House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
The UK is taking a leading role in ending the illegal wildlife trade globally. The Government are funding practical action to reduce demand, strengthen enforcement and develop sustainable livelihoods in the communities affected by the illegal wildlife trade. We will host an ambitious high-level international conference in October to push for further progress.
Julian Knight
Does the Minister agree that it is often the same criminal groups involved in the illegal wildlife trade who smuggle drugs, people-traffic and commit other nefarious acts? Does that not demonstrate why it is right that we do all we can to tackle them head on?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that organised crime is attracted to the illegal wildlife trade, as it is attracted to others such as the drug trade and human trafficking. That is why this is a transnational problem, and why the world must work together to end this terrible crime.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that having the right forensic evidence in place is crucial. Indeed, many of the projects that the UK is supporting worldwide are using that expertise to get the right forensics, so that the criminals can be prosecuted and these crimes can be tackled worldwide.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister will know that this is an important international issue, but the products also land in the United Kingdom. What discussions is she having with the Home Office to ensure that we raise the level of fines for those in receipt of illegal wildlife material in this country?
Harriett Baldwin
The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it is crucial that we work to tackle this illegal trade right across the Government, not only with the Home Office but with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to ensure that we consult on further restrictions on this trade.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of the pitiful sight of the last remaining species of some wildlife disappearing from our planet for ever. What steps are being taken to ensure that that is not replicated, particularly across the continent of Africa?
Harriett Baldwin
The whole world was shocked by the case of Sudan, the last male northern white rhino. He was the last of the species. This shows the absolute urgency for the world to act together to tackle this illegal crime, which is why it is so important that we host the international conference in October.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The passing of Sudan marks not only the ending of that species; we could see the end of many other species in Africa and other countries if we do not take the lead and show the world what we are doing. I have been campaigning to stop elephants disappearing, as my hon. Friend is aware. Can we make sure that we take the lead in the world?
Harriett Baldwin
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her remarkable track record of campaigning on this issue. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that, according to the Living Planet Index, global populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012. It is therefore crucial that, as a world, we work together to tackle this terrible crime.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On average, the UK Border Force seized 130 kg of illegally trafficked ivory in the years from 2013 to 2016, but in 2017 the figure fell to 40 kg. Is that because the trade is shrinking or because the Government are not catching as much?
Harriett Baldwin
It is testament to the incredibly important work that is done by the UK Border Force and the work that we do through the National Crime Agency overseas. In Côte d’Ivoire recently, I saw the work that we are doing with the police force on this worldwide phenomenon. We need to work together internationally to tackle this heinous crime.
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Following the abhorrent chemical attack in Salisbury, I have had a number of discussions with counterparts across the EU, the US and elsewhere, which has helped to foster an unprecedented, robust, international response to this reckless Russian act.
James Brokenshire
I commend my right hon. Friend for that approach. President Putin and the Russian Government should be in no doubt about the resolute response of the UK and our international allies to what remains a brazen and utterly repugnant act on UK soil. Given that we will need to continue to work with our allies, will he ensure that Russian intelligence officers, expelled from one country, will be denied entry into other countries? Will he also ensure that international co-operation is strengthened to trace tainted funds, enhance cyber-resilience and support criminal investigations into the deaths of Russian citizens in the UK and elsewhere?
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One of the conclusions that we can draw from the 23 countries who chose to expel diplomats or people whose presence was not conducive to the public good, as they say, is the importance that they attach to co-operation with our security services. He should be in no doubt that that co-operation will intensify in the months and years ahead.
Alan Brown
Although Scotland suffered a self-inflicted withdrawal from the World cup, many fans will still travel from Scotland to the tournament, as will thousands of England fans. Following the expulsion of UK diplomats from Russia, has the Foreign Secretary approached any EU colleagues to ask for additional consular assistance to be made available to the UK citizens who travel?
Boris Johnson
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We have not yet sought extra consular assistance from any other European country, and we are content with the arrangements that we have at the moment. The onus is clearly on the Russian authorities to honour their FIFA contract in full and to ensure that Scottish fans and all UK fans have a safe, enjoyable tournament.
Toby Perkins
I welcome both the domestic and international unanimity on this issue. Now that the Government support the Magnitsky Act, may I encourage the Foreign Secretary to do all that he can to learn from the Americans about how they have been able to prosecute the people who were exposed by Sergei Magnitsky? The UK is the only country that has not started criminal proceedings against such people.
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, an amendment will be made to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill on Report, and work is going on across the Chamber to get that right. We hope that that will make it even easier for our law enforcement agencies to prosecute such people. They already have such powers, and it is important that they are allowed to get on with their job without political interference.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the foreign service, the intelligence services and all those others involved in putting together this exceptional coalition? Does he agree that international institutions need strengthening against Russia’s constant infiltration? Will he take steps to examine what might be done at the UN, the World Bank and the IMF to strengthen their resources against such infiltration?
Boris Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend, who will know that we have enjoyed strong support, not just bilaterally but multilaterally, for our explanation of what happened at Salisbury. We had the NATO statement and the statements by our friends in the UN Security Council, and the EU ambassador to Russia has also been recalled.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Boris Johnson
I am afraid I must correct the hon. Lady. The UK may be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe, and we remain unconditionally committed to the security of our friends and partners. As she will know, we secured strong support from the EU both institutionally and bilaterally, but it is worth observing that not every EU member chose to withdraw—expel—diplomats. Many of them did, however, and that is a good omen for the future.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international response to the Salisbury incident demonstrates the enduring value, reliance and quality of our NATO alliance?
Boris Johnson
I do; I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. NATO was one of the very first off the blocks with a powerful statement, which a lot of people then echoed.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I too congratulate the Government on bringing together a strong, impressive and co-ordinated international response to the Russian threat, but does it not point out the need for the Government to plug the gaps in the defence budget that have been identified? We really need to match our words with our actions.
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which was raised many times in last night’s debate. As he knows, the Government are one of the biggest defence spenders in the whole European area, and the second biggest player in NATO. We remain committed to spending more than 2% of our GDP on defence.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, contrary to what some Opposition Members have just suggested, despite Brexit we will have strong foreign policy relations around the world?
Boris Johnson
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has said that, because I think that the events of the past few days have vindicated that very point. The contrast is very striking between the rather tepid response to the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and the overwhelming global response we have seen in the past few days.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of calls across the House, including from the Scottish National party group leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), to tackle some of the financial measures, and that is very important. What conversations has he had with his counterparts about specific measures that might be taken?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will know that under the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which came in last April, there is provision for unexplained wealth orders to be made against those whose assets might have been corruptly or illicitly obtained, and he can be in no doubt that the National Crime Agency and the national economic crime centre are looking intently at what avenues to explore. However, I stress that this is not something for political direction or control; we in this country operate under the rule of law.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At the end of an excellent debate on Russia yesterday, I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary failed to answer a single one of the dozens of questions he was asked over the course of four hours, so may I repeat just two of them? First, will the Government now initiate a case against the Russian state at the European Court of Human Rights for its clear extraterritorial violation of human rights in relation to the Salisbury attack?
Boris Johnson
I believe that the right hon. Lady has legal training. We must wait for the investigation to be concluded.
Emily Thornberry
I do not really understand that answer, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give it some consideration. After all, a third of all cases currently before the Court relate to Russia, and its rulings have been used by leading opposition figures, such as Alexei Navalny, to send a powerful message about the Russian state’s abuses.
Let me ask a second question that the Foreign Secretary failed to answer yesterday. Given the justified criticism of Donald Trump and Jean-Claude Juncker for congratulating President Putin on his re-election, will the Government guarantee, for the sake of consistency, that they will not congratulate President Sisi of Egypt on his sham re-election when it is confirmed next week?
Boris Johnson
If I may say so, I think that it is a bit much to bash America and the Trump Administration today, as much as that is the right hon. Lady’s instinctive reflex. The United States has just led the world in expelling 60 Russian spies. If she had an ounce of grace, she might concede that that was a very considerable gesture in the right direction. As for any future elections that might take place, we do not anticipate the outcome of any election.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
We make clear our concerns about Iran’s destabilising regional activity, ballistic missile programme and support for the Houthis in Yemen. Increased dialogue, such as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Tehran in December and my hosting of Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi last month, enables us to engage Iran on these challenging issues.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for that response. Since the nuclear deal was signed some three years ago, Iran’s hard-liners have benefited from sanctions relief and the country has tested at least 23 ballistic missiles, while human rights abuses have continued unabated and Iran continues to finance terrorist proxies and regimes in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, so does the Minister agree that the nuclear deal has not yet curbed Iran’s regional aggression, and how does his Department intend to rectify that?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman’s question neatly encapsulates the dilemma in relation to Iran and its future. On the one hand, it has adhered to the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—to that extent, that issue of the development of a nuclear weapons capability is being dealt with—but on the other hand Iran’s activity still causes great concern. We do engage with Iran directly on those issues and they are known in the region. We believe there are better ways for Iran to demonstrate its relationship with the rest of the region, and we look forward to that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Iran is indeed fomenting terror in the region, with funding for the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, and through propping up the Assad regime in Syria. Have Iran’s efforts in this direction increased or reduced since we re-established diplomatic relations in September 2016?
Alistair Burt
What the re-establishment of diplomatic relationships has meant is that we have the ability to engage Iran directly and clearly on some of the matters my hon. Friend has stated.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What recent dialogue has the Minister or officers had on human rights, particularly the position of women, in Iran?
Alistair Burt
The method of engagement with Iran enables these things to be dealt with very directly, although not always publicly. In pressing the case for a better human rights relationship in Iran, both among its people and involving those from outside, our statement of beliefs is clear, and I am sure the direct engagement is always helpful.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Just last month, Iran dispatched an advanced drone into Israel’s airspace from Syria, which led to a serious confrontation between Israel and Iran, and provoked a concerning escalation in tension throughout the region. Does the Minister share my concern at these events and will he join me in condemning Iran for its bellicose actions, which must be contained?
Alistair Burt
Yes. One or two direct instances of activities by Iran cause great concern, bearing in mind the risk of miscalculation and confrontation in the region. Whether we are talking about the United Nations panel of experts looking at materials that have been fired from Yemen into Riyadh or the drone incursion, these things make it very difficult for Iran to establish the sort of relationships it needs with those around it, and it has to reconsider that sort of activity.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that cyber- attacks by rogue states are on the rise. This week, Iran has been reported to have launched a cyber-attack on British universities. Does he have any comment to make about that?
Alistair Burt
I do not have any direct comment on that, but clearly cyber- attacks directed against the UK, whether from external entities to states or from states, are not acceptable to the UK.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
Never let it be said that my hon. Friend does not have his finger on the pulse of his constituents. I am sure they talk of little other than the OECD in the Stockbrokers Arms in Harpenden. This country is a founding member of the OECD, and I am pleased to confirm our strong links with it, which will continue to go from strength to strength after Brexit. I visited the OECD in Paris earlier in the month, when I reiterated our firm support for the visionary future programme.
Mr Speaker
I am glad the Minister does not underestimate the sophistication and cerebral quality of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents—that is very important.
Bim Afolami
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall take this back to the Stockbrokers Arms in Harpenden this evening. Will the Minister expand further on what the Government have been doing within the OECD to build up bilateral relationships within that multilateral organisation, to prove that this country is still at the forefront of international institutions?
Mark Field
I should point out that I was in no way saying anything untoward about Harpenden, which is indeed the most middle-class, and probably Tory-voting, town in the whole UK. [Interruption.] Dear, oh dear. As I am sure Opposition Front Benchers will be well aware, the OECD has a crucial role to play in global regulation, enabling trade and investment and driving forward a number of important G20 initiatives. In the coming months, we expect to have a renewed commitment from the OECD and its members to continue to open global markets, particularly through the trade in services, and to explore new issues, including digital trade.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Minister will note that Hove is also middle class—it used to vote Tory, too.
In its last economic survey, the OECD said:
“In case Brexit gets reversed by political decision…the positive impact on growth would be significant.”
Does not that show that the Government’s current Brexit policy is not driving us closer to the OECD but driving us apart?
Mark Field
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that way, but I am pleased that the OECD is an important issue in Hove, too. When I saw the secretary-general, he assured me that UK-OECD co-operation is strong and vibrant. Naturally, we talked about Brexit-related issues and the feeling was that we had an important ongoing role to play post Brexit. Above all, what struck me was just how valued the United Kingdom remains in institutions such as the OECD. We will continue to do important work on anti-corruption—for example, in south-east Asia, for which I have ministerial responsibility, we will continue to strengthen the anti-corruption initiatives.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will the Government assure me that, as we evolve our relationship with the OECD, it will not be to the detriment of our supporting the British overseas territories, particularly in relation to development?
Mark Field
Very much so. I have been struck by the initiatives within the OECD, which is a 35-member strong organisation, with another half dozen countries wishing to join it. There is a recognition that global trade requires a sense of global protocols, and I think that that would apply to the overseas territories just as much as it does to the OECD’s existing members.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I am delighted that, as a result of conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was able last week to announce the creation of 250 new diplomatic positions and 10 new sovereign posts, which means that for the first time in years this country has the most sovereign posts of any European diplomatic service, and more than France.
Patrick Grady
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can tell us how many of those diplomats are going to be stationed in far-off places such as Camden. More specifically, will he tell us how many are going to be stationed in Brussels and how much these new unelected Brussels bureaucrats are going to cost the public purse?
Boris Johnson
Perhaps I should have said that those 250 new diplomatic posts are in addition to the 50 extra diplomatic positions that we are putting into our European network.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Is there a possibility of using some of the Brexit dividend to further expand our diplomatic posts, particularly in the Commonwealth?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend anticipates developments that may unfold in the next couple of months. I do not wish to steal my own thunder, though, so he will have to contain his impatience on that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Wait till you hear what I have got to say!
There will be no Brexit dividend. The question is how we will be able to find the resources for these posts around the world, where we will have to do more bilateral work, rather than less. Is that not the reality? Is it not a fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recent report pointed out that half the 50 so-called improved posts were actually smoke and mirrors?
Boris Johnson
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense. There are 50 new posts in the European network and, in case he missed my earlier answer, 250 more globally. That allows us to have 10 whole new postings—legations, missions, embassies—around the world and will take the representation of this country to the biggest of any European power. That is a fact of which the House should be proud.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I hope that those 250 posts may have been partly the product of the continued reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament about the utter paucity of resources for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, given the task that it now faces in presenting global Britain. How much more revenue money has my right hon. Friend been given to fund those posts?
Boris Johnson
I thank the Foreign Affairs Committee, in all its incarnations, for the support that it has given to the cause of more money for the Foreign Office. The figure that my hon. Friend is asking for is £90 million.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
British-Polish relations are excellent and go from strength to strength. We enjoy a strategic partnership that is broad and diverse. The most recent milestone in the relationship was the second UK-Poland civil society Belvedere forum. May I say, Mr Speaker, that we remember with deep respect the Polish citizen who died in Harlow after a violent attack in 2016?
Robert Halfon
Will my right hon. Friend recognise the suffering of the Poles from Nazism and communism; their efforts, through the extraordinary Warsaw Jewish museums, to build relations with the Jewish community; and their prompt action in expelling Russian diplomats? Will he do everything possible to build relations between Britain and Poland and encourage our education system to recognise the Polish contribution to the United Kingdom?
Sir Alan Duncan
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. We all have the utmost respect for the significant contribution that the 1 million Poles living in the UK make to our society. He has been very supportive of his own local Polish community and his constituents fully recognise that. May I say on this occasion that we would like to thank the Polish Government for their full and vocal support for the United Kingdom following the attack in Salisbury?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Women’s rights are human rights and they include reproductive rights. Poland already has some of the most draconian abortion laws in Europe, with illegal and potentially unsafe abortions estimated to be in the tens of thousands each year. This weekend, we saw thousands take to the streets to protest against a further crackdown. What representations have Ministers made to their Polish counterparts about these worrying laws and how are the Government promoting reproductive rights, including access to safe terminations, more widely?
Sir Alan Duncan
I recognise what the hon. Lady says but, obviously, countries across Europe have different laws on abortion. However, where they breach the sort of human rights that she is describing, we will, of course, always make representations when we meet Ministers from other countries.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in recognising the contribution made by the million Poles, particularly those who served with RAF pilots and mechanics on the Spitfire in Birmingham? Will he apologise to the community for treating the rights of EU citizens in the UK as bargaining chips during the negotiations on our exit from the European Union?
Sir Alan Duncan
It is with deep regret that I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he belittles the respect that we have for the Polish community. I have a significant Polish community in my own constituency, in Melton Mowbray, and their contribution during the war remains deeply recognised and appreciated.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
The security situation in Afghanistan remains challenging as recent terrorist attacks have highlighted. It is clear that a political and diplomatic settlement is the only way to achieve lasting, sustainable peace. We warmly welcome President Ghani’s recent offer to the Taliban of talks without preconditions. As I made clear at the UN Security Council in January, the UK’s enduring commitment to Afghanistan is unwavering.
Daniel Kawczynski
Bearing in mind the extraordinary sacrifices that our country has made over many years in terms of the lost lives of our military personnel and the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that have been spent trying to bring peace to this country, we are clearly very interested in ongoing political developments. What additional help is my right hon. Friend giving to the Afghanistan Government to bring about a political settlement in that country?
Mark Field
As I have said, the Taliban cannot win militarily and therefore a political settlement is the only way to achieve that sustainable peace. Through the Prime Minister’s own special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have participated in a range of meetings. Any peace process will, inevitably, take time. One thing that I have been particularly encouraged by is the sense that a number of central Asian states—Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan—are looking to play an important part in economic development in Afghanistan. Without that economic development, there will not be the progress that we so dearly want.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I very much welcome the additional money that is going to the Foreign Office and congratulate the Foreign Secretary on achieving that. Can he explain why the number of posts in Afghanistan will be falling? Will he reverse the decision that was initially set out? Why is he setting out priorities that put Chad over other places? Will he explain the prioritisation that he is intending to use for these additional missions?
Mark Field
Obviously, when we had thousands of troops in Afghanistan there was a very, very large diplomatic presence. Yes, it is true to say that that presence has reduced somewhat, although having visited Kabul myself last October, it is very evident that we have a lot of very hard-working diplomats on the ground. The other point, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, is that inevitably, because we are ensconced in Kabul rather than having a presence in parts of Helmand region, there is perhaps less need for the overall numbers within Afghanistan. It is also important to point out that we are looking across the globe. I look particularly, in the region for which I have ministerial responsibility, at places such as the Pacific islands, where we work very closely with Australia and New Zealand to try to increase our head count, and at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I discussed Afrin with the Turkish Government last week in Ankara, and stressed the importance of humanitarian assistance and protection for civilians. We welcome the progress made against Daesh in Syria. However, violence continues across the country and the humanitarian situation is dire. None of these challenges can be sufficiently tackled without progress on a political solution under the UN Geneva process.
Ann Clwyd
As the Minister knows, it is often said that the Kurds “have no friends but the mountains”. Many times in this Chamber we have praised the Peshmerga and the bravery of the Syrian Kurds in taking on ISIS. Are we going to abandon them to the Turks? What more can we do?
Alistair Burt
Apart from changing the aphorism to include the right hon. Lady as a friend of the Kurds as well, I would say that the situation there is complex between the various parties. We recognise the concerns that Turkey has about terrorism against its borders, but we have been very clear in stressing that there should be a de-escalation and a political settlement of the issues that affect it.
Alistair Burt
As I indicated, the conversations I had in Ankara last week covered humanitarian assistance and the need to be able to get in to provide that, although the situation remains one of some risk. Afrin has a number of improvised explosive devices and booby traps, which has made progress and humanitarian access difficult. I made very clear the concerns about both humanitarian assistance and the protection of civilians in any ongoing incursion in the area. We stress the need for a de-escalation as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker
I call Bambos Charalambous. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask a question. I would not want him to be afflicted by shyness and reticence.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I will wait for a later question.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
If the objective is to roll back Daesh, then surely the Kurdish community have done that more than any other. Is not what Turkey is doing therefore counterproductive to that objective? Is that something that we should expect from a so-called NATO ally?
Alistair Burt
I made the point very clearly that progress against Daesh must continue and that there should be no risk of forces being diverted in order to deal with other issues, rather than continue the pressure on Daesh. The Turkish Government are well aware of this risk but stress the importance of dealing with terrorism. There should be a different settlement with other aspects of the Kurdish community, which must be included in an overall settlement in relation to the future structure of Syria.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Earlier this month the Syrian crisis entered its eighth year. Are we getting any nearer to an international solution?
Alistair Burt
I wish I could say yes, but that would not be entirely correct. The efforts being made by Staffan de Mistura, whom I also spoke to over the weekend, deserve our full commendation and support, but it is a difficult process. On the ground, there is the determination of the regime and its allies to continue their attacks against both the civilian population and others in the enclaves and areas that they are attacking now. If the regime would co-operate fully with the Geneva process, which it should do, these attacks could end instantly and the political process could be changed overnight.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It was simply appalling to see the victorious militias backed by Turkey rampaging around Afrin, looting shops and houses, and tearing down the city’s Kurdish cultural heritage. May I ask the Minister what that vandalism has to do with what the Foreign Secretary described as Turkey “protecting” its “legitimate interest”?
Alistair Burt
I cannot speak in any way for the conduct of Turkish forces or anything of the like. As I said to the House earlier, our aims in Syria are coherent: lasting defeat of Daesh, and political transition to a Government who protect the rights of all, including Kurdish communities and all minority groups. All activity that affects the Kurdish community should remember that the ultimate destination of Syria will depend on Kurdish communities feeling part of it, without the risk of terror across its borders, and that should be considered by all.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
The Commonwealth is a unique global framework. Its members are home to a third of the world’s population, with a combined GDP last year of over $10 trillion. That shows the extraordinary potential of the Commonwealth summit in London next month. We have a fantastic programme and agenda that includes the discussion of cyber, free trade and free trade deals, how to rid the world’s oceans of plastics and how to ensure that every girl in the world gets 12 years of quality education.
Richard Graham
Given that this is the first Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London for 30 years, will the Foreign Secretary join me in celebrating Her Majesty the Queen’s remarkable leadership of this unique global partnership? Does he agree that this is a great opportunity to promote two very good causes—Malaria No More and Vision For All—across the Commonwealth, alongside what he said about promoting trade and increasing cyber-defences?
Boris Johnson
Absolutely. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done. He led a very good debate on the Commonwealth last week. He is quite right in what he says about halving the incidence of malaria, which is a further objective of the summit. He is also right to pay tribute to the absolutely central role of Her Majesty the Queen. The summit has an extraordinary turnout. Virtually every single one of the 53 Heads of State and Government is coming to London, and there is no doubt that the draw is not just our city or our country, but the chance to see the Queen herself.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Boris Johnson
We certainly value our relationship with Sri Lanka, although I perfectly understand the hon. Gentleman’s points about human rights. He can be in no doubt that we will continue to raise those points in our discussions with Sri Lanka.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the upcoming Commonwealth summit is an opportune moment for us to demonstrate the strength and diversity of this unique family of nations?
Boris Johnson
I passionately agree. [Interruption.] “Say no”, say Labour Front Benchers. That is their attitude. Is that not extraordinary? “Say no”, says the noble and learned Lady, the Baroness, whatever it is—I cannot remember what it is. [Interruption.] Nugee. What an extraordinary thing. The Commonwealth is an institution that encompasses 2.4 billion people and some of the fastest growing economies in the world. We have an unrivalled opportunity to embrace them here in London, and we are going to do it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to be unkind or discourteous to the Foreign Secretary, but I say on advice, as the Clerks swivel round to me, two things. First, we do not name-call in this Chamber. Secondly—I am dealing with the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman will listen and benefit from listening—we do not address people by the titles of their spouses. The shadow Foreign Secretary has a name, and it is not Lady something. We know what her name is. It is inappropriate and frankly sexist to speak in those terms, and I am not having it in this Chamber. That is the end of the matter. No matter how senior a Member, that parlance is not legitimate. It will not be allowed, and it will be called out. I require no chuntering from a sedentary position from any occupant of the Treasury Bench. I have said what the position is, and believe me, that is the end of the matter. I hope I have made the position extremely clear to people who are not well informed about such matters.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Mr Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to prostrate myself before you and to apologise for any inadvertent sexism or discourtesy that you may have deemed me to be guilty of? I heartily tender my apologies to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) if she was offended by what I said. I meant no harm, and I apologise unreservedly if I have offended her feelings.
Following the abhorrent chemical attack in Salisbury, the UK Government have engaged closely with our international partners on this and other issues, but the holding of sports events and the choice of venues is a matter for the relevant sporting authorities—in this case, FIFA.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his gracious apology. As far as I am concerned, if I can use the expression again, that is the end of the matter.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his response, but the fact is that sport and politics do mix. Who can forget Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin or the sporting boycotts of the despicable apartheid regime? Surely the Foreign Secretary sees the profound inconsistency between the very welcome retaliatory measures that our Government and many other Governments have taken and us all trotting off to Russia in a few months to provide Mr Putin with a smokescreen for what he does and how he behaves.
Boris Johnson
There are no plans to boycott the World cup or to try to get a boycott by the England team—that is, after all, a matter for the Football Association and not the Government—nor is there any desire to punish England fans. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be no attendance by Ministers or members of the royal family, as the Prime Minister told the House on 14 March. As he knows, several other countries have decided to put in place the same measures.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
English football fans were targeted by Russian football gangs in the Euro 2016 tournament, and many were left with life-changing injuries as a result. There are concerns that those Russian football gangs have links to President Putin’s Government. Will the Foreign Secretary be updating travel advice for the 10,000 fans who are planning to travel to the World cup this summer?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The travel advice has been updated. Fans should be aware of the possibility of political tensions between the UK and Russia and should be vigilant but, above all, should stay in touch with us and look at the Be on the Ball website.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
Promoting access to a quality education is a moral imperative and firmly in our national interest. As a passionate feminist and someone without a sexist bone in his body, the Foreign Secretary is an advocate for education and has discussed that with the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Education, among others.
Mr Speaker
I do not mean to be unkind to the Minister, and I know she will not take it amiss. The Foreign Secretary does not need to be defended by her, and I know she would not argue with the Chair; she would come off rather worse.
John Howell
In Nigeria alone, there is an enormous market for A-levels through to university education. What help is the Minister providing to enable us to tap into that market?
Harriett Baldwin
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as a trade envoy to Nigeria. I can tell him that the Prosperity Fund global education programme is due to start this year, aiming to improve standards of education and increase UK exports, and Nigeria will be one of the countries involved.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
My immediate priority is to help to mobilise international support following the horrifying event in Salisbury, and I am greatly encouraged by the response so far. I am also preparing for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London next month, which will be one of the biggest summits this country has ever hosted and a unique opportunity to renew the Commonwealth and take forward the priorities of global Britain.
Dan Carden
This week, the Yemen war has entered its fourth destructive year, and yesterday, the International Rescue Committee launched a new report showing the devastating impact of the conflict on Yemen’s health system. What are the UK Government doing to put pressure on the Saudi regime to pay £2 billion into Yemen’s central bank, as promised in the pledge it made in January?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman raises a subject that is at the very top of our concerns in the Foreign Office and across the Government as a whole. I assure him that we are working with all our friends and partners to try to persuade everybody involved in the Yemen conflict—particularly, of course, the Saudis—to get to a political process. In the meantime, we have been instrumental in getting the Saudis to open the port of Hodeidah to allow not only humanitarian but commercial traffic to get in and relieve some of the suffering that is unquestionably taking place there. I share his sense of urgency.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Fisheries licensing is generally a matter for the Governments of the individual territories; only in the specific case of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands does the Secretary of State give advice on licensing in respect of foreign policy. In the last round, three of the six licences were given to overseas territories.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the case of Professor Clara Ponsatí, whom the Spanish authorities want to extradite. Does he agree with the principal of the University of St Andrews, who has said that
“there are legitimate arguments that Clara is being targeted for standing up for her political beliefs”?
Sir Alan Duncan
The issuing of a European arrest warrant is a matter for proper judicial process, not for political interference.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What does the strength of the Russian reaction say about the influence of the British Council?
Boris Johnson
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I prefer to look at the strength of the global reaction to what Russia has done and the corresponding influence of the United Kingdom on such deliberations.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Next Tuesday will mark two years since Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was detained in Iran on trumped-up charges, separated from her young child and thrown into jail. What steps is the Foreign Secretary currently taking to obtain her release so that she does not spend yet another year separated from her family?
Boris Johnson
As the House will know, we have a number of very difficult consular cases in Iran at the present time, and every effort is being made on behalf of each of those—each of those—individuals. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that none of those cases really benefits from public comment at this stage.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
With CHOGM coming up, does my hon. Friend agree that if Zimbabwe held free and open elections, that would give it a route back to the Commonwealth and, indeed, give what used to be the breadbasket of Africa free trade agreements with the rest of the world?
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
I assure my hon. Friend that, when I visited Zimbabwe recently, that was indeed the message I was able to convey to the new President.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the situation in Gaza remains of deep concern. It is a wretched situation. We continue to make representations to all parties who have an involvement with the governance of Gaza to improve the conditions. It is more than just one particular group, but we do make representations to the Israelis about the possibility of improving steadily the position in relation to Gaza. Nothing will be settled until we get the agreement we want on the two-state solution.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last month I was part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Albania, where Ministers emphasised how important the security links are between our two countries. That was further re-enforced at a follow-up meeting with the ambassador. What plans do the Government have to further links with Albania?
Sir Alan Duncan
We work very closely with Albania, particularly on organised crime, and all the more so as we approach the very important western Balkan summit, which we will host here in July this year.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. We will certainly make sure that in the discussions on health, which as I said earlier form a large part of our Commonwealth proceedings, that issue is raised.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 7.7 million people face severe food insecurity and 2 million children are at risk of starvation, the level of emergency has been put to number three, which is the highest level. The European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management says it is getting worse by the day and that it is not business as usual. What can Her Majesty’s Government do to work with others both on humanitarian aid and on possibly increasing the number of peacekeepers for security?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend rightly raises the most appalling humanitarian situation. He will be aware that in Geneva—a week after next, I think it is—there will be a big pledging conference to raise money for a humanitarian crisis that the United Nations estimates is going to need at least $1.7 billion of aid in the coming months.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I was at the Pakistani national day celebrations at the weekend as well. I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that there are good reasons why it is the UK Government’s position, and has been in the 70 years since Pakistan and India were formed, that the Kashmir issue should be determined by those two countries. There is not a role for Britain to interfere or intervene. Ultimately, peace will only come when those two communities themselves can find their way to work that out. Clearly, it has to be an issue for the Kashmiri people.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Now the Prime Minister has put some backbone into the Foreign Office, is it not about time that we took some action against the Ecuadorian embassy? How long are we prepared to allow this situation to go on, where, as the Minister of State said in previous questions, a man is avoiding lawful arrest?
