until we come to the government amendments. This is new ground; it needs an explanation, and unless the explanation is reasonable I will certainly oppose the provision.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate will be an easy one for the Minister to respond to. I entirely agree with what has been said, and all I want to add is that although these are technical changes, they need to be dealt with in the spirit that we shall move on to later. Our worry, particularly at the beginning, was that it took some time for the Government to recognise that the expectation that not everything retained was devolved was a legitimate one from the devolved Administrations. Perhaps now there is that willingness to engage. We may regret that it took a little time but we seem to have got there. Perhaps one of the issues was that the Joint Ministerial Committee has not worked in the way we might have expected in the past. Brexit showed that up in a sense, but this is bigger than a Brexit issue. Therefore, any changes to the status of that body are probably not for this Bill to deal with. However, I hope that at some point the Government can revisit whether it needs to be given either statutory authority or some greater authority in the future. Although these amendments may be technical in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with his, as ever, diplomatic use of the phrase, “They need adjustments”, I think he means that we want the Government to move on them. I hope the spirit that I think is now abroad will enable us to do that.

15:45

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I do not agree that these are simply technical amendments. The issues arise from Clause 7, headed, “Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal”, which gives a Minister of the Crown power to,

“make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate”,

deficiencies. Clause 8 of the Bill that we have discussed at such length deals with a Minister of the Crown making regulations as he considers appropriate,

“to prevent or remedy any breach, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom … of the international obligations of the United Kingdom”.

Clause 9 is headed, “Implementing the withdrawal agreement”, and similar powers are given to a Minister of the Crown. Schedule 2 is headed, “Corresponding powers involving devolved authorities”. Part 1 of that schedule deals with deficiencies and Part 2 with international obligations. Part 3 is headed, “Implementing the withdrawal agreement”. One would have expected corresponding powers for Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers in those areas within their own competences, but each of those parts of Schedule 2 says that regulations may not,

“confer a power to legislate”.

Therefore, unlike the powers granted to a Minister of the Crown in the UK Parliament, the powers to legislate are withheld from Ministers in the devolved Assemblies. That is the critical issue, which is a matter of principle and not at all technical.

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)]

My Lords, I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I promise that I shall not make up for it this afternoon; I shall be very brief.

With the clauses before us this afternoon and evening, we have reached a truly load-bearing piece of the Bill. In my more anxious moments I sometimes think that the very weight of the kingdom is resting upon it, and that, if it is misjudged, the chances of the union eventually crumbling would be worryingly greater.

I do not doubt the Government’s good faith in the negotiations within the Joint Ministerial Committees but, as other noble Lords have already mentioned, the devolutionary spirit of 1998 needs to suffuse the discussions in those committees’ deliberations, and, indeed, ours in both Houses of Parliament.

If the European question infects and envenoms the union question, the country will suffer a self-inflicted blow of immense proportions. Of course, there is a need to retain an effective internal market within the UK. That is absolutely crucial, but the sustenance of the union—the essential quiddity of our nation—is paramount, which is why I express my wholehearted support for the thrust of the amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I both echo and reaffirm what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said: there must be respect for the devolved Administrations. I emphasise that as emphatically and cogently as I can at this Dispatch Box, and I confirm that the Government are wholly committed to demonstrating that respect.

As a number of your Lordships observed, the Government have tabled amendments to Clause 11, and we will give them our full consideration shortly. We have to acknowledge that the position we ultimately reach on Clause 11 will have implications for related policy on devolution in the Bill. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, acknowledged that. I can reassure your Lordships that we are mindful of the need to revisit the approach we have taken for the Schedule 2 powers in the light of that forthcoming debate on Clause 11. I therefore thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for instigating this debate on whether the devolved Ministers should be permitted to sub-delegate their Schedule 2 powers.

Amendments 266 and 278 would remove this restriction from the correcting power and the international obligations power for Scottish and Welsh Ministers and for Northern Ireland departments. Amendment 292 relates to the withdrawal agreement power and would have a wider effect, but I understand that the intention is the same. I should be clear that we do not oppose in principle the idea that these powers should be able to be sub-delegated to and by devolved authorities where appropriate cause is shown. This is already evident in the Bill. Noble Lords will see that this restriction—for instance, in paragraph 1(4)(b) of Schedule 2—is already qualified to allow for the sub-delegation of a power to make rules of procedure for a court or a tribunal. This ensures that the power can be sub-delegated where appropriate to ensure judicial independence. We have invited the devolved Administrations to offer any examples of where sub-delegation would be needed, and we have made clear that where they identify such examples we shall consider drawing further exceptions to the restriction. So far, no examples have been given.

It has been our intention—this may surprise the Chamber—not to make the powers in this Bill any wider than is appropriate. Opening up the possibility of sub-delegation by devolved Ministers in all cases where no prior need has been demonstrated does not align with this intention. However, I have listened to the contributions made this afternoon and have heard the concerns that your Lordships have expressed today. I have taken particular note of the question of respect as it relates to the perceived unfairness of a possible disparity between the devolved ministerial powers and the corresponding powers for UK Ministers.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I do not understand the expression “sub-delegation” that the Minister uses. Does she suggest that when powers are given to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, that is “sub-delegating”? I do not think that is the appropriate term.

[Baroness Goldie]

It is merely a generic description of the power to exercise delegated power-making by regulation, as encompassed by these provisions in the Bill.

I reiterate that I accept that these are serious points. They deserve serious consideration, and I can confirm that the Government are prepared to look again at where such a change may be merited for the use of the powers by the devolved Administrations in this way.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

May I pursue the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas? “Delegated” is not an appropriate term here; they are devolved powers, not delegated powers.

[Baroness Goldie]

I accept the distinction drawn by the noble and learned Lord. I am trying to address the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the context of what the provisions do and his concern that they appear to cut off what he considers an entitlement of the devolved Administrations. I have tried to explain why, inevitably, these aspects are interlinked with the wider debate we will have on Clause 11.

The Government are prepared to listen to what has been said. I have indicated that we are prepared to look again at these provisions. I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward his amendment, but in the circumstances I urge him to withdraw it.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. The use of the expression “sub-delegation” gives some insight into the thinking of the Government. As was pointed out, “delegation” is not an appropriate word to use where matters have already been devolved—by the statutes to which I referred earlier—to both Wales and Scotland. “Sub-delegation” is a very odd word to use. We are talking about a power within the devolved competencies for the devolved authorities to legislate, or confer a power to legislate, by whatever means they think appropriate. So I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister is prepared to look at this again. I think that she will agree with me that much of what we will be discussing in this little group of amendments is work in progress, as we try to work through the detail of the scheme that the Bill sets out. I am encouraged by her reply.

I also thank all those who have contributed to this brief debate. On the word “adjustment”, I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was saying. The Minister will remember, from her early days in the law in Scotland, that the word “adjustment” is sometimes used to take things out as well as to put things in. It is a word that came naturally to me as a means of dealing with bits in the statute that require to be trimmed, perhaps by removal, as well as by refining the language. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, for their emphasis that we are dealing with matters of great significance and importance. When I said that these were just technical points, I did not mean to suggest otherwise; rather, I was suggesting that the main thrust of our argument will be reserved for when we come to look at the Government’s amendments.

Lastly, on the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I join in her tribute to the efforts that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is making to discuss matters with us and to reach as much common ground as possible. I, too, have had useful meetings with him and I am grateful to him and to his team for the attention they have given to the points I have been raising. As I have said, this is work in progress; I am encouraged by what the Minister said and, in the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 266 withdrawn.

Amendment 267 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 268

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

268: Schedule 2, page 18, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers with regard to matters that are within their devolved competence.”

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, this is the first of another group of amendments, all of which are in my name. Amendment 268 refers to a provision in paragraph 4 of Part 1 of the schedule, which states that no regulations made under that part by a devolved authority prevent it from conferring functions that correspond to functions under EU tertiary legislation. Amendment 296 relates to the same restriction which we find in paragraph 24. Amendments 280 and 294 deal with another restriction—that no regulations may be made under that part by a devolved authority which modify any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained law by virtue of Clause 4.

These are rather complicated matters to explain, but they are all examples of restrictions on the power of the devolved authorities to do what they are supposed to do under Part 1 of the schedule in the two respects mentioned in these passages. The whole point is the same one I mentioned before in regard to the previous group—that these are restrictions on actions which otherwise would be taken within devolved competence. The fact that there are restrictions at all is contrary to the philosophy on which the devolution system has been based. It is a given—as we have seen already in the passage I read out earlier—that, if the powers are exercised, they can be exercised only within the devolved area. There is no question of their moving into the reserved areas as that is not within their competence; if the matter is within their competence, the argument is that they should not be inhibited from doing what they consider to be right.

Tertiary legislation is an animal that has not been referred to much in our debates in this Committee. A fairly lengthy definition of it is to be found on page 10 of the Bill, but it is not obvious to me why the devolved authorities should not be able to deal with tertiary EU legislation in the same way as any other EU retained legislation. So, with that rather brief introduction, directed particularly to Amendment 268, I beg to move.

16:00

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the way in which he has introduced this group of amendments. It is absolutely essential that we remember the principles of legislative competence and what has been devolved, and that we try to cut across the technicalities. It is also important to remember that the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales should not be faced with any implementation framework in which they will have no decision-making power in negotiations and which intrudes on their area of competence.

Our withdrawal from the EU seems to be quite a tangled web. The job of those sitting in Cardiff and Edinburgh is to serve their constituents and defend the rights that they fought so hard to earn in the first place; it is not to return such rights in legislation to Westminster without being sure that it serves their populations well. That is why it becomes so important to make sure that there is an equality of voice in working out these different aspects of legislation.

When it comes to tertiary legislation, it is even more difficult to understand why there would not be such an equality of voice—I find that quite bizarre. I am afraid that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the way that the Joint Ministerial Committee has worked to date has not been as good as it might have been, and I hope that today will mark a watershed and a complete change in those relationships.

It is important to remember that EU law was in place when we went to devolution. Therefore, as things come down from Europe, they should drop equally into the three Governments of Wales, Scotland and England, and, where they affect the whole of the UK, they should be looked at on a UK-wide basis. However, that does not mean that all of a sudden Parliament has a complete say over what goes on in the devolved Administrations. There is an equality of voice that must not be eroded by the process.

Therefore, these amendments are really important and I am glad that the Minister said that she will look at them carefully. It is very difficult to know which bit we should look at in great detail and tweak—although it will be more than tweaking; it will probably need a massive rewrite. It is not for the Committee to do that; it should simply raise the concerns, with the rewriting to be done afterwards. We will come to the main debate soon.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to reinforce the important points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I have spoken before in your Lordships’ Chamber about the importance of clarity in the devolution settlement and the difference that it has made to the relationships between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, the UK Government and the UK Parliament over these last 19 years. The lack of serious or unresolvable dispute about where the legal powers lie has been the result of that initial clarity in 1998.

The one area where there were problems, particularly in the early years, related to the fact that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government had responsibility under the Scotland Act in relation to EU law. The difficulties and legal challenges, both inside Scotland and to the European Court in relation to the actions of the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, were in relation to that relationship.

Therefore, clarity is required as part of the debate and discussion on the Bill—perhaps not today, given the assurances from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on the Government’s behalf, but certainly following the debate on Clause 11. It is vital that we have greater clarity and the right principles behind whatever replaces the current wording in the Bill on the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Your Lordships should appreciate that the devolved Administrations can make law but have been constrained by EU law in the areas of their competencies. If EU law is taken away, we would expect the devolved Administrations to carry on without that constraint. Previously, there had been no constraint on their making law within their competencies from Westminster, only from Brussels. Taking away Brussels suddenly imposes Westminster constraints on the devolved Administrations in areas such as agriculture, which have been devolved to them, but it also means that the devolved Administrations cannot make any changes to the law at all—even when it is, for example, an agricultural matter. It is not simply taking away the constraint of Brussels, but imposing something entirely new. Westminster politics comes into it then; considerations that have not emerged into the arena before suddenly become important. That is why these are matters of principle and deeply difficult to resolve.

I was so pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, say that this was such a difficult area because I suggested in my Second Reading speech that we should have taken devolution completely out of the Bill. At that point, the Government would have had no problem in getting legislative consent from Scotland and Wales and could have sorted out devolution issues as a completely separate matter. Now, your Lordships are listening—in the context of the EU withdrawal Bill—to a very difficult issue.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I want to add to what my noble friend just said by making reference to the politics of all this. The reality is that powers that came from Europe were seen as politically very neutral, in a party-political sense; but once those powers and restraints are placed with Westminster, raw party politics immediately become a key issue. The tension therefore increases. The Minister will be aware of this from her own experience. Whereas a power that was passed from or constrained by Europe is seen on a pan-European basis—where party politics could not possibly be applied in a local sense—when it becomes a decision by Westminster, party politics are inevitably written into it, whether in favour or against. I am sure the Minister will understand the point I am making from the Scottish experience; it certainly applies to my Welsh experience.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling these amendments. They would have a significant effect because they seek to remove the restrictions on the ability of these powers to modify direct retained EU legislation and to confer functions that correspond to the making of what is termed EU tertiary legislation. I am grateful for the thoughtful and considered contributions that have emanated from a wide range of experience, not least of the devolved Administrations. As noble Lords have noted in their speeches, this issue is again closely tied to the final policy position on Clause 11.

These amendments concern the question of parity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just pointed out, between Ministers in the devolved Administrations and UK Ministers. They also address the matter of who should be responsible for fixing EU legislation in areas that intersect with areas of devolved competence which currently have uniform application across the UK. I apologise again for emphasising the point, but we need to consider how all of this will work in relation to the wider changes we have tabled in Clause 11. It is important to recognise that the answer we reach on that question in the subsequent debate will necessarily inform the answer to the questions posed in this one.

The Government have been clear that the powers are conferred on the devolved Administrations so as to ensure that we do not disrupt the common frameworks currently provided for by EU law in areas where a framework will need to be retained. That might be to protect our internal UK market, our common resources or any of the other criteria that we have agreed with the devolved Administrations and published in the Joint Ministerial Committee communiqué in October last year. These are laws that apply directly, exactly as written, across every part of the UK, and indeed at the moment across every part of every member state. As such, these are by their nature laws that the devolved institutions currently have no power to modify or to diverge from. As we consider where we shall and shall not need frameworks, it is clear that in many of these areas, competence will pass to the devolved Administrations on exit day.

However, I would suggest to noble Lords that before we get to that point, we have to ensure that these laws function properly. We owe that to our communities and businesses and to individuals—that there can be certainty as to the laws that will apply to all those groups on the day we leave the EU. Carving up the effect of these laws in different parts of the UK or expecting to have different laws to achieve the same effect for different parts of the UK might undermine that certainty. It is the Government’s view that where in the first instance these laws apply at the UK level, we should also consider the corrections to those laws at the UK level. But let there be no doubt that the devolved Administrations will be an integral part of this process. We shall consult them on any and every change to retained direct EU legislation in an otherwise devolved area made under the powers in this Bill. We shall need to reflect on this alongside the debate on Clause 11.

Whatever the outcome in relation to devolved competence more widely after exit day, at a minimum we must retain this limit in those areas where, working with the devolved Administrations, we have identified that we need to retain a framework. Otherwise, we put at risk some of the issues to which I have referred, such as the internal market, the management of our common resources and even our ability to strike the best possible trade deals.

I hope that this provides some reassurance to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that we are alive to the interaction of this policy with Clause 11. We are considering it in parallel as our discussions continue with the devolved Administrations. The end result must be that both Clauses 10 and 11 dovetail and that they are not in conflict. On that basis, I commit to continuing to keep the noble and learned Lord and this House up to speed on how our policy thinking is developing in these areas. In those circumstances, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

16:15

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her very helpful reply. Perhaps this is an example of another kind of adjustment—to return to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, picking up my use of that word. Rather than taking out or adding in, it is a case of refinement. I appreciate exactly what the noble Baroness meant in her reference to frameworks. In regard to tertiary legislation, it might be that a slightly less blanket provision could be used; that is, replacing the blanket restriction on competence with something more targeted to the particular needs to create and preserve the internal market that we are all looking forward to within the UK. What I take from what the Minister has said is that she will look carefully at this and consider to what extent she can come back on Report with something which meets the points that I have been making.

The noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord McConnell, referred to the reasoning behind the reference to EU law in the original statutes. EU law shared something in common with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In both cases, when the Scotland Act was being designed, it was appreciated that the obligations which gave rise to convention rights and rights and obligations under EU law were based on treaties. So far as those treaties were concerned, in the framing of the Scotland Act and the Wales Act it was thought necessary to preserve the obligations that the United Kingdom had under the treaties and make sure that they were protected in the way that we found in the statute as originally framed; in other words, there was no competence to deal with matters which were the subject of those important treaties. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was that once we leave the EU, that treaty fetter disappears completely; what we have is retained EU law, which is a completely different creature from EU law as we know it today. That is why it is important to appreciate that retained EU law is not a mirror image of EU law, although the subject matter and the detail are no doubt exactly the same.

I shall come back to that in the next group of amendments, to which I shall speak in a moment, because they raise the same issue. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 268 withdrawn.

Amendment 269 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 270 not moved.

Amendment 271 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 272 not moved.

Amendment 273 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 274

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

274: Schedule 2, page 21, line 29, leave out “and retained EU law”

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, this is the first amendment in a very much larger group, not all of which is composed of amendments in my name. Although the matter is lengthy and rather complicated, I can deal with it comparatively briefly and, I hope, in a way that is intelligible to your Lordships and in particular to the Minister.

Amendments 274 and 275 are related to paragraphs 9 and 10 in part 1 of Schedule 2, the former dealing with Scotland and the latter with Wales. I am concerned about the provision which states:

“A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this Part if … (a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament (ignoring section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 so far as relating to EU law and retained EU law)”.


As I understand that provision, it excludes from competence provisions relating to retained EU law. That is a theme that runs through most of the amendments in this group. It is exactly the same point as we have been discussing in the earlier groups, the question being whether it can possibly be right that the devolved institutions should be prohibited from dealing with retained EU law when they work through the exercises with which part 1 of Schedule 2 is concerned. All the amendments in this group that are in my name raise that issue, except Amendment 363, which I will come back to in a moment. Some of them will require to be superseded in light of the Government’s amended version of Clause 11. I would have thought it was a fairly simple exercise for the Minister and her team to go through these various amendments, which I need not enumerate, just to be sure that the various passages to which I have drawn attention are corrected in light of the revised version of Clause 11.

Amendment 363 relates to the right of the Advocate-General to take part as a party in criminal proceedings so far as they relate to an issue as to whether legislation or an act of a Scottish Minister is incompatible with convention rights or EU law. Of course, the interest of the Advocate-General, if he wishes to enter the proceedings, is to ensure that the devolved institutions act within their competence in relation to these matters. What we have in paragraph 18 is a simple substitution of a reference to “retained EU law” for the reference that is in the statute at the moment to “EU law”. The competence restriction on EU law will of course be removed when we leave the EU, but once again I make the point that simply to substitute a reference to “retained EU law” is not the right thing to do: it is not a mirror image of EU law. Indeed, the fetter that applied to EU law should not apply to retained EU law. The amendment is simply designed to delete from the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which would no longer have any relevance. I leave that point with the Minister to look at along with all the others.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

I have been listening very carefully. Can the noble and learned Lord explain again, in simple terms, why retained EU law on a particular area, such as agricultural support, is different from current EU law? I do not understand why he says it is different.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

In a sense, retained EU law is simply repeating what is to be found in EU law. The point is that the treatment of it, from the point of view of the competence of the Parliament and the Ministers, is different. Under the Scotland Act as it is, Ministers have no power to legislate or deal with EU law, because that is subject to the restriction in Section 29 of the Scotland Act, and also in Section 53, so far as Ministers are concerned. My point is that that restriction disappears because we are no longer bound by the treaty arrangements that gave rise to the restriction in the first place. I think the noble Lord is pointing out that much of retained EU law is already part of our law because it has already been built in to our legal system. The point is that I am suggesting that the Parliament and the Ministers should be able to deal with retained EU law in the same way as they can deal with any other domestic law, as long as it is not reserved.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I understand that—these debates are very useful. However, I am getting worried: as the noble and learned Lord knows, I am a strong devolutionist and a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, but in the last hour I have come to understand and sympathise with what the UK Government are arguing, which is a bit worrying.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

No, it is a serious matter. Surely there are areas that are dealt with now by the European Union because we have all thought that it was right to have standards for the European Union Common Market. Are the UK Government not arguing that if we have a UK common market—which we will in certain areas—it is sensible to have the same standards throughout the United Kingdom? Is that not a valid argument?

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I was suggesting that we deal with that issue when we look at Clause 11 and the government amendments. The noble Lord raises a very important point, but it does not really relate to my amendments. I think it is much more fundamental and we will need to discuss it in light of the discussion of the reform of Clause 11. I hope I have answered the noble Lord’s question. There is a basic difference between the competence arrangements relating to EU law, which does not apply once we leave the Union, and retained EU law, either domestic or direct, as it comes in under Clauses 2 or 3.

Having digressed somewhat in my reply, I again thank the Minister for her helpful reply. I will be happy to withdraw the amendment in due course; however, there are others in the group that others may wish to speak to.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I will strike a different note as I put forward what are perhaps the substantive arguments—as we see them—in relation to these issues.

Amendment 304 has for some reason been grouped with these amendments, which does not make an awful lot of sense. It stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hain, and is based on one of the key amendments drafted by the Welsh and Scottish Governments ahead of the Bill’s passage through the other place. That amendment is also covered by part of Amendment 303, which surprisingly will not arise until very late tonight. None the less, Amendment 304 goes to the heart of the widespread criticism of Clause 11 as it currently stands—I am aware that amendments may come forward later—and lifts the restriction it places on the devolved parliaments in relation to EU retained law.