Sir Alan Duncan
It is of great regret that Julian Assange remains in the Ecuador embassy. It is of deeper regret that even last night he was tweeting against Her Majesty’s Government for their conduct in replying to the attack in Salisbury. It is about time that this miserable little worm walked out of the embassy and gave himself up to British justice.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Harriett Baldwin
The UK Government have welcomed and congratulated the new President, Mr Ramaphosa, and we are looking forward to his visit to the UK next month for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
In terms of the Commonwealth, will the Minister explain further how Global Britain will lead to furthering economic ties with our Commonwealth friends, and not just diplomatic ones?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, a large part of the Commonwealth summit is to talk about trade and prosperity and the opportunities that exist. As I said earlier, some of the fastest-growing economies in the world are in the Commonwealth—now growing, though I do not wish to make any invidious comparisons, substantially faster than the EU, though we intend to trade very much with both of them.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Alistair Burt
We continue to engage with a significantly important country in the region. Human rights form part of the dialogue with Egypt at all times. Internal matters are a matter for them, but I assure the hon. Lady that the relationship has to be strong to deal with exactly the sort of issues that she raises.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in reiterating that the issues this House and the international community have with Russia are with Putin and his cronies, not the long-suffering and hard-pressed Russian people, who are victims in this themselves?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is made repeatedly by Members across the Chamber but cannot be made often enough. Our quarrel is not with the Russian people. We hold out the hand of friendship to the Russian people. They are not ringed with enemies. Our dispute is with the Kremlin as it is currently managed and the currently disruptive manner of Russian policy.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Alistair Burt
It might help if I say that I keep speaking to the World Health Organisation in relation to the availability of vaccines, and we are pretty confident that the vaccines are there. I also spoke yesterday to UNICEF about the ability to get them through. We are pressing for the consolidated plan that it needs to do that. There is a conference on Yemen coming up shortly, but we press every day to make sure that the cyclical issue of cholera is indeed dealt with.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The trade out of poverty all-party parliamentary group, which I co-chair, is soon to release a report on trade and investment intra-Commonwealth. Will my right hon. Friend read that report and champion that agenda at the forthcoming CHOGM summit?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because the job of the Commonwealth summit is not just to promote trade between the UK and our 53 Commonwealth friends, but to promote intra-Commonwealth trade, and that is where some of the biggest opportunities lie.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Boris Johnson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our efforts have been directed at building an international consensus to ensure that there is a multinational, multilateral body to give the Rohingya refugees the confidence and security that they need to make a safe, dignified and voluntary return to northern Rakhine.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
There are growing international concerns about Germany’s intentions to build an undersea gas pipeline directly to Russia. Does the Secretary of State share those concerns, because this will put at risk the energy security of our key NATO allies in central and eastern Europe?
Sir Alan Duncan
I recently met the head of Naftogaz, the main energy company in Ukraine, and we are fully aware of the issue my hon. Friend raises. We will look at the issue of Nord Stream 2 and the pipeline in the light of what has happened in Salisbury.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Turkey’s actions in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone do not create the right climate for reunification negotiations to recommence. Will the Minister join me in condemning Turkey’s actions and call on it to withdraw its warships from Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone, where they have been since 9 February?
Sir Alan Duncan
We fully recognise the rights within the economic zone, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and fully support the right to drill for oil.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Last night, I and many colleagues across the House attended a huge demonstration to say “enough is enough” to anti-Semitism. What more can my right hon. Friend’s Department do to strongly send out the message to the Jewish community around the world that Britain is determined to stamp out this ancient hatred?
Boris Johnson
It is absolutely vital for everybody in this House to send out a very clear message that anti-Semitism anywhere is intolerable. I look to people on both sides of the Chamber to do that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Our silence over—indeed, our tacit support for—the wholly unacceptable and Franco-esque crackdown on democracy and human rights in Catalonia by the Spanish state is shameful and indeed makes us complicit. Will the Minister please rethink, speak to his Spanish counterparts and urge them to draw back from their counterproductive actions?
Sir Alan Duncan
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of what is happening in Catalonia. We fully support the Spanish Government in upholding the proper workings of the Spanish constitution.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the matter of refugees and the global refugee crisis be on the agenda for next month’s Commonwealth meeting?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
This week we learned that Spanish secret police have been operating in several EU countries. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have referred to the expulsion not of diplomats but of spies and intelligence officers. To the Government’s knowledge, how many foreign powers currently have spies, intelligence officers and secret police agents operating in the UK?
Boris Johnson
I invite the hon. Gentleman to speculate himself on the answer to that question, because we do not discuss intelligence matters.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month, Impactt’s audit of the Qatari supreme committee, which is responsible for the World cup, highlighted significant positive progress in areas relating to workers’ rights. What efforts will the British Government make to support further progress and promote its spreading to neighbouring states?
Alistair Burt
I happened to see the Qatari organiser of the World cup just a couple of days ago. They gave an impressive presentation on what they had sought to do to improve not just workers’ rights but workers’ welfare, not just now but looking forward to the final construction phase. Concerns have been well expressed, but my sense is that the Qatari system understands that very well and is working hard to produce a good and safe World cup.
Petition
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition about the closure of the Renfrew branch of the taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland. The closure of this branch remains a mystery to the people of Renfrew, as it is situated in a busy and thriving town centre. The fact that the branch is popular with businesses and regular customers alike is one to which I can testify, as a branch user who has to wait in a queue each time I bank there. Indeed, RBS fully refurbished the branch, at no small cost, just months ago. This closure would leave one Paisley branch, hundreds of metres from the nearest bus stop, to serve the 50 square miles of my constituency.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Paisley and Renfrewshire North,
Declares that the proposed closure of the Renfrew branch of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will have a detrimental effect on the local community 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 account of the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002127]
Rail Announcement
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of the west coast main line, our plans for the integration of track and train on our railways and our plans for the transition to the operation of High Speed 2 as it opens up in 2026.
I have already set out for the House our plans to bring the operation of track and train together on a day-to-day operational basis around the country, with the creation of new alliances between Network Rail and the train operators on south eastern and midland main line and the strengthening of the existing alliance arrangements on south western and southern. I have also set out our plans for a new partnership between the public and private sectors to operate the east coast main line.
Today I want to explain how this approach could start to inform the development of the west coast main line and HS2. I am also today publishing the invitation to tender to be the new west coast partner, which, subject to their delivering on their commitments, will operate the route until 2031 and will work with HS2 Ltd to pave the way for the opening of HS2. The west coast main line is one of the busiest mixed rail routes, if not the busiest, in Europe: it carries commuter traffic to six of our biggest cities and express trains between them; it provides essential intermediate services to places such as Milton Keynes, Coventry, Warrington and Preston; it is an essential link to north Wales, Scotland and Ireland; and it is also one of our busiest freight routes. It is this complex mix of traffic that is a key part of the case for building HS2 so that we have the capacity to meet these growing needs in the future.
The west coast franchise has been very successful in recent years, with high passenger satisfaction and substantial revenue growth for the taxpayer. I intend the new contract to build on that, up to and including 2026. There is already a close working relationship between Network Rail and the train operator, and I intend that to deepen under the new contract with the new operator. After that, however, the way in which we run the railway will change. After 2026, the express services will start to move off an increasingly congested part of the existing network and on to HS2. Brand-new and more frequent trains will provide additional capacity on faster services, and space will be freed up on the existing routes for improved services to other destinations. That will require a carefully managed transition as initial services provide travel to Birmingham and then, gradually, the HS2 network provides more and more of the inter-city service.
I want to explain today how the new contract will ensure that that smooth transition takes place, and to set out what we are working towards. I should emphasise that final decisions on the transition and the operational details are years away, but I think it right that, as we publish this new invitation to tender, we start to look towards what that end point could be. For example, HS2 could be an integrated railway operation, in charge of both its infrastructure and its services. That would be akin to what is provided on some Japanese high-speed lines, and would accord with the Government’s strategy of bringing together track and train. It could also be structured as a public-private partnership. There will be other options that we should explore before final decisions are made.
The exact shape and end state of the organisation does not need to be decided now, but I am very clear about one thing. I want HS2 Ltd to become a strong British organisation, potentially capable of not just building but operating a successful railway here. It should also become a strong international champion for the United Kingdom, as the organisation that runs Manchester Airport has done. Manchester Airports Group is a strong and effective organisation that has expanded in the UK, running first-rate operations here, and is now doing so internationally. It has proved itself to be effective at managing major projects and delivering good customer service. Today’s announcement, however, is not about creating a long-term organisational model for HS2. As we move into the 2020s we will need to prepare for the introduction of services, and through this new arrangement my Department is paving the way for that introduction.
The winner of the competition will help to design the new HS2 services, develop a new customer offering to take advantage of 21st-century technology and revolutionise the way we travel on high-speed rail, and provide input for my Department and HS2. It will run the existing west coast main line services until HS2 passenger services are introduced. After that it will continue to run successor services on the west coast main line until 2031, albeit to a different set of timetables and priorities, with a refocused service aimed at those intermediate locations. Between now and the start of HS2 services, it will also help to plan the introduction of the express trains to the new line and the move from one line to another, and help to put in place all the customer-facing resources that are necessary for the delivery of an excellent service on day one. If it performs strongly, it will also operate services on behalf of HS2 for a limited period after 2026. During that period, my Department will be closely involved with operations to ensure that the envisaged connectivity benefits of HS2 are realised.
The contract also includes a number of safeguards such as restrictions on branding, transfer of intellectual property and requirements for collaboration with HS2. That means that, while we will harness the innovative thinking of the private sector, no one bidder will be able to create something that only it could run in the future. The operator will also work with the Department and HS2 to consider the options for the end state, including what would be required for the transition to fully integrated operations undertaken by an eventual combined organisation. That short-term arrangement will be very similar to the modus operandi on Crossrail next year after it formally begins services as the Elizabeth line for Transport for London.
Throughout this period, the new operator will also deliver a high-quality experience for passengers and continue to drive growth on the existing west coast main line. Passengers will benefit from enhanced compensation for delays of more than 15 minutes, fares and ticketing systems that are simpler to understand, and the introduction of an accessibility panel to advise on all aspects of the way in which the railway is operated. It is important to ensure that all passengers are placed firmly at the heart of all planning decisions.
What I am setting in train today for the West Coast Partnership are our plans to keep industry-leading services on the west coast until HS2 enters operation, to ensure that the first HS2 services are delivered with the help of an experienced operator that has been working hard to plan for their introduction, and to use that approach to help to inform decisions on what the final shape of the organisation should be. I believe that that is the best way of ensuring a smooth transition to what will be an exciting new future for our railways, and I commend my statement to the House.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but I am perplexed as to why he has come to Parliament to announce a set of administrative arrangements. There are so many pressing rail issues that the Secretary of State should be bringing to the House, not least the promise to come back to the House about future arrangements on the east coast, which was of course due weeks ago, rather than to announce invitations to tender for rail franchises. If this House spent all its time looking at every franchise, we would not get through any other business. The statement is simply thin gruel. Once again it sets out vague aspirations and possible options. Yet again it is evidence that the Government will not set out a strategic direction, but instead just delegate decisions to the private sector.
There are huge questions about the recent history of track and train alliances. That did not work on the south-western railway; it failed. Why will it be any different under this partnership? Today’s announcement about an announcement is setting the course of the Government’s real priority, which is privatisation of the infrastructure: a partnership with a private company, but extending its grip into the infrastructure, too.
Why would the Secretary of State bring the profit motive back into safety-critical parts of the railway? We must never forget why Labour brought Railtrack back into public ownership: it was for the safety of the great British public. None of us on the Labour Benches will ever forget the past, and how private profit was the objective. With private, we know that the objective is to put money into the shareholders’ pockets, not to invest in the public. This is why Labour’s plan to rescue the railways and bring them back into public ownership is more imperative than ever; the public demand it. Labour would never take such a risk with public safety, nor with public money.
Last month’s supplementary estimate report said that the Department for Transport’s rail revenue from train operators was down nearly £250 million this year and a Treasury bail-out of £60 million was needed. That is hardly evidence of a system working, is it?
Franchising has completely failed, with 13 direct awards and extensions to contracts. The west coast, however, is the jewel in the crown of the rail network. The Labour Government spent £9 billion upgrading it, but now the Secretary of State wants to flog off the family silver before it is even in public hands.
The UK railways have the best safety record in Europe; will the Secretary of State’s plans guarantee this excellent safety record? The UK railways’ safety record has been based on a rigorous risk management system; how will these plans ensure that the risk management approach will continue across the whole network? Is this not a return to the bad old days of Railtrack?
Of course, the railway is about the growth of our economy, and the Secretary of State is handing over responsibility for the economy of the north to these private companies; no wonder people do not believe in the northern powerhouse. Why will the Secretary of State not do what the last Labour Government did in 2009 and take this franchise back into public ownership? That is the best way to preserve the taxpayers’ money and the public interest.
Labour’s integrated public rail will benefit the economy, the environment, the Treasury and the public. We look forward to the right to run our railways again.
Chris Grayling
This is the first time that I have been told off for being informative to the House about what we are doing. We are publishing today a pathfinding franchise agreement that will pave the way for Britain’s most expensive and most substantial new railway for more than 100 years, and I am explaining to the House how we are approaching the issue of making that transition. This does not seem to me to be something I should not be informing the House about, but I am always surprised in this place.
The trouble with Labour is that it just thinks everything private is bad; it seems to be a completely ideological statement. After many years when the Labour party took a relatively common-sense approach to the balance between public and private, it has now walked a million miles away from that: everything private is bad, and it wants to nationalise everything and drive investment out of this country. Let us take an example. Labour cannot explain to us, in its plans to renationalise the railways, what it would do with what will by then be approximately £19 billion of privately owned trains on the network. All the new trains that are coming now and all the new trains that are being delivered in the future are privately owned. Where will the money come from to pay for those, and to pay for the new trains in the future? We get no answer at all from Labour on any of that.
The hon. Lady talked about safety, and safety is paramount in this country. We have an excellent regulator, and an excellent chief inspector of railways who does a very effective job, in my view, of holding the public and private sectors’ feet to the fire to ensure that we maintain safety standards on the railways. That is something that will continue for the future. She also asked about the northern powerhouse. Let us look at how little investment in the railways took place in the north when Labour was in power. We are replacing every single train in the north, and I have just announced a £3 billion upgrade to the trans-Pennine rail line. We have done upgrades to the Calder Valley line and electrified the line between Liverpool and Manchester. We are currently electrifying the line to Preston. Those are things that never happened under Labour. The replacement of every single train in the north of England is something new or nearly new. None of that happened during Labour’s 13 years in power.
The hon. Lady wants to take the west coast main line back into public ownership, but that is a railway line that is performing well and has very high levels of passenger satisfaction. The last thing we would want to do is to hand it back to the Government. Let us allow it to carry on succeeding. That is what we are aiming to do. We are setting a path that will lead us to what I hope will be a fantastic new world for Britain’s railways when HS2 opens after 2026.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It will be welcomed across my constituency and throughout Cumbria, as will the introduction of Sunday services, starting in May, which will connect us to the west coast main line. Will he tell me what economic advantages this will bring to Copeland and to Cumbria?
Chris Grayling
The difference that HS2 will make is that it will provide far more capacity and better connections across the whole country. Whether you are coming to London from Cumbria, Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham, or travelling to points in between, there will be more capacity, faster trains and better connections between intermediate places. That is so important. I am delighted about the arrival of the Sunday services in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She and I stood at Seascale station while a Pacer train chugged past, and she will be delighted to know that in a few months’ time that Pacer train will be in the scrapyard.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, but it really is lacking in detail. He said that he had already set out plans for a new partnership for the east coast main line, but I suggest that the plans for that line are still unclear. We need a lot more information on that. He also said that the congestion on the west coast main line and its links to Scotland and other areas underpinned the business case for HS2. That raises the question of why HS2 is being built only as far as Crewe, and why a north-south link is not being constructed at the same time.
The Secretary of State has detailed possible methods of operation, but he has said that they do not need to be decided on now, so what are the timescales for deciding future methods of operation? Will he confirm that the public sector will be involved and will be allowed to bid? When will we know the new timetables and priorities for the west coast main line? What will be the bid status for companies that have failed in existing franchises? The existing west coast main line contract was supposed to look at the remodelling of Carstairs Junction, so will he give us a progress report on that? Will he also tell us what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the existing underfunding of the rail settlement to Scotland, and on the impact that that could have on the west coast main line?
What tender appraisal lessons has the Secretary of State learned from existing failed franchises? What checks and balances will there be to ensure that we do not see further compensation disputes, conflicts of interest and armies of cost consultants involved in these franchises? What west coast main line upgrades will there be north of Crewe? I note that the current proposals will mean that new HS2 trains will run more slowly north of Crewe than the existing Virgin trains do. That would be an unacceptable performance measure, so will he tell us what upgrades are planned for north of Crewe? Lastly, his Department has already needed £60 million from the Treasury to balance the books this year because of the failures in the existing franchise system. How sustainable will the future franchises be?
Chris Grayling
On that last point, there was a revenue issue last year around Govia Thameslink Railway and the completely unnecessary strike action taken by the unions. I am happy that that railway is now mostly back to normal and I hope that we will not have that issue again. The hon. Gentleman asked about the east coast main line. I will come back to the House when it is the right moment to do so, when we are ready to set out the approach that we are going to take. It is important to ensure that that is dealt with on a value-for-money basis but also on an operational basis, to ensure that passengers are not affected by the trouble on that route at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked about timetables on the west coast main line. That will come from the bids that are tabled for that particular route, depending on how the bidders plan to enhance services. The invitation to tender starts today, and we will start to get the proposals back during the course of this year. Of course, no one can bid for a franchise without a passport, and that will continue to be the case. He also asked about the funding level for Scotland. I simply remind him that the Government have provided more than would have been provided under the Barnett formula. Scottish Members normally argue for the Barnett formula, except when it is inconvenient for them to do so. The reality is that they should be glad to get anything more than the Barnett formula, because that is what they always argue that Scotland should receive.
The hon. Gentleman asked about learning lessons from failure. As I said in my previous statement on the east coast main line, we have tightened the risk-sharing mechanisms and we will be watching this particular franchise like a hawk to ensure that it is financially solid and robust. He also asked about the speed of journeys to Scotland. Of course, HS2 will reduce journey times to Scotland. There is an issue north of Crewe because the new classic-compatible trains are not tilting trains, and that is something we will have to address as we go through the 2020s, but the reality is that journey times to Scotland will be reduced as a result of HS2 arriving. That is part of delivering better services right across the country and, crucially, delivering jobs right across the country. That will happen all across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. What he has outlined will mean a smooth transition to the national network upgrade that HS2 will deliver. Will he give the House a little more information about what the announcement will mean for passenger rail fares on the west coast main line?
Chris Grayling
It is really important that HS2 does not become a premium service that today’s passengers cannot afford to travel on. Our expectation is that fare structures will stay broadly similar, and it is certainly not my intention to create a situation where HS2 suddenly becomes much more expensive than the west coast main line is today.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
There was not actually much new information in the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is clear that this invitation to tender is late, because it was expected in November last year. Will he explain the reason for the delay and its implications? Can he confirm that the award date is still November 2018, and that the new franchise will still start on 1 April 2019? Will he tell us whether the delay will have any wider impact on the Department’s rail franchise schedule?
Chris Grayling
We do not expect this to have a significant impact on the franchise schedule. As the hon. Lady knows, we have just put in place a direct award to tide us over because of the delay. Things might be slightly late, but we are broadly in line with our original timetabling plans. It is important to get these things right. Also, given that the franchising team has had quite a lot to deal with lately, it is important to ensure that they have the time to get the detail right. That is what we have been seeking to do.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Will he explain how, as the plans proceed, the economy of the north-west will benefit from the improved connectivity, particularly around the hub at Manchester airport? Will he tell us how that will improve the economy in the Greater Manchester area as well?
Chris Grayling
The hub around the airport is going to be particularly important, and it is very much on my mind as we develop phase 2b of HS2 and move towards the development of Northern Powerhouse Rail, where there must be a strong connection with the airport. The other benefit of the investment will be that it will create the space for more commuter services around Manchester. I know that there is significant congestion there—I have seen it in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and we need to provide better commuter services into Manchester, and indeed into Birmingham, Leeds and London. That is one of the things that HS2 will do, by taking the existing express trains off the existing routes.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that if no changes are made to the proposals for HS2 as it goes through Derbyshire, 1,000 jobs will be lost at McArthurGlen, which is not far from South Normanton, and that more than 30 houses will be knocked down at Newton in my constituency? I have been working with the people at Newton in order to find alternatives, so will the Secretary of State meet the Newton people with a view to seeing whether there are any decent proposals for tunnelling, rather than knocking the houses down, and for ensuring that the jobs at McArthurGlen are safe? Will he give us that assurance today, so that I can make arrangements with the Newton people to come and take part in discussions?
Chris Grayling
As I have said all the way through, it is not possible to do something on this scale without having an adverse effect somewhere, but we will always do our best to minimise the impact. We are also always willing to have a dialogue with Members from across the House about such situations, so I will of course have that dialogue. I want to try to ensure that we do not adversely affect centres of major employment, so either the HS2 Minister or I will happily pursue a conversation with the hon. Gentleman.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent currently have direct, high-speed services to Liverpool and Manchester respectively. However, the HS2 proposals mean that high-speed services from Stafford and Stoke will end at Macclesfield, so we will lose our direct connection with the northern powerhouse. That is unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State consider the situation again and see how its effects can be alleviated?
Chris Grayling
I am aware of the situation, and the important thing to say is that we are a long way away from detailed timetabling. I share my hon. Friend’s view about terminating at Macclesfield, and I have told HS2 Ltd to do some work on that. We have to get the timetabling and the flow of services right, and I do not want anywhere to be disadvantaged by the transition.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
As a former chair of Manchester airport, I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words about how it has been run. One reason for the airport’s success is that it has been careful in choosing its private sector partners over the years. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why he is allowing private companies that have not honoured their contractual obligations in franchises to compete for important lines?
Chris Grayling
There are two points to make when talking about potential long-term private partners. First, the arrangements at Manchester airport have worked well. It is still majority-owned by local authorities, but it actually operates as an independent business with private shareholders. It is a good example of a public-private partnership, which may well be the way forward for HS2 Ltd. That does not mean that the organisations that are running franchises are those that might end up as private partners in the future, because we are looking at a different type of model for the future. Secondly, as for future bidding, as I have said before, I will fulfil my legal obligations, but I will also be as careful as possible to protect the interests of the railways and of passengers.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the invitation to tender for HS2 and the benefits that HS2 will be bring the region. Will the new model be used when the Southern franchise is broken up and re-tendered? Is there a timescale for that?
Chris Grayling
The current Southern franchise will continue until 2021, and we are working through what the structure should be when it is re-let in a different form. I intend there to be a much closer alliance between Network Rail and the private sector, following a similar kind of model to that which we are using with Southeastern. It is necessary to bring the day-to-day operation of the track and trains together to improve performance. We have done some of that already on the Southern franchise, which has helped to make a difference, and that should continue.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
When the Secretary of State talked about Labour spending, he seemed to forget the £8 billion invested in the west coast main line. When Labour took over back in 1997, the line was in a dreadful state, and it is so good today because of that Labour investment. The Secretary of State said several times during his statement that public satisfaction is high, that it is doing well and that it is well run, so what are his reasons for wanting to change it?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman asks, “What are the reasons for wanting to change it?”, but we are moving from one franchise to another; we are not looking to make massive changes to how the west coast main line currently operates. When it comes to 2026 and the arrival of HS2, that is a different situation. I am not talking about selling or privatising the infrastructure. Post-2026, we will have a separate network with its own infrastructure, and the question—it is not one for me, but for my successors—will be, “What is the best way of running that railway?” I have set out several strong options today, but the Government’s policy is that bringing together the operation of the track and trains—integration on the railway—is the best way of creating an efficient and effective railway.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
We know that the Secretary of State is desperate to get from his home in Surrey to his seat at Old Trafford more quickly, so why are the Government dragging their feet when it comes to funding for the station at Manchester airport and the east-west alignment negotiations at Manchester Piccadilly station?
Chris Grayling
The biggest challenge in getting to Old Trafford on a match day are all the roadworks on the M60, which are due to our investment in the motorway network, and all the roadworks around Old Trafford, which are down to the support we are providing to Manchester to invest in the extension of the Metrolink.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Network Rail and Manchester City Council are in detailed discussions about Piccadilly, and we are close to moving forward with desperately needed improvements to the two platforms, and I want that to start soon. As for the airport, we need a really good hub station at the airport, and we are now working through how best to take the Transport for the North proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail and create a deliverable programme. The first bit of that starts next year with the upgrade of the TransPennine route.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that working with private sector partners on the west coast main line has delivered huge improvements to reliability and customer service? Will he reassure my constituents that any operational changes that have been outlined or envisaged today will not have a negative impact on their service?
Chris Grayling
That is my goal. The thing is that I am very much in favour of the public sector and the private sector working together in partnership, and I have talked about that in other parts of the rail network. The difficulty is that the Opposition do not seem to want the “private” bit at all—everything has to be public. Both sectors bring strengths to the party, and the working partnership that exists today between Network Rail and Virgin Trains on the west coast main line has delivered significant performance and customer satisfaction improvements over the past few years.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Virgin-Stagecoach is not the first, not the second, but the third train company to walk away from the east coast franchise mid-contract, stating that it could only run it for a short number of months. I came running over to the Chamber today in eager anticipation of hearing the Secretary of State say that he was going to set up a directly operated rail company along the lines of the model we had in 2009, which delivered £1 billion back to the taxpayer over six short years. Will he tell the House what he is doing to get the east coast main line franchise back on track, delivering for passengers, staff and taxpayers? Will he ensure that no announcement is snuck out in the middle of the recess?
Chris Grayling
When we are ready to make an announcement about the future, I will come to the House to do so, and I have said that several times. We are ensuring that we get things right. As I have said before, we have been preparing the alternative operator of last resort for some months. When we are ready to take things forward, I will say so.
The hon. Lady compares the situation with what was there previously, and I simply remind her that, notwithstanding the financial problems in the franchise, it has a high level of passenger satisfaction and is running more trains, employing more people and delivering more money to the taxpayer. The problem is that there has been not enough success, not a lack of it.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
In the previous Parliament, the Department was so focused on HS2 that it took its eye off the real challenge facing our country: getting people to and from work in the south-east of England. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not make the same mistake again and that the Southern rail fiasco will never be repeated?
Chris Grayling
We are slightly in the hands of militant trade unions deciding whether they want to cause trouble, because the analysis of what went wrong showed it was almost entirely down to the action of the trade unions. However, I have also said on many occasions that the unions were not the only issue on that line, and I hope he accepts that performance has improved, but it needs to carry on improving. We need a broad-ranging programme of renewals, because there are still too many track and signal failures, which is why we have set aside the biggest block of funding—£20 billion—for renewals in the next control period. Some of that will flow to the hon. Gentleman’s line, but it will also go around the country to deal with similar issues elsewhere.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Following the excellent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), may I pick up on the issue of Virgin-Stagecoach and the east coast main line? In a matter of weeks or months the Government will have to make a decision for passengers in our constituencies in Yorkshire and elsewhere, so can the Secretary of State tell us when a decision will be made, whether there will be penalties for Virgin-Stagecoach for walking away from the contract, and whether he will keep on the table the very sensible option of bringing the line back into public ownership?
Chris Grayling
I have said clearly that I am not simply evaluating, but preparing for two options: one is an operator of last resort controlled by my Department, and the other is a not-for-profit direct award. I will make that decision shortly, and when I do I will come back to the House. It is not just about being ready to make a decision; it is also about knowing whether whichever option I choose is ready to happen. It is as much about preparation as it is about deciding. When we are ready to take that step, we will do so. The reason I am taking the time to get this right is that I do not want passengers—the hon. Lady’s constituents—to notice any change from one day to the next. They are the most important people in this.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
We of course welcome any investment in rail, but HS2 must not be allowed to soak it all up. The Government have an incoherent approach to electrification, which has been indefinitely delayed in Oxford and abandoned on the lakes line and the midland main line. Meanwhile, the Government have been pulled up again on air pollution. Why do they not follow their own lead on cars and move away faster from polluting diesel engines?
Chris Grayling
A central part of our strategy on the roads is hybrid cars, and a central part of our strategy on the railways is hybrid trains. The biggest difference we can make in getting people off the roads and on to rail is to ensure that we expand capacity, and that is what we are doing, with longer trains, new and reopened routes and new stations across the country, creating a better environment for people who want to travel by rail. It is the biggest programme of investment in our railways since the steam age.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State lauds the benefits of reduced journey times between London and Glasgow, but that is not the full picture, because we know that, as a result of the HS2 investment, journey times between Glasgow and Manchester will actually increase. How can this be benefiting all regions of the UK when journey times between Britain’s second and third biggest cities will be increased? Is it not yet another example of putting the profit motive over the real national interest?
Chris Grayling
This has nothing to do with the profit motive; it has to do with whether or not trains tilt. We need to ensure, through timetabling and planning after HS2 is opened, that we deliver the best possible outcome for all the services and all the destinations it serves. It is not a question of the profit motive or the private sector; it is a question of technical capabilities and how we deliver the best possible outcome.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), my constituency neighbour, can the Secretary of State confirm that Virgin-Stagecoach will be allowed to rebid for the east coast franchise when the contract is put out to tender, because that appears to be verging on the ridiculous?
Chris Grayling
I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood our plans. From 2020 we are going to do things completely differently on the east coast main line; we will not be using the current bidding process. We are shaping a public-private partnership. It might be a public-private partnership that brings investment in digital rail, and it might have a completely different corporate structure. We are working through that longer -term plan now while preparing to put in place the intermediate arrangements. It is not a question of who will or will not be allowed to bid, because we have not even decided what the process will be.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is disappointing that the Secretary of State has today said nothing about the burning issue in the north: poor connectivity between east and west. I am sure that he shares my concern that there is no direct service between Hull and Liverpool, or between Hull and Manchester airport, and that from May trans-Pennine services running from Hull to Manchester will be slower. Will he agree to meet me and key stakeholders from Hull to discuss what he can do to improve connectivity in the north?
Chris Grayling
I and my ministerial team are always happy to meet to discuss services to the great city of Hull. The hon. Lady is not entirely accurate, because I did refer to the announcement I made a month ago about the start of the £2.9 billion investment in the trans-Pennine upgrade, which will start next spring.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that £1.2 billion was overspent on electrification between London Paddington and Swansea, and he knows that is not the only transport infrastructure project in relation to which the National Audit Office has found overspending. How confident is he that safeguards are in place for future infrastructure contracts for the east and west coast main lines, along with HS2, to prevent overspending that needlessly costs taxpayers millions?
Chris Grayling
It is always possible for technical problems to arise, as we are seeing in Bolton at the moment, but I think that lessons are being learned. Lessons are certainly being learned from the Great Western main line, which has not been run on an acceptable basis—it has been subject to reviews by the NAO, the Public Accounts Committee and the Transport Committee. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Network Rail and my Department are seized of the need to ensure that that does not happen in future.
Northamptonshire County Council
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the independent inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council. Everyone in the House, regardless of party, appreciates the crucial role that local government plays at the frontline of our democracy, delivering vital services on which we all depend and helping to create great places to live, and, in doing so, making the most of every penny it receives from hard-pressed taxpayers to secure better outcomes, all of which builds confidence and trust between local authorities and those they serve. That is why the situation in Northamptonshire County Council is of such concern.
Prior to my instigation of the report, there were signs that the situation in the council was deteriorating. External auditors had lodged adverse value-for-money opinions in audit reports, suggesting that the council was not managing its finances appropriately. The former leader resigned in May 2016, which also signalled the need for change. As late as last year, the Local Government Association conducted a financial peer review, which concluded that there were issues with delivering the Next Generation reforms and, again, with the mismanagement of finances. The then chief executive, Paul Blantern, resigned in October 2017.
Those reports, along with concerns raised by district councils in Northamptonshire and by hon. Members who represent local constituencies, prompted me to act, as I was concerned that there were potentially fundamental issues within the council. On 9 January I informed the House that I had concerns regarding the financial management and governance of the council. I therefore decided to exercise my powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to initiate a best value inspection of the council. I appointed Max Caller, an experienced former chief executive and commissioner, to conduct the inspection and report on whether the council was complying with its best value duty.
Mr Caller submitted his report on 15 March—I placed a copy in the Library of the House so that everyone could see what he had found and his recommendations. Before I go any further, I would like to thank Mr Caller and his assistant inspector, Julie Parker, for their dedication and focus in conducting such a thorough and prompt review.
When I commissioned the best value inspection, I asked the inspector to consider four things in particular: first, whether the council has the right culture, governance and processes to make robust decisions on resource allocation and to manage its finances effectively; secondly, whether the council allowed adequate scrutiny by councillors; thirdly, whether there were strong processes and the right information available to managers and councillors to underpin service management and spending decisions; and fourthly, whether the council was organised and structured appropriately to deliver value for money.
I have reflected on the contents of the Caller report. It is balanced, rooted in evidence and compelling. The inspector has identified multiple apparent failures by Northamptonshire County Council in complying with its best value duty—failures on all counts. While I recognise that councils across the country have faced many challenges in recent years, the inspector is clear that the county council’s failures are not down to a lack of funding or because it is being treated unfairly or is uniquely disadvantaged compared with other councils. His report concludes that
“for a number of years, NCC has failed to manage its budget and has not taken effective steps to introduce and maintain budgetary control”.
Furthermore, the complex structure of financial support meant that oversight was difficult and accountability was blurred. The report says that Northamptonshire’s Next Generation approach, which envisaged outsourcing many of the council’s functions, had no
“hard edged business plan or justification to support these proposals”.
That
“made it difficult to ensure a line of sight over costs and operational activity”
and
“made it impossible for the council, as a whole to have any clarity or understanding as to what was going on.”
Similarly, the inspector found that Northamptonshire County Council used capital receipts to support revenue spend
“without documentary evidence demonstrating compliance with the Statutory Guidance and Direction.”
Furthermore, until this February, there was no report to full council on the proposed projects and their benefits. He says in his report:
“Savings targets were imposed without understanding of demand, need or deliverability and it is clear that some Chief Officers, did not consider that they were in any way accountable for the delivery of savings that they had promoted.”
On the question of scrutiny, the report says:
“The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism. Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the executive would allow.”
I want to emphasise that the report also indicates that the hard-working staff of Northamptonshire County Council are not at fault and have worked hard to provide quality services.
With all this in mind, it is clear that I must consider whether further action is necessary to secure compliance with the best value duty. In doing so, I want to reassure the residents of Northamptonshire that essential services will continue to be delivered. The inspector is clear:
“The problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale.”
He recommends:
“A way forward, with a clean sheet, leaving all the history behind, is required”.
I am therefore minded to appoint commissioners to oversee the authority, using my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999. From day one, I propose that they take direct control over the council’s financial management and overall governance. Getting these basics right must be the first step in stabilising this authority. I also propose giving them reserved powers to act as they see fit across the entirety of the authority’s functions if they consider that they must step in. My officials are writing to the council and to the district councils today to this effect, and they can make representations on this proposal. I will consider any representations carefully before reaching a final decision.
The Caller report makes a clear recommendation on restructuring, and notes that there are a number of options available. So, in addition, I am inviting Northamptonshire County Council, and the district and borough councils in the area, to submit proposals on restructuring their local government. I would like those councils to think about what is right for their community and the people they serve, and to come forward with proposals. This invitation and the letter to Northamptonshire that I mentioned earlier have been published today, and I have placed copies in the Library of the House.
It is clear to me that any proposals from the councils should seek to meet the criteria for local government restructuring that I have previously shared with the House. They are that the proposals should improve local government; be based on a credible geography; and command a good deal of local support. I will be particularly interested in hearing how the councils have consulted with their communities to ensure that Northamptonshire’s future is truly locally-led.
The findings of Mr Caller’s inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council are extremely serious, which is why this Government are prepared to take decisive action to ensure that local people receive the high-quality services they need and deserve, and to restore faith in local government in Northamptonshire. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his oral statement and for bringing to the House a much-awaited response to the sorry crisis in one of his own party’s councils.
The best value inspection of Northamptonshire County Council of 15 March makes very sorry reading and is an indictment of not only mismanagement locally, but eight years of intransigence and austerity nationally. The Secretary of State will know that Northamptonshire’s problems have been building over a number of years, yet the council bragged about its “pioneering” approach to council services, running them as a business and operating “almost like a PLC”, according to the former chief executive. It did not take long before it became clear that just like the public sector, the private sector cannot deliver adequate services when there is still too little funding.
In 2015, the Local Government Association warned that forcing councils to spend reserves to plug funding gaps—something the Secretary of State’s predecessor, Sir Eric Pickles, used to demand of all councils—would be a “reckless gamble” and
“would put local communities on the fast-track to financial failure.”
As we have heard, back in September last year, the LGA conducted a financial peer review, warning that Northamptonshire would be the first to collapse. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State had read that report because he was soon cutting the ribbon at the new £53 million headquarters, as the authority was preparing the paperwork to declare itself bankrupt.
Worse, the Local Government Chronicle has suggested that there are already at least 10 authorities preparing to issue section 114 notices, and now the National Audit Office has warned that one in 10 councils with social care obligations will have exhausted their reserves within the next three years. So can the Secretary of State tell the House: what contingency arrangements have been put in place should other authorities follow Northamptonshire over the cliff edge?
I hope that the Government will learn from the failure in Northamptonshire. Even now, we are still learning more; we found out just this week that the ex-chief executive was paid more than £1,000 a day, while people were losing their jobs and services. That is why it is so crucial for commissioners to be sent in. The problems at Northamptonshire are so deep-seated that the residents of the county should not expect more of the same mismanagement from the Tory councillors who have driven it into the ground.
The Secretary of State says that he is minded to appoint commissioners. The Labour party has been calling for that for some time. Can he give a timescale—when will he make a formal decision? Should he decide to appoint commissioners, how soon does he expect them to be in place following that decision? Does he expect that their remit will be as extensive as that recommended in the report? If he does, he will have our full support.
On the budget, it is clear that Northamptonshire’s problems continue. Creative accounting may have got the county through the year end and through the budget setting for 2018-19, but Northamptonshire’s finances remain in a precarious state, and the principal pressures in children’s and adults’ services remain serious issues for the authority. What certainty does the Secretary of State have that Northamptonshire will be able to meet those cost pressures in the new financial year without additional central Government resource? What level of direct budget monitoring will be taking place by his officials in the Ministry throughout the year and will he be recommending that Northamptonshire undertakes additional in-year budget-setting exercises should it need to?
We give a cautious welcome to the reorganisation of local government in Northamptonshire, but changing lines on a map does not, in itself, resolve the deep- seated problems facing local government. In asking Northamptonshire’s councils to make suggestions to him, does the Secretary of State agree that any proposals for new councils must have the widest possible degree of consent from the communities they seek to represent? What resources will be made available to the new authorities to start them off on a sustainable footing? Does he envisage a Northamptonshire residuary body that will be established to take on the historic problems associated with the county’s finances, so that the new councils can start with a clean slate? And what assessment has he made of the financial capability of unitaries to run the functions of local government in Northamptonshire?
Northamptonshire is the first but it will not be the last. Given the assessments by the NAO and the Local Government Chronicle that other councils will follow Northamptonshire in the coming years, what assessment is the Secretary of State making and what resource is he going to make available to ensure that that does not happen? This is what happens when a Government have created a £5.8 billion gap in local government funding. Everyone is saying that social care is on its knees and when children’s services need an additional £2 billion. Local government cannot be allowed to collapse on this Government’s watch.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I must say that I do not think he listened to a word of my statement. Once again, he appears to have come to the Dispatch Box with a pre-prepared statement. It is clear that he is very disappointed indeed by the report because it is not what he wanted. He wanted a report that he could use for party political purposes, so that he could play his favourite game, political football—a game that has no respect for the people of Northamptonshire.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to claim that what has happened in Northamptonshire was due to a lack of funding. He did not listen to what I said in my statement and he clearly has not read the report. He comes to the Dispatch Box having not even read the report—and he calls himself the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Had he read the report, he would have seen that the independent inspector is crystal clear that it is not an issue of lack of funds; it is to do with poor governance and poor financial management.
The hon. Gentleman must have been very disappointed that the report did not allow him to make his party political arguments. I noticed that he conveniently ignored the history of local government interventions, so let me remind him: in 2001, Hackney, Labour-controlled; in 2003, Hull, Labour-controlled; in 2008, Stoke-on-Trent, Labour-controlled; in 2009, Doncaster, Labour-controlled; in 2014, Tower Hamlets, Labour-controlled; and in 2015, Rotherham, Labour-controlled. Perhaps he can detect the pattern, but if he cannot, let me help: all those councils were Labour-controlled. He has conveniently ignored that.
The hon. Gentleman did manage to get round to a few questions, so let me try to answer them. He asked about the timescale for the decision that I am considering on sending in the commissioners. It is a “minded to” decision at this point. I will take representations, as I rightly should, up to 12 April, after which I will make a final decision. If the decision is to send in commissioners, they will be in place by the end of April.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be more funding for the council. As I have said, the inspector has said that lack of funding is not the issue. Simply to give the council more funding would be to reward mismanagement and would clearly be wrong.
The hon. Gentleman asked about reorganisation. It is of course necessary to consider reorganisation, because that is one of the inspector’s central recommendations. I do not want to predetermine the outcome. The inspector has recommended two new unitaries. We are open-minded about the proposals and I will consider them carefully, to a timeframe that allows us to look at them properly and to make sure that any options are consulted on properly.
Finally, I suggest kindly to the hon. Gentleman that, if he wants to come to the Dispatch Box and be taken seriously, can he listen to my statements in future, instead of appearing and talking about fiction?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the excellent Secretary of State for his statement and agree entirely with its content. I share the sense that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), does not seem to have read the report. Had he read it, he could not possibly have considered the situation to have anything to do with funding.
We must look to the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that the locally led initiative for the new structure must come from people locally and must come urgently? Can we ensure that we look into whether the council’s having a cabinet system rather than a committee system was one of the reasons for the failure? The new authorities should have not a cabinet but a committee system.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done and continues to do to help his constituents in Northamptonshire, which he has demonstrated so ably again now. I agree that any reorganisation must be locally led, which means including the districts and local people themselves in any consultation. I heard what he said about the cabinet system; I am sure those are the kinds of things at which we will look carefully.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm exactly how many local authorities have contacted him to warn him of a current or impending financial crisis?
Sajid Javid
I am not aware that any local authority has contacted me, and I am certainly not aware of an impending financial crisis. That is not to say that local authorities do not contact the Department all the time, with all sorts of issues and concerns, as they should, because that is why the Department is there.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
As a former leader of Derbyshire County Council, it was particularly disappointing to read in the report of the local mismanagement, which the report indicates is obviously the cause of the crisis in Northamptonshire County Council. Notwithstanding that, does the Secretary of State accept that the pressures on adult care nationwide are such that both fairer funding and the tackling of health and social care integration need to be Government priorities in the years ahead?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done and continues to do for the people of Northamptonshire. He is right to raise the pressures being felt by Northamptonshire County Council and many other councils, particularly on adult social care and children’s social care. He will know that at last year’s spring Budget there was a record settlement, with an additional £2 billion going into adult social are. Looking to the long term, that is exactly why we have the Green Paper, and I hope that he will provide input into that process.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about being crystal clear. What is crystal clear is the mess that Northamptonshire County Council finds itself in as a result of the incompetence and mismanagement of local Conservative politicians. Will he therefore issue an apology to the electors of Northamptonshire, on behalf of the Tory party, for the mess that they have found themselves in?
Sajid Javid
First, I highlight the fact that the new leader of the county council has made an apology. I say to the people of Northamptonshire that what they are looking for and have contacted us about, either through their MPs or directly, is decisive action, and that is exactly what they are getting from the Government.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The inspector’s report is clear about the issue of national funding, but in any event the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and the Labour party voted against the local government finance settlement, which gave extra money to local government in Northamptonshire. I welcome the robust steps my right hon. Friend has taken to address the concerns that we Northamptonshire MPs have raised. When it comes to reorganisation, I note that any proposal has to be bottom-up—it has to come from local government in the county. Will he keep in mind the importance of the reserves that have been diligently accrued by the districts and boroughs being spent in the areas in which they have been accrued; the need for strong area representation; and the committee system, which I think would be hugely beneficial?
Sajid Javid
I commend my hon. Friend’s work for his constituents in Northamptonshire. For that matter, I also commend the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), for the work that he continues to do. I commend the interest that they have both taken in the report. I very much agree with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) raised, particularly in respect of reserves, which of course belong to those local councils and districts. That will not change in any reorganisation. When the proposals for reorganisation come through, it is important that all the options are looked at properly so that we get the best outcome for the people of Northamptonshire.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am sure we all accept that the failures of Northamptonshire County Council are not necessarily down to a lack of funding altogether, but we cannot ignore that all councils throughout the country are under big financial pressure. Core central Government funding will be cut in half over the next two years and almost phased out completely by the end of the decade. There is not yet a plan in place for how it is all going to work out. When will the Minister set out a long-term financial future for councils?
Sajid Javid
I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she wanted to see local authorities get more funding, she should have voted for the local government financial settlement. With that vote, we increased funding for local councils throughout England in real terms for the next two years. I believe she did not vote for that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I have some experience of unwinding creative accounting in local authorities, but the serious business that I am concerned about is the decision that was made to use capital funds for revenue funding. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that that does not happen, not only in Northamptonshire but in other local authorities? Will he review what is going on elsewhere in the country to find out whether other authorities are involved in such creative accounting?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know that there are legitimate ways for local councils to use capital for resource, but under very strict rules. What the inspector has highlighted here is his concern that those rules were not followed, and that does require further work, which is exactly what we are doing.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If this situation is not due to a lack of funds, then, obviously, it follows that the Secretary of State’s position is that the council has enough funds to fulfil its statutory obligations, which includes providing a comprehensive and efficient library service. Currently, the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is formally investigating a complaint about the cuts, which means that the council is not providing a comprehensive and efficient library service. Therefore, does the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government agree that those cuts should be stopped and that the Secretary of State for DCMS should report as quickly as possible on whether that complaint should be upheld?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that it is the responsibility of DCMS to look at the statutory requirements around libraries. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State there, hears his concerns.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and agree with his recommendations on what is a sad day for Northamptonshire. We now enter quite a dangerous period between the Secretary of State’s statement and the potential sending in of commissioners when, perhaps, some wrong decisions can be taken by the county council still in existence. May I ask him to look at three things: first, the sale of the Angel Square headquarters, which, if it goes through, could saddle future authorities with a 25-year rental liability; secondly, sending in the Government’s library taskforce to sort out the disgraceful proposed closure of 21 libraries in the county; and, thirdly, liaising with the Home Office to transfer the fire service as quickly as possible out of the county council before further cuts are levied?
Sajid Javid
Again, let me thank my hon. Friend, who represents a constituency in Northamptonshire, for all his work and caring concern. He has raised three very important matters. On the question of the headquarters, he will know that Northamptonshire is an independent council—independent of central Government—that has to take its own decisions, but we are very alive to that situation and we are in touch with the council. It knows that there are certain requirements that it must meet. I am sure that if anything happened, it would be something that the commissioners would want to look at carefully. On the library, it is the responsibility of DCMS, but we are in touch with that Department, too. I will certainly get in touch with the Home Office on the other issue that he raises.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State continues to use core funding as a way of masking the eight years of cuts that have been levied on councils across the country. Even the Local Government Association says that it does not correctly represent the cash that is available to fund public services, so will the Secretary of State please stop using that number? But what I wish to ask is this: when will he meet trade unions? As he talks about reorganisations of districts, councils and county councils, there will be a number of staff who face a period of uncertainty and insecurity in their work. It is only fair that they, as well as elected Members, know what is happening during this process.
Sajid Javid
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that core funding is absolutely correctly used, because that is what it refers to—all the different sources of funding that local authorities have. If I am not mistaken, I think that that approach was actually determined by the previous Labour Government, and so I would have thought that he would welcome that. He mentioned the role of trade unions. As I have said, if there is any reorganisation—and I think that it will certainly be looked at now—then of course everyone should be involved. If trade unions have certain concerns, they should raise them during the consultation period. My understanding at the moment is that the local trade unions have come out in favour of a unitary system.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for his swift action with regard to Northamptonshire Council. Does he agree that this shows the importance of an open and transparent culture in local government right across the country?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the independent inspector, Mr Caller, has highlighted the importance of culture and how, in this case, it failed. It is something that we need to keep in mind in the future with regard to other councils, and certainly as we reorganise this one.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
So, we have a Conservative Secretary of State and we have a Conservative council that is in a mess. Can the Secretary of State tell us how things got to this point on his watch, and does he think that there are any other Conservative-controlled councils that are not fulfilling their responsibilities?
Sajid Javid
I have only a few things to say to the hon. Lady: Hackney, Hull, Stoke-on-Trent, Doncaster, Tower Hamlets and Rotherham.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
As someone who used to have responsibility for my local council’s finances, I know that swift action has been critical, so I commend my right hon. Friend for taking it and for his open mind on what the new local government arrangements might look like. As he approaches this issue, will he make sure that the voices of local residents and existing councillors at district level will be taken into consideration as he plans that reorganisation?
Sajid Javid
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has just said, this is a sad day for the council. Residents will reflect on this, but it is now important that we make the most of this difficult situation and that, when we have that reorganisation, we ensure that we listen to local residents, including, of course, the borough councils.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
During the local government funding settlement statement, I asked about local government funding, and the response that I got from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was that local government had plenty of reserves. She pointed out that it had £23 billion of reserves that could be used. First, has that set a dangerous tone to local authorities that they should be spending their reserves? Secondly, does the report suggest that the privatisation of services has meant that councils cannot properly control them?
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I also commend the Secretary of State for his swift action in response to this problem. I am pleased that the inspector has said that these problems are not centred on funding. Is the Secretary of State concerned that there are other councils at risk of not being able to meet their best value duty, and what steps is he taking to identify such councils?
Sajid Javid
If we had concerns that a level existed similar to the one that materialised in Northamptonshire, I certainly would have taken action by now. That is not to say that there are not councils that we are working closely with, that we are keeping an eye on and that we provide advice to. It is important that we continue to operate in that way, that we continue to have a high hurdle for intervention, but that we do not fail to intervene whenever necessary.
GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the current takeover bid by Melrose plc for GKN plc.
Following the announcement of the bid, I spoke to the chief executives of GKN and Melrose to understand their plans, and I have done so again as the bid timetable draws to a close and changes have been made to the original terms. My quasi-judicial role requires me to treat all parties fairly and so I should disclose that I have also had a briefing with the chief executive of Dana Incorporated, which has been proposed as a partner in a transaction with GKN.
As hon. Members know, the long-standing British manufacturing and engineering company GKN is subject to a current takeover bid from the British company Melrose plc. One of the most important features of the British economy is that we have a vigorous market for corporate control. Business are kept competitive and efficient by the possibility of the current management being replaced by another set of managers if, in the view of their shareholders, they are underperforming and the company could be better run. However, uncomfortable that constant threat may be for incumbent managements, it is an important one, and acts against complacency and inefficiency, and so is in the interests of employees, customers, suppliers and taxpayers as well as shareholders. It is worth reminding ourselves that shareholders include the pension funds on which millions of working men and women rely for a comfortable retirement.
There are strict and limited grounds for ministerial intervention in proposed mergers. The limited exceptions apply where one or more of the three public interest grounds are engaged. These are those of national security, media plurality and financial stability. The Enterprise Act 2002 gave powers focusing narrowly on those grounds to refer a bid to the Competition and Markets Authority. Such a reference is possible until four months after the completion of a transaction.
I will make such an assessment following receipt of advice from the Ministry of Defence and other agencies on the final terms of a bid, if it is successful, and I will inform the House immediately if an intervention is launched.
However, beyond that formal statutory role, I am concerned to ensure that significant takeover bids shall not act against the interests of our economy, employees, or the broader set of stakeholders. It has long been recognised that companies and their directors have duties that extend beyond current shareholders alone. Indeed, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 sets out a requirement for directors to have regard to, among other things, the interests of the company’s employees; its business relationships with suppliers, customers and others; and the impact on the community and the environment. In my view, this establishes the principle that we expect interests broader than pure shareholder value to be taken into account by directors, and also in the attitude of the Government.
In the past, some takeovers have had consequences for these groups that were not only deleterious but were at odds with the indications given during takeover bids. For this reason, a new regime was established whereby bidding companies can make legally binding commitments as to their intended conduct in the event of the bid succeeding. Having established this regime, I believe it should be used in takeover bids where the interest of stakeholders is engaged, as is clearly the case here. GKN is a valued employer, directly and through its supply chain, and it plays an important role in Britain’s automotive and aerospace sectors. Through its research and development, it has a vital role to play in our industrial strategy. It benefits from Government-sponsored contracts and participates in sectors that enjoy active engagement from Government-sponsored R&D programmes. It also carries responsibility for a large number of pensions that depend on GKN’s prosperity to fund the pension scheme, which is currently in deficit.
Melrose’s business model is based on acquiring, improving and selling businesses to new owners after a small number of years. While this approach can have advantages in terms of efficiencies, tensions can arise between it and the need for long-term investment and stability for important relationships. With the deadline for the offer period closing on Thursday, and without prejudice to my use of Enterprise Act powers—which, as I said, operate according to a longer timetable—I believe that Melrose should set out more clearly its intentions towards wider stakeholders and, specifically, make commitments concerning them in a legally binding form before the opportunity is lost with the closure of the offer period.
Accordingly, I wrote to Melrose yesterday asking it to set out clearly its proposed commitments, including on maintaining the business headquartered and listed in the UK; maintaining a UK workforce and respecting their employment rights, as well as engaging closely with their representatives; continuing to pay tax as a UK taxpayer; continuing to invest in R&D programmes that are crucial to our industrial strategy; investing in the training and development of the workforce, including in apprenticeships; treating suppliers well, including the prompt payment of suppliers; and making arrangements for current and future pensioners that are to the satisfaction both of the trustees and the independent Pensions Regulator.
In addition, stable ownership and financing is an important part of the underpinning of trusted relationships that particularly characterise the defence sector. That stability is also important for research and development partnerships, which, by their nature, endure over many years, whereas Melrose’s model has been built on short-term ownership. I have therefore sought a legally binding commitment from Melrose to greater continuity of ownership specific to the defence-related businesses and to excluding the option of a short-term sale of this business without the prior consent of the Government. I have also made it clear that in the event of a successful bid, the Ministry of Defence would look to require a legally binding commitment relating to the management of any defence contracts. It is important to emphasise that these would be voluntary commitments by the company, over and above questions of the use of Enterprise Act powers. But I do think it is right that these wider issues of public concern should be addressed by Melrose before the bid closes formally. Melrose has earlier today given a response to my letter that I will place in the Libraries of both Houses, alongside my letter.
Subject to the powers that I have described, it is for shareholders of GKN to decide which management team they wish to run their company. But my strong belief is that where broader interests are at stake, and having established a new regime in which legally binding commitments about the future can be given, they should be used before the opportunity to do so expires. I will continue to keep the House up to date at every phase of these proceedings. The House can be assured that I will carry out my responsibilities seriously, meticulously and fairly in representing the public interest in the future of such an important company. I commend this statement to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for today’s update. Sadly, however, the letter sent by the Government yesterday and the response by Melrose offer very little certainty and raise even more questions.
First, it was on 8 January 2018 that the board of GKN received a preliminary and unsolicited proposal from Melrose to acquire the entire share capital of GKN. Melrose put in its formal offer on 1 February. Concerns about Melrose’s plans had been raised by trade unions, Members of this House and the media for months, yet it took until 26 March for the Government to write to get some assurances from Melrose. So why did the Secretary of State wait until the last minute?
My second question concerns the enforceability of the assurances themselves. Which of the assurances and commitments given by Melrose in its letter of 27 March are actually legally enforceable and binding, because on my reading of the letter, it seems that very few are? Specifically, can the Government confirm that the commitments given under the heading “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings” are indeed enforceable and will be enforced by the takeover panel? Can the Government also confirm that all the commitments below the paragraph headed “Long-term commitment” are totally unenforceable? What powers do the Government have to enforce any of the empty promises from page 2 onwards that are not post-offer undertakings? My discussions with the takeover panel suggest that enforceability is indeed limited to the areas referred to in Melrose’s letter under the heading “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings”. I must also express concern regarding the “flexibility” that Melrose requests in relation to any offers it receives to sell the aerospace division prior to 2023. What will the Government do to protect this business and, indeed, the other elements of the business that are not even referred to in Melrose’s letter? Do we take their omission as a clear indication that they will not be protected?
My third question is about the substantive content of the assurances. Why did the Government not ask for or receive any post-offer undertakings on maintaining or increasing employment at GKN over a 10-year period? These can clearly constitute post-offer undertakings under takeover code. Indeed, when SoftBank took over Arm Holdings, it promised to increase the total number of UK Arm group employees to at least double the total number as at the takeover date. It is also not clear why Melrose did not include UK tax residency as a post-offer undertaking. Similarly, I would argue that many of the things that the Government asked for were weak and meaningless. For example, when the Government asked for the maintenance of a UK workforce, what did they actually mean? Is one employee in the UK enough to fulfil this condition? Similarly, on investing in the training and development of the workforce, how much, and by what time?
My fourth question concerns the Secretary of State’s powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to block the bid on national security grounds. It would be helpful if he confirmed that Melrose has indeed waived the condition to get the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. More importantly, the Secretary of State still has the powers to block this on grounds of UK national security, so will he confirm unequivocally today whether he will do this?
Finally, there are reports that merger arbitrage funds are planning to accept the Melrose offer, but as they are holding derivatives of GKN shares, they will not pay stamp duty on the transaction. Will the Secretary of State undertake that if Melrose does indeed proceed with this offer, the Government will investigate all share dealings to ensure that the correct stamp duty has been paid?
If the Government think that today’s weak, late and unenforceable assurances from Melrose are sufficient, then they are deeply mistaken. There is nothing to assure workers, nor to put to bed concerns about our industrial strategy and national security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) so eloquently stated recently, GKN is a jewel in Britain’s industrial crown that employed generation after generation. It needed a Government prepared to fight for its future, and I am afraid that the response so far has been far less than adequate.
Greg Clark
Everyone in this House, on both sides of the Chamber, agrees that GKN is a very important company that is crucial to vital R&D work and employs thousands of people across the country. That is why I consider it important, over and above my statutory powers—I have explained very clearly that this is without prejudice to the use of those powers—to encourage the bidder to set out much more clearly than it has done so far its intentions on many of the matters that the hon. Lady mentioned, such as research and development, being based in the UK, and a commitment to the length of tenure of this very important aerospace business. That seems to be an appropriate action at this stage in the proceedings.
Of course, this is a contrast to the sorry situation that arose—there are Members in this Chamber who will remember this—during the time in which the hon. Lady’s party was in government, when Cadbury was sold to Kraft and a plant that was expected to be kept open was closed forever. In response to that, when we came into government a regime was established that allowed legally binding undertakings to be given. I have said repeatedly in this House and to hon. Members that, given that that regime exists, I expect it to be used. I was not satisfied with the degree of commitments that had been given so far by Melrose, so I think that it was the right step, over and above my statutory powers, to set out those concerns in writing and to invite Melrose to respond to them.
The hon. Lady knows very well the statutory powers that I have. Again, they were passed when her party was in government, under the Enterprise Act 2002. The question of national security is a quasi-judicial one that will be addressed separately. It is not a subjective decision that I can take. It has to be based on a clear assessment. I make the commitment that I will take that assessment meticulously. There is a closing window for this bid, and it is right to use that window to obtain statements as to Melrose’s intentions.
The hon. Lady asked questions about the enforceability of the commitments. Melrose has said in its response that it is in discussion with the takeover panel. I regard that as the best way to lodge the commitments, so that they are enforceable with severe penalties, including contempt of court, if they are broken. The takeover panel monitors the adherence to the commitments after the event, were the bid to be successful. On security, the hon. Lady also asked about the company’s conversations with the US Administration. It is the case that the company took a decision to waive that condition.