My fear—and that of all parties in the National Assembly—is that giving UK Ministers control in the EU withdrawal Bill over areas of retained EU law relating to matters which fall under devolved competences will, in effect, tend to normalise direct rule from Westminster in these areas. Given the powers under this and other recent legislation which enable Ministers at Westminster to amend devolved legislation by order, this will, in effect, undermine Welsh sovereignty in areas which are devolved to Wales and blur the responsibility of the National Assembly. Furthermore, there is a fear that this will set a precedent for this and future UK Governments, who may well be tempted when a devolved Government act in a way with which they disagree, to find a justification to intervene. This would be particularly galling if it were on issues where Welsh interests were seen to be in conflict with England’s perceived interests—perhaps validly so. The Prime Minister has, of course, pledged never again to “devolve and forget”. That can be interpreted in more than one way, and in this context it has generated quite a few ripples of unease.

In order to persuade the devolved parliaments to agree to legislative consent orders—which are currently not forthcoming from either the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly—the UK Government have tabled a set of amendments to Clause 11 which we will consider later. The Government’s proposals would provide a power to make regulations in certain devolved areas currently subject to EU law, and would prevent the devolved legislatures from taking action in the areas covered by those regulations. Whether noble Lords in this Chamber like it or not, this is regarded by members of all parties in the National Assembly as reflecting a growing approach by the UK Government—namely, in areas where devolution may be a nuisance or a hindrance to the UK Government’s agenda—to roll back devolution, or at the very least to attenuate it, and to centralise certain powers in London. The Welsh and Scottish Governments share this fear. That is why, in the Senedd—thanks largely to the lead of my inspirational colleague Steffan Lewis AM—the Welsh Government have introduced a continuity Bill to safeguard Welsh devolution. That Bill is currently progressing through its legislative steps with all-party support. Assembly Members are taking such a step not as a threat but as a safeguard: they still hope that there may be a meeting of minds between them and Westminster, and I understand they have even drafted a sunset clause which could be triggered if such an agreement were achieved. They look to this Chamber today to take a stand in facilitating that meeting of minds and to ensure that the centralist direction to which they feel they are being subject is brought to an end.

Alongside the amendments which the UK Government have tabled, they have published a list of 158 areas of intersection of devolved competences with EU law, noting that they envisage regulations temporarily restricting devolved legislatures’ competence—in advance of more substantive arrangements in primary legislation —in up to 24 of those areas. Taking such steps is, rightly or wrongly, widely perceived as a power grab. These 24 areas, all of which apply to both Wales and Scotland, cover a significant part of devolved responsibilities, including agricultural support, fisheries management, environmental policy, public procurement and food standards. These areas are vital for industries and businesses in Wales, and for the Welsh economy. The amendments would allow the UK Government to make regulations in any or all of these devolved areas.

16:30

I wholeheartedly agree that common frameworks are appropriate in some cases, given the current role of EU law in regulating action in all parts of the UK—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Wigley]

Indeed—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was making earlier; I agree. Given the current role of EU law regulating action in all parts of the UK in such subjects, partly to facilitate a single market with a level playing field—the point that the noble Lord was making—and partly to ensure that in matters which by their nature cannot be constrained by political borders, there is a coherent common approach. I accept this. Indeed, last week I proposed an amendment to provide a framework agreement for environmental policy—which, quite amazingly, the Government rejected. However, if there are to be such frameworks, the devolved Administrations and the devolved legislatures, whose legislative competence is being constrained by such frameworks, must surely agree the proposed steps jointly with the UK Government. I have tabled an amendment to an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, providing a mechanism to this end. That will be debated later so I will not anticipate that debate now.

Let us be clear: unless there is agreement between Westminster and the devolved Governments on these matters, the continuity Bill will be enacted by the Assembly and will take precedence in Wales. Surely it is time for the UK Government to reconsider what is seen as an obdurate stance and agree a sensible, balanced and respectful way forward.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate because in many respects government Amendment 302A answers the initial point of concern—that the current limitation on competence in the Scotland Act under European Union law would be replaced by a restriction on retained EU law. Of course, under the new amendment that has gone, but there is a wider point on which the Minister could perhaps assist the Committee, which arises from the draft agreement on the transitional period.

As I understand it, during the transitional period basically the acquis will still apply. I have looked at Articles 4 and 82 of the draft agreement. Article 4 says:

“Where this Agreement provides for the application of Union law in the United Kingdom, it shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which it produces within the Union and its Member States”.


Article 82 says:

“The Court of Justice of the European Union shall continue to have jurisdiction for any proceedings brought before it by the United Kingdom or against the United Kingdom before the end of the transition period”.


We will have a lot of debates this afternoon about whether UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers will be exercising powers after exit day, but can the Minister indicate how the United Kingdom Government see the position? If we are going to have to abide by European Union law having the same legal effect as it produces in the Union, is there any room for movement at all? How is effect going to be given to that if, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed?

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to continue with his heresy that the Government are right in what they are doing. I noticed the shock that passed over the face of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, does not appreciate is that the proposal of the Government is to introduce frame- works into this country to save the internal market of the UK, whether or not the devolved Administrations consent. All they are prepared to do, as the noble Baroness the Minister said in response to something earlier, is to consult—they are not necessarily seeking agreement. That is where he has it wrong.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

No, I have it absolutely right. I know that that is precisely what it is. I have said that on previous occasions. But, with respect, it was the couple of speeches that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made earlier on that moved me in the Government’s direction.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions at this stage of the debate. I appreciate, as do other Members of the House, that when I move the government amendment to Clause 11, we will embrace a debate about the consequences of that amended clause and the significant change it makes to the way in which we are going to deal with, among other things, devolved competences. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed, his amendments are consequential in a sense on what is going to happen with regard to Clause 11. In that context, I point out that we had already indicated our intention to move the amendment to Clause 11 and then withdraw it, in order that the consequences for the schedules to the Bill can be addressed more properly when we reach Report. However, there is a more fundamental issue underlying this, which has been highlighted by the use of the terms “consult” and “consent”. It is really rather fundamental. Because these are probing amendments, I will just outline the Government’s thinking with regard to this area of the Bill and how it will work. I am sorry if I am going to appear somewhat repetitive about some matters of history that have been touched upon already, but perhaps your Lordships could bear with me, if but for a moment.

In 1972, the UK Parliament of course transferred certain competences to the EU. Having done so, it limited its competence to legislate for the United Kingdom. When it came to the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006, that Brussels competence, as I will term it, had already gone. When it came to considering the scope of the divorce settlement, the matter of the powers held by the European Union in Brussels was not in scope for consideration as part of devolution. They had gone, by virtue of an international treaty implemented in domestic law pursuant to the ECA 1972. The devolved settlement was determined by reference to the competence that remained in Westminster in 1998 and in 2006.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords—

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am going to elaborate on what happens to the competences in Europe. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will bear with me just for a moment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

But I wanted to challenge what the Minister just said. The competences were not actually removed from us. We agreed to operate within the framework, but the idea that we actually gave up those competences in the way described would perhaps not be accepted, as such. We agreed that the EU had rights to make laws in certain areas, but that is not the same as saying, “This is no longer our responsibility”.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, pursuant to our international treaty obligations, we bound ourselves at the level of international law to allow the EU to exercise competence in areas where previously the UK Parliament would have exercised it. That was then implemented in domestic law by virtue of the 1972 Act. Of course a sovereign Parliament is always able to repeal the 1972 Act, as it is now doing, but so long as it remained in place, and so long as we remained party to the relevant treaty—which became treaties—we were bound in that context. I do not entirely agree with the analysis, but I do not believe it is material for the present purposes, if I may respectfully say so.

Once Brussels had certain competences, it then exercised them. It was important that Brussels should exercise them in one area in particular, which was the development of the EU single market, as no one else could have exercised jurisdiction over a single market in the EU. The idea that 12—now 28—individual jurisdictions could have maintained the single market is self-evidently untenable, so Brussels exercised that jurisdiction, for very good reason. When we leave the EU, we will find ourselves in the position where we want to maintain an internal single market in the United Kingdom; the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to that, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said we are looking forward to the internal market in the United Kingdom. We have to bear that in mind. What Parliament is in a position to legislate for a UK single market? The answer to that is the Parliament that has jurisdiction for the whole United Kingdom. I will come on to the issue of devolved competence in a moment, but generally speaking if you are going to maintain a single market you need a legislative power that is able to do that for the single market.

Lest anyone interrupt just yet, I add that of course by their very nature the devolved Administrations, parliaments and assemblies have responsibility for devolved powers in their respective nations. We respect that, of course, but there is an issue here that has not yet been mentioned. We identified, on the basis of analysis that was carried out with the devolved Administrations, that there were some 153 areas of competence where—

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

Before the Minister moves on to the detail of those competences, I want to challenge the analysis that he has given about the comparison between the UK single market and the EU single market. No one would have suggested at any time in the last 26 years that the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU single market, and the decision-making around the EU single market, would have been such that the decision-making on the EU single market would have been left solely to the European Parliament and the European Commission. It was not. The decision-making around the EU single market was done primarily by the Council of Ministers, and in the Council of Ministers some aspects of that single market were determined by absolute consent, where the UK had a veto, while some areas were determined by qualified majority voting. We cannot replicate that arrangement with one that leaves the sole decision-making power after consultation, without consent, with the UK Parliament and the UK Government in relation to areas where currently the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative competence.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord’s analysis but for the present purposes I am not sure that it is particularly relevant. What is relevant is this, if I can continue: we have identified about 153 areas in which, upon our leaving the EU, competences will return and touch upon areas of devolved competence. These are areas that the devolved parliaments and assemblies previously had no engagement with because they lay in Brussels, but they are coming back and touching upon these areas of devolved competence and we recognise that.

However, some of these areas of competence are critical to the maintenance of a single market in the United Kingdom, as I will illustrate in a moment. Those therefore had to be addressed. We did that by engaging with the devolved Administrations and assemblies in the context of the Joint Ministerial Committee negotiations. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: there may be criticisms of that process but I respectfully suggest that that is not for this Bill. It is important to notice the achievements made by that committee in this context. In particular, noble Lords may have received a copy of the communiqué of 16 October 2017 from the Joint Ministerial Committee, which was attended by Mark Drakeford, a Cabinet Secretary in Wales, and Mr Russell, a Minister from the Scottish Government, among others, including senior civil servants from Northern Ireland in the absence of their Executive. I shall quote briefly from it, although some aspects are referred to in some of the proposed amendments:

“Ministers noted the positive progress being made on consideration of common frameworks and agreed the principles that will underpin that work”.


The definition of those principles includes the line:

“A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed”.


Then there is a list of principles:

“Common frameworks will be established where they are necessary in order to … enable the functioning of the UK internal market”—


for example, to,

“ensure compliance with international obligations; ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties; enable the management of common resources; administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; safeguard the security of the”,

United Kingdom.

16:45

One can readily understand why we want to maintain these as essentially UK-based frameworks—why we need to ensure that there is a means of maintaining commonality in these areas for the United Kingdom. The document continues:

“Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore: be based on established conventions and practices, including that the competence of the devolved institutions will not normally be adjusted without their consent”.

Your Lordships will notice an echo of what is sometimes referred to as the Sewel convention. It is not an absolute: we must consent. It is not a case of “We will just consult”, or anything of that kind. It is simply saying that there will not normally be adjustments without consent.

A great deal of work has been done since October 2017 by officials in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. As a consequence, on 9 March, we were able to publish the provisional frameworks analysis on returning EU powers, which indicated that in only 24 areas of the 153 was it anticipated that we will need to keep having legislation that works across the whole United Kingdom. There is some difference of opinion on one or two additional areas—as referred to by Mr Russell before one of the Scottish parliamentary committees. State aid is one. There are a number of areas where we consider that the issue is reserved but others consider that it touches on devolved competence. That is not of any immediate moment in the present context, if I may say so, because generally speaking we are agreed what those 24 areas will be.

If we are to maintain commonality for the United Kingdom in these areas, we must be able to legislate uniformly in them. That includes, let us say, pesticides in the context of agriculture—not the whole of agriculture but sub-areas where Brussels and the devolved Administrations would have exercised competence in which we realise that it is necessary to maintain commonality in the United Kingdom. Let me give a very simple example. If the Scottish Government legislated in respect of agricultural pesticides for Scotland—not extending beyond Scotland’s own borders, of course, and only within the area of their devolved competence—and other parts of the United Kingdom did not replicate those regulations, we could find that a Welsh farmer could not sell his corn to an Edinburgh baker simply because he had used pesticides that he was quite lawfully entitled to employ in Wales, and which were quite lawfully used in England and Northern Ireland, but had been banned in Scotland by the Scottish Government. As a consequence, there would be a breakdown in the internal market that is so critical to us.

I give another simple example: food labelling. If the Scottish Government decided to make regulations as soon as they had the power, when these 153 competencies returned, to change the provisions on food labelling only for Scotland, within their devolved competence, a manufacturer of jam in York would find it very difficult to sell his product north of the border, or he would have to label it in two different ways.

[Lord Wigley]

Will the noble and learned Lord give way?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No, perhaps I can finish this point. I am just trying to explain why in these 24 areas it has been identified as very material that we should retain and then develop frameworks.

[Lord Wigley]

I just wanted to intervene on this very point about pesticides. The Minister will be aware that the Welsh Government did in fact legislate on the question of genetically modified crops, and it was forecast that the roof would fall in. It did not; it was quite possible to have a different regime in Wales from that in England. As he addresses the rest of the points that have been raised, will he tell us how the regime will be allowed or not allowed to work in the context of agricultural support? Sheep farmers may well want and be entitled to get support from the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government may want to give them that support but, if it is argued that that distorts the UK market, they would not be able to do so. That is the sort of issue that causes concern.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As regards agricultural support, that is another subspecies of agriculture. I am dealing with those matters that fall within the 24 identified areas where we find it necessary to retain and operate the single internal market. Not all areas within those 24 competencies are going to have to be retained for the purposes of that market. There are areas which we will devolve.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

The Minister is making a very strong case for how a single market can operate effectively. Does he not believe that the United Kingdom could operate under a frictionless trading or regulatory arrangement with managed divergence across the four nations?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That is not what is in contemplation, and that is why I am trying to explain the Government’s thinking with regard to maintaining effectively a single market, not frictionless borders between nations within the United Kingdom, which is a different issue altogether and one that does arise in a different context.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I will not take this opportunity to contest some of the points that have been made about, for example, fertilisers, although I think there is a debate to be had about the way in which the Government describe that issue. It is not helpful to the heat generated around this debate when the examples the Government give for the need to retain the power imply that decisions that would be made in Scotland or Wales would be stupid. The Government need to think hard about the fact that when they describe the need for these single market frameworks in the UK, they should do so in a positive way in terms of the UK having regulations that work together.

On the substantive point about the frameworks, the issue is not the list of 24, but how they will be agreed and who will have the ultimate decision-making power. It is not about what is or is not on the list. That is a matter for negotiation and determination within the existing settlements. The issue here is who agrees the frameworks, how they are agreed and who ultimately has the power to veto them or otherwise. That is the substantive issue I would ask the Minister to address.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I wholly reject the implication that we are suggesting that any of the devolved Administrations are going to proceed to legislate, with any of the competencies returned to them, in a way that would be regarded as stupid or unacceptable. That is a most unfortunate gloss to put on the matter. It is, however, very helpful that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, has raised the question of how we are going to deal with the issue in this context. The framework agreements have been the subject of ongoing negotiation among all of the Administrations, but in order to achieve that it is necessary to retain competencies in those areas so that there is not the prospect of legislation within the devolved areas which impacts upon areas outwith their competence. To give a simple example in that context, the Scottish Government are entitled to exercise devolved competence and powers within Scotland for the Scottish people, but if we allow all of the additional competencies to go back to the Scottish Government and they legislate in an area such as food labelling, that impacts on the people not only of Scotland but of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is therefore, in a sense, a veto over proposals for the internal market, with one devolved Administration saying, “No, we don’t like your proposals on food labelling. We know everybody else likes them but we’ve decided we don’t like them, we’re not going to consent to them, so you can’t have them.” That is the problem that we want to ensure does not arise.

Coming more particularly to the point that was made about how this is decided, we do ring-fence, as it were, the 24 competencies—or elements of them—that have been identified following the consultation process with the devolved Administrations and which are reflected in the principles that I quoted from the Joint Ministerial Committee on 16 October last year. Then, we have to formulate framework agreements, essentially, in each of these areas for the United Kingdom.

Taking up the noble Lord’s point on how we are going to implement those, we will do so by way of primary legislation. And where do we find ourselves? Back in the relevant devolved legislation, which says that we will not normally legislate in respect of these devolved areas except with the agreement of the relevant devolved Government. So the relevant safeguard is exactly the same as the one that exists at the present time. What we propose will not intrude on the devolved competence in Scotland, Wales or indeed Northern Ireland. It retains 24 areas that are coming back from the European Union in order that we can work out what is required for the purposes of maintaining a single UK market. However, what would alter the devolved competencies quite fundamentally would be a provision that said that we could retain those areas of competence only with the consent of each of the devolved Administrations. That would give them a veto over matters that went beyond their present devolved competence and a veto over matters that impacted on England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, depending upon who was doing it. That is why we have set out matters in the way that we have. When we come on to the amendment to Clause 11 in due course, I hope that, having essentially flipped Clause 11, we can reflect on the great progress that we have made to date in these areas. It is in that context that I simply invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

We will return to these matters under reference to the government amendments but I wanted to set out, I hope with a reasonable degree of clarity, the Government’s thinking in this area. This is not, with respect, a power grab—on the contrary: if we consult, if we agree and if we achieve this, there is no question of a power grab. It is certainly not a derogation from devolved competence. A great deal of competence will be laid on the devolved Administrations, because so many of these competencies coming back from the EU, and under the amended Clause 11, are going straight to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I just tempt him? He has given a very clear exposition of the Government’s position and why it is in the interests of the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom as a whole to proceed in the manner that the Government describe. He has also talked about the great efforts that have been made by the officials and the work that has been done. Why, then, do we have such opposition, in particular from the Scottish Administration?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not going to rehearse the rhetoric that has been used by some members of the Scottish Government to feed populism. Terms such as “power grab” may have their place, but they do not have a place in the context of our looking at this legislation. Of course, it has been asserted that consultation is not enough—even though it may lead to agreement—and that there has to be consent and only consent. But if it is consent, that is, let us remember, a very material change to the devolved settlements. That will result in the devolved Parliaments and Governments being able effectively to veto matters that impact upon those outwith their area of devolved competence.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The Minister used a phrase—which is used also either in the Explanatory Note or in a letter, I cannot remember which—about the retention of this for the purpose of the internal market. It might be helpful if that wording appeared on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I note that comment. The noble Baroness will appreciate that the amendment to Clause 11, which I will move in due course, seeks to ring-fence these powers to ensure that they are limited. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has also tabled an amendment regarding a sunset clause in that context. It is perfectly clear from the proposed amendment to Clause 11 that they are meant to have a very limited function—but I note what the noble Baroness said and I will take it forward.

17:00

[Lord Wigley]

Does the Minister not realise that the Labour Government in Cardiff feel as strongly as the SNP Government in Scotland about this matter? This is not a matter of party politics; it is a question of where power lies. That is why the term “power grab” has arisen. When he says how outrageous it would be if Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland had a veto, does he not realise that the structure that he is advocating gives England a veto? It gives Westminster a veto; that is what is causing so much trouble.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

No. With great respect—

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords—

[Lord Keen of Elie]

One moment. I am terribly sorry, Archbishop, but I must reply to that. This does not give England a veto. Essentially, England has no voice. This is the United Kingdom Parliament: it legislates for the United Kingdom.

[The Archbishop of York]

The point I was going to make is exactly the same. As I have listened to the debate, it seems to me that the issue is probably what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, tried to address. When we leave the EU, the state of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will still be the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Therefore, there are areas that are for all four nations and others that are just for one nation. Devolution was a good thing, but it does not mean that powers that affect other nations can simply be devolved. I have listened again and again, and I think the point is that, of all the powers that are coming back, 23 have been identified which, if they were simply handed over without clear legislation, would leave us in a real mess. There would be no coherence, no sense that this would be the United Kingdom; it would be something else. So may I plead with those who come from nations with devolved Governments to realise that, for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, there are some areas that affect all of us together, not separately, and that those need to be retained? Of course there could be negotiations and conversations—but I get a little concerned that the message is not getting through. This is not grabbing power: some areas are returning to the United Kingdom and we must sort out which bits really need to go straight to the devolved Administrations. The 23 areas that we have heard about require very careful consideration; otherwise some might think that leaving the EU equals independence for them.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not going to indulge in party politics at this stage; I do not think that that is necessary. We all know the ultimate objective of the Scottish National Party. It is not to have a United Kingdom; it is to break up the United Kingdom and have an independent Scotland. Although Scottish nationalists talk about all these powers coming back from the EU, let us remember that they do not want them. If they get them, they want to give them back to Brussels, because they want Scotland, as an independent country, to remain in the EU—and, if it leaves, they want it to join EFTA and the single market. Therefore they will return all the powers they are talking about if they get their ultimate aim.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

The noble and learned Lord has distinguished between “consult” and “consent”, and has described consent as a veto. Does he not accept that over the years the normal use of “consent” by both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly has been exercised responsibly, and that there is no basis for that fear? How would he define the word “consult”? What does it mean?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Consultation has been going on in the Joint Ministerial Committees on a regular basis since October of last year. As regards respecting the constitutional settlement on devolution, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord—with one qualification. A convention has arisen out of the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the UK Government about how we ensure that legislation put before the Scottish Parliament is competent. That convention has operated since 1999 and involves an exchange of a note of competence. Prior to a Bill being introduced to the Scottish Parliament, a copy is passed to my office—the Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland. That is always done.