The hon. Lady asked a question about commitment to the workforce. I have met the trade unions twice now. I specified in my letter to Melrose that I expected it to make a commitment to deal fairly with the trade unions in order to ensure that the future of the workforce is taken seriously, in lockstep with the trade unions. That is important. She also made a point about the avoidance of stamp duty. Clearly, any taxes that fall due ought to be paid.
I hope that the hon. Lady and the House—whatever their assessment of the bid—would, in recognition of the powers available, think that it is the right step to approach the bidder at this stage, before the timetable closes, in order to set out in a way that can be enforced for years to come, undertakings against which it can be held to account. That is the basis of my letter to the company.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Like many colleagues, I have a constituency interest in the matter. As he knows, because he has been kind enough to meet me, the global headquarters of GKN is in Redditch. Some 260 people, many of whom are my constituents, have been told that their jobs will go if this takeover goes ahead. I welcome the commitment that he has been given by Melrose to maintain the UK headquarters for a five-year period. What does he understand that this would mean for my constituents in Redditch?
Greg Clark
It is important that we recognise the benefits and valued presence of GKN in many parts of the country. It is a pivotal UK engineering firm, with a long heritage. The commitment that I obtained from Melrose was for that to continue, and that is what it has set out, but it is for shareholders to judge the decisions that the future management may make.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He is right to seek undertakings at this stage, because the concerns are many and varied, including: taxpayers’ money being used in GKN’s programmes; defence contract concerns; and the location of GKN’s headquarters. Another concern is security of employment, as Melrose is not known for its hesitation in stripping out what it sees as unimportant to its aims. There are concerns about training, research and development, and the long-term security of sensitive intellectual property, and there are written concerns from the Pensions Regulator that the pensions of employees could be seriously weakened by the proposed takeover.
I understand from the Secretary of State’s statement that he will place Melrose’s response in the Library, but will he give the answers to my questions in the House today? Is he confident that the Melrose line of, “Buy, improve, sell” is not in actual fact likely to be, “Buy, strip and sell what is left”? What detail will he require to be satisfied of this, or is it, in Melrose’s words, to be done “in good faith”? If the Secretary of State for Defence is to receive assurance for his “serious concerns”, will he come to the House to confirm that he is happy with the answers given? Will the Secretary of State outline the mechanism by which Melrose will guarantee that jobs will not be shipped abroad, and that the pensions of GKN workers will be fully funded? Finally, will he assure the House that he will intervene if any of the questions asked about the many concerns that are left remain unanswered?
Greg Clark
I have set out in terms in my letter to Melrose and in my statement that, in many respects, the model of short-term ownership—especially for assets connected with defence purposes, in which long-term relationships are important—is in tension with the model of these industries. That is why I set that out, outside the statutory determination that I have to make. I suggested that the commitments that Melrose makes are legally binding. The takeover panel provides one mechanism for that, which I commend, but there are other ways in which the undertakings could be made legally binding.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the assessment of the Ministry of Defence. At the close of the bid—when all of the facts are known, including what has been said this morning—the Ministry of Defence and other agencies will make an assessment and advise me on whether there are grounds for an intervention in the interests of national security. I have made a commitment to this House that I will take that expert advice seriously and meticulously, and will make a decision when I have it before me.
On pensions, Melrose and GKN have been in discussion with the pension trustees and with the Pensions Regulator. It is for the Pensions Regulator to determine whether the arrangements are satisfactory for the interests of not just current, but future pensions.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Many of my constituents have bitter memories of the promise made to keep open the Somerdale factory site in Keynsham when Kraft took over Cadbury, under the previous Labour Government. That factory site is now closed and is a housing estate. What commitment can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that this will be different, and that these legally binding commitments will be properly enforced this time?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have visited the site he mentions. That situation was a breach of the indications given during the bid, which is why this regime of legally binding commitments was introduced. It is my view that such a regime exists not simply to be available in principle, but to be used in practice. The force of the law applies to adherence to those commitments in a way that sadly was not the case with Kraft and Cadbury.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State why it took until three days before shareholders had to vote on this bid for you to write to Melrose to get some assurances, which are frankly pretty limited? It is too late in the day now for you try to drive a harder bargain—not you, Mr Speaker; you would drive a very hard bargain. The Secretary of State says it is still possible to call this in, but the takeover has been hanging over GKN and its employees and wider stakeholders for more than two and a half months now. What more information do you need to gather to decide whether to call this in? When will the Secretary of State finally make a decision on whether or not to call this in? It is too late now, isn’t it?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, I say this with great courtesy to the Chair of the Select Committee. It was in fact raised at the morning briefing meeting which I chair, accompanied by the Deputy Speakers and senior procedural advisers, that there has been an unhealthy tendency recently for Members to start using the word “you”. In case people observing our proceedings wonder what the fuss is about, “you” refers to the Chair, and debate must be conducted, as ordinarily the hon. Lady would do, through the Chair, and Members are referred to in the third person. There is good reason for that: it preserves the basic civility of our exchanges. I accept that it was accidental—the hon. Lady, in her passion, got carried away—but we must now return to good order, exemplified, I am sure, by the characteristic courtesy of the Secretary of State.
Greg Clark
I would say to the Chair of the Select Committee on the point about the statutory grounds that it requires an assessment when all facts are known of the implications for national security. That will come to me, and I will make a decision on that basis once the bid has closed. I observed her Committee’s scrutiny of the bid and of GKN itself. She asked for commitments to be given beyond what is statutorily required. I think she was right to do so. She was not satisfied with the response to that. I would have thought she would welcome the opportunity of my using my influence at this stage, before the bid closes, to push the company further to state clearly in the public domain, so that people can make a decision, very important matters concerned with the length of ownership and the investment in research and development that go beyond the commitments made to her Committee. I think it is welcome that they are in the public domain. It is now for shareholders to decide, and I will make a decision on my statutory powers when I am in receipt of the assessment from the security authorities.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate him on it. I know that he and his Department have done lots of work over recent times on this very important issue. That will provide some comfort to thousands of GKN workers in my constituency, but obviously there is still a process to go through and an end to reach. Does he agree that it is vital that we continue to protect our sovereign defence manufacturing capability, not only on the grounds of national security and our ability to produce platforms and equipment to defend ourselves, but post-Brexit, in terms of exports, global Britain and all that?
Greg Clark
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This has been a successful business, and whether we are talking about the defence industries or the aerospace sector, these are areas of British strength in which we expect and want to see improved export performance around the world. For all the reasons that he describes, it seems important, before the opportunity is taken away through the closing of the bid, notwithstanding the fact that these are voluntary undertakings, to press the company to make clear its intentions.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I led the battle against the Kraft takeover of Cadbury. That was wrong then, as the Melrose takeover of GKN is wrong now. The commitments that have been given—less on research and development, no guarantee that it will all be done in this country, five years on aerospace in a sector that typically thinks 15 years ahead, and no guarantees on Driveline—are simply not good enough. Those are “guarantees” that do not go far enough. This cannot be the last word. I have two questions. First, will the Secretary of State be seeking further undertakings from Melrose? Secondly, can he confirm unambiguously that, if advised that there are defence and strategic grounds that merit it, he will intervene and block this hostile bid?
Greg Clark
Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience of Cadbury and Kraft, he will know that there was no possibility of taking any legally binding undertakings as to their future behaviour. We saw the consequences of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said. I have been very clear with the House that what has been extracted from the company by way of commitments is without prejudice to my statutory powers. Of course I will make the decision seriously, following expert advice from those concerned. In terms of commitments, the bidding company made certain statements in response to the Select Committee. It has made further statements in response to my letter. I dare say that the views of Members expressed today will be heard by both companies concerned and can be taken into account in the remaining days of the bid.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. The shareholders include many of my constituents, who are relying on pensions from GKN. Can he reassure me that any decision taken by his office will be in the interests of all the people who are relying on those pensions for a comfortable retirement?
Greg Clark
I have been very clear with the company and in my discussions with GKN that the welfare of current and future pensioners is extremely important. We have a Pensions Regulator, which has the ability to scrutinise and advise on these matters, and the trustees are independent of the company. As I said in my letter, the pensions arrangements should be to the satisfaction of both.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
One of the most pressing issues when there are major corporate changes in an employer is pension security, as the Secretary of State just outlined. Can he expand on what assurances have been given? Has he looked at the British Steel scheme, where members transferring to the Pension Protection Fund have been told that if there are processing delays by the Government, they may lose some of their pensions? Will he or another Minister meet me urgently, as the deadline on that issue is tomorrow?
Greg Clark
I would be very happy, either by myself or with a colleague, to meet the hon. Lady. For matters of pensions, including steel pensions, the Pensions Regulator is quite rightly there to operate independently of Government and of the companies, to ensure that fair decisions are taken. That is a good arrangement, but I am happy to arrange the meeting she asks for.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In relation to the defence contract, is he aware of Melrose talking to the Ministry of Defence? What information will he seek from the Ministry of Defence in coming to a decision on a quasi-judicial basis in relation to whether there are national security concerns?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. My understanding is that there have been discussions between the Ministry of Defence and Melrose. Should the bid be successful, the MOD and other agencies would then need to form a view as to any consequences it had for national security and advise me accordingly.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have a constituency interest: the GKN Innovation Centre lies in Abingdon. Under the 2002 Act, the Minister is able to test whether or not such takeovers are in the public interest, but only for very specific things. Does this not show us that we need to look again at the public interest test, so that it can look at things such as the industrial strategy and the UK’s capability to deliver R&D?
Greg Clark
R&D was one of the important matters that I specified in my letter about which it is in the public interest for commitments and assurances to be given. Commentary has been made on that, and the hon. Lady will want to study what has been said, in particular about Abingdon. The tests for public intervention are long standing, consistent and required by European law, and they relate to financial stability, media plurality and national security. For many years, they have limited the grounds for intervention, which is why it seems right and appropriate, where there are wider issues of concern, that I should use my ability to write to and press the company to be clear about its intentions.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
What manufacturing industry in the UK needs is long-term, patient investment, as exemplified by companies such as JCB, Rolls-Royce and Toyota—all in the west and east midlands. What we see in this case, however, is a company willing to come in for a few years, make short-term gains and pass back all that money to shareholders, with very little investment, which is not in the long-term interests of the UK economy. I accept that the Secretary of State is limited in what he can do now, but will he take another look at this whole issue and at where we can promote long-term, stable investment in manufacturing? That is precisely not the approach exemplified in this case.
Greg Clark
Such long-term commitments and partnerships are important, which is why they were among the concerns I raised with the bidding company, although it is obviously a matter for shareholders to decide. It is fair to observe that GKN has also proposed to make some changes to the ownership of its activities on the automotive side. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our commitment to the very successful focus of our industrial society on the automotive and aerospace sectors, and I expect the owners of GKN—whether the existing management or an alternative—to maintain that very deep involvement in a very successful set of arrangements.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Melrose commitment not to sell the GKN aerospace division before 2023 falls well short of the investment cycles of 20 to 40 years needed in the aerospace industry. It also fails to meet the concerns expressed by companies such as Airbus about the security of the long-term availability of the products they need. Will the Secretary of State commit to take whatever action is necessary, including blocking the bid, to preserve this division?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman, who formerly chaired the Select Committee, went through the experience of Cadbury and Kraft and knows there is no ability to extract commitments on these matters. I know from speaking to him about this that he thinks the use of the new powers is a step forward in that respect. When it comes to investment in the future, it is for shareholders to compare the approaches offered by the management. He knows very well the powers I have and the regime I operate under, but, as I have told the House, on the grounds that I can consider, I will look very carefully at the advice I am given on the question of national security.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State and the undertaking he has secured from Melrose in the event of a successful bid. GKN has long been an important employer in Telford and many of my constituents are GKN pensioners, so does my right hon. Friend feel comfortable with Melrose making special dividend sweeteners to shareholders of over £1 billion while making only a small contribution to the pensions deficit?
Greg Clark
It is paramount that the interests of pensioners should be secured. I have said very clearly that I expect the Pensions Regulator and the trustees to be satisfied in relation to both camps—GKN or Melrose—that pensioners’ interests are being considered and protected, and that must of course come before the pay of executives.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State received a commitment from this particular company, which is well known for short-term investments, on longer-term investments? In the defence industry and in manufacturing in general, everybody—and I have worked in the defence industry—knows that any project runs beyond five or possibly 10 years, so such a commitment is needed to guarantee employment in this area. Has he been given any such commitments?
Greg Clark
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who knows the industry well and with whom I have discussed this matter. That is why I consider it important to request and advise the company to be clear about its commitment to research and development. In its reply to me, it has made some statements about that, which he and others can evaluate, along with some specific commitments about the level and nature of R&D. His description of the need for such a commitment to research and development is absolutely right.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Most of the undertakings that Melrose has given in answer to the questions that the Secretary of State put to it will expire after five years. As the Secretary of State has already heard, lead-in times for the aerospace and defence industries can be five, 10, 15 or 20 years, and Airbus has said that Melrose’s business model may threaten its ability to continue to be a customer of GKN. Does the Secretary of State consider the undertakings given by Melrose to be satisfactory or sufficient answers to the questions he has asked?
Greg Clark
It is not for me to evaluate the competing bids, given that I may have a quasi-judicial role in determining whether to intervene. However, I thought it was right to set out the areas on which I would invite the bidder to state its intentions so that those intentions are clear not only to shareholders but to this House, including the hon. Gentleman, and members of the public, and they can make their own assessment.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
I have constituents who work at the GKN plant in Luton, and I recently met trade union representatives who are understandably concerned about the future. Older Members in the Chamber, of whom I am one, will remember that hostile takeovers, merger mania and short-termism were core factors in the devastating era of asset stripping and deindustrialisation that led to the disappearance of vast tracts of British manufacturing and to our current yawning trade deficit. The Government are paying at least lip service to an industrial strategy, so will the Secretary of State now make that strategy real by stepping in to save one of our most historic and valuable manufacturing companies by simply stopping this takeover?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is aware of the regime under which we operate. I hope that he agrees that it is right, before the shareholders make their final decision, to encourage the company to set out more clearly than it has done its future intentions, not only so that that information is known, but so that, where it makes commitments, were it to succeed, it can be held legally to account for those.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Secretary of State specifically referred in his statement to the importance of the defence sector. However, the reply from Melrose to him, which I have looked at, states in one short sentence that it
“will execute a deed of undertaking in favour of the Ministry of Defence”.
One legal point of view is that that is a weak legal basis to base that on. Will he or the Secretary of State for Defence come to the Chamber at an appropriate time to give their response to that letter and indicate whether they intend to take action under the Enterprise Act 2002?
Greg Clark
When I receive the appropriate advice and make a decision as to whether an intervention is required, I will of course inform the House.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He rightly raises the importance of GKN to our defence sector. In his statement, he said that
“in the event of a successful bid, the Ministry of Defence would look to require a legally binding commitment relating to the management of any defence contracts.”
What assurances has he had from Melrose about the protection of GKN’s intellectual property and classified contracts, particularly in relation to their sale to countries that we see as a security threat? Not only would that be a threat to UK security, but it would hinder our future co-operation with our “Five Eyes” partners in developing new technologies.
Greg Clark
These are all precisely the issues on which Melrose is required to reach agreement with the Ministry of Defence, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman states.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State perhaps has a somewhat nostalgic view of what shareholders might do in the interests of this company. From the litany of disastrous takeovers in years gone by, it is clear that shareholders often do not act in the best long-term operational and industrial interests of British industry, and we need to challenge that in this House in redefining company law. Given that Melrose’s practices are at odds with the ambition of GKN, will the Secretary of State consider whether the five-year time limit is long enough? Does he agree that we should consider reforming company law to ensure that shareholders genuinely act in the long-term industrial interests of British industry?
Greg Clark
I hope the hon. Gentleman will reflect that this is the first time a set of concerns outside a Secretary of State’s statutory powers has been laid before a bidding company, with the ability to discharge them through legally binding undertakings. I was very clear that section 172 of the Companies Act embodies a range of commitments that go beyond those just to shareholders. I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree that, by taking the action I have, I have reflected the wider concerns that exist.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in north Bristol rely on work with GKN and its largest supplier Airbus, including for the A400 military aircraft carrier. Both the Secretary of State and Airbus have said that a short-term approach to ownership is not compatible with the long-term interests of the defence sector, so if the Secretary of State will not intervene in this hostile takeover, will he seek to extend the five-year period, which we have heard is not long enough? In doing so, will he speak with Airbus about what the appropriate length of time should be?
Greg Clark
The decision in terms of the implications for national security has to be taken under advice. I think I have been clear to all Members that that is not a subjective decision. It has to be based on the formal advice that I take from the expert agencies involved. I set out in my letter to Melrose that I thought it was necessary for it to set out its intentions with regard to the period of ownership, specifically in relation to aerospace. Without that we would have been in the dark as to its intentions. It is helpful to know what that period is and for it to be legally enforceable. The suggestion is that only with the consent of the Government could it make any change before then.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State? The F-35, F-18, Chinook and Black Hawk helicopters are all defence contracts with which GKN is involved. What assurances did he seek from Melrose in relation to those contracts? I think all of us in this House are worried about the implications for defence, were the bid to be successful.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman, who served as a distinguished Defence Minister, knows that these are squarely in the field of national security, for which there are statutory powers on which I will be advised by the Ministry of Defence and the agencies. What I have been discussing today are areas that are outside that statutory regime. There is still a very profound public interest that Melrose should set out its intentions. That is what it has done and that is now in the public domain.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
You, Mr Speaker, have a well-known prowess on the tennis court. If I had a fraction of those skills, I would have made it for the beginning of the statement, but I did at least beat the delivery of the statement, so I am immensely grateful to you for calling me.
The Secretary of State talks about the role of the Pensions Regulator. He does not know, I do not know and no pension trustees know on this deal which is the best longer-term buy to go for. Will he put forward and defend the strategic interests of pensioners by waiting for the Pensions Regulator to report to him on where the long-term interest lies, and block the deal if the strategic interests of pensioners are not met?
Greg Clark
I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman made it for the statement. The role of pensioners is of course very important and it is why I set it out there. The Pensions Regulator, as I understand it, has been in discussion with the trustees, and it is for the Pensions Regulator to form its view. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that media plurality, financial stability and national security are very specific grounds. They do not include, in terms of that statutory regime, the consideration of pensions, but I set out in my letter that I expect that the trustees and the Pensions Regulator should be satisfied that either proposal will operate in the interests of the pensioners.
Points of Order
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on how to get Foreign Office Ministers to respond adequately to Members’ questions, especially when life is at risk. Liam Colgan, from Inverness, has been missing in Hamburg since 10 February and his disappearance is causing his family enormous distress. Despite writing to Ministers a month ago and raising the matter with the Leader of the House in this Chamber, the response still fails to answer the specific questions his family have asked with regard to the support they require to find him and bring him home. How can I get answers from the Ministers on behalf of his family?
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I must advise him, with reference to the precise wording of his point of order, that the Chair has no responsibility for guaranteeing what he referred to, namely adequacy. The question of the adequacy or otherwise of a ministerial response cannot be a matter for the Chair, save in so far as the question involves timeliness. Ministerial replies to questions should be timely. Moreover, it is a convention, I think one now generally accepted, that Ministers should provide substantive replies. A continual stream of holding replies—“I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible”—really does not cut the mustard. I think the Leader of the House tends to chase ministerial replies to Members and it is right that that should be so.
More widely, my advice to the hon. Gentleman, seeing as he clearly invests in me great power, potential influence or even wisdom, is to say to him one word beginning with p and ending in t: persist, man! Persist! Persist! Persist in putting down questions and framing them in terms that are so clear that there can be no means, entirely inadvertently of course, of a Minister failing to see the purport and responding thereto.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over many decades through the child migration programmes, the UK Government, churches and charities sent British children in their care overseas. Many of those children were physically, sexually and emotionally abused. They were separated from their families, and they were wrongly told that they were dead. Earlier this month, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published a report that recommended surviving child migrants be paid compensation urgently; many have died and others are seriously ill. Originally the Department of Health and Social Care had lead responsibility for this matter, but when the report was published the Home Secretary published a written statement to this House. When I asked further questions of the Home Office, however, they were answered by the Department of Health and Social Care. I have spoken to the Table Office and we cannot get to the bottom of who is actually responsible. This has made it almost impossible to hold anyone to account. I am concerned that this reflects a lack of urgency and priority to this matter within Government. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how, given the confusion within Government about who is actually responsible, Members can progress this important matter?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She too, like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), should persist. She can of course table further written questions. However, given the evident urgency of this matter, not least because of the age and state of health of some of the people involved, my strong advice to her would be to persist in the Chamber. How she does so is a matter for her, but ultimately government is one and indivisible. It is in the interests of the House and of all Members that they should know which Department is handling a matter. It is really quite an elementary principle, but if there is ambiguity about that it must be resolved. The best course of action for the hon. Lady is to seek to raise these matters, perhaps even at the very highest level, in the Chamber.
I hope that the hon. Lady and other Members will take it in the right spirit when I say that my advice is that she should make a thorough nuisance of herself in the Chamber, in an entirely orderly way, by raising the matter as often as is necessary to secure clarification. That might mean raising it tomorrow, at business questions and every day for an appreciable period. That should not be necessary, but if that is what is necessary, that is what she should do. There will always be a friend in the Chair when Members from either side of the House and from whatever party try to pursue matters in that way.
Discarded Needles (Offences)
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Discarded Needles (Offences) Bill 2017-19 View all Discarded Needles (Offences) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to discard needles in public places in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
It is important for the House to understand why I am bringing this Bill forward, and why the existing law fails to make adequate provision for the act to which I refer. I believe that the Government should legislate for a new offence of discarding used drug needles in a way that recklessly or intentionally puts other people in danger.
In October last year, my four-year-old constituent, Riley Ashton, was playing after school in the public play area behind Tees Street in East Loftus in my constituency. One place in which Riley and his friends like to play is a sort of natural den created by bushes at the side of the park. It was here that Riley discovered an open handbag dangling from one of the branches. Inside it were 40 to 50 dirty hypodermic needles, discarded by local heroin addicts. Notwithstanding the danger, Riley seized a handful of the needles and ran to his mother shouting, “Look Mummy, stabby needles!” We can all imagine the sheer horror and panic that Paige experienced as she saw not just the contents of her son’s hand, but that it was bleeding. Needless to say, Riley was rushed to the James Cook University Hospital, where he spent the night undergoing an exhausting series of tests for HIV and hepatitis. Paige was then told she would face an agonising three-month wait before the results of those blood tests would be returned.
I pay tribute to Paige for her courage in bringing this story to my attention and for challenging the drug users and dealers in Loftus who make a misery of other people’s lives and rely on people being too scared to speak out. Her dignity is hugely impressive and she deserves better protection from the state than we have been able to give her so far.
Following Paige informing me of this incident, I took a number of steps to try to prevent such a thing from happening again. I contacted the excellent chief executive of Redcar and Cleveland Council, Amanda Skelton, who committed that authority staff would conduct regular sweeps of the play area to keep it safe, as well as cutting back the shrubbery in which the incident occurred. The council already has a well-established and important commitment to responding to any reports of discarded drug paraphernalia within two hours. That is really important and I hope that it will continue.
I also contacted the then chief constable of Cleveland police to request a greater police presence in the area in an attempt to keep drug users away. The park was duly added to the patrol pattern of local police community support officers. Today is not the day for this, but I believe that Cleveland police need to allocate greater resources to rural East Cleveland, which too often feels like the forgotten area of their patch. I will raise that issue separately with our new chief constable.
Riley’s incident has subsequently, I am pleased to say, led to the establishment of a drug-related litter working group that is exploring ways in which this nuisance can be stamped out. Although that is welcome, it is local in scope. I therefore also asked the House of Commons Library to look into what criminal sanctions exist for people who put the public at risk in this way. I was shocked to discover that the only offence with which an individual who discards used needles can be charged is that of general littering under part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Just consider that for a moment: an individual can inject themselves with heroin, itself a criminal offence, go on to discard their needles in a way that endangers the lives of children and others, and be given nothing more than a fine for littering. I find that pretty staggering. The moral difference, both in intention and consequence, between discarding used drug needles and, say, a sweet wrapper, is patently obvious, and yet the law as it stands fails to recognise this difference.
Let us be clear: we are never going to eradicate the scourge of hard drugs in our society. There are users in every constituency in our country and we need to help and support those people to get clean if they want to. However, most users manage to dispose of their needles in a sensible way. What happened to Riley in Loftus is different. I can see no way in which the needles were placed in a children’s play area, in their den, in a way that positively invited them to investigate without a sick intention to cause harm to a child. For that reason, I believe the Government should look seriously at creating a new criminal offence of recklessly or intentionally discarding used drug needles. This happens too often in Redcar and Cleveland, and I am certain elsewhere, for us to tolerate it any longer.
Since I became the local MP last summer, I have had reports of discarded needles from other towns in East Cleveland including Saltburn and Guisborough, as well as Middlesbrough and Redcar. Many other colleagues must be similarly affected. In 2005, a Government consultation opted against changing the law on the basis that it was unlikely that users would inject themselves or discard their needles in view of those in authority who might hold them to account. I make two points on that. First, the rise of CCTV and the growing sophistication of DNA testing means that fewer and fewer cases would be genuinely off record to authorities, if the will existed to deliver prosecutions. Secondly, in a close-knit community such as Loftus, local people and the police have a very shrewd idea of who the main offenders are. I simply do not accept that there are insuperable barriers to prosecution.
In Loftus, these people form a small minority in a town where there is a fierce desire to change things for the better. Loftus has faced really difficult times in recent years, driven both by the loss of traditional jobs and the fact that many troubled families have been placed there from elsewhere in the authority area. However, there are some amazing people in the town and great organisations, such as the Rosecroft Action Group, Loftus Accord, the Loftus co-op and the Friends of Loftus Library, who are bringing people together who want to smarten things up, attract new jobs and restore a sense of pride and purpose. I am very proud to work with them all and they would all want me to emphasise that there is much more to Loftus than a problem with drugs.
For those who love cycling, Loftus will feature in this year’s East Cleveland Klondike grand prix race, showcasing the beautiful local countryside and proving that North Yorkshire does not have a local monopoly on stunning scenery. It has a fantastic market square and a great number of small new businesses are opening up, including two that I have had the pleasure of opening recently—Mad Alice’s Micro Bar and Miss Fisher’s Emporium. I pay particular tribute to two of the local councillors, Wayne Davies and Mary Lanigan, who work tirelessly for the betterment of their community. All this hard work, investment from the Big Local and the transformative potential of the new Woodsmith mine mean that there is hope in Loftus when for too long, there has been none. To build on this, we must ensure that we have the legislative tools in place to ensure that we can crack down on the discarding of used needles.
I conclude by telling the House that I have recently been informed that Riley’s blood-test results have come back clean, and that he is safe and well. However, I am also very conscious that we might not be so lucky next time. I believe that we have it in our hands to give the police the powers to ensure that this is a tragedy averted, rather than one waiting to happen. It is therefore in hope that I recommend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Simon Clarke, Anna Turley, Luke Graham, Julia Lopez, Vicky Ford and Eddie Hughes present the Bill.
Mr Simon Clarke accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed (Bill 191).
EU Referendum: Electoral Law
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the emergency debate on the EU referendum and alleged breaches of electoral law. This debate, as colleagues will know as I informed the House yesterday, can run for up to two hours.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the EU referendum and alleged breaches of electoral law.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for helping to facilitate this debate, which as you said yesterday, was in order for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24. I start by reminding colleagues of what the Prime Minister said yesterday about Brexit:
“They want us to get on with it, and that is what we are going to do.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 525.]
She also dismissed concerns about Vote Leave’s activities, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who is not in his place but was here yesterday. She is hiding behind an increasingly tatty and threadbare comfort blanket—the will of the people: her sole justification for the disastrous act of self-harm she is imposing on the country. She has not in this place been able to deploy any sound economic, diplomatic, cultural or security reasons why Brexit is good for the country, but she has frequently referred to the will of the people.
Frank Field
I am grateful. Although the debate is about electoral law, might I put it on the record, as somebody who wanted to leave, that the law is the law and nobody is above it, and if the law has been broken, or if there are grounds to suspect that it has been broken, the full weight of that law should be thrown at those organisations?
Tom Brake
I was not entirely anticipating a friendly intervention, but indeed it was a very friendly intervention.
The Prime Minister does not appear willing to entertain any prospect that the allegations are true and that therefore the will of the people might have been usurped and the people cheated. It was my concern that the law might have been broken that led me to refer the matter to the Electoral Commission and the police.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—I do not think he is suggesting this for one minute—that this will have had no effect on the outcome of the referendum?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman encourages me to speculate on a matter to which it is difficult to respond. If these allegations, which are unproven, are true and £625,000 was spent illegally in a very focused campaign and, by definition, was targeted on a very small number of people, it is very hard to say what the effect might have been. That is partly what I hope any inquiries might clarify.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Would the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the remain campaign spent about one third more on the EU referendum and indeed that the Government spent more than £9 million of taxpayers’ money sending a leaflet to every house in the UK promoting our remaining? Could that not be seen as biased in favour of that campaign?
Tom Brake
Many Members on the Opposition Benches, and possibly some on the Government Benches, will have seen a comprehensive dossier of ways in which Vote Leave and BeLeave allegedly broke the law. If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring to the House, or present to the Electoral Commission and the police, a similar dossier of allegations against Britain Stronger in Europe, of course he should do that, and Members on both sides of the House would welcome it, but the fact is that all we have is the dossier that the Electoral Commission and the police are now considering in relation to Vote Leave’s and BeLeave’s activities. He should not, then, try to muddy the waters in the way I am afraid he is seeking to do.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Many of us in the House were around during the Iraq war debates, when we were given a dossier. Many of us were not convinced, having read that dossier in detail, but others were, and the House voted to go to war, even though the facts on which that decision was based proved not to be true. This dossier is far more convincing than the previous dossier. [Laughter.] Does he not therefore agree that it should be investigated and taken seriously by everybody in this House?
Tom Brake
Yes, and I am sorry that there was laughter from the Government Benches. Members of Parliament, whether they supported remain or leave, should be interested in finding out whether the law has been broken. It should not be a subject of hilarity in the way that it seems to be for some Members on the Government Benches.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Tom Brake
I am happy to say that it was, I understand, £18,000. The slight difference, though, is that as a party we would love to be able to spend close to the spending limit in relation to election law, but as a party we are never able to. The allegation here is that the combination of Vote Leave and BeLeave spending broke the law, so the hon. Gentleman should wipe the smile off his face, focus on whether the law has been broken and treat the matter more seriously than he appears to be doing.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the tone of the debate so far is incredibly disappointing? We are discussing something that goes to the very heart of our democratic processes. If the allegations in the report are correct, it shows that there is something rotten at the heart of our democracy, and it would behove the other side to take that rather more seriously, because it affects all of us and the credibility of our democracy.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I am sure that were he not at the Liaison Committee, the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who has done such a fantastic job on this and has just spent four hours listening to the testimony of Christopher Wylie, would be here making exactly the same points as the right hon. Gentleman.
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that equally helpful intervention. I hope that during this debate Members who heard that evidence will be able to contribute and update the House on what was said there, although I suspect that a lot of that information will have been contained in the papers this weekend, which I am sure many Members have spent hours assessing over the weekend and since.
I want to focus briefly on the Electoral Commission. This is how its website describes its role in relation to referendums:
“Our focus is on voters and on putting their interests first. Our objectives for referendums are that:…they should be well-run and produce results that are accepted…there should be integrity and transparency of campaign funding and expenditure”.
It is safe to say that neither of those objectives was met with respect to the EU referendum campaign—I am not blaming the Electoral Commission but others involved in the campaign.
What action has the Electoral Commission taken to date? The allegations we read about this weekend were new allegations, but there were existing allegations working their way through the system. I thank WhatDoTheyKnow, openDemocracy and FairVote for their work on this issue. They obtained internal emails from the Electoral Commission that described Darren Grimes’ spending as “unusual”. I think we can all agree it was remarkable that someone whose organisation in the first 10 weeks of its existence apparently managed to raise £107 was given £625,000 to spend in a completely uncontrolled manner. It is remarkable that such confidence was placed in that organisation and the one or two people behind it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I spoke to some people in the industry about this, and they told me that unless there was collusion it would have been impossible to mine such big data in the timeframe the money was given to BeLeave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is suspicious indeed?
Tom Brake
I do not want to comment directly on that, but clearly it is a very serious allegation that I am sure will be a subject of the Electoral Commission and police inquiries. The commission has confirmed that there is a live investigation under way and that therefore it cannot confirm what progress has been made, but it is under way, and I welcome that.
In the internal emails, the Electoral Commission described Grimes’ spending as “unusual” and found that he broke some of its rules, but it decided to take the matter no further as there were “no reasonable grounds” to believe that Vote Leave and Grimes had been working together.
I must say that the Electoral Commission will have to have very clear reasons if it does not believe this to be the case now, following those new allegations from three whistleblowers at the heart of the Vote Leave-BeLeave machine. It is worth underlining that they are new allegations. What we have heard from the supporters of Vote Leave is “All this has been investigated. There is nothing new here”, but these allegations from three whistleblowers at the centre of the organisation are completely new. These are matters that have not been investigated. Anyone who supported Vote Leave and is now saying, “Don’t bother, it has been done” is wrong.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the former chief executive officer of Cambridge Analytica, whose subsidiary, or associated, company AIQ is linked with many Leave campaigns, is openly bragging that it can alter election outcomes for a fee, that is a shaming indictment of the nature of British politics today, and shows that money tends to be seen as more important than our democracy and the force of argument?
Tom Brake
I will come on to some reforms that might be needed in terms of the law. Some of what has gone on, if it is indeed within the law, should concern us very much, and we may need to look very carefully at the law itself.
The new nature of the allegations is critical, because the Brexit cheerleaders, such as the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have been quick to say “Nothing to see here. Move on. The result must be respected. Vote Leave won fair and square.” They will pretend that all this has been investigated before. It has not, and only when it has will we know whether the trail of deceit which so publicly started with the incredible slogan slapped on the side of that infamous red bus—the Foreign Secretary’s comprehensively demolished claim that there would be £350 million a week for the NHS, which he keeps repeating to this day—leads directly to today’s Cabinet table.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about journeys of deceit. He will have noted that no members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party have joined us today. Their former vice-chair, Richard Cook, leads a group called the Constitutional Research Council, which gave £425,000 to the Democratic Unionist party during the last general election. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in asking Mr Cook to assure us, first, that none of that money came from Russia, and secondly, that none of it was used to co-ordinate other election campaigns such as those on the European Union referendum?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. Those too are serious allegations that need to be investigated, and I will touch on them briefly in a moment. One thing that concerns me about the donation to the DUP is that it was apparently spent on an advertising campaign that was wholly based in England. That seems a rather strange use of money allocated to the DUP which one might have expected to be spent in Northern Ireland.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should table urgent amendments to the Data Protection Bill on Report to give the Information Commissioner the initial powers that she needs, but also to enhance co-operation between the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority so that they can follow the money as well as the data?
Tom Brake
Absolutely—and I would add that they should be able to follow the money abroad, because I think that there is substantial concern about the possible involvement of foreign actors in our elections here, about the possible sources of funds, and, indeed, about the possible sources of advertising on Facebook and other media.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a number of investigations involving the Electoral Commission that are currently under way. Does he believe that the commission should undertake the task, or should there be a public inquiry, as suggested by the journalist who broke the story?
Tom Brake
I am open-minded about whether that might be a way forward. My only concern about it is that the commission has not proceeded as swiftly as we would have liked in the investigations that are already under way. A public inquiry is, by definition, likely to take a considerable period of time, and if there is much more water under this particular bridge I think it will lose its focus. I think it is important for us to focus on this now in a way that will deliver an outcome swiftly, so that people can have certainty about the fairness of our elections.
Open Democracy states:
“The referendum saw a number of different groups register as campaigns on each side. These campaigns were given spending caps, designed to limit how much the rich can sway our democracy. But if one campaign can simply get round its limit by donating to another on the same side, then the cap verges on meaningless. And so Electoral Commission rules are meant to restrict campaigns from getting round spend limits in this way.”
The question, therefore, is whether the commission interpreted the law correctly originally, and how it will interpret it now, given what I believe is substantial new evidence.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—in terms of new allegations—that a month before the referendum itself, the remain campaign set up no fewer than five new campaigns, at DDB UK Ltd, Best for our Future Ltd, The In Crowd, Virgin Management Ltd and Wake Up. Vote? Is he aware that remain channelled £1 million to those five organisations? Does he think that they should be investigated as well, and, if so, why has he not mentioned them so far?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope he will produce the evidence that he says he has to hand, and allow the matter to be investigated thoroughly. Otherwise he will be at risk of simply trying to muddy the water, and I am sure that he is not trying to do that.
If the Electoral Commission did indeed interpret the law correctly, we should note that Open Democracy also states:
“As a registered Leave campaigner, Grimes was allowed to spend”
£625,000
“during the referendum. Earlier this year a Vote Leave source told a parliamentary committee that it had enlisted Mr Grimes’s BeLeave campaign because it was close to breaching its £7 million spending limit and wanted to ensure all the money it had been given would be used. Under UK electoral law, this is fine. The Electoral Commission has ruled that such donations are allowed—so long as there was no ‘plan or other arrangement’ between Darren Grimes and Vote Leave about how the money was spent.”
In other words, one organisation, Vote Leave, can pass a huge amount of money to another, just before it would break the legal limit if it carried on spending. Although that second organisation is very familiar with the activities of the Vote Leave organisation—indeed, co-located with it, using the same supplier for the delivery of targeted messages and, presumably, the same or a remarkably similar specification for the work that Vote Leave pays for—the law says that the two are not acting in concert. If that is a correct interpretation, or indeed if that is how the Electoral Commission will interpret the law once it has considered the new evidence, I must say that I think the law is an ass and will need to be changed, because what it means, in effect, is that there is no limit to the amount that third parties can spend on supporting the main designated campaign organisation in any future referendums.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I would love to hear what the “new evidence” is. It is coming from some very junior people who are currently making contradictory claims on different television programmes. Let us hear what it is, and let us leave it to the Electoral Commission. It has already cleared this twice.
Tom Brake
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not concentrating on what I said earlier, and I forgive him if that is the case. I said very clearly that the new evidence had been provided by three people who were at the heart of BeLeave and Vote Leave, and who were probably the only people who were working for BeLeave. Let us face it: this was not a large organisation. It was an organisation that had a handful of people working for it. I suspect that they know more about BeLeave’s activities than anyone in this place, which is why I have referred the matter to the Electoral Commission and the police so that they can carry out appropriate investigations.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We are hearing about a potential abuse of electoral law, which is threatening to pull perhaps the most important decision of a generation down into complete farce. The Court of Session in Edinburgh has said that it will allow a petition about article 50 to go ahead. There seem to be weekly concerns about Brexit, the vote and the potential economic impact. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wheels are coming off the great big red Brexit bus that he mentioned earlier? Perhaps it is time for the Government to stop before it crashes completely.
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend has carefully enumerated all the different ways in which some of the promises made during the EU referendum campaign have been broken, and why people might now be thinking that a vote on the deal and an exit from Brexit is the only way out for them. Certainly, I must say that sometimes I wonder if the Prime Minister feels the same way, because when she seeks to answer questions about the economic benefits for the UK of us doing this, she is sorely short of any sensible answers.
I want to focus briefly on the issue of the Electoral Commission’s resources. It has confirmed in answer to my letter that it does have the resources it needs. I welcome that and take its word for it; however, when I was a Minister and had some responsibility for this area I was aware from contact with charities, political groups and others that the Electoral Commission often struggled to respond to queries in a timely manner, and there was always an appetite for more guidance and more detailed guidance. Perhaps the resourcing has changed, as it seems to be confident that it has what it needs to investigate this, but, as I said earlier, my hon. Friends and I have concerns about the progress made on some of the existing inquiries.
As long ago as 10 March last year Lord Tyler drew the attention of the Minister in the Lords to the fact that the leave campaign stood accused not only of lying in the substance of its campaign, but of cheating in the process of delivering it. He instanced the claim, which others have just referred to, by Arron Banks that Cambridge Analytica had played a crucial role in the campaign and “won it for Leave”. He also described the use of a very substantial anonymous donation to the Democratic Unionist party, as has also been mentioned, to fund a campaign wholly targeted at the British mainland. I am a little perplexed as to why those on the Conservative Benches do not get aggravated about the fact that in the UK it is fine for a very large anonymous donation to be made to a political party such as the DUP and for it then to be spent not in Northern Ireland. That smells rather bad to me, and I am surprised that Conservative Members do not share my concern.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman is at least cheered by the fact that some Conservative MPs seem very keen to participate in today’s debate despite the fact that 24 hours ago none of them thought there was anything worth debating. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on matters as important as the long-term constitution and international status of these islands, it is not enough for somebody to assert, full of bluster, that there is nothing wrong? All of us individually and collectively must be seen to be above suspicion, and when suspicions are raised with the volume and intensity of the last few days, there must be a full investigation, hopefully to prove nothing is amiss, but if there is anything amiss, those responsible must be held to account or the public will completely lose any faith in our democracy?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and his point is well made. I am sure he will agree with me and the other Members who have already expressed strong views on the fact that when anyone has broken electoral law—if indeed it has been broken—that requires investigation and appropriate action needs to be taken.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are so desperate to get Brexit that they are happy to get Brexit at any price, even at the price of democracy?
Tom Brake
I do not know if that is the case for all Conservative Members; we will see whether their enthusiasm for the debate leads any of them to make a contribution setting out concerns about whether democracy might have been jeopardised if these allegations are true. But they seem to be treating the debate more as a matter of hilarity, so I am not entirely confident that their contributions will reinforce the points made from the Opposition Benches.
I am now going to ask the Minister some questions which I hope she will be able to answer. In some respects I feel sorry for her in this, as I know her to be a very fair Minister. I would much rather have had the Foreign Secretary here to answer questions, because he has a lot of questions to answer in this respect, including on the role he played in the Vote Leave campaign.
I hope the Minister will be able to explain why the investigations of the existing allegations have taken so long. Is that a question of the Electoral Commission or the police lacking appropriate powers or resources? We have heard that the Electoral Commission has said it is not a resource problem. Is there a discrepancy between the different statutory regimes for elections on the one hand and for referendums on the other, which cause difficulty in the examination of infringements? Do these differences cause particular problems when seeking to establish illegal collusion or ineligible donors?
Can the Minister also set out what action the UK Government intend to take to address any failings in electoral law they or the Electoral Commission have already identified, and set out what mechanisms are in place to right past electoral wrongs? Given the narrow margin of the result—for every 17 people who voted to leave, 16 voted to remain—does the Minister recognise that continuing doubts about the referendum’s integrity fuel challenges to the legitimacy of the entire Brexit process? Is the Minister confident that no one who works for the Conservative party, or indeed Ministers or the Prime Minister, is going to be charged as part of this investigation?
I will conclude by saying that whether people voted leave or remain, they are entitled to know that the EU referendum campaign was fairly and squarely delivered, or that people were in fact cheated and the law was broken. As Members from all opposition parties, at least, have said, this will require a thorough investigation. It requires Ministers to refrain from the Trumpian tweeting preferred by the Foreign Secretary, who has already said that there is no case to answer before the case has actually been heard.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this emergency debate. As Members will know, I have been raising this issue and concern in the House for almost 18 months now, and when I first did so I was treated as a bit of a crank. Subsequently, however, almost every single allegation that I have used parliamentary privilege to put on the record in this place has proven to be correct.
This debate needs to be taken extremely seriously. It is not about who won or lost the referendum; it is about the integrity and security of our democracy and electoral system. Any of the sceptics who have cast doubt on the nature and quality of the evidence of the whistleblower, Chris Wylie, should watch the four hours of testimony that I watched today before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee: it was absolutely shocking and astonishing, and it should go to the heart of anybody who cares about our democracy.
Mr Wylie laid out clear evidence of serious lawbreaking by the leave campaign: not only collusion between Vote Leave and BeLeave, which is the one that has got most publicity, but collusion between Vote Leave and some of the other leave organisations, including Veterans for Britain, and indeed the DUP. Each of those organisations used either Cambridge Analytica—we know all about that, having heard the revelations last week about how it illegally harvested the Facebook data of tens of millions of people—or Aggregate IQ, a supposedly separate company based in Canada. It is not separate at all; it is all part of the same organisation. We know that 40% of Vote Leave’s budget was spent on Aggregate IQ and the work that it did. We still do not know how AIQ got that data, where the data came from or whether it was legally obtained and used. These are serious questions, and I am very pleased that the Chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who is a Conservative, is clearly taking the allegations seriously. He will be putting them to the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee later this afternoon.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, given the scale of the spending on digital campaigning now, that along with the investigation into what happened during the referendum there is an urgent need for a complete overhaul of the electoral rules to ensure that they are fit for the digital age?
Mr Bradshaw
Yes, I entirely agree. I shall go on to say something about that a little later.
Mr Wylie provided compelling and credible evidence not only of the collusion but of the effectiveness of the targeted advertising campaigns that these data companies conduct, based on the data that they have. In the case of the referendum, the campaigns were targeted on 7 million voters whom the companies had carefully profiled as people whose opinions they could shift. In his evidence to the Committee today, Mr Wylie produced a staggering statistic. He said that, in his experience, the methods used by Cambridge Analytica and AIQ in this case would have had the potential to shift between 7% and 10% of the people targeted. Let us not forget that he was and remains a leaver. He wants Brexit to happen, but he does not want it to happen based on a fraud on the British electorate. He said that
“it is completely reasonable to say that there could have been a different outcome in the referendum if there hadn’t been, in my view, cheating”.
There have been attempts to discredit Mr Wylie. There was even a disgraceful attempt from Downing Street to discredit one of his co-whistleblowers by, among other things, outing him as gay. I am amazed that the man who did that is still in his job, because that was totally unacceptable. Let me tell those people who are trying to discredit Mr Wylie that he is one of 200 people who have been allowed into this country because of their brilliance. He has been allowed a special visa because of the amount he knows about how all this stuff works. I do not have a clue how it all works, but he is one of the world’s leading experts, and he is a very serious whistleblower. Not all Conservative Members dismiss his evidence, but those who do do so at their peril. Let us just wait and see where all this ends. Mr Wylie also made a very worrying statement, and I think that this is the first time that a connection has been made between Cambridge Analytica and the Russian FSB—although I had heard about it privately—via the work that it did for the Russian oil company, Lukoil.
It must be clear to everyone in the House, whatever their view on Brexit, that the powers and resources of the Information Commissioner and the Electoral Commission are wholly inadequate. If the Government were serious about getting to the truth by letting the commissioners do their job, we would have less of this “what-aboutery” and more action and support for the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, in terms of their powers and—critically and more immediately—their resources. Mr Wylie has been working for many hours with the Information Commissioner, and one of the worrying things he told the Committee was that he had had to explain to the officials in that office what all this was about. They do not have enough technical experts. They do not have people who actually understand how all this works and what has been going on. In my view, this guy should be employed by all the global regulators, because he seems to be one of the few people who knows how this electoral corruption works, not only in our country but elsewhere. There was loads of evidence, for example, about what has been going on in Nigeria and in parts the Caribbean. This is not just a problem for this country.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The accusations that he is outlining go to the heart of the Government, and the people who led the leave campaign are now senior Cabinet members. Does he therefore agree that the Ministers in question should excuse themselves from this investigation and possibly from Brexit-specific Cabinet meetings in the future?
Mr Bradshaw
What matters at this stage is that the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee and Robert Mueller’s investigation in the United States, which is examining things that are relevant to us here, are given the full support and resources from our Government and from all their agencies that they need to do their jobs properly. In contrast to the outbursts from the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs trying to rubbish this testimony, I note that most of the rest of the Cabinet said that the Electoral Commission should be allowed to finish its work properly.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment that it took the Information Commissioner so long to get a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica’s premises, given that Facebook got in there in a minute and a half?
Mr Bradshaw
This is in no way a criticism of the Information Commissioner or of the Electoral Commission —they are doing their best—but they do not have enough people, expertise, money or power. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We had the farcical scene of the Information Commissioner trying to get access to Cambridge Analytica’s office for almost a week, while Facebook had got in right at the start. That just symbolises the paucity of the powers that we have to deal with this digital world when our legislation and resources are based on an analogue age.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Given today’s evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, when clear links were made between Cambridge Analytica, Facebook and GCHQ, there is now a question not only of the electoral system, but of national security.
Mr Bradshaw
I agree. Any legislator in this House who takes his or her job seriously needs to read the testimony of Christopher Wylie before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee today.
Finally—this is slightly away from the evidence given by Mr Wylie today—I have received other new information that also concerns me. Members will recall the dreadful murder of Daphne Galizia in Malta last year. At the time she was murdered, I am informed that Ms Galizia was investigating Pilatus Bank, which had its assets frozen last week owing to fears of money laundering. She was also investigating Cambridge Analytica and Henley & Partners, which sells citizenship in Malta, and there are other links with the Legatum Institute, concerns about which I raised in the House several months ago, and the mysterious Maltese professor, Professor Joseph Mifsud, who is named in an indictment by Robert Mueller’s inquiry. All those matters need to be examined incredibly carefully, and I want the Minister to give a full and categorical assurance that, given the significant British links, the Maltese authorities that are investigating such matters will receive the full support and co-operation they need from our law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I have to start by saying that it is truly shocking that Government Members do not seem to think that this debate is worth taking part in. The staggering hypocrisy of MPs—
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that listening is taking part in a debate? We do not have to speak to learn.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his pithy point pithily, and it is on the record. People can listen and be attentive, and I have become accustomed to listening to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) over the years, which I have always found an enjoyable experience.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the record, I would have applied to speak in this debate, but I have been chairing three and a half hours of Select Committee evidence from Chris Wylie this morning.
Mr Speaker
The debate was granted yesterday, so there was quite a lot of time yesterday in which to apply to participate. If the hon. Gentleman meant that he was not certain when he would be available because of his pressing commitments, that is duly acknowledged.
Caroline Lucas
I recognise that the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been doing some incredibly important work this morning. Notwithstanding that, I still make the case that there is staggering hypocrisy among a large number of MPs who promised to enhance democracy by leaving the EU, but who cannot even be bothered to turn up to talk about the potential radical undermining of our democratic processes. I find that genuinely quite breathtaking.
I start by paying tribute to the dedicated, fearless journalism of Carol Cadwalladr over the past year. She has led us to the extraordinary revelations that we are debating this afternoon.
Much of the discussion so far has been about the validity of the referendum vote itself, but I want to argue that this goes much deeper and wider than that single vote, vastly important though it is. The revelations by The Guardian, Channel 4 and others over the past few days go right to the heart of the kind of country we think we are living in. I argue that they demonstrate that current electoral law is woefully inadequate. I think they show that the regulation governing our democratic processes urgently needs to be updated and reformed. They show, I believe, that something is rotten in the state of our democracy.
The combination of big money and big data is overwhelming the chronically weak structures that are supposed to protect us against cheating and fraud. As others have said, we are trying to apply laws from the analogue era to the very different reality of the digital age, and it simply is not working. It took the Information Commissioner almost a week to get authorisation to get through the front door of Cambridge Analytica, during which time presumably the delete button had been pressed a great many times. The Electoral Commission, meanwhile, has been investigating claims of the misuse of electoral funds for almost a year. Why on earth do we not have rules that require donations to be reported in real time, and the same for spending? Why do we not have a body with more resources and real teeth? Things urgently need to change.
Electoral law is based on two fundamental principles. The first principle is that parties and candidates compete on what should be a level playing field in terms of resources, which is presumably why we have national and local spending limits in elections. The second principle is that elections are open and transparent, so parties and candidates have to be transparent in their communications with the voters and it is unlawful to make false claims in those communications. The allegations about the true nature of the relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave suggest that there may well have been cheating when it comes to the first principle, and the investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the spending of huge sums of money on micro-targeted political advertising based on data harvested from voters’ social media profiles, suggest that the second of these two principles is also under great strain in the digital age.
Frankly, Facebook’s desperate adverts on the back pages of Sunday’s newspapers, just a couple of days ago, suggest to me that it knows that its bubble is bursting. We now need to update the law to ensure that people are protected from this social media mega-monopoly. Just because the chief executives of Facebook and Google wear T-shirts to work and turn up on skateboards does not mean that they are not aggressive capitalists, and we need to get a bit wiser to that fact.
The law regulating campaign activity and finance—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—was drawn up almost 20 years ago, long before Facebook or Twitter even existed, let alone had any role in political campaigns. It is considerably more difficult to ensure the compliance of adverts on social media than the compliance of adverts in newspapers or on billboards. Voters simply do not know what is being done with their data by a company that, ultimately, wants to make as much money as possible from the information it has on each of us. Not surprisingly, the regulators struggle to regulate.
This undoubtedly presents a complex challenge to all politicians, as social media platforms overtake the national and local press and media through which we have traditionally communicated with our electorate, but without the same level of transparency and scrutiny. However, it is a challenge that we must meet. The need for a reprogramming of the way parties and campaigns are funded could not be greater. Whether it is donations from Russian oligarchs on one side of the House or from former Formula 1 bosses on the other side, people are sick and tired of a politics that is awash with big money without proper oversight. I argue that the case for state funding for political parties could scarcely be stronger.
Layla Moran
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the House voted for the Democratic Unionist party’s donation not to be scrutinised before 2017, so that massive donation now cannot be scrutinised in the proper way? We do not know the origin of that cash.
Caroline Lucas
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern; she is right that that should have been looked into at the time, rather than pushed into the long grass. It is yet another reason why I am calling for urgent cross-party talks on updating our online campaign regulations and reforming the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, including consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner on what new powers and resources they need in order to fulfil their role in safeguarding our democracy.
The revelations by Shahmir Sanni about Vote Leave and BeLeave raise related but somewhat different questions, some of which need to be addressed to, and answered by, certain Members on the Government side of the House, for they strongly suggest that some of those who worked for the official Brexit campaign during the 2016 referendum, some of whom now work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, committed criminal breaches of electoral law on overspending and collusion. Vote Leave, whose leading members included the current Foreign Secretary and Environment Secretary, formally declared it had spent £6.77 million during the 2016 campaign—this was within the £7 million limit. But that sum does not include a £625,000 donation that Vote Leave gave to BeLeave, the Brexit campaign aimed at students and young people, which BeLeave spent on the very same digital marketing company, Aggregate IQ, used by Vote Leave. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) set out powerfully, there is substantial evidence of constant communication between Vote Leave and BeLeave, which were based in the same office, shared the same computer drive and seem to have had advice going between them as to the setting up of their constitution, their bank account and so on. It is insulting to suggest that these two organisations were not co-ordinating very, very closely.
So it is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to have airily dismissed the questions that were raised by these revelations as she did in the House yesterday. I might add that her attempts to brush off complaints about the disgraceful outing of Shahmir Sanni were beneath her and bring shame on her office. If the laws were broken, those involved need to be brought to justice, because if they are not, and if we do not fix the shortcomings of our electoral law and its regulation, this Government will go down in history as the one who sat and watched while the very lifeblood of our democracy drained away, and voters will have taken back control for nothing. That is why I also think we need an independent public inquiry to establish, as a matter of urgency, whether electoral law was broken by any of those working for Vote Leave and BeLeave, and, crucially, what current Ministers knew at the time.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate and on the way in which he opened our deliberations? May I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)? He suggested that when he first started raising these issues in Parliament some people perceived him to be something of a crank, but I think he is one of the finest politicians of our generation, and I am proud to sit on these Benches alongside him.
So many things need to be said in this debate that it is hard to know where to start. The three contributions we have heard so far all referred to the recent revelations about the close relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave, and what that might mean for the ongoing debate about Brexit and the referendum. I agree with all that has been said: there are serious questions that need to be fully investigated by the Electoral Commission, and no stone should be left unturned in understanding who knew what and when.
Having said that, I want to make some different observations about what recent events suggest about our politics and our democracy. At heart, I fear there have been appalling and repeated abuses of power. What seems to have gone on within the various different elements of the leave campaigns just does not sound right. We are talking about people with years of experience dealing with campaign volunteers, some barely out of university, and advising them on setting up a separate legal entity, through which serious funds end up being channelled, at a time when some of the individuals in question are having a campaign fling, only for that relationship to be outed 18 months or so later in a statement from No. 10—the whole thing stinks.
I do not know whether criminal offences have been committed or whether electoral law has been broken, but I am pretty sure that people have abused their power. I may be naive, but I am a firm believer in decency in public life: doing the right thing, even if it may not be to your own immediate personal interest or to your party’s or your campaign’s electoral advantage. Some people would say that I am not cut out to be a politician, and perhaps I am not, but this insidious, cynical, arrogant, perpetual game playing has to stop. It has real consequences for real people’s lives. It will also kill our democracy, and I am sick of it. Perhaps it was my upbringing, but I have some pretty basic values. You do not lie. If you do something wrong, you admit it. You treat people the way you would want to be treated. You respect the law—the letter of it as well as the spirit of it. You play fair; you do not play dirty. In having power, your primary duty is to exercise it responsibly.
Heidi Alexander
I am afraid I will not. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech and contribute to the debate—contributions from the Conservative Benches have been so sadly lacking—he will have time to do so.
I have read the reports over the past few days and looked at some of the emails that were exchanged between some of the key players, and I am worried that what I see is a corrosive abuse of power. If we want the British people to have faith in us, we need to find a way to conduct our politics with decency. I fear that the opposite is currently the case. It has to stop.
Mr Speaker
Order. I should say to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) that I am not in receipt of an application from him to speak in the debate, whereas others have applied. I know that he is a figure of considerable celebrity in his constituency and, although it is a divisible proposition, arguably within the House. I am sure that I will be happy to hear him, but he has a habit of looking at me astonished that he has not been called immediately, so in case he wonders why I am not calling him immediately, I say very gently to him that other people, also busy with many commitments and very full diaries, actually got around to applying to speak, so he had better wait. We can look forward to his eloquence and erudition.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is absolutely amazing that the Foreign Secretary is not in his place, given the gravity of the accusations, his personal centrality to them and the pivotal part he played. He has said that the allegations are “ludicrous” and farcical, that the vote was won legally and that there was fair play. Frankly, what we have already heard and know casts those basic assumptions into doubt. These issues need to be looked at very carefully.
We are talking about the electoral law on which our democracy is based. People watching this debate will be asking themselves whether the referendum was a cheat. Was it based on a lie? Were the economic dice loaded with illegal and dark money? Were the electorate cynically manipulated by Cambridge Analytica, which illegally harvested people’s Facebook data without their knowing it and manipulated their choices to take us on the journey we are now on, which is going to take us into economic Armageddon?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
In yesterday’s Russia debate, I called on the Government to pull together a Russia commission so that we can have a root and branch examination of where Russia has interfered not only in our elections, but in our economic, legal and accounting systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem we currently have is that the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner lack the powers and the numbers of staff required to carry out the sort of inquiry we need to the depth that we need?
Geraint Davies
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s last point. The Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner are going to have a great deal of difficulty evaluating Cambridge Analytica’s role and the dirty money involved. Russia is a much bigger question. There are questions around whether the targeted bombing of innocent civilians in Syria in the run-up to Brexit, in the knowledge that the Germans were allowing in a million refugees, was instrumental in the Brexit result and whether that was intentional; there are questions about whether President Trump was elected through the influence of the Russians; there are questions about whether the fascists in France got a third of the vote because of the Russians; there are questions about how the Russians influenced the German elections; and there are certainly questions about how they influenced Brexit.
I suggest that I limit my comments here to Cambridge Analytica, its abuse and manipulation of British voters and the dirty money behind it.
Geraint Davies
I will give way, but just let me finish this point.
People seem to have this misconception that the Brexit result was not close, but I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that if we ushered 33 people into a room, and 17 voted one way and 16 the other, that is the most marginal vote that we could get. That vote could be swayed by Cambridge Analytica and by the other forms of manipulation. It is in sharp contrast to the natural and rightful instincts of British people that this is simply not fair play.
Damian Collins
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made an important point about the power of the Information Commissioner to investigate these matters. The hon. Gentleman raises serious issues in his remarks, but, often, the Electoral Commission, and the Information Commissioner in particular, do not have the power to go behind the curtain and take the data that they require to support their investigations. They are largely reliant on companies complying with information notices, and, as we have seen over the past few weeks, that can be a frustrating process.
Geraint Davies
That is an excellent point very well made. Obviously, it brings into question what further powers those commissioners or others should have to secure the information that they need to bring their legitimate concerns to a conclusion.