I then confer with the Lord Advocate and his officials—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will be familiar with this—and we iron out any differences and come to a view on what is competent and what is not, and consequently these matters are resolved. For the first time in nearly 20 years, that convention was departed from by the Scottish Government in respect of their EU Continuity Bill, which I first heard about after it was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. They did, however, give it to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament in time for him to take legal advice. Therefore, while I accept the generality of the point the noble and learned Lord made, particular exceptions have arisen very recently.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I was the Minister who negotiated the memorandum of understanding. I think I am the only Minister involved in the negotiation at the time who serves in your Lordships’ House. I agree that the Sewel convention and the arrangements for considering the competence of legislation have worked very well. That concerns the point I made earlier—two debates ago, I think—about the clarity of the legislation and of the memorandum of understanding, which have worked well over many years. I am encouraged by the Minister’s comment that these frameworks would all be subject to the Sewel convention. It would certainly be very helpful for the debate that we are about to have on Clause 11 for the Minister to say that, if these 24 areas are indeed the final 24 areas that are agreed for common frameworks, in each of the 24 areas the establishment of the common frameworks would be subject to the Sewel convention, as I think he hinted at a few minutes ago.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In so far as they are carried forward by primary legislation—and I rather anticipate that that will be the case—they would engage not only the Sewel convention but the provisions of DGN 10, the devolved guidance note, because there may be areas where these matters impact on the competence of Scottish Ministers. That is what is anticipated and I have no difficulty with that.

I keep trying to answer a question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, about what happens with regard to the transition period. Clearly, that will have to be addressed in the context of the withdrawal agreement Bill—and that, as has been indicated before, may result in some amendment to the existing provisions of this exit Bill.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

As I understand what the Minister is saying, ultimately everything has to be settled by primary legislation, so there will be a single market in the United Kingdom that is settled by primary legislation—for which legislative consent will be sought and no doubt given. What we are talking about is an interim period when Ministers take powers to themselves. Over a temporary period they will in effect dictate what the framework agreement will be until there is a final agreement in a number of years—that is what I understand the Minister to say.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With great respect, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has understood what I said. It is not a case of us dictating anything to the devolved Administrations; it is a case of ring-fencing these limited competences until we have reached agreement with the devolved Administrations as to what the framework agreements will be. They will then be put forward for the purpose of legislative consideration in the usual way. But it is not suggested that we are going to start regulating agriculture in Scotland in the meantime—that is not what is comprehended by this at all. I do not know whether I asked this earlier, but will the noble and learned Lord withdraw his amendment so that I can sit down again?

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Before the Minister does, how long will this ring-fence last? I believe the Barnett formula was temporary; how long does the Minister envisage the ring-fence will last before there is a proper legislative framework?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It will last until we have managed to implement all of the framework agreement. That will be a finite period—there is no question about that. Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at the proposed amendment to Clause 11, he will see that there are various checks and balances, including the requirement that Ministers report to Parliament if they retain the powers for any longer. So that is already addressed.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, this debate has ranged a good deal wider than was necessary for the Minister to deal with my points on this group of amendments. With respect to him, he has not given me the kind of reassurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, gave me on earlier groups. My point is that this very disparate group contains a number of points that I raised with regard to Schedules 2 and 8, which need to be reconsidered in the light of the reformed Clause 11. A simple example is on page 56, where there is a reference to a fetter on the power to,

“make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation”,

which extends to the wording of Section 57(4) of the Scotland Act as in the Bill. However, that section is reworded by the proposed new Clause 11.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I just remind the noble and learned Lord that I said that when we come to Clause 11, we will move and withdraw the amendment. We appreciate that although we want Clause 11 in its present form, to put it forward in a form that covers all these matters we will have to address the impact it has on Schedule 2 in these contexts.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I am grateful for that. Not every one of my amendments is a Clause 11 point—there are other points of detail which need to be looked at. If the Minister would be kind enough just to say that these will be looked at, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment. Can he give me that assurance?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am content to indicate that we will look at these points.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 274.

Amendment 274 withdrawn.

Amendments 275 to 278 not moved.

Amendment 279 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 280 not moved.

Amendment 281 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 282

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

282: Schedule 2, page 25, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers with regard to matters that are within their devolved competence.”

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, this is the last of my little groups of amendments. I will also speak to Amendments 284, 298 and 300 in this group, which all relate to what one finds in Schedule 2. This point goes back to what we discussed a little earlier about the difference between “consent” and “consult”. In the existing provisions in paragraph 16 in Part 2 and paragraph 25 in Part 3, which deal with the power of devolved authorities to make provision,

“for the purpose of preventing or remedying any breach of the WTO Agreement”,

that power may be exercised only with the consent of a Minister. The simple point I make in my amendment is—I am sorry: it is rather important that the Minister hears what I am going to say. I will be happy to wait for a moment, if the noble Lords would like to confer. Would it help? I can wait for a second.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

Please continue. We have said all that we need to say.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Thank you very much.

I want to explain to the Minister that the point is a very simple one about the difference between “consent” and “consult”, which we have already been discussing. I do not need to elaborate on the point that each of these amendments seeks to substitute in a revised formula a consent mechanism in place of the provision in the Bill, which is all about consultation. In a sense it is a probing amendment because I do not see why, for the moment, the existing situation where these things are done with consent should not operate in these contexts too. I moved the amendment so that the Minister can explain the position—I hope quite briefly—so that we can move on to what we are all looking forward to: his amendments on Clause 11. I beg to move.

17:15

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I will respond briefly, without repeating what I said on the immediately preceding group, but this raises essentially the same issue. On these provisions, the circumstances in which consent applies to the powers—which are the obverse of some of the others—are those where the devolved Ministers could use powers in ways that have implications outside of their devolved jurisdiction, for example when making provision regarding the World Trade Organization obligations. That is why we have framed it in this way, but it raises the wider point made by the noble and learned Lord and I appreciate that that might be addressed in more detail when we come to Clause 11 and the government amendments. I wonder if, in these circumstances, the noble and learned Lord will, at this stage, withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I am glad we have not provoked a longer debate on this group of amendments. There is a reason for being concerned about this; the provision I am concerned about deals specifically with something within competence—in other words, it deals with regulations made for the purpose of preventing or remedying any breach of the WTO agreement. It does not deal with the WTO agreement itself; it simply exercises the power given under paragraph 7(2)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to deal with these matters domestically. Since it is within competence under the Scotland Act, it is hard to see why the position should be regulated in the way proposed. However, I have listened to what the Minister has said and—on the understanding that we can look at all this again when we get to the revised formula for Clause 11—I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 282 withdrawn.

Amendment 283 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 284 not moved.

Amendment 285 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 286 to 292 not moved.

Amendment 293 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 294 not moved.

Amendment 295 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 296 not moved.

Amendment 297 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 298 not moved.

Amendment 299 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 300 not moved.

Amendment 301 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Schedule 2 agreed.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)]

The Question is that the House be now resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

To the contrary, Not Content.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Not Content. As we are all here, we might as well get on with it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I think I will put the Question again. The Question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

To the contrary, Not Content.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Not Content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I think the Contents have it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may explain. An Urgent Question has to be repeated at about 6 pm. Rather than have that at a ridiculously late hour, we will adjourn the House until 6 pm. That will provide an opportunity for noble Lords to get refreshment and then we will be able to deal with the next group in toto and without interruption. I think that is the right way to go about it. I have discussed it around the Chamber, as the noble Lord will know.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My point is that we are all here. We have been taking part in a debate. Everyone who wants to take part in the next group is here and it seems sensible to continue. I do not understand.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

The Chief Whip did not discuss the matter with me but I support the position he is taking because it is very obvious that, once we get into Clause 11, we will be discussing it for some considerable time. I would have thought that the sensible thing would be to break now and to come back and deal with it in one go, rather than break up the debate, which we will be forced to do otherwise.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, as a party of one, I do not expect to be consulted on these matters—I realise that there are limitations. However, on Monday night we sat here until after 1 am, and I spoke after 1 am. Earlier we had a break of 20 minutes for food. Why on earth, when there is time available now, can we not carry on with the Bill, certainly if the implications are that we might go on until late again tonight?

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 6 pm.

House resumed.

17:21

Sitting suspended.

NHS: Staff Pay

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat as a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, the whole House will want to pay tribute to the hard work of NHS staff up and down the country during one of the most difficult winters in living memory. Today’s agreement on a new pay deal reflects public appreciation for just how much they have done and continue to do.

However, it is much more than that. The agreement that NHS trade unions have recommended to their members today is a something for something deal, which brings in profound changes in productivity in exchange for significant rises in pay. It will ensure better value for money from the £36 billion NHS pay bill, with some of the most important changes to working practices in a decade, including a commitment to working together to improve the health and well-being of NHS staff to bring sickness absence in line with the best in the public sector. We know that NHS sickness rates are around a third higher than the public sector average, and reducing sickness absence by just 1% will save around £280 million. The deal will put appraisal and personal development at the heart of pay progression, with often automatic incremental pay replaced by larger, less frequent pay increases based on the achievement of agreed professional milestones. It includes a significantly higher boost to lower paid staff in order to boost recruitment in a period when we know the NHS needs a significant increase in staffing to deal with the pressures of an ageing population.

Pay rises range from 6.5% to 29% over three years, with much higher rises targeted on those on the lowest and starting rates of pay. As part of this deal, the lowest starting salary in the NHS will increase by over £2,500, from £15,404 this year to £18,040 in 2020-21, and a newly qualified nurse will receive starting pay 12.6%—nearly £3,000—higher in 2020-21 than this year. But this deal is about retention as well as recruitment. It makes many other changes that NHS staff have been asking for—such as shared parental leave and the ability to buy and sell back annual leave—so they can better manage their work and family lives, work flexibly and balance caring commitments.

The additional funding that the Chancellor announced in the Budget to cover this deal—an estimated £4.2 billion over three years—cements this Government’s commitment to protecting services for NHS patients while also recognising the work of NHS staff up and down the country. This is only possible because of the balanced approach we are taking: investing in our public services and helping families with the cost of living while at the same time getting our debt falling. Rarely has a pay rise been so well deserved for NHS staff, who have never worked harder”.

18:03

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I agree with his final statements, but never has it taken so long to get to this point of a pay increase. I do not wish to sound ungracious but the pay increase is too little, too late. The cap has meant that NHS wages have fallen by 14%. Last summer, the Prime Minister told a nurse on television that a pay rise would need a “magic money tree”; I am very glad that it seems to have been found.

The NHS is now short of 100,000 staff. In part, that must be because of this Government’s neglect of the NHS workforce. Exacerbating this situation is the chronic shortage of nursing and other staff in nursing care homes, with a 16% decrease in the number of registered nurses in the care sector since 2012. Then, there is Brexit and its damage to NHS staffing. Given that the Secretary of State now has responsibility for social care as well as health, will we see a joined-up staffing strategy for NHS and care workers? Can the Minister assure the House that, to pay for the proposed increase, the Treasury has said that it will fully match any proposed rise with new money?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her perhaps less than fulsome welcome for what is a fantastic deal, not least for the lowest paid staff in the NHS, some of whom will see very significant pay rises. They certainly deserve them; I do not think anyone disagrees with that. We have been able to find the additional money in the NHS budget to do this precisely because of good economic stewardship, rather than relying—as others would—on trees, magic or otherwise. That stewardship has meant that we have been able to provide the money while taking our fiscal responsibilities seriously.

The noble Baroness mentioned the joined-up staffing strategy. She is absolutely right that it is very important. I hope she knows that Health Education England has included work on the social care workforce in its draft strategy. We all understand that we need increasingly to view these workforces together—not just people such as nurses, who can work in both sectors, but carers and allied health professionals and so on. Frankly, there is more work to do on the social care workforce strategy. In the health service, we are starting from a lower base in terms of having a national picture, precisely because it is generally delivered locally. However, we are providing that strategy. I would encourage all parties who want to make sure that the strategy is joined-up to contribute their ideas, because there is a genuine willingness to make sure that we can do it.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s remarks about NHS staff working hard all year round. I welcome this agreement. The RCN and Unison must have worked very hard with the DoH to get this nailed, but the devil is in the detail and we have yet to see the detail.

Agenda for Change was implemented in 2004 when I was chair of a primary care trust. It was really difficult to get the various levels of NHS staff in the various strata. Can the Minister confirm that Agenda for Change will be revisited along with the skills and knowledge framework? The Secretary of State also talked about putting appraisal and continuous professional development at the heart of pay progression, so that may indicate that the skills and knowledge framework might need to change. On the same topic, echoing what was said just a moment ago, can the Minister shed light on whether care workers’ salaries will be included in the Green Paper on social care? At the moment, they are feeling very undervalued and underpaid.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

Like the noble Baroness, I think it is right to pay tribute to all the organisations involved in striking this deal. These things are never easy but it is a true partnership agreement that tries to work for everybody.

The Statement is explicit about linking pay progression with appraisals, which indeed means higher skill levels. I will write to her with the specifics of the skills and knowledge framework; I am not cognisant of that specifically, but clearly the intention is to move away from automatic progression to skill-based progression. One of the advantages of that is that it not only works for patients, but puts the onus on employers—she will see more detail of that—to make sure that there is proper professional development to help skill levels rise, so that staff can go through those gateways and progress.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, in welcoming the Government’s response and the 6.5% pay rise for 1 million NHS staff, particularly in recognition of their dedication and hard work, I am pleased that the Government have recognised that the lowest full-time salaries are paid to cleaners, porters and catering staff. These groups will receive a 15% increase—£2,500—bringing their salaries up to £18,000. The fact that this is backed with new money is welcome.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank my noble friend for making that point. It is not only about the lowest paid staff whom she has described. It is also worth dwelling on the fact that a newly qualified nurse will see a significant increase in his or her pay, which will be 12.6% higher in 2020-21. This is a package which takes account of the fact that starting salaries have been too low. We are trying to address that because it is one of the ways we can attract more people into the profession.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement as a sign that the Government have at last recognised the effect that the pay cap has had on recruitment and retention, in particular in nursing. I hope that this pay increase will lift many nurses out of hardship and improve morale. It is a sign that the Government value NHS staff and I especially welcome the significant increase for newly qualified nurses for 2020-21. These new recruits, who commenced their training in 2017 without bursaries, will be in a far better position—comparable with other graduates in terms of starting pay—as they proceed to repay some element their salary after achieving an income of more than £25,000 a year. My only concern is that the charitable and social care sectors, which employ nurses, will need to match these salaries. How can we ensure that they will be able to do so?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome for the Statement. We, along with all Members of the House, value NHS staff and this is a proper recompense after what have undoubtedly been difficult years for them. Regarding what this means for funding for charitable and social care staff—I did not address the point when the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked me about it—we will obviously make sure that any staffing issues, including salaries, are part of the Green Paper discussions. They will clearly have to take into account the higher pay that is coming down the stream for these staff.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we welcome this, but I must say that the Minister was selling it a bit hard when he said that the Government have managed the National Health Service well when they have made cuts in training which have exacerbated the situation.

My question is a simple one. The Minister has said that the Treasury will meet all the costs. Is that an absolute assurance? I ask that because many local hospital care trusts have found that there are hidden costs. For example, the Government are pushing apprenticeships, but what they never mention is that it is the local care trust which has to pay the university thousands of pounds a year for the apprenticeship training. Will everything be covered in this pay rise?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to provide that confirmation. In the 2017 Autumn Budget we set aside in the reserves £800 million a year, which will fund the first year of the Agenda for Change pay deal, and obviously if the members of the NHS trade unions accept the agreement, that funding will be released. The Chancellor will also provide the additional funding required to fulfil his commitment through the 2018 Autumn Budget and make available £4.2 billion over three years to fund the deal. I hope that gives the clarity the noble Lord and others seek.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have every reason to be proud of providing for this very substantial pay increase. However, can my noble friend remind NHS staff that, as would be the case for any other staff, with increased pay has to come change? There are no groups of employees in any enterprise anywhere who do not have to change, restructure or change the skill mix. Appraisal and training mean doing more and achieving greater productivity. We have a heroic mission to provide care free at the point of delivery to all. This can be achieved only with a much more positive attitude towards changing the skill mix, team working, and through the many other ways of delivering cost-effective care.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

My noble friend is right and she speaks from great experience. I emphasise that, as the Secretary of State has said, this is a something for something deal which will deliver greater productivity in return for higher pay. That absolutely has to be the right way of doing this. I also point out that there will be an explicit focus on improving the health and well-being of NHS staff, so that they are not only happier and more likely to stay in post, but more productive as well.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Committee: 9th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Committee (9th Day) (Continued)

18:13

Clause 11: Retaining EU restrictions in devolution legislation etc.

Amendment 302 not moved.

Amendment 302A

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

302A: Clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for the Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 30A(1)”.(2) After section 30 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“30A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.(3) In addition—(a) a Minister of the Crown must (unless the regulations only relate to a revocation of a specification) consult the Scottish Ministers before laying a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section before either House of Parliament, and(b) see paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section).”(3) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for the National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 109A(1)”.(3A) After section 109 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“109A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. (2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the Assembly’s legislative competence.(3) In addition—(a) a Minister of the Crown must (unless the regulations only relate to a revocation of a specification) consult the Welsh Ministers before laying a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section before either House of Parliament, and(b) see section 157ZA (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section). (4) No regulations are to be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”(3B) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (no competence for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “incompatible with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 6A(1)”.(3C) After section 6 of that Act (legislative competence) insert—“6A Restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly.(3) In addition—(a) a Minister of the Crown must (unless the regulations only relate to a revocation of a specification) consult the relevant Northern Ireland department before laying a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section before either House of Parliament, and(b) see section 96A (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section).(4) In subsection (3)(a) “relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister concerned considers appropriate.(5) Regulations under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Minister making them considers appropriate.””

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. We have put forward these amendments to facilitate scrutiny of the Government’s current position on Clause 11. They reflect the status of our discussions with the devolved Administrations, and noble Lords will be aware that our discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments are continuing. We remain convinced that this Bill is the right vehicle for providing legal certainty across the UK and that we should reach agreement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. As such, the Government do not seek a vote on these amendments today and we will withdraw or not move them at the conclusion of the debate, but we will reflect seriously on the points made and incorporate them into our discussions.

The Government have been clear that the Bill is about continuity, certainty and control. That applies equally and without exception to people and businesses across all parts of the United Kingdom. Our approach has always been guided by two principal aims; namely, that we have a fully functioning statute book on exit, and that there are no new barriers to people living and doing business across the United Kingdom. These amendments have been tabled, in line with our commitment made in the other place, to address the concerns raised regarding the current Clause 11. They represent a substantial movement from our original position and reflect the sincerity of our commitment to finding a mutually agreeable position.

We have had lengthy discussions on this issue at official and ministerial level, including at the Joint Ministerial Committee. Noble Lords will well know that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have not yet agreed these amendments, but we will continue to work with them to try to find a way through. I am confident that all parties to this discussion are invested in trying to reach that agreement, as was demonstrated by the constructive tone set at the JMC by the Prime Minister and the First Ministers. This is a crucial piece of legislation in the national interest. It must work for all parts of the United Kingdom and we are sincere in our hope that we will find a way for us all to come together in support of it.

Noble Lords spoke at length at Second Reading and in previous debates of the importance of the “presumption of devolution” and have debated the principle that if there is not a good reason for a matter to be held in common, it should be devolved. That is what these amendments aim to deliver. They would take the existing Clause 11 and effectively turn it on its head. Their effect is that by default on exit day any decision-making powers currently held by the EU in areas that are otherwise devolved would pass directly to our devolved institutions without first being diverted through Westminster. The amendments then give UK Ministers powers to apply targeted and temporary limitations on competence to modify retained EU law, which would in essence have the effect of maintaining existing UK frameworks. We envisage that they will be used in those specific areas where we have identified that a future framework for the United Kingdom may be needed. That would ensure that in those areas the current common approaches established by EU law will continue to apply until we—the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations—can together determine the form that the new bespoke UK framework will take, if one is ultimately required for the benefit of both our communities and our businesses.

I should be clear that the limits that would be applied by these powers are not new limits or constraints. They would merely preserve existing competence in relation to EU law after exit as it stood in relation to EU law immediately prior to exit. Therefore any decision that the devolved institutions could take before exit day will continue to be a decision that they can take after exit day in areas where they have exercised their powers. There is no encroachment into existing devolved areas, and of course in areas where we have not exercised these powers there will be an immediate and significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved institutions upon exit. I should also be clear that these limits apply to an area only to the extent it is covered by EU law and not to the entire subject matter. They will not limit competence to make any provision in relation to a subject matter where this does not involve the modification of retained EU law. I urge noble Lords to refer to the Government’s frameworks analysis, published on 9 March, to see the kind of areas where we envisage that the temporary powers may need to be exercised.

Noble Lords will also want to be aware of the additional limits placed on the exercise of these powers. Not only would the powers be subject to the affirmative procedure but the amendments also apply a reporting duty, a duty to consult the devolved Administrations and a duty to produce explanatory statements.

Ministers will be under a duty to report at regular intervals on the steps taken to implement future frameworks; the way in which the framework principles that underpin that work are applied; steps taken to apply or remove restrictions on devolved competence under the powers; the progress towards removing restrictions and repealing those powers altogether once they have served their purpose; and any other information they deem relevant. All this serves to demonstrate that this mechanism is a temporary means to achieve our end state on frameworks.

Before laying an instrument under these powers, UK Ministers will also be required to consult the relevant devolved Administrations and make a statement on the effect of the instrument and any representations made by the devolved Administrations in response to consultation. Further, since these limits are but a temporary means to preserve existing EU frameworks until they are replaced by a UK framework, the amendments also provide a power to repeal the constraining powers so that they will not be retained for longer than is necessary. Ministers would be under a duty to consider periodically whether it is appropriate to repeal the powers. In doing so, they would be required to have regard to the intended temporary nature of these arrangements and to any progress in putting lasting arrangements in place.

Through this, we have sought to emphasise that these powers and restrictions are not to exist in perpetuity or as a permanent feature of the devolution arrangements. Rather, they provide a short-term fix for our longer, more detailed work on the development of long-term future common arrangements. I note in relation to this the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, which would subject the current Clause 11 and any regulations made under the new Clause 11 power relating to Scottish legislative competence to a sunset limit. I understand why that suggestion has been put forward; we have of course been clear that these are temporary arrangements and I am interested to hear the debate on this point.