Tom Brake
On this issue of data, is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the other allegations that is made is that, after the Electoral Commission’s first inquiry in which it found no case to answer, some of the people who are now at No. 10 allegedly went onto databases to unlink certain documents so that it appeared as though those documents were not available to everybody on the Vote Leave and the BeLeave campaigns. Is he concerned about that?
Geraint Davies
Well, I am profoundly concerned about that. Again, facts are emerging day by day, and they need to be forensically examined and it is very important that the resources are there to do that. That sort of information coming forward gives us greater reason to be enormously concerned about this. That is why I am so saddened to see that the Government Benches are empty, when the essence of our democracy, as we are about to step on the biggest journey—
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the hon. Gentleman’s ability to see if he cannot see that these Benches are not empty. If he can see, he can see that they are full, and he should not say what he said.
Mr Speaker
The Benches are not empty. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I invite the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) to continue his speech.
Geraint Davies
One moment. I am still dealing with the previous intervention.
For the record, the Government Benches are virtually empty. They may be 1% full—I do not know—but, frankly, it is pathetic. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to point out that the Government do not seem to care about the integrity of democracy and the law.
Sir Edward Leigh
When it comes to the question of fairness, does the hon. Gentleman think that it was entirely fair that, while the remain camps and the Vote Leave camps were allowed to spend £7 million each, the Government spent £9 million of taxpayers’ money to convince people to vote remain. Whether or not he thinks that that is fair, it obviously made no, or very little, difference and, therefore, all these arguments are grossly exaggerated. The British people have the good sense to make up their own minds.
Geraint Davies
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that because one side spent more than the other side, it is all right for the other side to behave illegally, it is not a very persuasive argument. This behaviour—the clandestine manipulation of people’s views through Facebook and other things plus the dirty money—casts into question the very integrity of our democracy and the decision that was made. That influence may have been pivotal. If one were asked whether an Olympic athlete would have won a race had he not been doped up, one might come to the conclusion that perhaps he would, or perhaps he would not, but the point is that they would have been disqualified, and quite rightly so. The British people want fair play. They want the rule of law, and, fundamentally, that has been cast into doubt.
Even before this unhappy episode, people were already saying that the Foreign Secretary had stood in front of a bus claiming that we would spend £350 million a week on the NHS, had said that he favoured the single market and would vote for it but now says that he does not, and had said that we would take back control but of course we have not have had democratic control in this place because it has been given to Ministers. People are saying, “Hold on—that’s not what we voted for.” They are questioning whether there is legitimacy in what has been happening. They are saying to me, certainly in Swansea, that what they now want, in terms of fair play, is to have a vote on the deal having checked that it does satisfy what they were promised.
But now we are in a completely different ballpark. We are saying that those people were not only misled but cynically manipulated through Facebook, with millions of voters involved in dirty money. The British people are saying, “Hold on—let’s have another look at this.” They are already saying to me, as to everybody, “This whole Brexit process is taking too long, it’s costing too much, we didn’t know the facts, it’s terribly complicated, the EU is running rings round us, and the UK is incapable of negotiating properly. There is a problem here and there needs to be a solution.” That solution, they are saying to me, is that they want a public vote on the deal. Now we have this situation with Cambridge Analytica, which is completely in breach of fair play. Anybody who thought, “Actually it would be unfair to have a vote on the deal because we’ve had a vote”, now realises that what fair play demands is to move forward and have a final vote on the deal.
People like the Brexit Secretary have said, “Democracy isn’t democracy unless it has the right to change its mind.” I agree. People like Nigel Farage have said, “It would be unfinished business if the vote was 52:48—we need a two-thirds majority.” People like the Member for—I have forgotten his constituency. The Member for Somerset—you know, Moggy—said that we should have a second—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to a colleague in that way. I think the person he has in mind is the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).
Geraint Davies
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am glad that you prompted me because I could not remember the “North East” bit so I inadvertently said “Moggy”. I am sorry about that. The hon. Gentleman is on the record as saying that perhaps there should be a second referendum when the negotiation is completed.
As we go through this unhappy episode and find that we have had electoral breaches, that there is an inherent breach in our democracy, that there are questions over the legitimacy of the referendum, and that there is a need for fair play, people are now asking whether Facebook and Google should have these sorts of powers. Should they not be publicly regulated, as they are becoming very much instrumental in our democracy and we need to overturn that so that the public and our democracy can be protected?
People who were 13 during the referendum will be 18 by the time it is now planned to leave. Surely their futures are paramount. Sadly, many of the people who voted will not be with us then any longer. Now that we are seeing the legitimacy of these votes cast into doubt, surely there is a compelling case, in terms of fair play, that the public should have a vote on the deal. We should move forward, refresh and renew our democracy, and do the right thing for Britain.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye without a written application to the Chair. If I may say so, in humbly apologising to you, I had thought that Conservative Members would make speeches in the period of up to two hours that you had allocated to this debate, but we have not had a single speech from the Conservative Benches. I had not written to you, Sir, because I did not think an extra speech would be needed. However, I think it is important that Conservative Members hear the allegations that are made, because they are very deep allegations.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I would have liked to speak in this debate had I not had other matters to participate in. Is it not astounding that the only contributions we have heard from Conservative Members thus far have been what-aboutery and trying to draw equivalence with other matters? On the critical issue that we are addressing today, we have heard nothing. Not one Conservative Member has found it in themselves to address this issue, which is at the heart of our democracy.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is astounding, because this debate is about more than Brexit and the issues being raised in this debate are bigger than Brexit. They are about how our democracy works, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. I thought that Conservative Members, particularly the Brexit Conservatives, had wanted to pull us out of the EU in order to defend parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law as they describe it. But they are not here to defend that rule of law today, which is what is so shocking about their failure to make speeches in this debate.
Mrs Moon
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we ignore this issue—if we do not take it apart and examine it in full—we are allowing a criminalisation of our democracy? We must acknowledge that that is what is at risk here. No matter how inconvenient a truth it is, we must absolutely get to the bottom of it.
Sir Edward Davey
Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. If the law has been broken in the serious way that is alleged, it will be a criminal offence. If that is the case, that criminal offence would have been committed in relation to a massive vote that will result in huge constitutional changes. As this is such a serious matter, I would have thought that right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House would surely want not just to listen, but to participate.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
During the referendum campaign the Government were in favour of us remaining in the European Union—a position that I shared—and the Conservative party took a corporate stance to be neutral in that campaign. As the leave campaign and the remain campaign have ceased to exist as legal entities, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any allegations made against either campaigning organisation in the referendum is best dealt with by the Electoral Commission, not by Parliament? This is not for the Government to answer, because this is not about a Government policy.
Sir Edward Davey
I find the hon. Gentleman’s intervention rather odd. First, it is in the tradition that we are seeing from the Conservative Benches in this debate—a “what-aboutery” statement. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want the House to hear and debate these allegations, which are in the public domain. They are in the press and the public are talking about them, and it is vital that the elected Members of this House get a chance to debate them. I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for securing this debate, and I am proud of the Liberal Democrats for calling for it.
Sir Edward Davey
My right hon. Friend anticipates a line of argument that I wish to come to in due course. He is absolutely right, though, that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were closely involved in the Vote Leave campaign, and we need to know whether these allegations go to the very top table.
Mr Bradshaw
I should not be doing the Conservative Members’ job for them but, in the interests of fairness, the hon. Member who has probably done more than most on this—certainly more than me—and who knows more than most about this subject is the Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). He could not take part in the debate because he was hearing this vital evidence from Chris Wylie. I am sure that he will also be doing his job very adequately in front of the Prime Minister later this afternoon. We need to approach this issue as consensually as we can because it is about not party politics, but the integrity and security of our electoral system.
Sir Edward Davey
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the efforts and expertise that the Chair of the Select Committee is bringing to that inquiry, which is important to the whole debate. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the need for us to try to cross party divisions, and the divisions that we saw both during and after the referendum campaign.
I have been contacted by leave voters who are disturbed by these allegations. Many leave voters are very patriotic people who believe that one of the key traditions and values of this country is that we respect the rule of law and do not allow cheats to prosper. This issue can bring Parliament and both sides of the debate together. Whoever cheated during the referendum—if anyone cheated—needs to be held to account.
Sir Edward Leigh
With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). Of course he is entitled to give his speech, and Parliament is entitled to debate this, but the question we want him to answer is: who should decide whether to take action? Is it the Government, who were parti pris and took one side of the debate in the referendum, or should it be an independent body, namely the Electoral Commission? Who should make the final decision?
Sir Edward Davey
A number of bodies could ultimately look at the different accusations. We have a live investigation by the Electoral Commission, and we await the result of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington spoke very much about the Electoral Commission in his speech. We also have the investigations by the Information Commissioner’s Office into the related allegations with respect to Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ. Many of us feel that the evidence so far suggests that the police should be investigating these organisations, because there could be a criminal act. Let me absolutely clear: I certainly am not suggesting that Ministers are responsible for any investigation. That would not meet my requirements for an inquiry.
Wera Hobhouse
Does my right hon. Friend agree that while an independent body should investigate, we perhaps need to update the law and do something here in Parliament in order to adequately respond to these things in the future?
Sir Edward Davey
Indeed. I have written to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to ask whether her Committee could hold a parliamentary inquiry into the different aspects that are not covered by the inquiry of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I seriously think that the House needs to augment and support the investigations by those independent bodies. We have powers in the House to bring people to the bar to discuss and to give evidence, and that is the right and proper thing to do.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is an irony that the same Government who were so keen on the lobbying Act—to such a degree that small charities around the country were frightened of intervening near elections—and who are introducing voter identification and all sorts of ID, simply so that they catch the 29 people or however many it was who committed electoral fraud last time, seem remarkably lacking in concern over this?
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The fundamental issue here is: did people in the leave campaign cheat? Did they break the law? That is what we need to focus on. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made an analogy with athletes and sport. If athletes dope, we expect that to be investigated and then punished, whether or not that cheating affected the result of a race or any competition. It is the cheating and the breach of the law that needs to be followed through, whether or not it relates to the outcome of the referendum.
Geraint Davies
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Ministers—I am thinking specifically of the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary—are implicated in any illegal activities and are the dopers in the analogy he is using, they should not be above the law, and that when the police are doing the investigation, they should not be intimidated or deterred from putting forward a legal case against Ministers, irrespective of their position in this place?
Sir Edward Davey
In responding to the hon. Gentleman, I want to be clear that these are all allegations. We need proper authorities to investigate, but of course, if those investigations go to the door of any Member of this House, be they Minister or not, the full weight of the law should go against that individual. No Member of this House should be above the law in those investigations.
I want to be a little clearer than the debate has been so far about how the Electoral Commission, which is key to this, thinks about whether there has been cheating. The Electoral Commission’s guidelines about whether a campaign has colluded are quite clear. It sets out three criteria for whether campaigns are highly likely to be working together.
The first is whether the campaigns spend money on joint advertising campaigns, leaflets or events. The evidence brought forward by Fair Vote, which can be seen by anyone at www.fairvote.uk, suggests that Vote Leave and BeLeave co-ordinated with the same digital strategy vendor, Aggregate IQ, so there does seem to have been co-ordination between their advertising campaigns.
The second test the Electoral Commission has set out is whether campaigns have co-ordinated their spending with another campaigner. The evidence produced by FairVote is very clear: it shows that BeLeave appears to have been assigned specific responsibility for the youth audience by Vote Leave. That is co-ordination and collusion.
The third test on cheating set out by the Electoral Commission is whether a campaign can approve or has significant influence over the spending of another campaigner. Again, the dossier shows that BeLeave was based at Vote Leave HQ, as we have heard, and appears to have reported to Vote Leave directors and shared all its information with their staff.
In other words, the three tests put forward by the Electoral Commission on whether illegal collusion has occurred appear to have been met, according to the evidence in this dossier. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to read and think about it before they tweet in the way that was done by the Foreign Secretary, who at the weekend dismissed these allegations as ludicrous.
The Foreign Secretary may well have tried to dismiss these allegations, because if they prove to be true, the investigations and inquiries that we all want to follow this debate and public discussion may well want to ask him questions. Ultimately, he was in charge of and a key player in the Vote Leave campaign, and people will want to know whether he knew about this collusion. Did he know that moneys were going from Vote Leave to BeLeave? Did he know that the staff of both campaigns were colluding and working together? Did he know that Aggregate IQ was being used by both campaigns in a very similar way? These are very serious allegations, and we need to have independent inquiries. The same questions could of course be applied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether she has asked her Foreign Secretary and her Environment Secretary about what they knew. If she is in charge of her Government, she ought to be asking her Ministers what they knew, given the severity and gravity of the allegations now in the public domain. If she is not getting good enough answers from the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary, she should be taking action. There is another issue with regard to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities, which is that she has key members of staff in No. 10 who were staffers in these campaigns and appear to be part of the alleged collusion. At the very least, she should be asking them questions and getting assurances from them, and if those assurances are not good enough, she should take the appropriate action.
I want to ask the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary was speaking for the Government when he pushed aside these allegations as nonsense. Is that what she will say at the Dispatch Box in a few minutes’ time? Does she, speaking on behalf of her Majesty’s Government, agree with the Foreign Secretary that these allegations are all complete nonsense—before they have been investigated? That would be a quite extraordinary position for Her Majesty’s Government to take, and particularly for the Foreign Secretary to take, given that he is supposed to speak for this country about the rule of law in other countries—and one wonders, doesn’t one?
Mr Bradshaw
Does not the right hon. Gentleman also think it is telling that the Foreign Secretary put out his statement as soon as the news broke on Friday evening? He cannot possibly have read the three huge files of documentation that have been presented to the Electoral Commission and the ICO, can he?
Sir Edward Davey
One does wonder about the people connected to the Vote Leave campaign who have tried to get in their rebuttals and answers rather rapidly. The head of the staff side of the Vote Leave campaign, Mr Dominic Cummings, put out a pre-rebuttal before the allegations were in the public domain. It sounds as though he knew quite a lot about what the allegations would be, but perhaps he knew the truth. I am afraid that his pre-rebuttal did not convince anybody. Now that we have the allegations, with detailed evidence of emails and photo grabs of things that have since been deleted, we know why Mr Cummings was desperate to get in his rebuttal. I cannot know whether the Foreign Secretary was in the same position, but one has to have one’s suspicions raised.
It is because the allegations are so grave, affecting the most momentous decision this country has taken since the second world war, that the Liberal Democrats, supported by all colleagues on the Opposition Benches, are absolutely right to ask these questions of the Government. Just because there is no Division after this debate does not make these questions and this debate something the Government can push aside. I say to the Minister that we will be coming back and back again to this until we have answers. When the Electoral Commission reports, the Information Commissioner reports and, hopefully, the police report, those reports need to be published and debated here in this House. We will not let this lie. Why? Because we want to defend British democracy. We want to defend parliamentary sovereignty. We want to defend the rule of law. I hope the Minister will say from the Dispatch Box that that is what she is going to do, too.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate. I find myself in agreement with him and with most of the speakers from the Opposition Benches.
I have a direct, personal interest in this matter: it is not one I need to declare under the code of conduct, but I have direct experience of operating in a campaign under the very regulations we are talking about today. In the summer of 2014, I was an activist and campaigner in the Scottish independence referendum. Because of my history and background in the entertainment industry, I was part of a group that was trying to co-ordinate that campaign among the arts and culture industry in Scotland. We wanted to organise a major, high-profile concert in the run-up to the event to demonstrate support and to provide a fillip for the campaign in the final days.
We went to the Yes Scotland campaign, the designated organisation, with the proposal. It said that it did not want to include it in its campaign plan and spend money on it. The advice was to go away and do it ourselves, so that is what we did. I registered my own events company with the Electoral Commission as a permitted participant in the organisation. We hired the Usher Hall, the grandest concert hall in Edinburgh, and we booked the bands. We arranged the production and the publicity, and we had a very successful event. Afterwards, we provided the Electoral Commission with a report and a detailed budget of what we had spent and the money we had received. At no stage did we either report to, or seek the involvement of, the official designated organisation.
Tom Brake
I am sure when the hon. Gentleman was considering what actions to take he would never have considered, for example, co-locating with the designated organisation, sharing a server with the designated organisation, or sharing the same supplier on the same basis as the designated organisation.
Tommy Sheppard
The right hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. I was going to say that I have had cause over recent weeks to wonder: what if we had done it differently? What if the designated campaign organisation had come to me and said, “We would like you to do this activity, and the best way to do it, because we do not want it in our budget, is if we set up a separate organisation. Just to make it easier for you, our lawyers have done the paperwork to set up the organisation. Just to make it easier for you, you can have our staff and you can work out of our office. Just to make it even easier for you, you don’t need to bother about writing the cheques, because we will book and pay for the hall and the production”? What would have happened if we had done that, I wonder? I am in no doubt about what would have happened: the Electoral Commission would have investigated. It would have found me and Yes Scotland in breach of the regulations. We would have been fined and we would have been reported to the procurator fiscal for prosecution on criminal charges.
I say that because that lived experience frames my opinion of the events we are talking about today, and my opinion is that this stinks to high heaven. In preparation for this debate, I looked at the original investigation and judgments of the Electoral Commission with regard to these complaints, and—I recommend hon. Members do this—at the High Court judgment on the application for judicial review of that decision. What it comes down to—what is absolutely central to this debate—is not whether different campaign organisations were arguing for Vote Leave, but whether they colluded to breach the expenditure limits that were set down. That is central.
Looking at the High Court judgment and other documents, it is clear that the most important thing is whether or not a common plan was in existence between Vote Leave and BeLeave, as defined under the 2000 Act. I have to say, in a situation where Vote Leave sets up a subsidiary organisation called BeLeave, uses its own personnel to establish it, manages to send it its lawyers and all sorts of support, and provides offices, computers and drives on the server for the same people, it is very difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that there was collusion and organisation between the two.
We are being asked to believe that Darren Grimes took a £600,000 contract and went to a data analytics firm in Canada, completely independently of people in Vote Leave, who had already spent £2.7 million with the very same company. It is literally unbelievable and we need to support the Electoral Commission and others in investigating this to the bottom.
Layla Moran
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that what would be even worse than any of this would be if the Electoral Commission came to the conclusion that it cannot prove it? That would say to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws under which the organisations are operating. That is what this debate is about: how do we stop this happening again, should they not be found to have been colluding?
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed, and we will have to await the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s investigation before we consider whether the legal framework and the support that is provided for the Electoral Commission are in fact adequate for this task.
We have this new evidence. The Electoral Commission, by the way, had already reopened the investigation before the whistleblowing information came out in the last seven days, but we are surely indebted to Shahmir Sanni for what he has done in the service of democracy in this country. I have watched his video recordings and it is clear that we do not share the same point of view. We did not share the same point of view on Brexit during the campaign, and we do not share it now, but I do not think that anyone who watches those interviews can fail to be moved by the decency, integrity and bravery of that young man in coming forward and putting himself at risk. We owe him a great debt.
The response of our Government to the whistleblowing allegations therefore worries me. Others have mentioned this, but the Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday that this was a personal statement by Stephen Parkinson just does not hold water. How can it be a personal statement when someone is at a desk in No. 10 Downing Street, at the heart of Government—when they are on the payroll, issuing a statement from No. 10 Downing Street? This must be the first occasion in history, certainly that I can remember, when the Government have decided to attack a whistleblower by outing them as gay, causing them the possibility of actual harm to themselves and their family, and it is a disgrace.
Mr Bradshaw
Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that according to reports, that statement was approved by the Prime Minister’s chief communications officer, Robbie Gibb? There is no way that that was not an official statement, as the Prime Minister claimed yesterday.
Tommy Sheppard
I agree, and on the email it says “official”, so there can be no question that the Prime Minister did not know what Stephen Parkinson was saying. I have written to the Government today to demand that this young man be apologised to for the actions that have been taken. That is the very least that we can expect. Most reasonable people in this country will be wondering why Stephen Parkinson has not already been sacked, quite frankly, and in many other companies and areas of life, that is exactly what would happen.
Adam Holloway
Look, let the Electoral Commission do its investigation. Why is this House trying to pre-empt it? No one should be sacked until we actually have a decision.
Tommy Sheppard
I was not talking about the Electoral Commission investigation. I was not talking about the allegations of collusion between Vote Leave and BeLeave. I was talking about a senior official of the Government exposing somebody for being gay in response to their blowing the whistle on what has been happening in Government. That speaks to the character of this Government, who have hours, rather than days, to claw this back and put it right. I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet she will say that the Government will respond to these concerns, speak to Mr Parkinson and take the appropriate action—and I cannot see any other action possible than to say that this man is no longer fit to hold office in government.
What happens when the Electoral Commission does its investigation and comes to its conclusion? Even if the collusion is proven and the regulations were breached, it will not change the result of the referendum; it will not be overturned. Some on the pro-Brexit side seem to believe that the referendum was mandatory on Parliament and the Government. It never was—it was an advisory referendum—so even were the result to be challenged, it would not call into question the many decisions on article 50 and leaving the EU that Parliament has already voted on. I do believe, however, that it would add further poison to the well of British democracy, coming on top of the most mendacious campaign in political history—that fought in 2016—when people were lied to about what it would mean to leave the EU.
Not only were these lies told—lies that were not worth the bus they were written on, frankly—but the regulations and laws governing the conduct of the referendum might have been broken. The Minister needs to reassure us that the Electoral Commission will have all the resources it requires to get to the bottom of this matter. That said, I think that there is already enough evidence—because I presume that the whistleblowers’ statements will be sworn under oath—for this matter to be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and for a police investigation to take place. That investigation needs to interview under caution the players in this debate, including those who now sit in government holding the highest offices in the land.
That brings me to the Foreign Secretary, who has chosen not to be present. Others have commented on how quick off the mark he was to denounce the allegations and the new information. I am left wondering whether this was just his attempt to be the English Donald Trump or whether this is someone using one of the highest offices in the land to bring their power and authority to bear to intimidate those who would criticise him and make these allegations, and that is very worrying indeed. I want an assurance from the Government today that if the Electoral Commission finds that there has been collusion and breach, those Cabinet Ministers involved in the management of the Vote Leave campaign will resign from office and take no further part in government. It would be ridiculous and would undermine our credibility if the Foreign Secretary and others, having been involved in a breach of our electoral law, were then to seek to hold the highest office in the land.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) raised a very important matter. As we uncover this, we will find more traces of dark money creeping into our electoral system, and we need the utmost transparency if we are to resist it. I therefore invite the Minister to comment on what action she and her colleagues will be taking with regard to the Constitutional Research Council and the money it siphoned to the Democratic Unionist party for the Brexit campaign. This is an organisation that has no website, no published report, no published accounts—it is the very definition of shady, and it is not something that we should accept in our democracy.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate. We have heard a number of important contributions, and it is difficult to disagree with any of them, given that nobody on the Government Benches actually bothered to make a speech, although they attempted to prick the arguments from time to time.
However we voted in the referendum and whatever our views now, the recent revelations in connection with the Brexit campaign raise serious questions about the functioning of our democracy and go to the heart of who we are as a country. First let me say, however, that we would not even be holding this debate were it not for the hard work, courage, diligence and honesty of journalists in the media.
Theirs is a profession that politicians rarely thank. The same applies to whistleblowers. However uncomfortable it may be for the powerful in our society, or for any of us, it is clearly essential to the functioning of a democracy that we protect the roles of both journalists and whistleblowers. It demeans our politics to attempt to destroy a whistleblower’s case not by addressing the matters that were being raised, but by insinuating that there was a malicious personal motive on the part of the whistleblower. It is especially sinister—indeed, it is shameful—when those insinuations emerge from Downing Street and when their source is defended by the Prime Minister personally. After all, the Government have a clear policy on whistleblowing. Their website states:
“As a whistleblower you’re protected by law—you shouldn’t be treated unfairly or lose your job because you ‘blow the whistle’.”
But Mr Sanni has been treated unfairly and in a way that is absolutely disgraceful.
Democracy depends on more than just journalists and whistleblowers. It needs transparency and a rules-based level playing field. If those attributes are missing, our democracy will be in severe danger and I believe that it may well be. The stakes have never been higher because the referendum itself was a major turning point in the country’s history. Moreover, the House will not forget that the Leave campaign was headed by two distinguished Members of this House, who arguably owe their membership of the British Cabinet to the role that they played in the Brexit campaign. To the victor belong the spoils, as they say.
It is too soon yet to draw any firm conclusions that Vote Leave broke the rules, but there are clearly reasons to worry. Before reciting some of the known facts, I remind the House that the law on referendums, which we passed, does not prevent donations from one campaign body to another, but it does forbid collusion between them, because otherwise there would not be a level playing field between the two sides in the referendum. If one campaign exceeds the spending cap by deliberately and surreptitiously spawning satellite or puppet operations, that crucial principle of equity between the two parties is lost.
Let me briefly list the facts that we do now know, some of which have already been mentioned. We know that Vote Leave raised more money than the statutory spending cap. We know that it donated surplus funds to other campaigning bodies, including a youth body called BeLeave. We know that the two campaigns shared the same building, and that there was a revolving door for staff between the two organisations. We know that they both used the same small Canada-based company, AIQ, whose purpose seems to have been to harvest data from social media in order to target Leave messaging to British voters. By a strange coincidence, the Leave.EU campaign—led by Messrs Farage and Banks, among others—used the very same small Canadian firm.
Incidentally, at least two other bodies, which have been mentioned briefly today, received donations from Vote Leave. One is Veterans for Britain and the other is the Democratic Unionist party, none of whose members are in the Chamber. Another remarkable coincidence is that both bodies reportedly used that same firm based in Canada, AIQ, whose premises are, I am told, above a shop.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Veterans for Britain. Is he aware that that organisation consistently gives evidence to the Defence Committee and that—this is relevant to my earlier comments—there is now grave concern about the links between national security and this very debate?
Jon Trickett
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s point speaks for itself.
So far, so good. Those are the facts as I understand them. Until last week, there was evidence that the various Leave campaigns rubbed shoulders with each other, but no evidence that there was specific collusion. This is where the recent revelations by the whistleblower that have given rise to this debate change the nature of our understanding of what happened. Mr Sanni was right at the core of the BeLeave organisation from its inception; indeed, I understand he was the treasurer, although he says he never saw the money pass through the accounts. He had previously worked in the Vote Leave organisation and says he was directed by it to join BeLeave. He goes on to say that BeLeave was established by Vote Leave and the money it donated was in effect under the control not of BeLeave but of senior members of the Vote Leave staff, and he argues that the money allegedly donated by Vote Leave to BeLeave was actually directed by Vote Leave, to be spent on AIQ. If these allegations of collusion are true, they amount to a serious breach of the regulations and a de facto fusion of the two campaign groups, and one has to assume that under those circumstances there was an illegal spend by Vote Leave-BeLeave of about 10% of the total statutory cap.
That was illegal, yet a further allegation has been made. It is said that after the referendum Vote Leave staff destroyed or doctored the electronic data files they held in order to remove any reference to an interconnection between the two campaigns. It is therefore hard to conclude anything other than that this was a puppet campaign designed to avoid electoral law. If there was nothing to hide, why would they destroy or change the files?
Given the historic scale of the referendum and what it has presaged for our country, we must have a proper and urgent investigation, but the truth is that the House is not the proper place to carry it out, and let us be blunt about the reason why: it is because the Government are in this up to their neck. Two Cabinet Ministers fronted the organisation. They sit here week after week, the Bonnie and Clyde of Brexit—I will leave it to the House to decide who is Bonnie and who is Clyde. They had a pantomime swag bag allegedly full of £350 million a week for the NHS, which, as we know, turned out to be completely untrue. Meanwhile, the sheriff herself, in the shape of the Prime Minister, has publicly defended her own political secretary after his personalised attack on the whistleblower. They cannot represent themselves as honest brokers, so who will step up to carry out the investigation into these new revelations?
It must be the Electoral Commission and, if necessary, the police. At present, however, the Electoral Commission is under-resourced and lacks the necessary powers to carry out the task. After all, the situation last week with the Information Commissioner revealed how limited its powers and resources are in trying to get access to Cambridge Analytica files.
We on this side of the House demand that the Government recuse themselves from looking into these matters and commission a wholly independent investigation instead. The Electoral Commission should be given the extra powers and resources it needs to follow the evidence wherever it takes it. It should then report to this House and to the public directly, so that there is no suspicion of interference by interested parties in powerful places.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. We have seen the Prime Minister beholden to the extreme wing of her party, who are running wild and unchecked. If she wants to stand up for our democracy and show she has nothing to hide, she will surely now work with any investigation as a matter of urgency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the Minister to reply on behalf of the Government, I gently make the point that in conformity with convention she will, as a most courteous Minister, seek to allow a minute or two for the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to conclude.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall, with pleasure, leave time for the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to conclude the debate.
There are two things that I ought to begin by saying. The first is that, as a Minister, I shall respect the integrity of independent investigations. I shall therefore not comment here today on allegations that rightly belong with the Information Commissioner’s Office or the Electoral Commission for investigation. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in respecting that rather important legal principle, which I set out here at the beginning of my remarks to give the House clarity. Secondly, as the Minister responsible for the electoral system, I am proud to say that the UK has a clear and robust electoral system, and we should all be proud of the democracy in which we live and work. I would like to place on record my thanks to all those involved in the electoral community who work hard at every poll to deliver it within the law, such that we can be proud of our democracy.
I turn now to the EU referendum. The Electoral Commission concluded that it was a well-run poll and that it was delivered without any major issues. We also know that it was one of the largest democratic exercises in our history. I recognise that that referendum and its subject matter still elicit high emotions on both sides. Indeed, we have seen that here today. However, with 17.4 million votes to leave the European Union, more people voted for Brexit than have ever voted for anything else in the UK. We therefore have to respect the will of the people in that referendum and we are delivering it. This Government are committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations to leave the EU.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister has just repeated a line that the Prime Minister used to dismiss my inquiries regarding this matter yesterday. Given that some of the Prime Minister’s Downing Street staff are the subject of these allegations and used disgraceful “House of Cards”-style tactics to divert attention by outing a whistleblower as being gay, and given that senior Cabinet Ministers led the Leave campaign, do not the Prime Minister and her Government have a number of questions to answer regarding these events, outside of the Electoral Commission investigation?
Chloe Smith
I will not be adding anything in this debate to what the Prime Minister said on those issues yesterday.
Turning to the matter at hand under the application, I should like to thank hon. Members for their comments during the debate. Various allegations have come out in the media over the past week, and it is important to be clear about what they involve and about which ones are directly linked to the UK’s electoral law and which ones might not be. First, there was a series of allegations about Cambridge Analytica using Facebook data to profile American voters. That is primarily a data protection issue. It is a serious allegation and the Information Commissioner is undertaking a formal investigation using its powers. The Government are strengthening the remit of the Information Commissioner through our Data Protection Bill, giving it tougher powers to ensure that organisations comply with its investigations, including the ability to impose significant fines. We will consider the Information Commissioner’s proposal for further powers as the Bill passes through Parliament.
Secondly, there have been allegations about whether some of the spending ahead of the EU referendum was properly declared. Some of those matters have already been subject to Electoral Commission investigations, and others might well be so in due course. I return to the point I made earlier that I shall not comment on investigations that are being carried out. In this country, the Electoral Commission is the independent body that oversees the conduct of elections and referendums and regulates political finance. The commission reports regularly on the running of elections and referendums, and conducts thorough investigations into allegations that rules have been breached.
Chloe Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman have a better question than the one he asked last time?
Chloe Smith
I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misunderstanding about the debate that you have granted, Mr Speaker. It is about electoral law, and as the Minister responsible for electoral law, I shall answer on that point.
The Electoral Commission is independent of the Government. It is accountable to Parliament via the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. One important point that has come up today is the suggestion that the Electoral Commission is under-resourced. I encourage hon. Members to look at the commission’s operating costs for this year, which show an underspend against its anticipated budget. Indeed, in January this year, it returned funds. Now, I leave it to others to draw conclusions from that about whether the Electoral Commission is resourced correctly, but I say again that the commission is accountable to Parliament and that such questions could rightly be in looked into by Parliament and your committee, Mr Speaker.
Chloe Smith
I will not, because this is a time-limited debate.
To safeguard elections, it is vital to have an independent regulator. The Electoral Commission needs to be able to act independently, without Government interference. I am a little disappointed by the loose thinking of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), because I think his argument was that the Government ought to have been able to investigate such things, but then he said that that was not correct. He then said that the Electoral Commission can do that as a fall-back. Let me be absolutely clear that it is a good thing this country has that independent regulator, and we cannot have it both ways. The independent regulator should do its independent job. I have heard too many arguments in the Chamber this afternoon that suggest that this House ought to pre-empt the commission, but we should not do so and, as I said at the outset, I will not do so.
Allegations have been made about campaigners during the EU referendum, and the specific allegations about spending rules and the accuracy of campaigners’ spending returns fall squarely within the remit of the Electoral Commission. The commission has announced investigations into various campaigners in that referendum and has already investigated a number of complaints and found no wrongdoing. It will publish its findings in due course. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who requested this debate—I thank him for doing so—acknowledged yesterday, there may be sub judice issues here, so I repeat that it would not be appropriate for me or the Government to comment on any ongoing investigations.
Mr Bradshaw
Will the Minister address the concern raised not only by me, but by the whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who spent a great deal of time with the Information Commissioner this week, that it does not have the resources or the expertise that it needs to do these investigations properly?
Chloe Smith
I think the right hon. Gentleman is asking me whether the Information Commissioner has the necessary resources. Is that right?
Chloe Smith
And the expertise. Okay, I understand the point. The right hon. Gentleman, who is a senior and experienced Member, will appreciate that I am here to answer about electoral law, such was the title of the debate, but it is important that such issues come together. He will have seen the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who is leading the Data Protection Bill Committee, listening to part of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are seeking to give the Information Commissioner stronger powers, such as around warrantry, compulsion and sanctions, and that the Government are considering doing even more after the Cambridge Analytica allegations. I believe that that will have been made clear to the members of the Data Protection Bill Committee. As for whether the Information Commissioner has the expertise, I would hope that it does, but I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge to contact the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that he receives a satisfactory answer.
Allegations that the electoral rules may have been breached are rightly a cause for concern, but that does not mean that the rules themselves were flawed. It is not right to reach any conclusions on such issues until the Electoral Commission’s investigations are complete. It would not be right to jump to conclusions or to attempt to amend the system before any allegations have been proven.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission, along with many other stakeholders in the electoral system, to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of referendums and elections. Let me make it clear for the record that we will continue to implement the referendum’s result and to make a success of it.
Tom Brake
May I start by once again thanking you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this debate?
The Minister said that she would not be drawn on the allegations that have been referred to the Electoral Commission and the police, although she did go on to say that we have a clear and robust electoral system. I must gently chide her, because she might want to wait for the outcome of the investigations to see whether our electoral system is in fact clear and robust.
The Minister also would not comment on the actions of the Prime Minister’s political officer. As a number of Members have said, that is not a matter that is sub judice. I think that it is a matter of morals, as the actions that were taken have exposed someone to risk. The Minister did not want to respond to that, so perhaps her view is that it is something the Prime Minister should look into very carefully, and consider carefully the position of that member of staff.
We have heard many challenging contributions from the Opposition Benches and silence from the Government Benches, apart from the Minister’s speech and a few interventions. I asked her a few specific questions at the end, which she did not answer, so I hope that she will be able to do so in writing, specifically on whether any legal reforms are needed.
In conclusion, I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches today will leave reassured that the law was not broken and that the people were not cheated, but we will have to wait for the outcome of the inquiry to see whether these allegations are true or false.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the EU referendum and alleged breaches of electoral law.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any notice from the Government that they intend to make a statement on the very important Kerslake review of the response in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena attack? Although it was positive in many ways, it has raised serious questions about some national protocols and the national helpline run by the Government.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no. The hon. Lady highlights an extremely important and sensitive matter, and I appreciate that she does so not least in her capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament. It will be a matter of considerable concern, not just to Members in affected constituencies, but right across the House. I have received no such notification but, knowing the perspicacity and ingenuity of the hon. Lady, I feel sure that she will find a way of highlighting the matter in the Chamber sooner rather than later.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister mentioned the role of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission in these types of discussions and inquiries. My understanding is that your Committee’s statutory duties are focused on matters such as the estimate and the resources available to the Electoral Commission. That has been raised as a matter of debate, so I wonder whether you could enlighten the House on what role your Committee might take in this regard.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman is right; the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission preoccupies itself with the estimate, and scrutiny thereof. That is a narrow albeit important remit. We are concerned with resources. There have been occasions when a particular issue appertaining to the Electoral Commission has arisen that has caused the Committee to meet to hear from its officers. However, so far as investigations are concerned—to be fair, the Minister did not suggest otherwise—those are not matters in which my Committee would in any way become involved. There is a model for this in relation to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—the model of a Committee scrutinising an estimate—and Members should have that in the forefront of their minds. We do not get involved in investigations. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order and my response to it has made that even clearer, I welcome that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This debate has questioned whether the Brexit vote may have occurred illegally—or illegal activity may have affected the outcome—and therefore it questions the legitimacy of the vote itself and subsequent activity in this Chamber. In your view, what should be the next steps, in the event that it is found categorically that illegal activity may have reasonably been found to have distorted the outcome of that democratic referendum?
Mr Speaker
I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is quite an experienced Member of the House, that that is a triumph of optimism over reality. For him to seek to beguile me into participating in an exchange on that matter is not reasonable, and the puckish grin on his face suggests that he is keenly aware of that fact. The question he puts to me is a hypothetical one and I have always thought that the late Lord Whitelaw spoke very good sense when he said, “On the whole, I prefer to cross bridges only when I come to them.”
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Science and Technology Committee
Royal Bank of Scotland
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition about the closure of the Renfrew branch of the taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland. The closure of this branch remains a mystery to the people of Renfrew, as it is situated in a busy and thriving town centre. The fact that the branch is popular with businesses and regular customers alike is one to which I can testify, as a branch user who has to wait in a queue each time I bank there. Indeed, RBS fully refurbished the branch, at no small cost, just months ago. This closure would leave one Paisley branch, hundreds of metres from the nearest bus stop, to serve the 50 square miles of my constituency.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Paisley and Renfrewshire North,
Declares that the proposed closure of the Renfrew branch of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will have a detrimental effect on the local community 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 account of the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002127]
Council Housing
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
We are all agreed: the UK has a housing crisis. No matter which party is speaking, there is universal recognition of the desperate need to urgently increase the supply of housing. So there is no debate, then, is there? The global financial crash had a catastrophic impact on the house building industry in this country. Given that much of the credit crunch was down to bad debts, particularly those resulting from bad lending in the US domestic housing market, this was perhaps to be expected. In just two years, the number of homes built crashed by 30%, and with this the supply of housing just dried up. That economic shock forced the then Labour Government to drive for affordable house building as part of an economic stimulus programme to help the country through the deep recession.
By 2009, the foundations for a new era of affordable house building were laid, with a £4 billion annual affordable housing programme, backing for councils to receive grant funding and build new council housing, full localisation of council housing finance agreed with the Treasury to boost building still further, and a programme of progressively higher standards agreed with industry to make all new build homes zero carbon by 2016. It was a comprehensive programme.
Since the change of Government in 2010, public policy has been perceived as at best indifferent and at worst hostile to affordable housing. One of the first decisions made by Conservative Ministers after the 2010 election was to cut back new housing investment by more than 60%. As a result, the number of new Government-backed homes for social rent started each year has plummeted from almost 40,000 to fewer than 1,000 last year. The number of new low-cost ownership homes being built has halved. The plans that Labour left to get councils building 10,000 homes a year were undermined, dashing any hopes of councils being able to build at scale again.
At the same time as the number of new homes being built has fallen, there has been a huge loss of existing social homes. In 2012, right-to-buy discounts were hiked to a massive £100,000.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
On a point of information, is the hon. Gentleman aware that since 2010 more than three times as many council houses have been delivered than in the previous 13 years —the golden era of Labour government that he talks about?
Matt Western
Yes, the figures do show that, but if one drills down into the number, one will find that they were provided by Labour authorities, and that is despite the borrowing cap that has been placed on them. Without that cap, to which I shall refer, far greater supply would be available.
Despite a promise that there would be one-for-one replacements, in some areas only one in five homes sold under the right to buy has been replaced. A new kind of publicly funded housing was introduced. Ministers branded it “affordable rent”, with rent set at up to 80% of the market price and thereby directly linked to often unaffordable private market rents.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I feel sure that my hon. Friend is likely to come to this point, but does he agree that the term “affordable rent” is an offence to the English language, because affordable clearly does not mean affordable if it is 80% of market rent?
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her informed intervention. My very next sentence was going to address that point. If something is already expensive, making it 80% of expensive is still expensive. That is where we find ourselves.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned right to buy. Some of the right-to-buy houses that were originally bought by their renters have now been sold on, often to landlords. Some of those properties are not in the best condition and on many estates they are the ones that really stick out, often because rogue landlords are not looking after them.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. He is of course absolutely correct. One issue we have had over recent decades is that so much of this property has fallen into the hands of landlords and others, the investment has not been made, and they are now charging extortionate rents. Had it been left to local authority provision, those renting would be able to afford the properties more readily.
Organisations that bid for Government grants were told to re-let homes for low-cost social rent at the new so-called “affordable rent”. It is now estimated that 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost in the past five years. More recently, the Government proposed to add to the sell-off by extending the right to buy to housing association tenants, funded by an extraordinary forced sell-off of council housing to the highest bidder.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s points and the genuine and deep concern that he shows for the needs of tenants throughout the country, many of whom are struggling with high housing costs, as indeed they are in my constituency. Does he agree that it was an outrageous mistake and serious error by the Conservative Government to stop many local authorities building council houses when they had fully costed schemes that were ready to go and, indeed, shovel-ready? Reading had a plan for 1,000 new council houses, but unfortunately it was stopped by George Osborne in 2015.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely correct. There is a suppression of building low-cost rental properties by local authorities. Those local authorities know that there is a need, and we must allow them to have that responsibility. Preventing them from supplying that housing has had a huge social and economic cost in our communities.
Siobhain McDonagh
Does my hon. Friend also agree that preventing councils from building housing means that it is unlikely that the Government will achieve their target of building 300,000 homes a year? The last time those figures were reached was in 1969 when both councils and housing associations were building, as was the private sector.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend once again. Not only is she very well informed, but she is very experienced in this matter. She is absolutely right. The high levels of housing that we have needed over the decades have been delivered by a mix of providers. The crucial element that is now missing is the housing that is provided by local authorities. In its absence, we will never achieve the objective that has been set by the current Government. If we look through the decades, we can see how, in the post-war periods of the 20s and then the 50s and 60s, the local authorities were allowed to ensure a good supply of housing, which they recognised was needed because of the constraints in the private sector.
It is worth looking at this matter in the round. Over the past 10 years, the overall supply of new homes has seen an under-delivery of at least 80,000 to 100,000 homes a year. The result is that the UK faces a desperate shortage of at least 1 million homes. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors now forecasts that we will reach a shortage of 1.8 million low-cost rental properties—that is just low-cost rental properties—by 2022.
All areas of the UK need housing, both public and private, but there is particular and desperate need for low-cost housing for rent. In my constituency there are more than 2,400 people on the housing waiting list. Homes are being built, but not enough are under construction to satisfy this social need. Once again, it is the wrong mix of housing that is being delivered. So, what is the answer? Of course, opinions vary, and the solutions presented to the electorate in last year’s election showed clear blue water between the main parties.
Recognising the critical importance of the housing shortage in its 2017 manifesto, Labour committed to the creation of a new department for housing. Importantly, on house building, we promised at least 1 million new homes over the next Parliament, which, as we now know, can be a very short time, and a new target of 250,000 new homes a year being built by 2022. Of those, at least 100,000 per year, or 40% minimum, would be genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy per year, including the biggest council house building programme in more than 30 years. If I am honest, I would personally like to see a lot more.
Subsequently, at the autumn party conferences, much time and debate were given over to this challenge, and the Prime Minister announced that she was committed to delivering 300.000 new homes. Specifically, she stated that £2 billion would be committed to helping the delivery of affordable housing, but, of course, that equates to just 25,000 properties. Clearly, housing is rising up the political agenda, and it is now one of the biggest domestic issues that we face.
My contention is that we now face a social crisis that is without precedent in the past 50 years. We have thousands of families without their own homes, waiting desperately for accommodation. We have record numbers of people rough sleeping. In my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, we have the highest number in terms of people per 1,000 of the population in the whole of the west midlands. Over the decades, the overall supply of housing has not delivered. Now must be the time to change that.
I am convinced that council housing was, is and will be the answer to our housing crisis. The Government need to release local authorities from the bounds of their borrowing cap and allow them to use their pension funds to invest in their communities. The use of public land holds the key to unlocking the potential to deliver this. Simply selling public land to the highest bidder will not solve anything. Land is the fundamental denominator in the cost equation of UK housing, and the planning process surrounding it needs urgent, radical reform.
Building more council housing solves at least two key problems: first, the lack of genuinely affordable housing for those who cannot afford market rents; and secondly, the chronic under-supply of housing that is the root cause of our housing crisis. As I said, there is a lack of genuinely affordable housing, with historically high waiting lists of 1.16 million households nationally. The easiest way to help those in need is to provide council housing. If we fail to do this, the result will be increasing homelessness, which we have witnessed more than doubling nationally since 2010. Another, less frequently made, argument is that building more council housing is the key to boosting overall supply, thereby addressing the root cause of the UK’s housing crisis.
The Government’s own target is to build 300,000 new homes each year, but the number of additional homes delivered in 2016-17 was 217,000, falling well short of their target. Although last year was the first year since the financial crisis in which over 200,000 homes were added—and I do applaud that—it was not enough, and the wrong mix of homes is being built. It is now stated that 300,000 houses would just about keep up with demand. Even if the Government hit this target, it is unlikely to bring down house prices and rents significantly. Also, in order to deliver those 300,000 houses, we need all providers to be supplying into the process.
History provides important lessons. It is no coincidence that house building rates reached their post-war peak during the 1950s and ’60s, when successive Governments were committed both to private sector and public sector house building. At the time, housing was plentiful and house prices stayed low, so that many on low to average incomes could afford to rent or buy their own homes. The success of the ’50s and ’60s shows that prioritising council housing need not be a partisan issue. Harold Macmillan, the Conservative Housing Minister from 1951 to 1954, initiated some of the greatest council house building programmes in order to meet his target of building 300,000 homes a year. During those Macmillan years, local authority housing made up 87%, 84%, 77% and 69% of completed dwellings per year respectively. This compares with just 1% in each of the past four years under this Government—or about 20% each year if we include housing associations as well as councils. Importantly, as I have illustrated elsewhere—I want to give credit where it is due—post-war Conservatives recognised that the public sector must build the homes that the private sector will not build during a housing crisis, which is where we find ourselves.
So why will this Government not do that? I would like to believe that it is not simply ideology that says that the state is bad while the private sector is good and will solve all our problems, because this crisis is holding back our country socially and—I cannot stress this enough—economically. I believe that there is a duty on one-nation Conservatives to come forward and urge the Government to commit to a mass council house building programme if they are serious about solving our housing crisis. In this light, I have recently relaunched, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), the parliamentary campaign for council housing. I invite all MPs to get involved with this cross-party initiative that aims to see more council houses being built.
Central Government policy currently acts as a disincentive for councils to build more council homes: first, because, there is next to no funding from central Government for the provision of council housing; and secondly, because there has been just £5.9 billion gross investment in social housing in 2015-16 compared with £10 billion in 2009-10, and the vast majority of this will be directed to housing associations.
This compares with the £22 billion forecast to be spent on housing benefit in the 2017-18 financial year, which is a direct result of not building the housing we need. Is that not ironic? Surely the Government would rather not line the pockets of landlords in the private sector, but prefer to invest long term in the council housing that we need. Is that not pragmatic? The additional £2 billion investment announced by the Prime Minister at the conference was welcome, but it will only provide a few thousand homes by 2021, including the affordable homes that can be anything up to 80% of the market rent. The money is not ring-fenced for genuinely affordable social rents.
As I said earlier, the borrowing cap stifles a council’s ability to build where councils can currently only borrow up to a certain amount to invest in council housing. I welcome the announcement in the Budget that the Government will raise the cap by a total of £1 billion for areas under high affordability pressures, but more needs to be done. If the Government accept that the cap stifles building, why will they not lift it entirely for all areas, as has been done in Scotland?
Matt Rodda
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable need for greater house building in high-cost areas, and that there is actually a lot of available land in many of those areas? There certainly is in Reading. In our case, it is brownfield land from our light industrial past, and I assume that that may also be the case in Warwick and Leamington. Does he agree that urgent Government action is needed to free up that land in order to support the local economy in those areas and to support local public services? There is a particular pressure on local schools and the NHS in my constituency, as people move to lower-cost areas. Will he endorse my points?
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his informed and relevant intervention. He is of course absolutely right that this essentially leads to what may be described as social cleansing. We may actually be creating ghettoes of particular types of community, when we should be striving for sustainable, balanced communities for our economic and social good. I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s points.
It is estimated that lifting the cap would allow £7 billion to be injected over five years, providing an additional 60,000 council homes. Even the Treasury Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), has called for this and stated:
“raising the cap would have no material impact on the national debt, but could result in a substantial increase in the supply of housing.”
The Local Government Association agrees. In my view, we should lift the cap entirely and take borrowing to invest in council housing off the country’s balance sheet, as is standard in other European countries. Why not?
Returning to the use of land and its availability, there is clearly much land available, but it is questionable in terms of its efficient use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East just alluded to, there is land—including public sector and brownfield land—but it is all about the planning process and how that land is brought into the equation in order to deliver affordable housing. The current planning policy framework makes it prohibitively expensive for this to happen. The whole process needs radical reform.
Councils are currently incentivised to sell off the overpriced land that they own to highest bidder, rather than to use it for the common good. This needs to be reconsidered urgently. I am calling for us to recognise this national crisis in housing by legislating for all unused local authority and public sector land to be used exclusively for council housing. That is the nature of the crisis we face.
The inflated land prices across the country are preventing local authorities from being able to assemble the land to build on. Land is currently priced at its potential future development value, rather than at its existing use value, as is done in other countries. This pushes up the cost of undeveloped land that would be suitable for housing development, making investment in council housing more expensive. Bizarrely, it also rewards landowners for housing and infrastructure developments to which they do not contribute.
The homelessness charity Shelter has argued that a few small reforms to the Land Compensation Act 1961 and associated legislation on compulsory purchase orders would enable local authorities to purchase land at a fair market value—one that reflects both the current value of the land and reasonable compensation, and allows for the delivery of high-quality, affordable developments. This is not rocket science; it is not complicated. That is what they do in other countries in Europe and elsewhere. It is just about changing the planning approach so that it favours the local authorities.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current section 106 arrangements and the community investment levy have failed to deliver affordable housing for our local communities?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, as ever. This needs radical reform. The section 106 moneys are understood by few, and the provision of those moneys for housing is not being realised. This goes back to my point about how the planning process and the planning policy framework need urgently to be addressed.
Councils currently retain only one third of receipts from homes sold through right to buy, while the rest goes to Treasury coffers. Why should that be? Surely it should be in the gift of the local authorities. They are the ones that are adding the value to this process, not the Treasury and not the developer. That means that council housing is lost and never replaced, with 40% of that stock now in the hands of private landlords who, in some cases, are charging up to 50% more rent than is being charged for comparable local authority-owned housing.
It also acts as a disincentive for councils to build. Why risk building new council homes when they could be bought three years later, and two thirds of the receipts will then go to the Treasury? Right to buy in its current form must be scrapped, or at the very least radically reformed, if we want to build the new homes we need. At the very least, councils must be allowed to retain 100% of the receipts from the homes that they lose.
We urgently need to change the language around housing in this country. For 40 years, the sector has become dominated by talk of assets and investment, rather than provision for people’s essential needs for security, refuge and living. Housing also meets the needs of our society more widely and determines the communities in which we live. Housing is so simple, so fundamental and so basic. It provides a sense of place and connectedness in our communities. What is rarely discussed is the vital importance of low-rent council and social housing to the UK economy and how that has been ignored by recent Governments. High rents contribute to pressure on household budgets, lead to lower savings and lower consumption and may lead to poorer health.
The time has come to address this failing and the urgent need to restore much needed balance to the UK housing sector by allowing local authorities to build council housing on a scale not seen since the 1970s. That would mean 120,000 new council homes being delivered per year across the UK. Council housing was and is the answer to our housing crisis—I have absolutely no doubt about that. It is about time the Government recognised that and got on with the job of building it.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to make a short contribution, which I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear. I congratulate my close colleague on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), on securing the debate. What he said was well worth listening to. I wish to make a couple of observations that relate largely to my locality of Stroud. I come to help the Minister, not in any way to criticise, because we have to recognise that this is not about party politics. It is about the fact that we need to deal with the housing problem, and we need to deal with it now.
I am making this plea following a letter that was sent by my local authority, Stroud District Council, on my behalf and that of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). He does not necessarily sign up to everything in the letter, but we felt it was important to send it to the Department so that it understands some of the issues we are facing. This is about the way in which the housing revenue account is now, bizarrely, almost acting against the very thing the Government want, which is to build more houses and make sure that they are fit for the people who desperately need rented accommodation.
The letter makes two pleas: first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, to adjust or possibly remove the current borrowing cap so that Stroud District Council can undertake further prudential borrowing consistent with its 30-year business plan; and, secondly, to enable the council to use 100% of its right to buy capital receipts to build those new council homes. Stroud District Council is not unique, but it is unusual in that it now owns its own stock. We bid £98 million for the self-financing regime that the Government kindly made available, so this is a question of the council wanting to use its own resources in the most appropriate ways.
Stroud District Council has had a five-year capital programme to build some 236 council homes, which for a small area such as Stroud is a not insignificant commitment and contribution. That has not in any way crowded out the private sector, but has been in addition to it. These homes are of a high standard, and they are taking people out of fuel poverty, while lifetime arrangements mean that these quality homes are ones that people want to live in. It is a myth that people end up in council housing because they have no alternatives. These are very much sought-after homes, and ones that we want to see alongside other forms of affordable homes.
Local business is very supportive, and it has highlighted the need for housing to be given a very high priority for the simple reason that that is how people can live and work in the Stroud district. We estimate locally that we need 425 new units per annum, which, at the moment, is in effect all the units being provided. However, of the 430 new homes built in 2015-16—the last year for which we have figures—only 120, or 28%, were affordable, which is well below our level of need. This is a question of our not meeting the current demand.
There are 2,525 households on the housing register, with about 440 new lettings of social and affordable housing each year. Rent levels in the private sector are increasing much more quickly than we want, which leads people to look for alternatives to the private sector—one of those alternatives is council housing—and that is particularly true of younger people. In Stroud, the average wage to house price ratio is now 1:10, which is above the national average of 1:8. That means fewer people are becoming owner-occupiers, which is another reason why they are looking for alternative rented accommodation.
Dare I say it, but the private rented sector in Stroud is not necessarily good, which again drives people to look at ways in which social housing, particularly council housing, can provide an answer. There are elements we always want to provide, such as extra care. That needs to be mentioned, because this is not just about younger people or younger families, but about providing a social care element. It is only really the council that can do so, because it recognises that it must supply such support. We have also had a 30% increase during the past year in homelessness applications, which is another driver.
One thing for the Minister to address is the local housing allowance. In a previous debate, I argued that the simple fact that Stroud is included with Gloucester and the Forest of Dean causes us problems. We are an area with higher rents, which means that, because the local housing allowance is based on an average, people paying rent have to make good the difference between what they are allowed and what the benefit system permits them.
I appeal to the Government to work with us to allow us to carry on with our council housing programme. The local plan allocates over 5,000 homes, but sadly too few are coming forward. If the local authority could play a bigger part we would be able to bring forward those homes and ensure we deal with the housing shortage, which I am sure Members on all sides of the House agree is real and pertinent. We need a range of housing, including council housing. This is a cross-party agreement. We are a hung council. The local Conservatives support the programme and were instrumental in it, and they have been willing to stay with it over a long period of time. We need help to either remove or relax the housing revenue account, so we can get back on with the programme.
Sadly, the cap means it is likely that we will have to pay back to the Government £1 million in unapplied right-to-buy receipts for 2016-17. The Minister looks a bit curious, but that is the reality. If we do not have the ability to match fund, we pay back the money from receipts. I do not expect the Minister to say he has a magic solution, but perhaps he could look at that to ensure we do not have such anomalies in the system which mean that the very people who want to build are being prevented from doing so. The 1% rent reduction makes matters worse, because of its impact on the flexibility that councils need for their business plans—in our case, a 30-year business plan. Overall, that has a negative impact of some £10 million, which is a huge influence on the number of houses—we reckon 100—that we want to build but have not been able to.
I hope the Minister has listened. I do not expect him to come up with all the answers, but we will work with him. We are a good authority. We want to overcome the problems of the lack of affordable housing, particularly council housing. I hope he has heard us and will be able to say that the Government are at least willing to contemplate looking at the borrowing requirement and how right to buy affects authorities like Stroud.
The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate on local authority housing. It is a pleasure to speak in it. I appreciated his thoughtful speech and I was even sympathetic to his yearning for a return to the Macmillan era—although I am not quite sure how far he would go in that regard. He raises a number of important issues and I will try to address them in turn. He omitted one or two others and I might seek to address those as well.
The reality is that in the last year 217,000 new homes have been delivered, the highest level for all but one of the last 30 years. The hon. Gentleman referred to the financial crash, which clearly had a big impact on the housing market. I think he will be relieved to note that, this month, the national data for the last year showed the number of new build starts and completions at their highest level since 2007. That is good news and positive for homebuyers up and down the country. He also referred to the record of the previous Labour Government on council homes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) mentioned, under this Government, over 10,000 new local authority homes have been built. That is triple the number under the entire 13-year period of the previous Government.
None the less, I accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s speech and the restlessness to do much, much more. There is no escaping the fact that we have a housing crisis. He focused on council housing, but we have to build more homes across the board. Providing good-quality and affordable homes for people who need them is an absolute top domestic priority for this Government.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
As the chair of the board of Walsall Housing Group, I feel almost affronted by the idea of housing associations not getting a mention. In 2016-17, I believe that there were 47,000 starts for new homes built by housing associations. WHG is celebrating its 15th birthday this week. Over that period, it will have built or acquired 2,000 new homes, but more importantly perhaps, it will have spent £700 million on modernising its existing stock.
Dominic Raab
I wish a happy birthday to my hon. Friend’s housing association, and I commend housing associations and local authorities up and down the country that have the ambition to get the homes built. We will do our bit as central Government, whether that is on planning reform or infrastructure funding, but we need local authorities to be up for this challenge, so I commend him for the work that he and his housing association are doing.
Since 2010, we have delivered over 357,000 new affordable homes, including over 128,000 homes at social rent. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will know that, between 1997 and 2010, the number of social homes for rent fell by 420,000 and waiting lists rocketed by 70%.
Siobhain McDonagh
Would the Minister address the issue of what “affordable” means? What would he say to my constituent, Tracey, who could not move into a brand new London and Quadrant property where she needed it? She said, “Siobhain, I can’t move in there. Me and my partner work but we can’t afford the £1,000 a month rent.”
Dominic Raab
I say to the hon. Lady and her constituents across the board that we are absolutely restless to create more affordable homes so that they can realise their dream of home ownership. I encourage her and her party not to vote against cutting stamp duty for first-time buyers. I do not think that doubling council tax would be the answer, but I share her aspiration to help precisely those people to realise the dream of home ownership. We will be straining every sinew to make sure that that happens.
That is why we have announced a package of measures to help local authorities to build additional affordable homes for their local communities. The autumn Budget provided a further boost with the announcement that local authority housing revenue account borrowing caps will be increased by £1 billion, as was mentioned both by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). That is good news; it is something on which we are making progress. Local authorities will be able to bid for increases in their caps from 2019-20, up to that total of £1 billion by the end of 2021-22. Again, it will be for local authorities in areas of high affordability pressure, where authorities are ready to start building, but the decision should be welcome news. I hope that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will take that back to his local authority.
The increase shows that we have listened to local authorities and hon. Members across the House who asked for it. It will come on top of the £3.5 billion-worth of borrowing headroom that is already available to local authorities across England. We will release information shortly about how councils can apply for an increase in their local housing revenue account cap. I am keen to see local authorities, wherever they are across the country and irrespective of where they are across the political divide, take up the opportunity to bid. I hope that local MPs will get on board and back them and that we can have a broader cross-party approach to this. I want to see that programme well subscribed, so I encourage all local authorities to think about how the additional borrowing can help them to deliver more council homes for their local community.