I must be clear that the temporary nature of the constraints is not the same as proceeding to a fixed timetable. We need to ensure that these complex matters are given due consideration, and there is a risk that the creation of a sunset merely prolongs the cliff edge.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Might noble Lords be referring to the mixed metaphor they have just heard?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

May I proceed to split an infinitive?

The new arrangements must be achieved in partnership with the devolved Administrations. Crucially, that takes time to work through.

We must proceed with caution in considering any form of sunset which would change the purpose of our discussions from designing and implementing frameworks that are fit for purpose to ones that can be achieved in the time allowed. Our priority must be to continue to provide legal certainty on how these laws will work in that interim, but this could risk uncertainty where the provisions may lift before their replacement is known.

This is a substantial and significant amendment to Clause 11. It reflects the progress that we and the devolved Administrations have made on frameworks and in our discussions on Clause 11. It strikes the right balance, delivering for the devolved Administrations and for businesses and people across the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the consideration that this House will provide on this offer as we continue to refine and consider the policy in coming weeks.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Griffiths and Lord Thomas, would amend elements of the amendments that we have put forward. We have heard much on the question of the consent of the devolved institutions for the use of the proposed new Clause 11 powers that would “freeze” existing UK frameworks. As I indicated earlier, I wish to be clear on two fundamental points. The first is that this will be a collaborative process. There is no suggestion or intention that we want to cut our devolved institutions out of these decisions. We have put in place a set of shared principles that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have agreed and which guide our work on frameworks—I referred earlier to the statement following the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year that sets out those principles in detail. Departments across Administrations are now working together to consider frameworks. Devolved and UK Ministers continue to discuss these matters regularly at Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. The limits on the powers make it clear that the views of the devolved Ministers must be heard and the United Kingdom Government in exercising the power must set out what those views are for Parliament’s consideration. That is not a power grab. As we have heard today, this Parliament will rightly hold us to account on how the Government act on devolution policy. The second point is that we must be clear about the implications and outcomes of this work. These decisions affect every part of the United Kingdom. It is the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament that are responsible for matters that affect the whole of the United Kingdom.

We must therefore be very careful about the impact of a hard-edged legal requirement, not because we do not want the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government and, once restored, the Northern Ireland Executive to be part of these decisions but because it cannot be for an Administration in one devolved nation to exercise what amounts to a veto over something that would be in the interest of the other nations of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is not and never was the purpose of the devolution settlement.

I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Wigley, for their proposals to bring the United Kingdom Government and devolved Administrations together. These are constructive suggestions for a middle way that deserve serious thought. I am encouraged by the effort being made to reach agreement.

At present, we believe that the JMC will be the right forum for engagement, working under the principles agreed for the work on frameworks in October last year, but I would like to take away the ideas that have been brought to the table here today by way of the further proposed amendments and consider how these matters might be incorporated into our policy thinking, while continuing to meet our two stated objectives on legal certainty and respect for the devolved settlements.

I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for his amendment, which seeks to find a way forward in the context of Clause 11 and the frameworks. Again, it is an attempt to ensure engagement between all the interested Administrations to achieve consensus at the end of the day. My noble and learned friend’s amendment highlights the importance of clarity as we develop frameworks. As we have discussed during earlier debates, the work on frameworks will have to be a collaborative effort designed to ensure maintenance of a single internal market for the United Kingdom after we leave the EU. Our intention remains to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations. However we approach it, we have that as a goal.

The approach that we have put forward for Clause 11 in these amendments is, I venture, an entirely reasonable proposition. By default, and unless further action is taken, the returning EU powers in the 153 areas identified will become devolved matters. We should perhaps take pause to remind ourselves that these are entirely new powers for the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, expanding devolved competence into areas previously held and exercised by the EU and, prior to that, by the United Kingdom Parliament.

We believe that what we propose addresses the points raised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments in their legislative consent memorandums. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have moved a considerable way on this, but that we continue to see the importance of providing as much certainty as early as possible for businesses across the UK in order that we can avoid, or indeed manage, divergence between the individual nations of the United Kingdom. While we have not yet reached agreement with the devolved Administrations, discussions will continue and we are extremely keen to maintain our engagement with them. But we consider that it is right that noble Lords have the chance to consider these amendments—the Government committed to that on Report and we brought them forward for consideration by this Committee. I hope noble Lords whose amendments are in this group will feel able to withdraw them at this stage; we, as I indicated earlier, will do similarly with the government amendments at the end of this debate. I beg to move.

Amendment 302B (to Amendment 302A)

Moved by

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

302B: Clause 11, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (3)(a), leave out “consult the Scottish Ministers” and insert “obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament”

18:30

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 302B I shall speak also to Amendments 302C and 302G, which seek to amend the government amendments to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.

I recognise and appreciate the tone of the Minister’s speech, as well as the letter that I received this morning from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. Clearly a great effort is being made, and we acknowledge that. Perhaps it will not be a surprise that it is my task—and I consider it my task—to look at those areas where we have perhaps not yet reached agreement, but it is significant that efforts are being made. Yet I must make the point, in sorrow rather than in anger, that the way in which the Government have handled the whole issue over months of inactivity from the autumn onwards leaves much to be desired. Indeed it would not be wholly inappropriate to describe it as lamentable. There was a lot of time lost there.

There is no doubt that we agree on the two main points—indeed, my own interventions earlier in these debates said so very explicitly. We know that a Bill must be enacted and that we must avoid chaos in our legal system. On day one, things must work. As the leader of my party has said more than once, we are totally committed to achieving that. The Welsh and Scottish Governments made it clear as long ago as the White Paper on what was then known as the great repeal Bill that they could not and would not give consent to the approach embodied in the original Clause 11: an emasculation of the devolution settlements by upsetting the balance of the distribution of powers between the UK and the devolved institutions.

There are some in this Committee who will attribute any criticism of the way things have proceeded to a narrow, political sectarianism on the part of an SNP Government in Scotland and a Labour Government in Wales. In my view, such opinions will be more likely to emanate from the narrow, political sectarianism of those who give voice to them, for the repeated expressions of good will from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, working together for a satisfactory outcome to these questions, are entirely in line with a whole host of opinions coming from highly respected sources of a totally objective nature. I handpicked just a few for illustrative purposes in an earlier contribution, but I list them again now: our own Select Committee on the Constitution, the Bar Council, the Delegated Powers Committee, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, and the list could go on. Add to that the eloquent contributions from, among others in an earlier debate, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris of Aberavon, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Hope of Craighead, and it should be clear that we can state with confidence that the case being made has widespread and expert backing. But the Government for months stuck their head in the sand and just ignored the growing chorus of voices that has echoed this concern. Indeed, as we have noted insistently and repeatedly, despite the Secretary of State for Scotland giving an assurance in Committee in the other place that an agreed amendment to Clause 11 would be put forward on Report there, far from realising that modest objective, discussions on the matter with the devolved Administrations did not begin until the new year. Now, after all this time, we are presented with an amendment, or set of amendments, that has still not been agreed by the devolved Administrations.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a nice, approachable man who serves a decent cup of coffee, has proved himself a master of spin. He has told the whole world about the great success he has had in bringing the peoples of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland out of their wandering times in the desert to the very edge of the Promised Land. Perhaps I should remind him that the leader in those wandering days died before he could enter the land flowing with milk and honey. There is still a distance to travel, for Mr Lidington’s skilful PR onslaught fails to address the fundamental issue at stake—the issue of consent, which was referred to in the speech we have just heard from the Minister, and which our amendments seek to underline.

Even if amended as now proposed by the Government, Clause 11 would give Ministers of the Crown very wide, unilateral powers to use regulations to place new constraints on the legislative competence of the devolved legislatures. The claims of the Government that this would entail no restrictions on the scope of the legislatures to act that are not now in place ignore the fact that the current EU law restriction falls away on exit day, as does the constraint on our own freedom to pass laws in contradiction of EU law. Let there be no doubt: Clause 11 allows for the imposition of new restrictions, ones that will, if the Government have their way, be controlled and policed by Whitehall. We have heard plenty of discussion of the possibility of this in earlier debates. This is a very different constraint to the one that currently applies to the whole of the UK to respect EU legal frameworks painfully negotiated by 28 member states, with a clear role for the devolved Administrations in developing the UK negotiating position.

The amendments as drafted do not even contain the safeguards that the Government would have us believe. While they say that the restriction will apply to areas where future UK frameworks would apply, and have tried to throw sand in our eyes by simultaneously publishing a list of such potential framework areas, the regulation-making power they seek is not circumscribed in this way. In theory at least, Ministers could simply specify all of those areas of retained EU law that would otherwise be in devolved competence. Of course, I would hope that our House, presented with the requirement for an affirmative resolution to support such regulations, would refuse. But can it possibly be right that it is only Parliament that would have any input into this decision, not the legislatures whose rights would be circumscribed? I mean, it is only the Executive that would have Ministers, not the legislatures. The only requirement in respect of the devolved institutions is one to consult the devolved Administrations.

What the Government have brought forward at this late stage is far too weak.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am following the noble Lord’s argument very carefully. Will he explain why he is content with the position under the current arrangements by which these matters are determined at European level? The Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament do not have a veto and their consent is not required for Ministers’ negotiating positions in the Council of Ministers, which, after all, can respond only to regulations or proposals brought forward by an unelected Commission.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

While I will have a word to say in a moment about the use of the word veto, I will not claim to know the detail relating to the Council of Europe, to which reference has been made.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

It was the Council of Ministers.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I beg your pardon. I think the mistake is evidence of the fact that I am not qualified to answer that particular part of the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, not for the first time he is wrong about this. Welsh Ministers, for example, and Scottish Ministers often attend the Council of Ministers with the permission of our own UK Government to make sure that their voice is heard. It has been done on a collaborative basis and is nothing to do with his anti-Europeanism: it is actually about how devolution has worked.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I am delighted to receive that help from behind me, and also to hear from alongside me that, when my noble friend used to attend such meetings, he did not feel part of the furniture or not very welcome. Perhaps that in some way goes towards an answer.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is saying is perfectly correct. My question to him was why they were content with a system where people were consulted and involved but which did not require their consent as to the United Kingdom’s position, which is exactly what is being proposed here.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I thank the noble Lord. I have long since learned that perfection is not my strongest suit. I remember once asking everybody in a congregation of mine if anybody was perfect and a man at the back put his hand up. I did not believe him, and he said, “No, it’s not me; I am speaking proxy for my wife’s first husband”.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Perhaps I could help the noble Lord. In the circumstances my noble friend Lord Forsyth expresses, consent is given when the devolved legislature applies the directive and implements it there.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Because I am where I am, I am equally certain that the points being raised will be addressed later in this debate.

What the Government have brought forward at this late stage is too weak. If the purpose is, as the Government claim, simply to give breathing space to negotiate new UK frameworks, which is fair enough, where it is agreed by the devolved Administrations that these are necessary—that is an important part of it—then we should be sure that the devolved legislatures agree that these are indeed the policy areas where restrictions are needed. It does not seem to be very difficult to come to these conclusions. Indeed, there has been no attempt to engage with the proposals put forward by the Welsh Government in their policy paper Brexit and Devolution some nine months ago, arguing for a system which would address precisely this issue. Perhaps the Minister could explain this egregious omission.

Over the last week, I have come across an intriguing poem by Waldo Williams, one of the dominant Welsh writers of the last century. He asks a series of questions and gives succinct, almost gnomic answers to them. As I conclude my remarks, I cannot forbear from quoting one couplet in Welsh, in order to forestall an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—though he might surprise me yet again. I will quote it with a translation by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth—I do not want to frighten the Hansard horses. Just listen:

“Beth yw trefnu teyrnas? Crefft

sydd eto’n cropian”.

That is:

“What is it to govern kingdoms? A skill

still crawling on all fours”.

We must urge the Government to stand up, to withdraw their amendments and to go back to the discussions with the devolved Administrations before returning with an approach which gives an appropriate role to the devolved legislatures to agree the areas—indeed, perhaps to go further and to put a list of frameworks into a schedule to the Bill—in which new restrictions on their legislative competence will operate. This may well turn out to be a test of whether the Government have the competence to lead us out of the mess they have so tidily put us in. I wish to move the amendments.

18:45

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 318A is in this group. As your Lordships know, I am a lawyer, but I have already got limited support from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has repeatedly explained that he does not suffer from this disadvantage—I will do my best to take him along with me.

As I have indicated, I was first introduced to this matter in a discussion with a very distinguished SNP Member in the other place, when we were travelling together from the north. I mentioned to him that I had had no briefing of any sort from the Scottish Government. The next day I got a message from the Scottish Government to say that the Lord Advocate and Mr Russell, the Minister, were very willing to speak to me. I was able to speak to the Lord Advocate that afternoon and to Mr Russell in the early afternoon that Wednesday. I was very emphatically assured by Mr Russell that the Scottish Government were keen to reach an agreement. I am quite satisfied that there is no indication in the attitude of the Scottish Government that this is an attempt to further their ultimate political aim, and that they are seeking to solve this matter in a way that accords with the dignity of the Scottish Government. I said that I did not want to do or say anything that would impede agreement, and I now hope to show how agreement can be reached.

Before I explain the amendment, I will say a word or two about the law that lies behind it—I will take Scotland as an example, as the other Administrations have similar provisions. The devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is subject to EU law. That considerably restricts what the Scottish Administration can do at present, but when Brexit comes along that limitation will disappear. Included in those limitations are the legislative powers of Brussels to legislate in the United Kingdom. From one point of view, it is wise to analyse these powers in this way: a power that can be made effective within a single area of legislative competence in the United Kingdom should go straight to that level—in other words, to the devolved Administration. That is, if the power does not require more than one of our legislative areas in order to be effective, it should go straight to the devolved Administration.

But there are EU powers which can be effective only when they cover more than one of our legislative areas. The one that is of most relevance in this connection is that which provides for the single market. As your Lordships know, and as the Scottish Government certainly know, the single market is quite an important feature of the present negotiations. Part of that single market is the single market in the United Kingdom. It is 100% obvious that, if you are going to legislate for the single market in the United Kingdom, it is legislation that affects all of the countries within the United Kingdom and the legislatures that support them. Therefore, it is absolutely plain that the ultimate power to settle the single market provisions lies with the United Kingdom Parliament.

But—and this is an important consideration—it is extremely wise to proceed by agreement where it is at all possible. A good deal of agreement has already been reached. As I said, I was assured by Mr Russell when I first spoke to him—and again when he later saw my amendment, which he welcomed subject to qualifications such as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will propose—that the Scottish Government are very anxious to reach agreement.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am very interested in this concept, which my noble and learned friend is putting forward, that powers which affect the single market that is the United Kingdom should be taken at a United Kingdom level. Does he see that operating both ways? For example, the Scottish Parliament has the power to set unit pricing for alcohol, which of course affects the single market that is the United Kingdom. Does the proposition that powers which affect the single market should be taken at the UK level mean that, as well as the powers which will come from the European Union when we leave it, powers might also be returned to Westminster from the Scottish Parliament? He might find that Mr Russell is less enthusiastic about that.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am not suggesting that for a minute. I am suggesting that what is required is a single market which is the necessary concomitant of having cross-border trade. I do not think that the price of alcohol in Scotland would necessarily affect that. It might be wise for me, if I wanted to buy alcohol, to do it when I was here rather than in Scotland. I may say at once that I am not particularly keen to do that either. That is not an example of the need for there to be no obstacle at the border, because if I have to pay for the whisky in Scotland, I can take it with me, subject to not coming on an aeroplane, I suppose. It is a matter of what is required.

It is realised by various people who were at the meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee that framework agreements will be required in certain areas. That is because, for the single market in the UK to be effective, there must be agreement across the legislative areas. It follows, as night follows day, that the legislative vehicle for dealing with a market which is across the whole of the UK is a vehicle which has jurisdiction over the whole of the UK. It cannot be otherwise. That seems to be common sense and you do not need to be a lawyer to think that.

My next point is the “but” I was coming to before I was helped by my noble friend. I stress that it is highly desirable, when you are seeking to get a single market, to get the agreement of the components. They have different interests, but there is a very strong pressure to secure a single market. I am sure the Scottish traders do not wish to have something at Berwick-upon-Tweed which requires them to pay out money to English customs. It is absolutely clear that there is a very good pressure to reach agreement. As I say, I am assured by the White Paper that the Welsh Government put forward some considerable time ago, which was referred to earlier. I say in passing that that paper addresses itself to wider constitutional issues about future government in the United Kingdom and how it is not working very well and what-not. But I need something that will work now for the very limited purpose of getting the single market arrangements secure before Brexit comes into effect.

I have suggested in my amendment that there should be set up a group which consists of representatives of all four countries. I think it is wise to specify who they are. I have also specified, to try to reach agreement, that the chairman of the group should be decided on by the group. The Lord Advocate mentioned to me that one of the features of the present committee is that it is always a UK Minister who presides. There will be a certain amount of interest in the skill of the chairman in reaching agreement. It is often quite an important position—I have not been chairman of many committees that have not reached agreement—and it is an important aspect of the matter. I have therefore suggested that.

Of course, the details of this are very much matters for your Lordships to consider, but that is the ultimate thing: that the group should look at all these questions. If, as I am assured, they are very keen to reach agreement, I have no doubt whatever that there is a very high prospect that they will reach agreement—I emphasise that—when you consider that new rules must come into operation at the point of Brexit or the end of the implementation period, whichever is the later, and that if there was failure to reach agreement it would require the action of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am prepared to limit the amount of time for that to three months to emphasise my confidence that agreement will be reached and that therefore a formal legislative enactment in the United Kingdom with full consent from all four members of the committee would be the result.

This is a simple way of dealing with the matter, which is dealt with in a rather complicated way by the government amendment. The government amendment appears to inject powers into areas which may be devolved in fact. Mine makes it absolutely clear that the devolved powers are to be immediately made available to the Governments of the devolved legislatures; it is only the single market power that I consider needs to be reserved.

My very good supporter, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has suggested in his amendment that there should be some extraordinary—I do not mean that in a pejorative sense—tribunal to decide when there is disagreement. I certainly hope that there will not be disagreement, but I have provided that if there is disagreement the group itself must specify what that disagreement is, to make the issue for the United Kingdom Parliament as small and definite as possible. In my analysis, the single market is within the legislative competence of the UK Parliament. All the four countries are represented there. I remember that the Scottish party that got many seats in the 2015 election said that one of the purposes was to provide a strong voice for Scotland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt there is a pretty strong voice for that purpose. Having all four countries represented is as good as any kind of remarkable thing with Speakers. I am not sure if my noble supporter has asked the Speakers whether they want to take this on, but I think that is not in their competence. That is a job for the legislative assembly of the United Kingdom which is set up under our constitution and which I believe would reach a very good agreement on this point, if it had to. In the meantime, I sincerely hope it will not be necessary for it to do anything except legislate with a form agreed by the four constituents.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 318AA as an amendment to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I did so with due deference and with considerable temerity to be trampling on the legal pastures in which he has such expertise and I am a layman. None the less, I confirm that I have had conversations not only with Mr Mike Russell, to whom the noble and learned Lord referred, but with people from the Welsh Government—and, as he raised the question with me, yes, I have discussed it with the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, Elin Jones, who sees no difficulty at all with such a mechanism.

With that prelude, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for tabling Amendment 318A, which he did following the earlier debates in Committee. Those debates pointed to a crying need for a sensible mechanism to be found for dealing with the vexed issue of securing agreement between Westminster and the devolved legislatures regarding those matters which the UK Government feel must be handled on a UK level, even though they deal with areas that may be of devolved competence.

19:00

I was encouraged by the Minister’s words, relating to these amendments, that there is a possibility of looking at this between now and Report. That is something that will be welcomed in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, there is a yearning in both those cities for this issue to be resolved by a sensible mechanism that is acceptable to all sides. That is the point of view from which I approach this question and it is why I put forward the amendment I have on the Order Paper.

I agree very much with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said. The reason I tabled Amendment 318AA is that the system of adjudicating whether or not the powers should be exercised on a UK level must be recognised and accepted as fair by all sides—there should be no political connotation running into it. The final provision of Amendment 318A is for Westminster to have the last word—which I understand that technically and constitutionally it would have, because ultimately the sovereignty is here. However, I fear that, if that was the case, it would inevitably be seen as a facility to overrule the devolved Governments. Having that power in reserve, Westminster would not be encouraged to negotiate on an even-handed basis. It would have the ultimate trump card, and as such the legitimacy of the whole process could be undermined.

As the noble and learned Lord mentioned, my amendment provides for a mechanism whereby, in the event of disagreement, the issue can be considered for a ruling by a panel comprising the Speaker of the House of Commons and the presiding officers of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies. It also provides that, if they so choose, they can refer the matter to the Supreme Court. In this way, we would be providing an equivalence to the European system that we are replacing, in that the European court currently can have a role in resolving such matters.

Incidentally, in response to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as I understand it, Scottish whisky now sells very effectively throughout the whole of the European single market—but that does not imply that there is a single tax regime in all the countries of the European single market.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Will the noble Lord allow me to remind him that the Scottish Parliament had great difficulty in passing that legislation, because it was contrary to the European Commission’s views on the single market?

[Lord Wigley]

I have no doubt it had difficulty in passing it. None the less, the objective was a very valid one—to address the problems perceived in Scotland with regard to the level of alcohol consumption et cetera. The proposal was supported by many people in the social sector who wanted to see that sort of change. This is arguable, but the point is that you can have different tax regimes within a single market, as you have within the European single market. You can within the UK single market.

[Lord Hain]

I am sure my noble friend will agree with this point. Mention has been made of Scottish whisky—Scottish single malts and so on—but the best single malt in Britain comes from the Penderyn distillery in Wales.

[Lord Wigley]

Not only do I agree with my noble friend but I will surprise the Committee by reminding him that Penderyn whisky was in fact formulated as a result of devolution itself. It was on the evening of the setting-up of the National Assembly that people came together and thought, “Now we have to start doing something to help ourselves in Wales. What shall we do?” They concluded that a whisky would be one way forward. As they say, the rest is history—a very enjoyable and successful history. I thank my noble friend for reminding me of that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, correctly said that the European Commission objected. But in fact the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the Scottish Government’s proposals were actually consistent with the rules of the single market, principally because the minimum unit price was based on health reasons.

[Lord Wigley]

Indeed—which shows the importance of the health and social agenda that underpinned the initiative.

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

The amendment includes the proposition that if the panel “consider it necessary”, they may refer the matter to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I am not aware that there is any mechanism that could possibly enable that to happen. Moreover, even if it were possible, I suspect that the court would not be very grateful to receive what essentially would be a highly political rather than a purely legal question. If I may respectfully say so, it is rather an unrealistic proposal.

[Lord Wigley]

I note what the noble Lord says. All I would say in response is that, in the context of a single market such as the European single market, it has been necessary and sometimes highly useful to have the legal mechanism there in order to resolve difficulties that have arisen—as we heard from the noble and learned Lord a moment ago. My amendment is a constructive attempt to ensure that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is acceptable to the devolved legislatures, which I believe it can be. I believe that it needs to be tweaked, if not by this wording then along these lines.

The core of the argument that the noble and learned Lord is putting forward in his amendment is very important indeed—and I think there is a similar amendment coming forward from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. The fact that these amendments are coming forward from different sides of the House is in response to the need to resolve this issue. We cannot have this going on and on in the way that it has. It has gone on for far too long now. There needs to be a resolution that is recognised and accepted by all sides and seen to be even-handed. I believe that there is, as he himself has indicated unofficially, a feeling in both Cardiff and Edinburgh that, if the amendment could be incorporated, along with my proposed addition or something along those lines, it could be seen as breaking the logjam. For that compelling reason, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to accept Amendment 318AA, and then for the Committee to accept his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 318B, 318C, 318D and 318E, which, it does not take a lot of working out, follow on from Amendments 318 and 318A. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, it is interesting that what I suggest in three of those amendments in many ways corresponds exactly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested—as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Yet we came to the conclusion separately. We may have been inspired by the same people, the same thinking and the same ideas, but we came to draft them separately, which is interesting.

It is also really helpful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has said quite clearly that the Government are willing to look at these amendments and at some way of getting out of the impasse in which they find themselves. That is a really helpful way forward. However, the Government are the architects of their own misfortune. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port said, the Joint Ministerial Committee should have met more frequently and earlier. We were sent just the other day details of the fifth ministerial committee—on 16 October. It is extraordinary that we had only four ministerial committees dealing with this issue before then. It really is a dereliction of duty by the Government, which I think comes from the fact that, within Whitehall—as I found when I was a Minister—there is no understanding about devolution and what it involves. The Minister responsible was perhaps Oliver Letwin or Chris Grayling, so you can understand why they did not understand—but what worries me is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has been the Advocate-General for some time, and he should have alerted the people around Whitehall and others to this problem a lot earlier. Indeed, the Secretary of State, David Mundell, who I will concede is a very nice man—

[Lord Hain]

In spite of being a Tory.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

In spite of being a Tory; that is right. He has been constrained by Whitehall in getting decisions. I remember well sending notes around every Whitehall department to try to get some agreement. It is very difficult. However, I would have hoped he would have flexed his muscles a little earlier.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly very expert on this process and when these meetings were held. Could he tell us how many of those meetings were cancelled by the Scottish Government?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I have no idea; maybe the Government can help. What I can tell the noble Lord is that when I was Minister of State for Scotland we had a number of meetings. As my noble friend Lord McConnell can confirm, there were a lot of bilateral meetings between the Scotland Office and Ministers in the Scottish Government. That is the kind of thing that should have been happening but has not been.

I am not known for praising the Government, as Members who have heard me from time to time, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, know only too well. However, we should acknowledge— I say this as a strong devolutionist and a former MSP who really believes in devolution and argued for it for years, long before other people in Scotland were arguing the case—that the UK Government have moved on this. We have to concede that, under pressure and looking at the argument, they have moved.

We also have to be realistic. I say this to some of my Labour colleagues from England and, with respect, from Wales: the SNP has a clear agenda. It is concerned with only one thing, and we have to remember that. If it sees that it is to its advantage to concede then it will, and it may be able to make it to its advantage, but let us not be naive about what the SNP is up to—and let us hope that Welsh Labour is not naive about that either.

There is an advantage in the UK single market having the same kind of regulations on some of these issues, some of which the Minister has mentioned, and we ought to recognise that. We have an institutional and constitutional problem in the UK in that our devolution is asymmetrical. I have said on a number of occasions that this creates problems in a range of areas, and we can see that it does here. This Parliament has to speak for England as well as the UK and that creates structural, philosophical and other problems. Some of us believe in a federal UK—the Liberal Democrats certainly do, as do a number of Labour people such as myself—and in the longer term I hope we will deal with that. In the meantime, though, we have to recognise that it is a dilemma for the Government to be able to look after the interests of England. The Minister pointed out, and this is something that we have to take account of, that decisions made by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly can have an impact on England. We have to accept that and look after the interests of England as well as the whole of the UK. The Minister has said there is an advantage in a number of aspects being uniform throughout the whole of the UK, and I concede that. I was going to mention some more examples but I am conscious of the time.

I turn to the amendments. Serious thought needs to be given to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I have tabled. We need some form of mediation and that is what we are suggesting in these amendments—certainly in my first three. I am suggesting something similar to what is suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay: a ministerial council that would deal with that. Then, as a fallback if it could not come to an agreement, I have suggested an advisory panel, and have suggested that it should be the Speakers and the Presiding Officers who would set it up so we would get to a very similar conclusion. Some Members opposite will be pleased to hear that I do not refer to the Supreme Court.

For once, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I suggest in Amendment 318E that there should be a sunset clause. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, have suggested two years and I have suggested five, and that is open for debate, but it would be very good to have such a clause so that all sides would know that it had to be resolved by a particular time.

I hope, and I think the Minister indicated this at the start, that the Government consider these to be positive suggestions. If I can recognise that the Government have moved after all the awful things I have said about them over the last few days, months and years, I hope others will recognise that as well and give them at least just a little credit.

19:15

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 302BA, 312 and 318 in my name, but I shall start by speaking more to the generality by responding to the government amendments moved by the Minister. It is fair to acknowledge that much has happened since Second Reading when I and many others criticised the architecture of the original Clause 11, not least because it showed scant regard for the spirit and structure of the original devolution settlement. It had a system of conferred powers that was totally alien to how devolution had performed and been structured until this point.

However, I give credit to the Government for tabling these amendments. They have thought to recast Clause 11 and the related schedules, and I think it was acknowledged earlier that there is more work to be done. When you get legislation like this and new situations arise, it is amazing how new words come into the vocabulary. The Government have claimed that most of the powers at the so-called intersects will go directly to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast on exit day, subject only to relatively few remaining—they emphasise that this will be temporary, though I shall return to that—to secure the UK single market until such time as that framework is put in place.

As has been acknowledged, that is a welcome step. It shows a lot of progress and, I think, a lot of good will towards seeking an agreement. However, it has clearly not yet been sufficient to allow the Scottish and Welsh Governments to recommend the Legislative Consent Motions to their respective Parliament and Assembly. Indeed, the letter from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to the Lord Speaker that was circulated to all Members of your Lordships’ House says:

“In being asked to give legislative consent to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill on this basis”—


that is, on the basis of the new amendments—

“the devolved legislatures would be being asked to agree to the creation of this power with no certainty about where frameworks will be established, how these will work, how they will be governed and how we will go from temporary restrictions to longer term solutions”.

It is also arguable that the amendments do not do precisely what the Government claim they are seeking to do. The Government have said—indeed, the Minister has said today—that the intention is that the vast majority of powers identified at the intersects will go directly to the devolved institutions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, rightly said that that is the proper thing to do. However, if one looks at the amendments before us, while much has been said about a figure of 24, one sees that there is nothing in the Bill that restricts it to 24. Technically, and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, all 158 could be subject to this freeze and this restriction. They could all be subject to regulations made under the powers in the revised Clause 11 and there would be no provision for consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, let alone from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

It would help considerably if, in the body of legislation, it was made clear in some way which powers would go directly, or if there was a schedule concerning which powers would be the subject of framework agreements. I do not doubt for one minute that there will be some negotiation about what should be in frameworks and what should or should not be a UK framework. That is perfectly proper for negotiation. I welcome what the Minister said earlier: agriculture is set out as a broad heading but he accepts that agriculture has to be subdivided and not all aspects of it would be the subject of frameworks. Indeed, it is worth noting that NFU Scotland identifies in a briefing paper animal welfare and traceability, public health, pesticides, regulation and food labelling as examples of overarching areas of regulation that would be best suited to being managed on a commonly agreed framework basis. There is lots of scope for talking to stakeholders about what the framework should be, but it would be very helpful if that could be in the Bill.

I do not underestimate for one moment that there will be work to do, but we should perhaps reflect that it will be at least four weeks until we come to deal with these issues on Report. It is worth reminding ourselves that the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended back in November that there should be clarity on this before the Bill reached Third Reading in the House of Commons. I do not take away from the work that has been done by officials, but if there is a will to get there, I am sure it could be done.

One other reflection on this point is that earlier today, in response to an intervention from me, the noble and learned Lord said that, given that we are now to have a transition period, we will have to accommodate that transition period in future legislation, a withdrawal and implementation Bill, so we may not need these frameworks until 31 December 2020 or 1 January 2021, which provides further time to sort out what should be in later legislation. But I would rather strike while the iron is hot and seek what can be done in this Bill.

It has also been said that these measures are temporary. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went out of his way to emphasise that in the letter that he sent to all Peers. The Government have, to their credit, included several extra provisions to buttress their position that they should be temporary by reporting requirements, and these are all welcome, but, unlike some other parts of the Bill, there is no sunset clause. That is why, in Amendment 312, which was tabled before the new amendments, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I recommended that there should be a sunset on the whole power after two years and, in Amendment 302BA, I suggest that any regulations brought forward under the new powers should themselves lapse after two years. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, said that it should be five years. We could have a debate about that but, again, the principle is trying to build confidence to get an agreement between the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the UK Government, and to have a sunset clause would go a considerable way to help that.

As we have heard in the previous three contributions, there could be dispute about the frameworks. Our Amendment 318 would put the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations on a statutory footing. In October 2016, to much fanfare, we were told that this new committee had been set up,

“to ensure that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are protected and advanced, and to develop a UK approach and objectives for the forthcoming negotiations”.

That has probably been more honoured in the breach than it has in practice. We know that in recent weeks there have been more concerted efforts in the committee to try to gain agreement on what we are discussing tonight, but there might be a lot of advantage in putting it on a statutory basis so that there could not be any backsliding on when it meets, as has happened before.

I welcome the initiative taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, because they constructively try to address how we resolve some of the difficulties. There clearly are difficulties and differences, and we must try to start thinking outside the box and creatively. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, picks up very well one difficulty: the United Kingdom Parliament is also the Parliament for England—England does not have a separate legislature, as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do.

I was reminded of my colleague Mr Ross Finnie, Minister for the Environment and Rural Development in the first Scottish Administration. His experience of meeting counterparts from Wales, Northern Ireland and Defra was that some Secretaries of State saw their role as to be the UK chair of the meetings, with the English Minister of State arguing England’s case, whereas other Secretaries of State could not see the difference between an English position and a UK position. He said that, clearly, they made far more progress when they had a Secretary of State who saw him or herself as holding the ring as the UK Minister with an English Minister of State arguing the English position.

We must recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it is asymmetrical.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who said in his speech that he hoped that one day there would be a federal constitution and, I think, implied that the noble and learned Lord supports the same idea. There are other Members, including Cross-Benchers, who feel that that is a very good idea.

The tragedy is that with the constant muddle we have, with our inability to have other than fairly chaotic governance for various reasons, including the lack of a written constitution—which most people would not agree with, of course, but I think is a growing field of thought—how does one get that without first having a constitutional convention to launch it, and how on earth would you get agreement on a constitutional convention in Britain?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There are lots of questions there from the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. First, as a member of a party that has supported some form of federal United Kingdom since the days of Asquith, I have no difficulty in saying that I believe in federalism. Equally, I do not diminish the difficulties and challenges in getting there. I rather suspect that, with what we have at the moment, we do not have time for a constitutional convention. That is why, as with so many other aspects of our constitution, we must move incrementally.

A lot of this has hinged on consent. Interestingly, the report from your Lordships’ European Union Committee on Brexit and devolution states:

“Any durable solution will need the consent of all the nations of the United Kingdom, and of their elected representatives … A successful settlement cannot be imposed by the UK Government: it must be developed in partnership with the devolved Governments”.


The Scottish Affairs Committee also referred to the fact that it would require the consent of the devolved Administrations.

On the issue of legislative consent Motions, as the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland knows, there is concern that frozen areas of EU retained law might well be seen to be beyond the legislative or executive competence of the devolved institutions, and therefore no legislative consent Motion would be required, at least under the enunciation formulated by Lord Sewel in the Scotland Act. I accept that devolution guidance note 10 could kick in. I think that the Minister said something to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in a previous debate, but it would be very helpful if he could clarify that, in the event of subsequent primary legislation in pursuance of the common UK framework, legislative consent Motions would indeed be expected.

Finally, we are moving into uncharted waters. Arguably, if we had not been in the European Union in 1998, the Scotland Act would have been constructed differently. The single market of the United Kingdom, which I certainly value and numerous other Members of your Lordships’ House have said they value, has been maintained since 1999 by the single market of the European Union. We are now into new territory with, for example, trade agreements. Negotiating international agreements is a function of the United Kingdom Government, but the detail of these trade agreements could well impact on devolved competences. How will that be accommodated? Canada, for example, when it negotiated its agreement with the European Union, had representatives of the provinces and territories in the room at the table during those negotiations. It would be very welcome if the Government were to make a similar commitment. That, again, would be a confidence-building measure.

At a later date, we will no doubt have to consider how frameworks operate when we have them. I welcome the suggestion of the Welsh Government of a council of UK Ministers with qualified majority voting to operate the frameworks. That would take us much further down the road towards federalism. In the meantime, the challenge is to find workable arrangements in the interim.

We do not really have a concept of shared competence. Perhaps that is something that we should work up. It was something which we discussed in the Calman commission back in 2008-09. It did not have much traction then, but we are in a new situation.

There is also the question of consent and trust. It has been said that constitutional propriety does not really allow for anything like consent. Those of us who argue for a written constitution are often told of the benefits of having a flexible, unwritten constitution. We are in a new situation. The Government responded to the campaign for English votes for English laws by bringing out a new device which, arguably, undermined the sovereignty of Parliament, because the House of Commons and the House of Lords can vote for an amendment, but if English MPs, a subset of one House of Parliament, say no, it does not become law. That is a move away from the sovereignty of Parliament.

Those who were in the Chamber earlier today heard my noble friend Lord Alderdice talk about the Good Friday agreement. He talked about the need to be adventurous and creative and suggested that if that process had involved some of what we have been hearing in the EU debate—people not willing even to entertain the idea of any differences or of how you work with sovereignty—we would never have had the Good Friday agreement. I would encourage the Government to be adventurous and creative; to be willing to think outside the box; to be willing to compromise; and to be willing to seek pragmatic solutions, even at the expense of 100% constitutional purity. What we are discussing, at the end of the day, is not about institutions. It is about people, businesses and the certainty they want in the law and their rights when we move out of the European Union. We should keep that firmly in our minds. In that spirit, I hope that the Government can come to successful negotiation with the devolved Administrations and that, by the time we come to Report, we can have amendments that we can all support.

19:30

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been very critical of the way that both the Government and the Scottish Government have conducted these discussions over the past 12 months, but I want to start by being very positive in your Lordships’ House this evening. I think the Government have moved considerably; I think the reversal of the principle behind the new clause is very welcome indeed; and I think it is now very likely that we are close to an agreement on the different categories of responsibility and competence in the different sections. I very much welcome the assurances from the Minister in the earlier debate that legislative consent Motions will be required for any primary legislation that would enact these new frameworks. I also welcome the tone of the debate tonight and the fact that the Minister is welcoming the different amendments that have been put forward and the ideas that have been suggested and is willing to look at them with his team over the coming weeks, before we get to the stage of having to vote on any specific proposals.

However, I want to make one specific point, in the interests of brevity and concentrating on what I think is most important here this evening. The way in which these frameworks are established is perhaps critical to getting the agreement to the stage of the frameworks in the first place. Whatever opinions each of us might have about the taking back of control to the UK from the European Union, in that exercise of taking back control to the UK I think the Government could be much more ambitious in setting out a new way of working inside the United Kingdom. Frankly, the joint ministerial committees have never worked, from the very first year. They were chaired by UK Ministers; they were sometimes consultation exercises; they were more often a brief, cursory discussion around a table. They were very occasionally brought together to reach agreement on a specific item, but those agreements were always much better reached in other forums or bilaterally. Tony Blair and I both tried to get rid of them. We did not succeed, but I wish that we had.

The Government need to think way beyond the joint ministerial committees. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has started to point us in the right direction for a way in which we can build a new relationship among the four Governments. What we need to look at is not a joint ministerial committee but a new form of ministerial council within the United Kingdom that might perhaps have a rotating chair, rather than being chaired by the UK Secretary of State, and that would have some sort of procedure for resolving disputes. It obviously could not use qualified majority voting, and it might or might not have a veto, but at least each case would be agreed properly among the different sets of Governments. If the Government could do some radical thinking on this over the next few weeks, before we get to the stage of finally voting on this Bill and agreeing the way ahead on frameworks, then I think they would be on much firmer ground to get agreement on the individual competencies and then to get consent. Although not necessarily required legally or constitutionally, it would be better for the United Kingdom if consent is acquired for this Bill and for the subsequent actions that will take us forward to the next steps. I urge the Government to think more ambitiously about the way these frameworks will look in the future, while I welcome the steps that have already been taken to put in place restricted time scales, which might yet include a sunset clause—that might be very wise—to be clear about the reversal of the principle; to devolve things unless they have to be reserved; and to be willing, tonight, to listen to all the amendments.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, after roaming around the various amendments to the government amendment, I would like to steer us back to the government amendment itself, which I support and which I hope will form a pathway to getting this matter resolved. I am afraid my remarks will be mainly focused on Scotland, where the battle has been fiercest, but I will refer to the other devolved Administrations in the context of the generality.

We have got here by a tortuous route of JMC meetings, consultations, arguments and a lot of delay. I acknowledge the willingness of the Government, in particular, to try to follow this approach of constantly being willing to participate in discussions and consultations. Much reference has been made in earlier debates to the spirit of devolution, to which the intergovernmental relations paper published by the Constitution Committee some time ago referred—indeed, we argued for many things, including some just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Given where we are in this farrago of committee meetings and consultations and rebuffs and demands and arguments about “consent” and “consult”, it is a relief to have an amendment to the Bill which we can debate and, I hope, remove the deadlock.

I prefer to start by reference to a component of the debate that seems to have been notable by its absence in discussion until my noble and learned friend Lord Keen raised it in the last debate, namely the Sewel convention. When the Scotland Act 1978 was going through Parliament, I asked my lamented and good friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish what it was all about. It was not called the Sewel convention at that stage. He said, “Oh, it’s a good-will measure. When we and the Scottish Government both want to legislate on the same subject, we’ll offer to do it for them to avoid duplication”. If only. The spirit of devolution may have been alive then, but it has taken a battering since. The finished version has turned out a bit differently. Far from being a good-will gesture to foster harmonious relations, it has become a battleground on which Parliament seems under constant challenge, with one visit already to the Supreme Court and another allegedly brewing. That is not the spirit of devolution.

The Government deserve credit for endless trust and courtesy, but their patience has gone unrewarded. It seems that they are left with no alternative but to act as they now propose. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who I am glad to see in his place, said in an earlier debate that it is a pity that devolution has got tangled up with the Brexit Bill. I absolutely agree with him—I wish they could have been taken separately—but it obviously is not possible. We are where we are. In the much larger arena of the Brexit negotiations, the challenge of this Bill is full of difficulties and complex issues. No solution is easy, but the Government have to make progress to keep to the timetable. In that context, I think reference to the Sewel convention makes clear that Parliament can legislate on devolved matters. That is an important point to remember and one that could have been prayed upon at the very outset as an alternative route to securing a satisfactory conclusion. Of course it is not something to do lightly, but we in the devolved Administrations need a solution. The word “normally” offers a key to this. There can surely be nothing less normal in the world of law-making than legislation to retrieve to our shores from the European Union over 40 years of legislative activity against a tight deadline and in advance of the moment of transfer—a retrieval that is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law as Brexit takes place. If that is not abnormal as an event, I do not know what is.

The Scotland Act and the Wales Act, as amended, and the convention are the nearest we can get to a stable base on which the devolution settlements can have some hope of harmonious survival, provided all parties respect that base. Enoch Powell’s dictum that power devolved is power retained has to prevail or the centre cannot hold, but sovereignty can be courteously delivered and received. The Government’s record on that is good. The Bill respects it and the guarantees that the Government have given. It specifically guarantees that no existing devolved power will be changed. Everything already devolved stays devolved. The area of dispute is a narrow, temporary and reducing one. As the Government’s amendment concerning EU powers being brought into the UK for the first time demonstrates—under the EU treaties, those powers must be transferred to the nation state in the first instance—the vast majority will go straight through to the devolved Administrations. Only those powers temporarily reserved that affect national frameworks, on which the devolved Administrations reached agreement in principle as long ago as last October, will be frozen en route until the frameworks can be decided upon. My noble and learned friend the Advocate-General covered that matter very effectively in his speech in the previous debate.

I respect the principles advanced by noble Lords and their sensitivity over matters that they point out are devolved, but there are other factors that again, in the spirit of devolution, could be deemed worthy of some movement by the devolved Administrations. These competencies and my noble and learned friend’s speech were very helpful on this—indeed, it makes my own speech almost redundant from now on, but I will make it anyway. These competencies coming home from the European Union were not ours to devolve before and do not necessarily fit in under the headings of what is claimed as devolved. They were not ours to devolve before; they are in many ways new and additional and reflect the changed legislative priorities that have evolved over the past 40 years. I just give one simple example of that change in agriculture: 40 years ago, we had a Ministry of Agriculture; now we have a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a very much changed animal. Virtually all these new powers will as soon as possible end up with the devolved Administrations.

I do not know how the Government could do more without jeopardising their obligations to the United Kingdom as a whole. This Parliament is the only one that can negotiate the Brexit deal—the outcome will after all form part of an international treaty—and this Parliament is the Parliament of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as of England and the United Kingdom. I sometimes think that Scotland’s First Minister occasionally forgets that the Prime Minister is also her Prime Minister and that the Westminster Government—as the SNP derisively refers to us, as though we were a foreign power—are also Scotland’s Government as well as that of the other parts of the UK. It is the Prime Minister who can protect the First Minister from herself by ensuring that Scotland remains in the UK, as its people decided only three years ago, and thus in the United Kingdom’s single market, which is the mainstay of Scotland’s economy. As I think all your Lordships now know, it takes four and half times more exports than the entire European Union does.

Yet still they rage against the light. The intransigence shown by the Scottish Administration was always likely to emerge. I diverge here from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—though fortunately not on a legal point—as I believe it was always going to emerge, and it is what the Scottish Government mean by “negotiation”, because they are working to a different agenda, an agenda with only one item on it: independence. Everything in every area of government in Scotland is subservient to that, hence the neglect that we see of education, the economy and all the other matters that are their responsibility. If they can find of way of turning everything that happens into a source of grievance, they will do so. Grievance is their default position. They would make a grievance out of a ray of sunshine if they thought it would help their cause. Where in that Administration is the spirit of devolution? There is no power grab in the measures proposed in the government amendment, quite the reverse; it is a power bonanza. The devolved Administrations should welcome it as a ray of sunshine.

[Lord Hain]

Even accepting the noble Lord’s criticism of the nationalist Government in Edinburgh, can I just remind him that the Welsh Government—a Labour Government and a pro-union Government—are just as critical of the stance that the Government of the UK have taken up to now? His remarks do not take account of the depth of feeling that there is in Wales and the Welsh Government about this matter and I caution him about that point.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

I take note of what the noble Lord says, though I have to say that I have heard information from other sources which suggests that the opposition in Wales is nothing like as strong as it is in Scotland, but it feels obliged to go along in the wake of the Scottish attitude. We will have to disagree on that.

19:45

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

With respect, I am saddened to hear the noble Lord get on to this grievance and feeling against the Scots nationalists. They are elected by the people of Scotland. He has to accept the voice of the people there. They represent the interests of the people of Scotland and if they act against those interests they will be kicked out. Maybe he wants that—maybe we all want that—but the tone that is being struck by him just at this moment, after a very constructive speech, unhappily does not help to resolve the outstanding issues. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in saying that that is not the feeling that one should have, certainly with regard to the attitude taken by the Welsh Government. I believe that they represent the feelings in Wales that there is a suggestion that the United Kingdom Government may enter into a position that we would regard as unfortunate. It is unfortunate that this anti-Scots nationalist—they are not represented in this House at all; maybe that is their fault that they choose to do that—language should be used.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I too regret having to refer to the behaviour of the Scottish National Party and its constant attempts to find issues on which it can exercise grievance, but that is what is happening. It is because of that attitude that we are where we are now and that the consultations that were allegedly going extremely well throughout the earlier months have run up against a time limit. We are blinding ourselves to reality if we do not take account of the fact that the Scottish Administration have a completely different agenda from this one—notwithstanding the bonhomie of Mr Russell, which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was fortunate enough to encounter. I regret having to say it, but it has to be said, otherwise we are blinding ourselves to reality.

I do not dismiss the Government’s past willingness to consult patiently and, again, I respect their willingness to withdraw this amendment so that it can be further debated and discussed. That is entirely in line with the path that they have pursued, which is creditable and desirable. How I wish the other participants in these discussions could unanimously take the same approach. It is a tribute to the constitutional proprieties that we all like to see, seeking as the Government did to negotiate in good faith, to find a route that would not require them to assert the sovereignty of this Parliament. But it did not work in this context and I do not think it was ever going to work. In the end, the supremacy of the union must come first, as another Constitution Committee report, The Union and Devolution, recently suggested.

[Lord Beith]

My Lords, the noble Lord is a former chairman of the Constitution Committee, but he is perhaps doing a disservice to its present members by not reflecting that the committee felt that progress had to be made in this area, not least because the parliaments in both Edinburgh and Cardiff, across the parties, were unhappy with the Government’s original proposals.

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

I agree that progress has to be made, but progress is not made by constantly agreeing to give legislative consent on so many different issues, as so many amendments that we have debated in the last few days suggest. That is not progress; that goes towards unsettling the existence of the devolution within the United Kingdom parliamentary structure. We have to be realistic about these matters.

The Government’s approach of endless patience and consultation did not work. In the end, the supremacy of the union must come first. So I support the government amendment. By protecting the sovereignty of this Parliament we are best able to deliver the overall outcome, both for the devolved Administrations and for the United Kingdom to which they belong.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am slightly confused. He said that he supports the government amendment, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that he would not press his amendment; he is going to withdraw it and look at some of the other proposals. Does the noble Lord not agree with his Front Bench?

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

Of course I agree with my Front Bench, and I have already commended it for its willingness to withdraw the amendment. It was tabled so that it could be discussed and Ministers could hear soundings from the Committee. I have given my sounding; perhaps the noble Lord would like to add to that by giving his. He spoke about his own amendment, but I hope that in the last resort he will support the amendment that the Minister will bring forward.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I shall speak briefly to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I do not do so because I once enjoyed the privilege of being one of his deputies when he was Lord Advocate for Scotland—as did the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Cullen, both of whom are in their places this evening. I do so without detracting in any way from the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. What attracts me to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is its simplicity and practicality. It is easily understood, and coming, as it were, from a Scottish source, it pays due regard to economy. For those reasons it is well worthy of consideration. Its simplicity makes it easily capable of being understood not just by those who will have responsibilities under it, but by members of the public.

It is for those reasons that I am, with due deference, rather doubtful about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The problem with it is that, apart from the reference to the Supreme Court turning into some kind of court of arbitration, and I know of no process or procedure that would allow for that—

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Will the noble Lord allow me to take the opportunity to say that, as he will remember, there is provision in the Scotland Act and in the Government of Wales Act for a reference to the Supreme Court on issues of law—about the competence of legislation and whether something is within the competence of the legislatures? The problem with the situation that we are contemplating now is that the issues that remain in debate are not really issues of law, and I do not see how the Supreme Court could possibly deal with them. In fact, it is very anxious not to get involved in politics. There was a germ of good sense in the scheme suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but it breaks down at that point. I am sorry to intervene, but it is worth mentioning that issue.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

The noble and learned Lord’s intervention is most helpful. Of course, the language of proposed subsection (17), in Amendment 318AA, to,

“refer any question to the Supreme Court”,

supports the view that the use of the Supreme Court in such circumstances would be, to put it mildly, doubtful.

My difficulty with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is that it is bound to encourage delay. His amendment says:

“The Panel may call witnesses or take legal advice”.


If witnesses are called they may have to be cross-examined, and if there is to be cross-examination there may have to be representation by counsel, or something of that kind. It is not difficult to imagine what is proposed in the amendment turning into something of a full-blown hearing, rather like, for example, industrial tribunals.

Under suggested subsection (15)(a), regard must be had to whether something,

“is reasonable, in all the circumstances”.

As soon as the concept of reasonableness appears in a statute, it opens up the possibility of judicial review. Even if it were not to be granted, none the less an application for judicial review could obviously, and unfortunately, delay the outcome of a decision that might be of considerable economic as well as political importance. For those reasons, however well intentioned the noble Lord’s proposal is, I do not think it stands any proper comparison with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I therefore urge the Government to give serious consideration to that, for the reasons the noble and learned Lord set out, which I have tried to follow.

[Lord Wigley]

I concur entirely, in that I hope the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, gets the attention it deserves and that it is adopted. However, does the noble Lord not accept that in order to assuage some of the feelings that, perhaps unfortunately, have been built up over recent months about there being a will here to impose solutions, we need a mechanism that people at both ends of the telescope can see as balanced and even handed?

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

It is a question of judgment. The mechanism that the noble Lord suggests may achieve the objectives that he sets out, but it will almost certainly encourage delay, and perhaps even more controversy. What is required here is very quick resolution, in an uncontroversial way, of issues that lie at the very heart of the economies, perhaps, of the United Kingdom—and those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has pretty well hit the target.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I feel a bit like somebody from Relate. I am a Cross-Bencher, I am not a lawyer, and I do not now have an interest in Scotland—although I do have an interest in Wales. I just want to make a few brief comments, to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that I tried to write a schedule for the Bill to set out the frameworks—but for all kinds of reasons I did not, and felt it would be a waste of massive effort to try to achieve something that I could not. However, I think the idea is commendable that we should put on the face of the Bill the matters that will go to the devolved Administrations, which would then not be for dispute. That may go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns.

I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about the need to be even handed, based on what has gone on before. The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is an enormous step forward. The fact that the Government have agreed to invert Clause 11 is also a major step forward, but there is still more to be done. We need to look at what will happen in the event of deadlock. Having a rotating chair, which has been suggested, would certainly help to establish some sense of equality. The frameworks need to include some sort of equal partners in resolution. I hope that some of the negativism of what has gone before may be laid to rest, because we have to move forwards into the new world. At least we have had some positive suggestions tonight. I repeat my thanks to those who have been communicating with us to try to achieve that—but we cannot just say, “Right, we’re there”. There is more work to be done.

The suggestion of a sunset clause could be helpful too, because that would concentrate the mind, and would provide some reassurance. I had put my name to Clause 11 stand part, but it is now to be replaced anyway, which is a great relief. I hope that we shall recognise, and not forget, the need for equality of voice and equality of representation. The failure to do that in the past should be a lesson to us as we go forwards.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I have never known a Government make such efforts to meet the arguments that have been put against their first intentions. If it had been up to me I would not have tabled an amendment at all; I thought the Bill as it originally stood was perfectly able to provide for what was required. Instead the Government have listened to the representations from Scotland and Wales. I think the representations from Wales have been a little more constructive than those from Scotland, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Lang spelled out. I agreed with every word in his excellent speech, although it unsettled one or two people.

I have enormous respect for my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, and I usually agree with him. I do not know whether he, like me, is a fisherman—but if he were, I would say that the fly he cast should be called the federalist option. What he is proposing is to change our constitution. This is a Bill to put in place the powers that have been lost to the European Union; it is not a Bill in which we should be remodelling our constitution, or reassessing the devolution settlement that was agreed, in the case of Scotland, in the latest Scotland Bill. Therefore, I do not support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I have noticed that those people who would like to see a federal arrangement and would like us to remain in the European Union have endorsed it with great enthusiasm, and I can see why.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That is an open admission of it. As I look at the amendment, I think, “Who will speak for England?”.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

It tells you.

20:00

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble and learned friend says that it tells me. Yes, it tells me that it is the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State’s responsibilities are for the whole of the United Kingdom, not for England. To suggest that there should be a rotating chair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, did, is a nonsense in terms of our constitution. Ministers in the Government have a responsibility to act for the whole of the United Kingdom.

I have to say that I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was absolutely hilarious. Here he was making an impassioned plea for democracy in Wales while at the same time arguing that all the powers that he was concerned about should remain in Brussels, where the ability to bring forward legislation rests with an unelected Commission and where our ability to influence it is one of 28 in the Council of Ministers. It is a complete distortion of the word “democracy”. What is being offered here to the Welsh Parliament and the Scottish Parliament by the Government is the ability to take back control of a whole range of issues and policies over which they have hitherto had no influence at all.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, say on several occasions in these debates on Brexit in your Lordships’ House that other noble Lords around this House have tried to revisit the arguments around the referendum, that that is wrong, that time has moved on and that it is time to debate the process of withdrawal and not revisit those debates of two years ago. However, it seems to me that he does exactly the same thing on devolution. To take fishing as an example, the reality is that the Secretary of State for the United Kingdom Government is responsible for fishing in England and the relevant Minister and the First Minister in Scotland are responsible for fishing in Scotland. We have an equality of representation, duty and competence. That is what should be reflected in any common framework for decision-making. It is not the case that the United Kingdom retains an overarching power over these. There may be a constitutional hold over sovereignty at the end of the day, but the reality for 19 years has been that, once these powers were devolved, the Ministers in the UK Government became the Ministers responsible for the way in which those responsibilities were exercised in England, not in Scotland, or, on many occasions, in either Wales or Northern Ireland.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord is talking nonsense—codswallop in fact—in the context of fishing because the position has been that the Secretary of State with responsibility for fisheries, agriculture and everything else had no authority whatever to determine these matters; that rested in Brussels. I have been to Fisheries Councils, which are always held near Christmas and always go into the middle of the night, where we struggled to get a deal, and where we were invariably overruled by other member states. Then clever people such as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who I am not sure is in his place, would write press releases explaining how the talks had been a triumph and we had secured a brilliant deal for the United Kingdom. But we did not have the power to determine that.

As to the point about the position of the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Ministers with responsibilities in respect of fisheries, the noble Lord makes my argument for me. The position is pretty clear: once we have regained control of our waters and our fishing policy, we will make international agreements with other parties. That has to be done on a United Kingdom basis. Despite the noble Lord’s efforts to advance the cause of the nationalists in Scotland, with disastrous results for his own party, his former leader now says that he regrets having done devolution at all. The noble Lord shakes his head. If he reads Mr Blair’s own autobiography, he will find that he lists two things that he regrets doing, and devolution is one of them. Devolution has had a disastrous effect on Labour in Scotland, as he well knows, because Labour has sought to appease nationalism and refused to stand up for the role of the United Kingdom in the way that my noble friend Lord Lang argued so brilliantly. When we regain power over fishing and so on, the Secretary of State will be responsible for organising and arranging access to our waters for fishermen throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of international treaties which can be made only by a sovereign state, and that is the United Kingdom. It is not Scotland, it is not Wales and it is not Northern Ireland.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

Plenty of countries around the world that enter into international treaties have internal mechanisms which allow different parts of those countries to come together to make a decision by either consensus or a formal agreement, so there are plenty of examples around the world of where that works in practice. It should be able to work in this country as well. I correct the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: there is no evidence that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair regrets bringing in devolution in this country. In fact, it is one of the things he is proud of having done for this country and is a major constitutional change that made a real difference. If the noble Lord reads the book properly, he will understand that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will return to my copy of this important text and will be in touch with the noble Lord in that respect. I completely agree with his point that there are plenty of countries where people are able to consult on these matters. However, there is a difference between seeking to consult people and seeking their consent. This is where this debate has gone off the rails in that people have confused consultation with consent. Consent, in effect, gives a veto, as has been explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen and by my noble friend Lord Lang. It has been explained that, if we have a situation where one devolved legislature is able to have a requirement for consent, as opposed to being consulted, we have one part of the United Kingdom able to use its veto to subvert the wider interests of the rest of the United Kingdom, and that was never ever part of the devolution settlement.

[Lord Wigley]

Does the noble Lord accept that some of the frustration that has built up, certainly in Cardiff, and, I can well imagine, in Edinburgh, arises where there was supposed to be consultation but often that was no more than a letter and the reply was ignored? Unless there is meaningful consultation that leads to a coming together of minds, it can be just a façade for there to be continued rule from London ignoring the needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not know the detail. I do know that a number of the joint ministerial meetings were cancelled, but not by the Secretary of State or the UK Government. I am entirely prepared to accept that the process could be improved. Certainly, when I was a Secretary of State and we had differences of view on policy in respect of Scotland compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, we had a joint ministerial committee, sorted out the issues and reached agreement, not always to our advantage but sometimes to our advantage and to the disadvantage of others. I had an amendment down, which I have withdrawn in the interests of making progress, which suggested that there should be some kind of statutory arrangement for consultation. I can see that. But I am seeking to argue against the noble Lord, who wishes to elide consult with consent.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

May I just answer the noble Lord before I deal with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas?

I understand that. If I were a Welsh nationalist, or someone who did not accept the result of the referendum, I can see why I might table amendments of this kind and cause maximum disruption to the Government’s programme.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The noble Lord has just outlined a dispute resolution system of which he was part. He said that the council would get together and it would thrash out an agreement. Is that not precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is suggesting?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If the noble Lord had listened to the first part of my speech, I explained who would speak for England, and that this is a matter for the United Kingdom. The difference, of course, when I was Secretary of State was that there was one Government and one party in power. I do not speak for Wales but the difficulty we have in Scotland is that the party in power is determined to destroy and break up the United Kingdom. That is its agenda. As my noble friend Lord Lang said, every single issue is turned into a constitutional crisis and is a source of dispute.

If I may, I will turn to the substance of the government amendment. I started by saying that I have never seen a Government work so hard to try to achieve consensus and agreement. They have tabled an amendment which turns on its head the original proposals in the Bill to reflect the architecture of the Scotland Act. They should be given great credit for that. I welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who is not in his place; I do not know which road to Damascus he has been on, but it is good to see his conversion and that he now sees that what the Government are trying to do is sensible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also responded positively to this, and made some quite interesting suggestions as to how the amendment might be improved. It is to the Government’s credit that they have brought forward this amendment—and not just brought it forward; as everyone around this House knows, the Secretary of State, David Lidington, has gone to great lengths to meet people, despite all the other things on his agenda, to take this forward. Nobody can say that the Government have not tried to move forward in the interests of getting an agreement.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay says that he has had a generous conversation with the Scottish nationalist Minister, and that he thinks he will take a positive and constructive view. Anyone who had that attitude of mind would see that this was a huge leap forward and would embrace it. The Government have not only tabled an amendment which meets any reasonable person’s aspirations but have even said, “We’re not actually going to move the amendment; we going to withdraw it in order for people to have a further opportunity to consult on it”. I cannot think of another occasion when that has happened on a matter of such substance.

[A noble Lord]

Oh!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I hear tittering in the background. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?

It is a huge step forward, and we should all support the way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Keen—there are so many lawyers in this debate—has explained the thinking behind that and the Government’s ability to try to meet the anxieties, which have been stirred up unnecessarily, in a constructive and forward-looking manner while maintaining the integrity of our United Kingdom constitution.

It is a matter of regret that agreement has not been reached with the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh. I hope that the Welsh Government will take a different view. I doubt very much that the Scottish Government will want to do anything other than continue this dispute, and if that happens, my advice to my noble friends on the Front Bench is to get on with it, because they have gone as far as any reasonable person could expect them to go. I very much welcome this government amendment.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a few comments in this somewhat bizarre debate on the government amendments that the Government propose to withdraw. I have no experience of this situation; it must have happened before, but it is rather unusual, to say the least. I have emphasised before, and will not repeat, the need for “consent” as opposed to “consult”. That is what the Welsh Government want and what all the other parties in Wales want. I already dealt with the history of the Government’s excessive slowness to agree to legislative consent at all in my speech on Clause 5, and I do not wish to repeat that. But I ask the Government: what does “consult” mean? What is the definition? Is it a chat on the telephone or a face-to-face meeting between the First Minister and the Prime Minister? I think that we would like to know before the end of this debate so that we can consider where we go from here and what the Government’s intentions are regarding “consult”.

On Wales, Carwyn Jones has been trying diligently—he is a good advocate—to reach an agreement with the Government. I welcome very much the fact that, in addition to the meetings with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has had a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister. That is how it should be. These are now grown-up Governments in Cardiff and Scotland, and it shows how redundant the role of the Secretary of State now is, because Prime Ministers deal with First Ministers—and likewise, on Treasury matters, it is Treasury Ministers who should seek an agreement.

20:15

I have written on this, but I wish to emphasise again that I welcome very much the approach of the Welsh Government, where I believe the will is there to reach an agreement. There are quite a few issues left to be tied up, and I hope very much that we can, in the interests of the Bill as a whole, do that.

The Government have moved—considerably—and I welcome that, too. However, there is not enough here not only to bring the horse to water but to make him drink. Therefore, there must be, I hope before Report, serious consideration of the points of difference between the devolved institutions and Westminster.

The Government claim in their treatment of the proposals that there would be an immediate transfer of the “vast majority” of so-called returning powers to the devolved institutions. Let us examine this claim. First, in the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Miller, they are not returning powers. In fact, these powers would rest with the devolved institutions in the absence of statutory amendment by the Westminster Parliament. The authority is the Miller ruling, which states quite clearly:

“The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence”.

That is the legal reality. In fact, the government amendments do not generously gift new powers to the devolved institutions, which in the absence of legislative intervention they would not enjoy. They simply loosen somewhat the new shackles that the original Clause 11 sought to impose.

The Government assert that the “vast majority” of powers that are currently exercised by the EU and which impact on devolution will not be intercepted in this pre-emptive strike by the Government. It is sheer hyperbole to assert that 40 out of 64 of the subheadings is a “vast majority”. The reality is that it is a majority, but it should not be expressed in this way, which is far too big a claim about what the Government are doing.

My third point is that the unilateral calculation has the smell of creative accounting in the way the Government count the 24 powers retained and the 40 out of 64. It is quite clear that it is a huge segment of powers that are sought to be retained. We should look at the quality of the areas listed by the Government under the headings, “No action required” or “Legislative framework may be required”. The overall numbers are meaningless. Areas such as “Agricultural support” and “Fisheries management & support”—both of which are likely to require legislative frameworks—are significantly broader and have a greater impact on devolved competence than important but narrower areas such as “Electronic road toll systems” and “Blood safety and quality”. This is self-evident. With equal force, some areas which the Government regard as wholly reserved, including “State aids”, are absolutely central to devolved powers such as economic development. Is it any wonder that there has been a failure to agree?

I The fundamental weakness of the Government’s proposals as they now stand—and which undoubtedly need changing—is that there is nothing in the Government’s amendments to limit the exercise of this power to the areas where frameworks are agreed as being needed. Neither is there a timetable put on such powers. The Government have made progress and I welcome it. But a great deal more needs to be done before we can get the assent of the Welsh Government.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I do not want to detain the Committee for very long; I will make just one or two points. First, I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken to amend the original structure of the Bill so that it fits better with the architecture of the devolved statutes. If you look at the list of amendments, there are not just one but 22. That gives an idea of the scale of the exercise that has gone into preparing what we are discussing this evening. I congratulate the team that has been working behind the scenes to put this together. There are one or two loose ends, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, but this has gone a very long way and—apart from on the one issue of consent, about which perhaps enough has been said—I support entirely the structure and wording of these amendments.

As far as the solution put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is concerned, one feature that is worth noting is paragraph 11, which is the requirement that, if there is disagreement—a failure to reach unanimous agreement—reasons must be given. I have sat for a long time in court where, if you want to dissent, you have to explain yourself, and it is quite extraordinary; once you start writing these things out, you begin to wonder whether the dissent was justified. It is an extremely good discipline, when somebody is in disagreement, to force them to sit round a table and express themselves in writing as to what the nature of the disagreement is. The disagreement may remain, but at least it focuses the mind and makes it easier for the dispute to be resolved by the final body that has the responsibility of resolving the issue.

Regarding the three solutions offered as to how we might deal with this, there are three different solutions for resolving the issue. I have already suggested that the solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would not work because the Supreme Court could not deal with that kind of issue. As for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I believe that the panel he is talking about has four members, three of whom are from the devolved institutions and one from the United Kingdom. It is a simple majority decision and the United Kingdom would be in the minority—and I am not sure that that is an entirely satisfactory solution to have arrived at. So I am brought back to the solution offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, which, at the end of the day, is to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament. I am not quite sure what procedure would be adopted, but it seems to offer a fairer and better solution than the other two. Broadly speaking, I endorse the thinking behind what the noble and learned Lord suggested.

We have made a great deal of progress. My final point is to comment on the fact that the Government have undertaken to withdraw the amendments. I was arguing for that some days ago, because it seemed to me that if we had to vote on it tonight that would give a rather different flavour to the debate. It is a way of enabling us to talk around the subject and the way in which we on the Back Benches have to operate all the time. It may be unusual but it is part of the constructive way in which the Government are approaching this issue and I commend it.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we sit here week after week and, wherever we started our careers, we cannot help but look at them now from the Westminster and London perspective—the UK perspective. As I have been sitting here this evening, I have done a head count. More than 10 of us in the Chamber during this debate have been Members of the devolved legislatures as well as here. We have First Ministers, Deputy First Ministers—a huge band of people here who have experience of seeing these things from the devolved perspective. It is important to bear in mind—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, who said that there had been much too much emphasis on the importance of legislative consent in these debates—that legislative consent is the firm foundation on which confidence in the devolved system lies, in the absence of a full federal system, which of course we do not have in this country. I am a fierce unionist, but demonising the SNP does not help to bind the UK together. I assure noble Lords that there is a firm cross-party determination in Wales to insist on significant improvements to this Bill. The Government’s amendment is extremely welcome—but, so far, it is too little. It is a great pity that it is so late, because it means that people have not been able to give the full attention to it that it deserves. But I am sure that it is a good foundation upon which to build.

As noble Lords may remember, nearly two hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervened to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, why the devolved legislatures and Administrations had been content to accept EU power but were not content to accept the UK Government’s power on these issues. I can assure the noble Lord that I went to a number of JMCs and, sitting as a Minister in the UK Government, there was never a time when I felt for one minute that the devolved Administrations did not question the need for more power to go to them. They have persistently and determinedly asked for greater powers and a greater say in negotiations with the EU. This is not something that has come out of nowhere; it is a persistent requirement from the devolved Administrations and legislatures that they should have a stronger voice. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, devolved Ministers could go to those meetings—and, indeed, often go to meetings of the European Council. I give way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful. I think the noble Baroness might have misunderstood me. The point I was making was that, in the case of Wales, Welsh Ministers have been consulted and involved, but United Kingdom Ministers did not need to seek their consent. They were consulted, but the responsibility in the European Union rested with UK Ministers. She is quite right that sometimes Ministers from devolved areas would go to European Council meetings, but the difference is that whereas then we were one of 28 Members, now we will have all of that power, which will be transferred to Welsh and Scottish Ministers, as the Government have made clear. So it is a huge opportunity. It is not a power grab; it is a huge power injection into the devolved Administrations. The point I was making is that people who are opposed to us leaving the European Union are deliberately misrepresenting this and, characteristically and unfortunately, arguing that they want more power for the devolved Administrations while at the same time saying they wish that power to remain in Brussels. That is the point I was trying to make.

20:30

[Baroness Randerson]

I resist the idea that I ever deliberately misrepresent anything. However, I am very aware that, although the numbers are different, the principle has always been that the devolved Ministers press the UK Government to require their agreement to a stance that the UK Government take in the Council of Ministers rather than simply consult them. That is not new.

I want to move on to the Minister’s statement in support of his amendments and shall speak, first, about the principle of consent. I believe that consultation is inadequate and that what is needed is consent from the legislatures, not from the Administrations. It is important that the power should lie with the legislatures and not just with the Governments in the devolved Administrations. It is also essential that the list of powers where legislative competence is to be constrained is defined in the Bill. Those powers are not specified in these amendments. The Government must know what powers they have in mind. I accept that there is perhaps some work to do in turning them into a tidy list but they need to be specified.

I I support the calls that have been made for a sunset clause. The Minister said that this is a temporary situation but he also said that he could not be specific about the timescale. A sunset clause would certainly be realistic in that context. Such clauses appear elsewhere in the Bill and there is no reason why the Government should not specify what they regard as a reasonable period in which to deal with this issue. We need the effective powers specified in the Bill as a schedule, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said.

I I have a question for the Minister—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Where does England fit into all this? We are speaking at great length about introducing a pause on most of the devolved powers of the devolved Administrations, but will there be a parallel pause in relation to England or will things go ahead there on a different timescale?

Finally, I turn to putting frameworks into law. In principle, in the absence of agreement on the future framework for, let us say, agricultural support, the UK Government could seek to enact a framework and argue that, because agricultural support has been specified by regulations as being outside devolved competence, the devolved legislatures’ consent is not required. I believe it should be made clear in the Bill that the specification of areas of retained law as being temporarily beyond devolved competence does not remove the application of the Sewel convention to new primary legislation. Is that interpretation the same as the Minister’s?

I ask the Government to discuss this issue again with the devolved Administrations. I believe that real progress has been made and I am very pleased to see the amendments, but I believe that a further step is needed.

[Lord Dunlop (Con)]

My Lords, the hazard of speaking late in a debate is that, in the interests of brevity, you have to shred your speech; none the less, I hope that what I am about to say is still coherent.

It would be hard to deny that since 2010 significant powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As more powers are devolved from Westminster, it becomes ever more important to attend to the glue—the institutions and arrangements that hold together the United Kingdom—and Brexit brings that imperative into sharper relief.

At the heart of the Clause 11 debate is an apparent tension: on the one hand, the powers of the devolved legislatures should not be changed without their consent and, on the other, one part of the UK should not have a veto over legislation to protect the interests of the UK as a whole. I accept that resolving that tension is not an easy matter. Therefore, Clause 11 addresses a very real issue that needs to be recognised and dealt with. The status quo ante cannot simply be asserted because there is no status quo ante. Our exit from the EU creates what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, recently described in a devolution debate in your Lordships’ House as a “void”, and he spoke of the need to create something new. If that is the case, it seems entirely sensible to pause and put in place a temporary mechanism for avoiding legal and regulatory divergence while the void is filled and new frameworks are discussed and agreed. Indeed, if I read it correctly, our own EU Committee recommended something similar in its Brexit devolution report. That is what Clause 11 is intended to achieve.

Of course, the clause could have been handled differently, and I think the Government have tacitly accepted that by agreeing to amend it. As has been recognised on all sides of the Committee this evening, real progress has been made. It has already been mentioned that the Joint Ministerial Committee has agreed six principles for establishing where common frameworks are necessary. Last Wednesday’s Joint Ministerial Committee agreed that intergovernmental structure and the devolution memorandum of understanding should be reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose as we leave the EU. I think that everyone accepts that revision is overdue. The MoU was last updated in 2013 and has been under review since 2014, and some firm conclusions are now urgently required. I hope, therefore, that the Government and the Minister can help build confidence that this latest review will lead quickly to concrete results by going as far as they can to spell out the process and timetable for completing this work.

The other welcome development is the publication of the Government’s own analysis of where common legislative frameworks may be required. To date, this has been a theoretical political debate, and greater transparency can only help to stimulate a practical debate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, informed by real businesses and individuals whose livelihoods depend on trade across the UK.

The Government have now tabled their own amendments to Clause 11 and Schedule 3. Again, I welcome their willingness to go the extra mile to find a resolution. Those amendments are not just tweaks; they represent a significant rewriting of Clause 11. Yet the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales say that they still cannot give their consent to the Bill on the basis of the Government’s current amendments to Clause 11. They seek further amendments and reassurances. It is surely within the realm of possibility to bridge the remaining gap.

In the interests of striking a deal, what further reassurance can the Government provide to the devolved Administrations in the following areas? My noble and learned friend helpfully confirmed earlier that the Government anticipate that the existing consent conventions will apply for any subsequent legislation brought forward to implement common UK legislative frameworks where they engage devolved competence. Can he also confirm that the Government will observe what I might describe as a “self-denying ordinance” not to legislate pre-emptively for England in those areas where it is agreed that common UK legislative frameworks are necessary? To do otherwise would seem to defeat the objective of avoiding regulatory divergence and the very purpose of the Government’s “holding pattern”.

I ask the Government to look closely at the case that has already been made for applying a sunset clause of suitable length to Ministers’ regulation-making powers in Clause 11. This would allow sufficient time for the frameworks to be agreed while providing the devolved Administrations with the backstop safeguard against the risk of powers becoming stuck indefinitely in the holding pattern.

I conclude by saying that there are two sides to every agreement and I hope the devolved Administrations will play their part by showing a willingness to compromise as well. A number of noble Lords have tabled amendments requiring Ministers to obtain the consent or secure the agreement of the devolved Administrations before exercising their regulation-making powers under Clause 11. This seems a step too far and, as the Minister set out so clearly earlier, to go beyond the current devolution settlements. It risks turning the Sewel convention from a political commitment into a legal obligation. Let us not forget that the Sewel convention has been faithfully observed for 20 years. This would represent a significant constitutional change and would surely have implications for the sovereignty of this Parliament. It would also seemingly cross another important constitutional line, namely, as the Minister said, that one devolved institution could exercise a veto over the development of legislation affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.

I welcome the efforts the Government are making to secure a deal. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck here. All parties to the framework negotiations need similar incentives to reach agreement. Of course the devolution settlements need to be respected, but the unique responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament is to guard the interests of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—not just individually, but taken as a whole. That needs to be respected too.

[Lord Hain]

My Lords, I think that many in your Lordships’ House will welcome the interesting and constructive contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. I welcome the stance adopted by the Minister in his speech; it has made for a very different debate, as others have observed.

As the author of the 2006 Government of Wales Act, when I was the Secretary of State, I have been deeply alarmed by the Government’s high-handed approach—hitherto at least. It seems to risk reversing the deepening of devolution, which the Government have progressed in their recent legislation, ironically. The principle at stake, which I hope the Minister and the Secretary of State, David Lidington, will adopt and take forward, is that the Government must not legislate in this area, provoked by Brexit, without the consent of the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, in the sad absence of a Northern Ireland Government. I know that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames shares that frustration and sadness, as do my noble friends who represent the DUP. There is a serious crisis in Northern Ireland, which sometimes this Parliament takes too casually, to be perfectly frank, but that is another matter. If consent is not obtained, we face a real constitutional crisis, which should not be underestimated. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, spoke about the Scottish nationalists. The problem with the Government’s approach until now—I welcome the fact that it seems to have changed—is that it feeds the separatist appetite.

I observed in the first incarnation of this Bill, and to some extent in the amendments on the Marshalled List, what I saw as Secretary of State for Wales, even under the last pro-devolution Labour Government, which was what I would call the “virus of Whitehall-itis”. It was especially the case in the Home Office, but one saw it in other departments as well. The default position was that, when a new piece of legislation involving devolution was brought forward, there was a sense of needing at the official level to resist any real progression of the devolution process. As I say, that was the default position and it has crept into this Bill as well.

20:45

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I am glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the point that he has just made. It was reflected in a Constitution Committee report that came out a few years ago. We have to do more within departmental activity in terms of co-operation and cross-policy referencing between us and the devolved parliaments. The noble Lord also referred to what feeds the appetite for separatism. What feeds that appetite is the constant drip-feed of ceding further powers, which makes them hungry for still more.

[Lord Hain]

At this late hour, that is probably a debate for another occasion, but I welcome at least the first part of what the noble Lord said. As a passionate devolutionist and federalist, I believe that the unfinished business of devolution is the failure to give England a proper voice of its own at the regional level, with the exception, of course, of London. However, that is another matter.

I give a cautious welcome to the letter that I received just before coming in to the Chamber for this debate from the Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns, which has been sent to me and, I would guess, to other Welsh Peers. I shall quote part of it, because it is interesting:

“A small number of returning powers in devolved areas will need legislative frameworks in order to safeguard the UK internal market and enable the UK to strike international trade deals. These areas will be placed into a ‘temporary hold’ until the UK Government and devolved Administrations agree the detail of the framework and legislation is enacted to implement the framework”.


He goes on to make an important point:

“The consent of the devolved legislatures will of course be sought for any provisions in parliamentary Bills creating frameworks that are within devolved competence”.


In welcoming that, I stress, at the risk of repeating myself—I will not take too long about it—that until now the Welsh Government have themselves been passionately opposed to the approach of the UK Government in this area. It is not the case that this is only the Scottish Government position. The Welsh Government want to achieve an agreement and the Scottish Government have said the same. We will see in the future, but certainly the Welsh Government want agreement and they have the support of Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and, I think, some Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly. That is a serious development. In the last few days, the Welsh Assembly have been taking through its continuity Bill, but I am not sure whether it has received assent at this point. However, it has certainly taken the Bill through, which is proof of the deep concern.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the Bill received assent today.

[Lord Hain]

With the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we can put on the record the fact that the Bill has received assent. That is a serious situation. There is the potential for direct confrontation, which I hope we can avoid. I also welcome the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which deserves serious attention.

In supporting the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Stevenson, which again stress the need for consent, I want to highlight an alternative and perhaps more constitutionally appropriate way forward, which reflects a point touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It is a way forward that would not give the Government yet another wide-ranging regulation-making power. We should ensure that a schedule is appended to this Bill containing a list of areas where the Government and the devolved Administrations agree that frameworks are needed, as they are, and hence where devolved competence needs to be constrained while such frameworks are negotiated. By doing this, the Government would be able to gain the legislative consent to this Bill of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, and in future I hope the Northern Ireland Assembly, which they rightly regard as essential to avoiding a major constitutional crisis.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I welcome the proposal just made by my noble friend Lord Hain, because two versions of it have been suggested during the debate, albeit perhaps not deliberately. One would specify in the Bill or a schedule to it those areas that will be part of the competence frameworks; the other would specify those areas that were devolved, which would be counter to the devolution settlement. It is important that we specify those areas that are not devolved rather than those that are. My noble friend’s proposal is the right one. I hope that the Government will take that seriously and that the other option will not be taken forward.

[Lord Hain]

I completely agree with my noble friend; he spelled it out very clearly.

At the same time, this approach would provide transparency about the areas in which devolved competence would be affected, which is sadly lacking in the approach embodied, until now at least, in the Government’s amendments. It would also enable the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly to agree to the list of retained powers—reinforcing my noble friend’s point—through the very act of providing legislative consent to the Bill. Such an approach would thus reassure the devolved institutions that the regulation-making power proposed by the Government could not be used to specify areas of retained EU law not requiring frameworks. That is a very important point.

If the schedule idea is potentially a magic bullet, why might the Government resist it? I am informed that the first argument is that it cannot be done in time for Report. I am not sure that I buy this argument; Report does not take place until well after Easter, which is many weeks away. We are told that significant work has been done on potential framework areas and the list published recently by the Government—though not agreed with the devolved Administrations, I understand—comes fairly close to defining legally which current EU law restrictions may need to be continued while frameworks are negotiated. Surely if the Government need to specify these areas in regulations, they will need to do so sooner rather than later in any event.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Perhaps I may reinforce what the noble Lord said. He said that Report stage was still some time away. I am sure that it would be possible for the Government, if the will was there, to put down a marker at that stage and, if it needed another two weeks, to come back at Third Reading and fill in the gaps. I support him in saying that in those areas where they want a UK framework a schedule could be a constructive way forward and give reassurances.

[Lord Hain]

I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said. If it really is not possible to work up such a schedule before Report—for the reasons that he has explained, I do not see why it should be the case—might not the Government find another legislative opportunity to do so? We know that in the autumn we are likely to have to consider a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill. That might provide an opportunity, although it would be better to do it in this Bill.

The second objection that the Government might make is the need to account for unforeseen circumstances. Since Brexit appears to be a process where every stone turned over reveals yet another problem lurking beneath it, there is some validity to this argument. But if, exceptionally, a new area where a framework is required is identified even after the passage of this Bill with the proposed schedule, there is an easy solution that is wholly consistent with the approach to devolution adopted to date—namely, a power to amend the schedule by Order in Council with the express agreement of Parliament and those devolved legislatures affected. That could be included in the Bill as well.

In reality, if the Government resist this proposal, we would be right to suspect that they have an ulterior motive in wishing to press ahead with such a wide regulation-making power as that encapsulated in the current amendment, although I accept that it is about to be withdrawn. I commend to the Government the idea of putting in the Bill a list of areas agreed with the devolved Administrations—I stress, agreed—where the constraint on devolved competence will apply and ask them to consider bringing forward an amendment that does that at Report stage.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I applaud the spirit in which the Government have brought forward the amendments before the Committee this evening and the eloquence with which they were brought by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen. However, on balance I think that Amendment 318A, brought by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, has much to commend it.

There are a number of points I would like to raise in the hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen might reflect upon them before Report. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern explained, the regulation-making power in these amendments would appear to be intended to be used only where the United Kingdom Government consider that it would be necessary for the purpose of protecting the UK common market. My question therefore is: would it not be clearer if that was expressly stated in the Bill? The explanatory statement could also explain why the regulations are required for this purpose. Also, do the Government envisage the power in new Section 30A in the government amendment being used only once, or do they intend it to be used more than once? It would be helpful for the Committee to know.

Although it is stated that the regulation-making power is intended to be temporary and that Ministers are required to have regard to that fact, there is nothing presently in the Bill that expressly provides for the regulation-making power to be temporary. Would it not therefore be helpful if such a provision made that clear? I believe that that is covered in my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay’s Amendment 218A.

Does it not also make sense that the Bill be amended so that the regulations and restrictions set out therein take effect at the same time that the new Section 30A comes into force? While it is expressly stated that the regulations are subject to the affirmative consent of both Houses of Parliament, there is nothing in the amendments that expressly requires the consent, as expressed by so many noble Lords this evening, of the Scottish Parliament. This contrasts with the accepted way of making amendments to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament through an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. I respectfully ask my noble and learned friend Lord Keen that the Bill be amended to require Ministers to explain the need for regulations under new Section 30A.

On the question of consent, I was trying to help the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, earlier by stating, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, set out, that Ministers from devolved Assemblies currently sit next to the Ministers at meetings of the Council of Ministers and advisers. I also suggest that consent is currently expressly given by the devolved Assemblies and by their Ministers when the EU directives are agreed and then implemented by the devolved Assemblies. The point I was trying to make is that it is consent at both levels that is being removed.

[Lord Hain]

Sometimes devolved Ministers are there on their own.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I accept that and I stand corrected.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I absolutely endorse the description by the noble Baroness of the way consent works in that situation: whether or not devolved Ministers lead the delegation, sit on the delegation or are consulted in advance of the delegation to the Council of Ministers, it is the case that the responsibility for implementing the directives agreed transfers directly to them, not through the UK Government, and they then implement those directives. The noble Baroness is right when she says that that means that the consent is given, but it also reinforces the argument that that responsibility lies there and not through the UK Government any more—that is the result of the devolution settlement.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

That is the point I am trying to make. It may be helpful if I conclude by asking the Minister a question: he talked about all retained legislation being primary legislation—if the Committee were to agree that, would it not resolve many of the difficulties we have been discussing?

21:00

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, the veterans of devolution legislation—and I have sat through all the Acts, both Scottish and Welsh—know only too well that the architecture of devolution takes two forms: conferred powers and reserved powers. For many years, Wales had conferred powers; that is to say the power was held in the centre and handed down to the Welsh Assembly. Scotland has always had the reserved powers model, whereby it has all the powers subject to those that are retained. Clause 11, as it was originally drafted, had the flavour of the conferred powers model—namely, that powers would be taken back from Brussels and handed down piecemeal. What is so encouraging is that the Government have in this amendment put forward something that has the flavour of the reserved powers model; in other words, everything goes to the devolved legislatures, and the Government want to hold back or recover some of those powers through the machinery set out in the amendment. The essential feature of the reserved powers model is that the powers that are reserved are spelt out. That is why I support the suggestion that there should be a schedule setting out precisely what powers Ministers wish to retain or recover for the UK Government. This point was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and has been repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace.

Parliament can legislate on devolved matters, and has indeed done so, but always with consent. My amendments suggest that when the UK Government wish to bring back powers from the devolved Administrations, that ought to be with consent. We have a strong common interest in a UK single market. There will be divergence, no doubt: a Welsh Government may want to support lamb and a Scottish Government barley—I do not know what they will want to support, but there all sorts of possibilities of divergence; that is what devolution implies. But we have this strong common interest, and if we work at it and show some trust, which has been so lacking in the negotiations that have taken place so far, then we may come to a solution. That is why I protested at the attacks made upon a democratically elected Scottish Government. I have great Scottish interests and do not support the SNP in any way at all, but nevertheless the Scottish Government, rightly or wrongly, represent the voice of the Scottish people and should be treated with respect—you have to treat them with respect if you are to deal with them.

I urge the Government to take the necessary steps to put some trust into these institutions, and to try to gain the consent of the devolved Administrations for what they want to do. If ultimately consent cannot be obtained, let us have as a safeguard a mechanism such as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which resolves any disputes. Ultimately, the final decision could be left to the United Kingdom Parliament, as the noble and learned Lord’s amendment suggests, but surely there are many steps to which the devolved Administrations can and will want to consent before we ever got to that stage. I urge the Government to put consent and a positive dispute resolution mechanism into the Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I know the Committee wants to move on but I will make just a couple of brief points—in support of the Government moving on this issue; on the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness; and on the anxiety that perhaps yet again we will be making constitutional measures on a temporary basis late in the day as a result of decisions by two Executives. While we have to take the Government at their word that these will be temporary measures, many procedures in this House and many elements of our constitution started off as temporary measures but have become almost permanent features of our constitution. In the absence of some changes which will provide a sunset element, we may well be in a similar situation.

Two years ago I brought a Bill to this House for a British constitutional convention, as a result of the Scottish referendum, to try to proactively discuss some of these issues. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, said, we are where we are now with this Bill so we have to address what may be constructive ways forward. I think the contributions made so far are good suggestions for what is a very complex situation because we are extracting ourselves from a single market at the same time as seeking to create one with the powers that will be coming back from the European Union. By definition, many of those powers are designed to be cross-border.

Many elements of European legislation are as a result of international agreements that the EU itself has made to implement global agreements, such as on climate change or safety in aviation. These are complex. Interestingly, as the Government’s own framework paper shows, most of that legislation has come into place since devolution. The evolution of the markets within the European Union does not entirely predate 1999. Whether on animal welfare, safety or aviation, many have developed not only since we established devolution in the UK but since the single market has developed. These are going to be very important for our future trading relationships, not only between us and the EU but in our arrangements with third countries.

Most of those areas concern non-tariff barriers, regulations and legislation in domestic law. These are going to be relevant for every single trade agreement that the UK will negotiate and will be at the heart of our relationship with the European Union. Although I have a degree of sympathy with the Government on a temporary basis, we will have to come back not only to the legislation for the implementation period but to that for the new relationship with the European Union. That adds even more weight to the fact that the discussions taking place now will have to be time-limited.

We are also discussing blind how we would expect a framework or a common market to operate within the UK. In many respects, you would argue that we do not have that at the moment. If you drive from where I live in the Borders to London and if you are selling cigarettes or bringing animals, you will be operating under three different road traffic systems. If it was cigarettes, you might have a different packaging system in Scotland. Certainly in Scotland, not only the language of road signs but road traffic speeds are legislated for differently. We operate within many barriers. The question is how damaging those barriers would be to the functioning of the United Kingdom.

That leads on to my second point. This is not simply going to be a relationship based in law; it is also about how the different component parts of the United Kingdom will operate. Since 1999, as noble Lords have said, there have been major changes to that legislation—changes that previous UK Governments said should not be made because they would be counter to the effective operation of the United Kingdom—and Governments have changed their position, usually as a result of consensus and cross-party negotiations.

Where I did slightly disagree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, is that there have been now more than 150 LCMs in the Scottish context, and in many respects devolution has been working extremely well when you take away the rhetoric of the wider nationalistic argument. But it does show that there needs to be a degree of flexibility within this set of arrangements. That flexibility will have to come not just with a government-to-government relationship but also with the other elements that are necessary to determine how effectively a common market operates. Who provides the statistics? What is the dispute resolution mechanism? Who provides the data? We saw this in all the discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, had during negotiations on the fiscal framework between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. In the end, many of the discussions were not about the legislative element but about the non-legislative element, such as who provided the information, whether there was an independent source of data on fiscal revenue and who did the forecasting going into the future. These are all going to be very important.

Noble Lords perhaps thought I was making a glib comment in the previous discussion when I intervened on the Minister and spoke about managed divergence, but that is part of the parlance in our discussions with the European Union. We have that within the UK, and the question is how divergent we can be in the UK for that common market to operate effectively. Part of this discussion will have to be about the existing offices that consider the markets within the UK—our office for energy, our office for communications, the Competition and Markets Authority—which are now going to have to be covered.

That leads me to my final point, which in a way is to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The choices that we have made about our relationships within the UK—whether nations were consulted and whether or not consent was provided—have been addressed by our European colleagues in different ways. The noble Lord referred to consent in the German federal structure, under which the Bundesrat provides, under the constitution, a decisive opinion when the federal Government bring forward measures that would impact the interests of the Land parliaments. This House is not a federal House; the House of Commons is not a federal Chamber. We will have to have some forms of institutions which bring this together.

In the first instance, however, I strongly support this legislation and the temporary measures being time limited. We will need a schedule of the specific areas which are, in effect, reservations, because we will have to make sure that those areas are resolved before we go over to the next stage. We will be in a kingdom of divergence and will need new institutions. It is not just about frameworks, but a new relationship across them. As many noble Lords have said, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his Second Reading speech, all of this will have to be underpinned by trust. It is the non-legislative relationships which in many respects will be more important than the legislative relationships in this Bill, in the next Bill, in the final agreement Bill and in all the different measures that come subsequent to it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly indeed, in strong support of the government amendments, to make one observation and one point.

My observation follows on from something that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said in his speech concerning the memorandum of understanding. The current memorandum of understanding, which is dated October 2013, is only a draft—it was never finally signed off. Since that date, of course, we have had the Scottish referendum and very serious Bills in this House that have given more and more powers to the devolved Administrations. I have said before in this House, as others have, that it is frankly not fit for the purpose of acting as the constitutional glue that the structure it controls should be. A well-functioning memorandum of understanding would breed a healthy atmosphere and the ability for the differing nations of the United Kingdom to talk together. Instead of the C words that we have been discussing today, “consult” and “consent”, there may even emerge—from my experience of international companies, where quite often you have the French arguing with the Germans or whatever—a third C word, “consensus”, which would be enormously helpful in this situation. My observation is that this situation is much to be regretted, and I hope the Government are going to put a lot of weight behind getting it resolved and getting a proper memorandum of understanding structure sorted out so that we are not in the position that we are in today where we have a fractious and pretty horrible discussion going on about these issues.

21:15

I move on to my one point, which is about the ability of the devolved parliaments to exercise the powers. I have spent quite a lot of today, which has been long and interesting, looking at this wonderful frameworks analysis. I congratulate whoever has prepared it because it has taken a lot of work. It sets out very clearly what is being handed out and what is being discussed, so that one is not talking about the numbers of policy areas but one actually has an idea about what those areas are.

I am lucky enough to be on the European Union Select Committee. Last year we had serious visits discussing these issues to both Cardiff and Edinburgh. They were very helpful days in both places, and we made a lot of progress and eventually produced our devolution report, which several noble Lords have referred to in the debates today. What is always interesting at these events is what happens in the margins, and on both these days the margins were at lunch. In Wales, the discussion at lunch focused very much on the shortage of numbers of Members of the Assembly—I think there were only 56—so they simply did not have the capacity to look at legislation in the way that they would like to. That was an interesting discussion and it lodged in my mind. I worry terribly; I think this House has responsibility to have regard to whether the structures to which we are trying to give powers have the ability reasonably to exercise them. We must have regard to that when we make our decisions.

I turn to what happened at lunch in Edinburgh. There we were entertained by the Presiding Officer, and the conversation came around to whether or not the Edinburgh Parliament should have a second Chamber so that it could look in detail at legislation. Again, the conversation was about resource shortages and the lack of ability of the Scottish Parliament to properly exercise the powers that it had been given.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Earl may know that the Scottish Parliament rejected my suggestion that it should have a house of lairds.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

I did. I will send my job application in.

I feel that we must have regard to that issue. I have been through the document pretty carefully, and I feel—this is why my support for the government amendments is so strong—that a good balance has been struck in those amendments regarding the point that I have just made. There is a chance that the devolved assemblies can exercise those powers properly, but if we tip too many in then I feel we will be letting down the citizens of Wales and Scotland.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

Before the noble Earl sits down, I would like to pick up the point that was made to him at lunch. He will be aware that when the Scottish Parliament was established, a great deal of store was set by the form of the committee system, which it was hoped would be independent and would provide the kind of scrutiny that a second Chamber would afford. I do not think it is challengeable that the committee system has unfortunately become very political, to the extent that it is very difficult for Members on the committee to strike the kind of independence that we sometimes see in Select Committees in the other place and here. A consequence is that an effort to introduce a principle of “holding to account” has not been maintained in the way that it was in the beginning. If that continues, it makes the case for a second revising opportunity—I do not describe it as a Chamber—overwhelming.

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making a jolly good point very well. At the lunch, that was hinted at, with rather less force. I wholly accept his reasoning and agree with what he said.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I join many noble Lords in congratulating the Government on the way they have handled this issue and reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: I have not seen any such movement from any Government in my time here in terms of trying to reach out to the points being made and accommodate them. That is terrific; long may it last. The test will be whether the noble and learned Lord in fact withdraws his amendment before the end of tonight—but I trust him in this case.

I also think that the idea of a probing government amendment is pretty good. It is nice to know that there is an open mind on the other side, and no better way of showing it than saying: “We haven’t got the faintest idea here, but here’s something you might want to consider and discuss and we will listen hard and take away the best bits”. It is good in the sense that it builds trust and engages debate. We have had a terrific debate—possibly a little overlong, but it has been very interesting—and I am sure that many points will take us forward. I recognise that the idea of probing your own ideas may not work unless we can actually come up with some ideas, so it behoves us all to think very hard about the advice that we want to give to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues.

What do we want? There are five things that I would like to see in revised amendments. We should be looking for an agreed amendment among the various interests around the House as much as possible. There has been enough evidence about where the central points are—we may differ on the nuances, but there is enough there. It would be really good if we could have some informal discussions and meetings before Report—and Third Reading, if it goes that far. By that stage, I hope that we will have a firmer view of what we are going to do in Northern Ireland. I agree that the situation is beyond the power of this House to do anything about, but it is a real gap when we are trying to address our longer-term constitutional position. If we have nothing to say, that says more about us than about the situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be taken into account.

My first point is a negative. The Bill has raised debates, ideas and thoughts that are really important, but they are far too time-rich and need more discussion before they go into the Bill. The Bill is at heart limited to ensuring that we have a legal framework if and when we leave the EU—as the noble and learned Lord said, a fully functioning statute book. We are wrong to try to overload it with too much. I hope that, in offering our advice either privately or in meetings, we will focus on the minimum necessary to get the Bill on the statute book in a way that will be effective and efficient, and will achieve what we are trying to do.

On the other hand, the debate should not be curtailed by the question of what is and what is not in the Bill. We must accept—some noble Lords were ahead of me on this point—that transfers of this amount of responsibility to admittedly mature Parliaments and Assemblies will start a new chapter in the devolution story, and it would be remiss of this House if we did not think through some of the implications of that.

I have no particular remedies here, but it is inconceivable that the current arrangements, under which we determine through a Board of Trade how we conduct trade policy, can accommodate the new arrangements. They will have to be expanded and thought through again. We will have to think about how we deal with treaties and how our ongoing relationship with the EU and its regulatory and other official operations will continue in a devolved situation where trade responsibility and policy is at a level other than national. There may well be a set of rules that will accommodate that. They will not fit into this Bill, but they need to be considered as we go forward.

We have to think also much wider—certainly much wider than this idea that somehow this paves the way to independence for any or all of the parts of the United Kingdom. We have to think about the opportunities that will exist as these things are devolved in terms of such matters as what happens to state aid rules when they are changed. This will raise a lot of concern and interest much more widely than in this House. We will do ourselves a disservice if we do not take that into account as we think this through. For the moment, though, let us think very narrowly about this Bill.

At the heart of it, we want an agreement that, on the face of the Bill, the underlying principle in play is that everything is devolved unless it is reserved. We also want a clear understanding of why certain things are reserved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave a very good example of one way into this argument by saying that it was a question of when powers were in consideration which applied in more than one geographical area; however, I put it to him and to the Ministers who are working on this that this is not quite the full story. If you look at the note on the common frameworks that accompanied the full list of them, it goes much deeper than that. These are principles, as I understand it and as I think the noble and learned Lord confirmed, that were agreed by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments at a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee in October 2017, so they are not in dispute. The principles make clear that,

“common frameworks will be established where they are necessary in order to: … enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence;”

—the coda about “acknowledging policy divergence” is really important, and we need to know more about that—

“ensure compliance with international obligations;”

—I think that is fairly clear—

“ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties;”

—I have already said I do not know whether that will necessarily be the only way into that debate—

“enable the management of common resources;”

and then two rather important issues that we have not touched on but that surely have to lie at the heart of this:

“administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element;”

and,

“safeguard the security of the UK”.

It has always been the case that national security is the primary concern of all governments, but surely that plus the geographical “bite”, as indicated by the noble and learned Lord, give us—together with the other points I have raised—a much richer context within which the decision to reserve an item can be placed. It is important that this is on the face of the Bill. That is the key issue. There must not be a sense that something has been hidden or held back. We have to be open and trust those who are concerned about this that this will be the way forward. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to confirm that this is an issue that he might look at with some sympathy, because I think it will be the key to it.

I also think, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and others, that we should see the 24 policy areas included as a Schedule to the Bill. The point made by my noble friend Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale is very important: we are talking about those things that will have to be reserved for a reason. We should list them, and we should also understand the reasons why they are reserved.

There are two smaller points—in the sense that they are less full of implications; they are still very important—that I will tag on to the end of this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a number of points that will need to be picked up and that we must not forget, because the change to the existing Clause 11 will affect other aspects of the area. He made that point well. There have also been calls from all around the House for a sunset clause, which I absolutely support. That is the right thing to do. If that all comes together, however—and I think we are confident that it is possible—what we are signing up to is an agreement to agree on process, but that agreement will be able to get the consent of the devolved Administrations. That combination is vital to the way forward, and I recommend it very strongly to the Ministers.

Finally, if we are going to avoid the veto problem, which I think is a real issue that we have not really bottomed out, we are going to need a dispute resolution mechanism. There is no doubt about that. You cannot just go into this hoping that it will somehow be all right on the night. We need to know what happens when one area, for whatever reason—whether it is a political reason or truly an issue of conscience—wants to put down a veto and hold out. I do not think there has been any dispute, but we have not said it enough: at the end of the day the UK Parliament has to have a backstop power to legislate in cases that meet the criteria for why things are reserved. I think we should keep saying that until it has become part of the fabric of our lives. It is not said enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, mentioned.

But we also need to achieve the consent that is necessary to establish the agreements that will underpin trust and support for this in the long run. I absolutely think that the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has something in that regard. I am grateful that the Minister has said that he will take this away; we need to workshop it—what we should have is a hackathon—in order to work out together where we might go with it.

[Noble Lords]

Minister.

21:30

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, are you sure? I do not think there is any need to rush this. We have covered a lot of ground and we have a lot more ground to cover now.

This amendment was put forward as a catalyst, and there has been a reaction. I leave others to judge whether it was contained or uncontained. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, just observed, this is not the vehicle for major constitutional change in the United Kingdom. If we attempt to bolt that on to this Bill, it will sink without trace. Some may prefer that that should happen; nevertheless, that is not a sensible way forward. I am obliged to all those who have contributed to this debate, because it was our intention in putting forward this amendment to judge the mood of the Committee with regard to the quite radical change and approach that we have taken with this proposed amendment. It may be that I approach the matter with an open mind; it may be that I approach it with an empty mind; but at the end of the day we will have to make a decision that works for the whole of the United Kingdom.

I will take up one or two points. There is an appreciation—it may not be universal, but it is almost universal—of recognising the benefits of maintaining a single market in the United Kingdom. We already enjoy that single market by virtue of our membership of the EU, and it is something we want to retain after we leave the EU. In order to do that, there has to be agreement in principle as to the areas that underpin such a single market. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, alluded to the principles set out in the Joint Ministerial Committee minute of 16 October 2017. That is essentially what underpins our seeking agreement; there was consensus. That is what we need to do.

Ultimately, if we are to have a single market for the United Kingdom, we require a body to have jurisdiction over that single market. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others have acknowledged, that ultimately has to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no other way of addressing that issue. If we look to the issue of consent, rather than consultation, let us be clear that it is not a question of trust but of constitutional propriety. If we have a black and white, sharp-edged consent mechanism for the devolved Administrations, then we have the basis for what has been termed the veto problem. We have the situation in which, beyond the existing devolved competence, any one of these Assemblies could—it is at that level that it must be judged; not would, but could—proceed to legislate within its devolved competence in a manner that impacted upon those in another country within the United Kingdom, whether it be England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We cannot go down that road. That would be a fundamental change in the devolved competence that we created in, and have indeed developed since, 1998.

It appears that we have, at times, merged two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, apart from criticising Ministers for not getting on and doing any work on this, pointed out that there had to be a breathing space. Indeed, that point was developed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, when he quoted the letter from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Just to put that into context—and if I may briefly go back to a point I made in an earlier part of the debate—the first stage of this process is to identify those competences coming back from the EU that will be required to operate a single market in the United Kingdom and to effectively ring-fence them on a temporary basis; thus the breathing space that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred to.

That is all that is involved in the first stage. That process has carried on in great detail since the principles were established last October. It has been the work of officials not only in Whitehall but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. They have all come together to do what is termed in Civil Service-speak as “deep dives” into these matters. The product has now been published. It is the table that identifies 24 areas where it is considered there will have to be some temporary ring-fencing so that we can establish the next stage of the process for the single market—the framework agreements that will then form the basis for that single market.

Let us be clear: that is a separate stage. The ring-fencing is merely to hold those competences for the time required to put the framework agreements in place. We have agreed the principles on which the competences can be identified, and we have now carried out a process that identifies those competences. There is an element of disagreement about that, but only in two or three areas, so far as the Scottish Government are concerned. State aid is one of them. We regard it, for reasons I find fairly obvious, as a reserved competence, but they say it touches on a devolved competence. We will therefore have to address that, and potentially have a framework agreement in those areas as well. That is why there are a further 12 areas of competence that we are confident are in reserved areas, but which may be open to debate. None the less, there is a very substantial element of agreement on the ring- fencing.

Now let me go to the next stage. We then require the framework agreements. To the extent that those agreements will be implemented by primary legislation—it is anticipated that in many of the areas that will be the case—the primary legislation will be carried on in accordance with the constitutional conventions that we already have, and with the respect for the devolved settlement that we have always shown in the past. That includes the Sewel convention as now expressed in the Scotland Act 2016, which amended the Scotland Act 1998. It also includes those areas where, pursuant to DGN 10, such matters will touch upon the competence of Scottish Ministers.

That is where we seek the true element of consent—but ultimately, of course, if we cannot get agreement, we have the Sewel convention. Normally we proceed with the consent of the devolved assemblies, and that remains the position. That is the political understanding that underpins the devolved settlement, and has done for a very long time.

Can we just remove that dichotomy of consultation or consent? I know that within some Administrations, for reasons we do not have to explore, there is a determination to push for consent. Consent, as such, is constitutionally very difficult; I indulge in understatement when I say that. But there is still room for agreement, and the process overall should result in what somebody termed consensus—that is, a belief that we are all doing the same thing for the same reasons, with an expectation of the same result. That involves an understanding of what these frameworks are.

It has been suggested that the 24 areas of competence that require to be ring-fenced on a temporary basis should be expressed in a schedule to the Bill. I hear what is said about that, but whether it can practically be done in the context of the Bill may be another matter. As was observed, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that may have to be expressed elsewhere. We can look at that, but in the first instance we have to understand what needs to be ring-fenced for the purposes of the framework agreements.

A sunset clause has been suggested, and I have already expressed a view about that. Clearly, we are listening to the idea that a sunset clause might run for five years. But the more we have gone on about this, the more we realise that what it all comes down to is two questions. One: can we have an appropriate forum in which to negotiate agreement with the devolved legislatures? Yes; that has been carried on in the joint ministerial committees. They have been criticised, but they have been successful, as can be seen by the agreement in principle in respect of these matters. Can we achieve that? The answer is yes.

Secondly, can we then express, in a manner that will satisfy the devolved Administrations, what the framework agreements will be? The answer to that is again yes because we will follow the normal and usual constitutional principles that involve embracing the Sewel convention in cases where primary legislation is required.

I hope that goes some way to reassure noble Lords that we are making progress here because underneath the concern about consent versus consultation there has been considerable movement. We not only have the principles that we will apply to the ring-fencing of competences but we will also have the means to bring forward framework agreements in a manner that will satisfy the devolved competence, as I say. It may be that it will go beyond the 24 areas already identified but work can continue on that matter. What is ultimately of importance is that we retain the means for uniformity of regulation in those critical areas that touch on the principles enunciated in October 2017. That is what has to be achieved. There may be more than one road but ultimately they all lead to Rome, and that is where we want to be at the end of the day, so with that—

[Lord Newby (LD)]

They go to Brussels.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the roads do not go to Brussels any more. However, he is welcome to go and hack a path there, if he wishes. With that, I seek to withdraw the government amendment.

Amendment 302B (to Amendment 302A) withdrawn.

Amendments 302C to 302G (to Amendment 302A) not moved.

Amendment 302A withdrawn.

Amendments 303 and 304 not moved.

Amendment 304A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.43 pm.