Mike Amesbury
Why do the Government not consider removing the cap altogether?
Dominic Raab
We have raised the cap by £1 billion. If we are going to go further, we need to take a more balanced approach and make sure that we are fiscally responsible, as well as giving the leverage and flexibility to local authorities, but we do keep the position under review. Therefore, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman supports his local authority in any bids that it puts forward. I say that to all hon. Members across the House.
On top of that, we recently announced an extra £2 billion to deliver new affordable housing for social rent, taking our total investment in the affordable homes programme to £9 billion over the period 2016-21. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation, David Orr, has described this extra money as
“a watershed moment for the nation.”
Local authorities, as well as housing associations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) referred to, will be able to bid for this money, which will go where it is needed most, and particularly to areas of acute affordability pressures. Again, we will be releasing information shortly about the programme. I encourage local authorities and housing associations to bid and local MPs to get behind it.
In addition, we are giving local authorities more certainty over their rental income to 2025. We are setting a longer-term rent deal for local authorities, enabling them to increase rents by up to CPI plus 1% for five years from 2020. That will provide local authorities with extra oomph and greater confidence in their approach; enable increased future rental income to underpin future house building plans; and—we hope and are confident—give local authorities greater reassurance and confidence to build more homes more quickly, and to do so in a way that benefits local communities. All of this—the rent certainty, the additional HRA borrowing, the billions for new affordable housing—affirms our commitment to ensuring extra council housing built to scale, as does our commitment, of course, to giving councils the tools, flexibility and leverage to do the job.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The Minister is rightly highlighting, as all speakers have done, the importance of council housing, and he is also emphasising the strong support the Government are giving to councils in that respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) made clear, however, a range of models and types of housing are important in the provision of social and affordable housing. Does the Minister agree that the forthcoming social housing Green Paper is a good opportunity to look at that mix and how we deliver social housing in the round?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not dogmatic about the vehicle or the form. The nature of the demand will be different from area to area, depending on the demographics and geographic locality, and we need the flexibility to provide the right housing at scale to meet the individual needs of local communities.
Under the reinvigoration of right to buy in 2012, local authorities were allowed, for the first time, to keep the receipts from additional sales to fund new affordable housing. The hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington and for Stroud both made that point. Overall, councils have risen to the challenge and used their receipts to deliver new homes. Warwick District Council, for example, has demonstrated a commitment to building replacement homes and is working hard to ensure that delivery is on time. In fact, I prised out the local data for the council because I knew the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington would wish to applaud it: 33 of its 110 additional sales needed to have been replaced by now, under the three-year deadline, but it has started or required 87 replacements, so is more than meeting the one-for-one commitment locally. I know that he will want to applaud the council for taking a lead in that regard.
Eddie Hughes
I just want to clear up a point that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made. He said that houses purchased through right to buy had fallen into the hands of others. Given that the policy was introduced in 1980—38 years ago—and given that the right to buy goes hand in hand with the right to sell, it is perhaps not surprising that some have been sold on. We are, I hope, about to enjoy a trial of voluntary right to buy in the west midlands, and I am hoping that the Minister could perhaps touch on that.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes some important points. I am looking forward to the midlands pilot of the housing association voluntary right to buy scheme and to renewing and reinvigorating our commitment to right to buy in that sector.
We have been consulting with local authorities and housing associations on their views, and those will be fed into the social housing Green Paper. Of course, the measures I have already announced will also help to make a difference in enabling councils to deliver new homes.
Helping local authorities to increase council housing is, of course, only part of the story. That is probably where I differ slightly from the hon. Gentleman. We are also implementing a range of other measures to increase the supply of homes across the board. Whether those homes are for rent or for ownership, and whatever the sector, it is the overall supply of new homes that will reduce unaffordability over time if we get it right.
To ensure that we could deliver that, housing was front and centre of the autumn Budget, which made available more than £15 billion of new financial support for house building over the next five years, bringing the total support for housing to at least £44 billion over the period. That was the biggest budget for housing in decades. More money was announced for infrastructure: we almost doubled investment in the housing infrastructure fund to £5 billion and promised an additional £400 million to regenerate rundown areas. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, Warwickshire has benefited from both the viability funding and the forward funding—millions of pounds for extra infrastructure to help authorities to build those extra homes so that we do not just build more homes, but build up our communities. We also gave more help to small and medium-sized builders.
On planning reform, we have revised the national planning policy framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will help us to focus local authorities and developers on the delivery of housing, The review panel chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will report in time for the next Budget. It will present proposals to address the issue of build-out rates, and the need to ensure, when developers are given planning permission, that the homes are built. Planning applications and permissions should not be the start of some endless haggle with local authorities which leaves communities understandably frustrated.
We are taking action on all fronts. We are providing significant new funding, reforming the system and working with local authorities. I think the hon. Gentleman himself made the point that this is a team effort. I have already mentioned the Green Paper on social housing, but I think it worth emphasising that we should look at not just the volume but the quality of the social housing that we are delivering. We should also consider the relationship between landlord and tenant, and, indeed, the stigma that has arisen in relation to social housing. My experience of meeting social tenants is that they work hard, take pride in their communities, and want to be treated independently and with some respect. We must ensure that we get that right as well. The Green Paper will be informed by the views of the tenants whom we have been meeting in recent months, in the Grenfell area—which was, of course, the catalyst for the Green Paper—but elsewhere in the country as well. Even in the limited time in which I have had this job, I have been down to Basingstoke as well as to North Kensington.
We are grateful to the large number of tenants who have shared their views and fed in their experiences. Those people and their communities remain our guiding light—our lodestar if you like, Madam Deputy Speaker—as we take forward our proposals. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, and with others in all parts of the House, to ensure that we deliver the safe, secure, affordable homes that the country and local communities need.
Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Sarah Chambers as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 31 March 2018 for the period ending 30 March 2022.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced its first report of 2018 in relation to the motion. It may help if I set out the key points for the record. Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the Act, the Speaker’s Committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission. Commissioners are appointed for a fixed term, but the committee may recommend their reappointment where appropriate. The Speaker’s Committee is not regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, but it has chosen to follow OCPA-recommended best practice in its supervision of appointments. The OCPA code of practice for appointments to public bodies, which was published in April 2012, provides that no reappointment may be made
“without a satisfactory performance appraisal”.
The Speaker’s Committee was required to recruit a new electoral commissioner to replace the outgoing electoral commissioner, Toby Hobman, whose term of office expired on 31 December 2017. Mr Hobman had been a commissioner since 2010, serving two terms. As is normal for such appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel, which conducted the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by Joanna Place, chief operating officer at the Bank of England. The other panel members were Sir John Holmes, chair of the Electoral Commission, and the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.
The independent panel initially recommended the appointment of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the position. That was endorsed by the Speaker’s Committee. However, the House declined to appoint Sir Ian as an electoral commissioner in January. In view of the House’s decision, the Speaker’s Committee therefore decided to recommend that Sarah Chambers be appointed as an electoral commissioner. Ms Chambers was the independent panel’s second-place candidate. She met all the essential criteria for the position, and was found to be very close in calibre to the initially recommended candidate.
Sarah Chambers currently serves on the board of the Competition and Markets Authority. She has a broad understanding of a wide range of complex organisations, political issues and regulatory frameworks, developed over many years working as an economic regulator and Government policy maker, and more recently as a board and committee member of a number of public organisations, including the Bar Standards Board. She was formerly a civil servant.
When the Speaker’s Committee reaches a decision on an appointment, statute requires that the Speaker consult the leaders of political parties represented at Westminster on the proposal. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. No concerns or objections were received to Sarah Chambers’ proposed appointment as an electoral commissioner. If the appointment is made, Ms Chambers will serve as an electoral commissioner for four years.
I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support the appointment, and will wish the individual well as she takes up her new post.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I support what the Leader of the House has said, and I thank the outgoing commissioner, Toby Hobman, for his contribution to the Electoral Commission over the two terms that he served since 2010. His term of office, as the Leader of the House said, expired on 31 December 2017.
On 23 January 2018, the motion to appoint Sir Ian Kennedy as an electoral commissioner was negatived on a Division. I thank the members of the independent panel—the chair, Joanna Place, Sir John Holmes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South—for their work in identifying a candidate. The Speaker’s Committee has been independent, transparent and diligent in its work.
The usual process in such a situation is to look to the next person, if they are appointable. The recruitment panel’s second-place candidate, Sarah Chambers, was therefore recommended for appointment as an electoral commissioner. Ms Chambers served on the board at the Competition and Markets Authority, and she is experienced as an economic regulator, Government policy maker and board and committee member of a number of public authorities.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am listening with rapt attention to my hon. Friend’s speech. I draw her attention to the fact that Sarah Chambers is also the chair of the Shepherd’s Bush Families Project and Children’s Centre, which is a fantastic organisation in my constituency that has been helping poor families for 30 years. That alone would recommend her to the board.
Valerie Vaz
I thank my hon. Friend for his assiduous work as a fantastic constituency MP, and he is clearly aware of Ms Chambers’ good work. In the light of that, the Opposition endorse her appointment as an electoral commissioner.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Child maintenance payments
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 View all Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 March 2018 - (27 Mar 2018)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally and without debate. I first call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 27 March) meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 March;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 27 March.—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mrs Wheeler.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence received by the Committee will be made available soon.
The selection list for today is available in the room and on the Bill website. None of the amendments have been grouped for debate. The Member who has put their name to the amendment being debated is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on that amendment. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate, I shall call the Member who has moved the amendment again and before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debate on the relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee. We start with amendment 5 to clause 1. I have selected this amendment, although it is starred, as it was provided to the Public Bill Office before the deadline but was not processed until Friday.
Clause 1
Duty to grant old-style secure tenancies: victims of domestic abuse
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after “tenant)” insert
“and regardless of whether the qualifying tenancy is in the jurisdiction of another local authority”.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), the former shadow Minister, who is now the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary—we are in a fast-moving world at the moment.
Let me start by saying that the amendments to the Bill in the other place are very welcome. They recognise that the Government have listened to the very real concerns expressed by Members from both sides of the House and members of the other place on this important issue. I have read the transcripts of the debate in the Lords, where my amendment originated—I should take the opportunity again to thank Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for their work on the Labour Benches in introducing the amendment— and it is clear that there is a great deal of concern about the situation for victims of domestic violence.
Lord Farmer noted in his contribution that
“we are still…stuck on the question, ‘Why doesn’t she…leave?’, when someone is the victim of abuse, rather than…asking, with regard to the perpetrator, ‘Why doesn’t he…stop?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 147.]
He commented on the research about victims who return to lives of domestic abuse, saying that “a high proportion” go back to their abusive partner. He later qualifies that with the figure of 66%—that is, 66% of women who have tried and failed to leave an abusive partner. Two thirds of women decide, for whatever reason, that it is preferable to stay in the same property, their home—a really important part of this is that it is their home—with someone who abuses them. Nearly all those women—97%—have returned repeatedly. They have tried to flee, to leave, and to establish a new life, but for myriad reasons have then returned. That is why it is so important that the Government ensure that the security of a home, a safe place for children and the support of agencies such as Refuge and Women’s Aid are dealt with in legislation.
This small but, I would say, mighty amendment would ensure that the legislation met in practice the intentions that we set out in this room. That is the purpose of our amendments—to ensure that in practice, out there in the real world, in the real lives of people living in the circumstances that we are discussing, what we decide in this room and what the Government decide to set down in black and white as the law of the land works in practice on the ground, meets the needs of those people and meets the Government’s intentions. I have listened carefully to the Minister, and the intentions are there. They are clear. I believe that there is a strong commitment, going all the way to the top of the Government, to ensure that women’s lives are improved—I am referring to women, as they make up the majority of victims of domestic violence; I accept that there are also male victims, but I am using “women” as the more general term—and are not hindered in any way by policy. We must ensure that the policy that we agree is the best that it can be.
Our amendments and the amendment of the Bill in the Lords will, I believe, greatly reduce the risk of return to abusive partners and will, I hope, go a great distance towards reducing the absolutely terrible statistic of two women dying every week at the hands of the person who is supposed to love and care for them the most. One cannot help but think about that and the reality of the situation for these women. We know that women sometimes remain in abusive relationships for years before summoning the courage to leave. Children are often the reason for staying: the women do not want the kids to be without their dad because he is a good dad; he loves them and would do anything for them. However, there is also fear of the alternative: what else awaits women if they go? They leave the comfort of their surroundings and the place that they know. They leave their friends, their social networks, family perhaps, their children’s schools, their work—everything is thrown up in the air. It is a period of great upheaval and uncertainty.
The Minister will know that I have previously expressed frustration that it is always the victim who is expected to leave, to seek refuge and to start again. That will remain the case until we see a significant change in the judicial system and the education system, as well as the embedding of the principles of early intervention and healthy relationships across the country. I look forward to the domestic violence Bill that will be introduced later this year, so that we can see what the Government’s plans are in this area.
After women have taken the step of leaving, the process of rebuilding a life for them and their family can be a tough road. There must be certainty of housing support. In Baroness Lister’s contribution on the Lords amendments she noted that Women’s Aid had reports of women being
“reluctant to leave a secure tenancy and that some would take massive risks rather than give it up.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1042.]
The amendment that the Government have supported was tabled with every intention of tackling that fear, and of laying to rest the concern of victims of domestic violence about being left—because of being a victim—in a worse housing position with their council tenancy.
That great intention—that purposeful move towards supporting the victims of domestic violence—could, however, be undermined if the Government do not make the meaning of the Bill clearer. In debate after debate—about housing, on International Women’s Day, about the justice system and about domestic violence specifically—there has been discussion of the fact that women often have to go out of the area when they are in the situation we are considering, as well as of the resulting funding issues and the wider issue of the problematic review of supported housing funding. The reasons are various, and include, sometimes, a lack of refuge places or finance, people returning to homes in the wider family, and issues of individual or family safety. If the abuser is a persistent harasser, in particular, there will be a need to keep the location discreet.
Lord Lipsey noted that three quarters of the women in a refuge would not be from the area where it was situated, and commented that it was natural for victims to want to
“fly as far away as possible”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 145.]
from the source of the abuse. Women’s Aid put the figure at about 68%, just shy of three quarters. It has also provided us with the outcome of its No Woman Turned Away project, which shows that nearly a fifth of women were prevented from making valid homelessness claims on the grounds of domestic abuse for reasons that included having no connection to the area.
That is important and goes to the heart of the purpose of amendment 5. We are talking about women’s situation and their need for support. When we see what really happens when people cross local authority boundaries—how many people are being refused, and the fact that the Women’s Aid report mentions refusals being made specifically because of a lack of local connection—we must do all we can to ensure, through the Bill, that that situation does not continue. If the Bill is allowed to go forward without amendment, we shall have failed to deliver what the Government intend by it.
Local housing teams make the decisions. The systems that they develop are based on legislation that comes from this place. That leads me to the point that when a right to housing and a secure tenancy is specified, that should follow the individual. It should not matter whether they are within or outside their local authority; it should follow the victim. Whether it is through fate or design that victims leave their areas and relocate—and for some of them the relocation must be long-term and discreet—legislation must reflect the reality.
The measure will be something of a legacy for the Minister, and there is no point in failing to sew up the least thread of the seam. It is not inconceivable, given the reaction of some local authorities when asked to contribute to refuge support services, that with all the constraints and pulls upon their resources, they will find enough of a hole in the Bill to wriggle out of the duties that it is intended to place on them. I call on the Minister to do all in her considerable power to see that that that possibility—however small she may consider it—is addressed today, and that the amendment is accepted.
It would be a tragedy if the Government’s well-intentioned measure were to be undermined later through limited implementation in cases where victims tried to re-establish their lives outside their original local authority area. Is there is a reason why it is not possible to make the provision explicit?
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 Rosindell, I believe for the first time.
The amendment aims to ensure that where a victim of domestic abuse applies to another local authority to be rehoused, the requirement to offer a lifetime tenancy still applies if a new tenancy is offered. The Bill is intended to protect people who need to move from their current home, and those who have already fled, to escape domestic abuse. It is clearly understandable why a victim of domestic abuse may want or need to move themselves and their family to an area far from the perpetrator. It is therefore important that the Bill protects victims who apply for housing assistance in another local authority district. However, it already does that, so the amendment is technically ineffective.
The Bill applies to any local authority in England, and to any tenant who has a lifetime local authority or housing association tenancy for a dwelling house anywhere in England and needs to move from that house to escape domestic abuse. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary and ask for it to be withdrawn.
The Chair
Let me clarify, in case there is any confusion, that the Minister may speak again. It is perfectly fine for the Minister to speak and for Back Benchers to come in afterwards.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairship, Mr Rosindell, and to be part of this important Committee. I am conscious that there are lots of skilled and talented people in the room who are very experienced in the area of domestic abuse, so it is perhaps natural that I rise to speak with a little trepidation, but I care deeply about this issue and I want to make a couple of points about the amendment.
Prior to coming to this place, I was a city councillor in Nottingham for six years. I had special responsibility for a variety of things, but I was responsible for the council’s domestic abuse services throughout that time. I felt that the council had two roles, which pertain directly to the Bill. The first was to set out our stall, in a time of real cuts, to try to protect services in the city—those commissioned by the council and the broader services in our city’s fragile ecosystem. Cuts to the council’s budgets were such that we could not do that in many areas, but we decided that we would draw the line at domestic abuse, and I am happy to say that we held that line pretty well.
The council’s second role was to take away barriers. I do not have direct experience of what it is like to be in a relationship with an abusive loved one, and I cannot imagine how difficult it is to leave such a situation. The closest I have come is through my casework, both as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament. Suffice it to say that I have seen from that vantage point just how difficult it is—but I cannot quite imagine it. However, I felt that the council’s job was to take away barriers, and that is what we set out our stall to do.
We said to people, “If your concern is about your children and the impact on them, then we will guarantee good schooling and we will guarantee that their mental health needs will be met. If your issue is with your pets, then we will make sure your pets are taken care of and fostered. If your issue is with money, then we will support you.” I felt that we had a role as a local authority, as Parliament has a role, to take away those barriers, and housing and secure tenancies are absolutely at the nub of that. The Minister said on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill is to remove impediments, and I completely agree.
We all know, because this subject has been well played out, that the safest place for a survivor in my community this evening may well be a refuge in Birmingham, and vice versa. That person may need to be physically far away from where they live tonight, and it stands to reason that that may well be true for months or years, or forever. It is important that a secure tenancy is not a barrier and that it follows that survivor. So far, so good. That point was well played out on Second Reading and in the Lords, and there is clear agreement on it.
However, we diverge on whether the Bill needs expressly to state that secure tenancies apply across local authority boundaries. On Second Reading, the Minister said that she did not think there was a problem and that that did not need to be stated in the Bill. I disagree. That position is based on an assumption that local authorities take a common approach to these things. I do not think that is the case, for both positive and negative reasons.
Let me deal first with the positive reasons. Localism says that for all manner of services—perhaps every service—every local authority does things slightly differently. They have a mandate to do so, so it is not surprising especially when it comes to housing, that things will look very different in Nottingham from in south Derbyshire, or Derbyshire in general. As a result, there are times when the Government need to prescribe a broader approach, to make sure that people are not missed out.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is obviously a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, for this incredibly important piece of legislation. I do not think a single member of the Committee can be unaware of how important it is to get these issues right. We will have seen in our constituency surgeries the people for whom the system does not work. I want to start by giving an example of that to explain—[Interruption.] If the Minister has not, she is very lucky, because sadly, in my constituency—
Stella Creasy
I do not think this is about good councils; it is about how we deal with domestic violence cases in this country. Still too often, we require the victim to put the pieces of her escape route together. I say “her”, and I recognise that men are victims as well, but it is overwhelmingly women who we ask to try to work through a system based on service provision rather than their needs.
I want to give the Minister an example—which I hope will explain why Opposition Members are concerned about future-proofing this legislation—of one of the cases I dealt with in Walthamstow, near the boundary with Redbridge, because in London the difference between 33 boroughs can be the difference between life and death. It is the example of a woman whose secure tenancy was ruined because her abusive partner set fire to their flat. She fled to Redbridge, but as soon as she left the borough, a mere 10 minutes by car, everything fell apart for her. Suddenly, she was simply someone from another borough seeking housing, not a victim of domestic violence—as he stood on the balcony of the property that she had managed to find, tapping on the window and telling her that he had found her.
We could not keep that woman safe. I took to calling the borough commanders in my borough and in Redbridge every single day about her, because we could not get housing and could not get the police forces to work together, merely because they were 10 minutes apart by road. They were two different boroughs and two different housing departments. She started getting chased for her council tax and rent arrears on a property that was a burnt-out shell. If she had gone back to that property, he could have found her there, too. Every single day, that woman was on my conscience, all because bureaucracy could not see the victim, only the housing service and the policing requirements. The police in Redbridge said to her, “Close your windows, then he can’t knock on the windows,” not understanding what was going on, because we did not put the victim first.
The challenge is that that case is not unusual. It is not about London boroughs or co-ordination; it is simply that there are two different housing departments, one of which recognises that there might be a domestic violence case, while the other simply sees somebody whose postcode is in the wrong district.
I share the Minister’s desire to get secured tenancies right. She says that is already written into the legislation, but why not make it certain that it can be beyond a degree of reasonable doubt with any housing authority? That way, when MPs are faced with somebody who has come from a mere 10 minutes away, who is desperate for help, in fear of their life and has made that difficult decision to leave, there is no doubt that they will be housed. There should not be a point at which a housing officer says, “I’m sorry, this postcode isn’t in our borough and therefore this person is not our responsibility. They need to go back into the system.”
We have all seen the person who does not leave—the person who recognises that bureaucracy is going to be another hurdle and who, with everything else going on their life, does not want to take the risk. Each of us has had that conversation with that resident, pleading with them to talk to the independent sexual violence adviser and not go back. All too often, it has been a housing officer who has not understood their obligations and said to them, “I’m sorry, if you leave, you’re making yourself intentionally homeless.” That is the phrase we have to deal with, and that is why amendment 5 is so important. It changes the conversation and says that if someone is recognised as a victim of domestic violence—I appreciate that we also need to get some later clauses and amendments right—that person is more likely to get help.
The Minister does not look impressed. There are countless examples that I am sure other Members will give her. That is the lived reality of trying to get this right. We all want the best councils, the best police services, the best healthcare providers, the best social workers and the best MASH—multi-agency safeguarding hub—teams, who do not say, “Well, for the needs of the child we’ll try to keep the family together,” even though they have had perpetrators who put their partners into hospital and near death. The lived reality of trying to deal with these situations means that we have to make sure the legislation is belt and braces. Even if the Minister thinks the point is covered, I urge her to include it, to put it beyond reasonable doubt, because those cases, such as the person who moved between Redbridge and Waltham Forest, are not unusual.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I also welcome the Bill. As somebody who worked in the field for many years, it is revelatory to see this put into law. I am really pleased and feel that we are constantly surging forward, and 99% of the time that is done on a completely cross-party basis, with total consensus. When I first started working in domestic abuse services, that was not something I necessarily would have said or experienced, but times are changing. I am very pleased to say that this is no longer the bastion of noisy feminists such as myself; it is everybody’s business, which is great to see.
The concerns on this side of the Committee stem from memories of how localisation under new welfare rules after the 2010 general election changed the way that people moved across boundaries. It was not a willing Government, or even the Opposition, who changed the ruling about whether people could cross borders and seek tenancies; it was a woman who lived in the refuge where I worked and the Child Poverty Action Group. They took the case to court, on a judicial review, to stop local councils—in this instance Sandwell Council—being able to say, “You have to have lived in a local authority area for five years before you can have access to the housing list and be put on priority.”
It was not even five years ago that that was the case. Councils all over the country—certainly Birmingham and Sandwell—were saying, “Unless you have a link to this local authority area, you cannot come and live here,” regardless. There was no exemption for victims of domestic abuse. Thanks to brilliant victims of domestic abuse and brilliant charities that support them, that was overturned. Councils were told by the courts, not by any Government policy, that they had to allow victims of domestic abuse to be exempt from those rules. I had some personal issues with that, which I raised with my council in a public forum—when I was told by the then MP for Birmingham, Yardley, in a moment of horrendous dogwhistling, that I was trying to encourage anybody to come and claim benefits in Birmingham—so I have some form on arguing for this issue.
What we are trying to get across in the amendment is that that cannot happen again—that there should be no room for the Child Poverty Action Group and local authorities to have to go up against each other with individual victims’ cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has said, there will be cases that come to light where there is difficulty, and we do not want the courts to have to be the place that makes the right decision.
We should remember there are lots of local authorities that are rubbish on this. We are living in a total postcode lottery. I remember a mantra where I used to work was, “Don’t get raped in Dudley,” because there were no services for rape victims in Dudley. We had to somehow give them a postcode for another area, so that we did not turn away children who had been raped, for example. Not all councils are brilliant on this stuff. It seems like a painfully political point to make, but the Prime Minister’s own council, where her seat is, does not fund a single refuge bed. There is good and bad—
Jess Phillips
As the Minister says from her sedentary position, nor does Southwark fund a single refuge bed. That is not a case I have ever heard. However, if it does not, it should—absolutely it should. This is not said with a Labour cap on; we took a Labour council to court. I do not give a toss what colour the council is; I care that the law protects the victims when they cross the border. I do not think anyone who might be watching this, either in this room or outside, thinks I am afraid of criticising the Labour party. Some of us are more than keen to point out problems wherever they arise.
The issue is ensuring that councils that are hard up do not have any excuse. That is all we seek. If we do not do it in these rooms, if we do not get the legislation right, you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere a judge will.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
This is clearly an important issue. It is generally a rule in this place that Oppositions always want to put a lot more stuff on the face of Bills and Governments do not. My question to the Minister is: will guidance be issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government? Any of us who have sat in front of families and tried to work out what is a family, and what rights they have, will know that modern life is complicated.
It is important that there should be guidance and that there should be consultation on that guidance. People do not necessarily leave a secure tenancy; sometimes they go to stay with a friend, sometimes they go to a refuge and sometimes they go to stay with their parents. In most housing law, that diminishes their rights. It is important that the Government set out explicitly in guidance how a local authority would deal with this particular right.
It is also important for the Government to track how many cases there are, not only internally placed within a borough or local authority, but—picking up the Opposition point—how many people have to go outside. We all know examples of women, or indeed men, who are petrified of their partner and do not want to stay in the same community, for obvious reasons. It only takes somebody to stand outside the school gate; they can intimidate even if they do nothing.
My main question to the Minister is: will there be guidance? Will there be a consultation on it? Will there be clear evidence of what pathway local government housing officers should deal with? Will there be a method of reporting, so that this House will know after six months, a year or 18 months the sum total of these cases?
There is also a resource issue. I come from a local authority background, and it is very easy for the Government to put rights on local authorities and then say, “Well, that can be paid for out of the general grant.” If, for very understandable reasons, they give a right to somebody and that puts somebody else down the queue, Parliament has to know what the implications are for the funding of local authorities, all of which are struggling with the current resource implications.
Mrs Wheeler
I have listened carefully to what everybody has said, and there is a genuine misunderstanding about what is currently in the Bill, and what that means going forward. Under the Bill, any local authority in England that has somebody presenting with domestic abuse issues must take on a secure tenancy if that person had a secure tenancy before. It cannot be plainer than that, and that why the amendment is ineffective: the measure is in the Bill. The courts have said that local authorities must not apply the local connection test to victims of domestic abuse who apply for social housing, which is again in line with guidance issued in 2013. The amendment does not change anything and is therefore unnecessary.
The Department collects data on all social housing lettings through CORE, the continuous recording of social housing lettings and sales system. That information includes the type of tenancy granted, the nature of the landlord—local authority or housing association—whether the new tenant has moved from another social home or local authority district, and the main reason why the tenant left their last settled home, including whether that was in relation to domestic abuse. Taken together, those data will enable us to monitor the impact of the Bill. The amendment is therefore technically ineffective because the measure is in the Bill, and I ask the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to withdraw it.
Melanie Onn
I find the Minister’s response disappointing. The amendment has been tabled in good faith, and I cannot see this measure in the Bill. The Minister said that “any local authority” must grant a tenancy, but the Bill does not say that.
Melanie Onn
The Minister speaks repeatedly from a sedentary position throughout every proceeding. Perhaps I may continue. The Bill does not say “any” local authority—the Minister’s words are important, as are those in the Bill. As I was trying to explain, the amendment has been tabled to try to ensure that there can be no mistake when it comes to the practical implementation of the Minister’s good intentions.
Let me return to the comments from Women’s Aid, which spoke about the very inconsistent approach taken by local authorities across England in discharging their current obligations to house women who are fleeing domestic abuse in another area. It states that on one day in 2017, 68.4% of women resident in refuge services had come from a different local authority area. That number is so significant that we cannot dismiss it. The danger is that when we draft legislation, we assume that what we think, believe and discuss in this room will automatically be understood by people out there who have to work within our words. Too often we find that that is not the case, that the situation is confusing and oblique, and the holes that I was talking about become ever wider.
Local housing teams have prevented nearly a fifth of women who are supported by the No Woman Turned Away project from remaining because they had no local connection, and we can consider the evidential base behind that. I also support the comments that the hon. Member for Poole made about ensuring that the implementation of the Bill is robustly monitored and reviewed. I disagree fundamentally that this measure is in the Bill. I am not inclined to push the matter to a vote today. However, I put the Minister on notice that we will not shy away from pursuing further amendments on Report, whereupon votes may indeed be pursued, to try to tackle this. If we cannot protect nearly 17% of women who are going out of area with their housing needs, we will all have failed in our duties and responsibilities.
I remind the Minister that this is an incredibly sensitive subject and the approach to it matters. We would not be in this situation—we would not even have to discuss it—if we had continued security of tenure within council housing, and if we had not removed the fixed-term tenures and applied limits to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made it clear that this has been pulled and yanked to this stage, even to get the amendment that the Government are supporting. I will leave it there, but we may well come back to this. I hope the Minister will take time to consider this before the Bill is complete. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Melanie Onn
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
‘(2BA) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance as to—
(a) the identification of persons entitled to be offered a tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) including the evidence required of domestic abuse; and
(b) the training of local authority officials in matters relevant to the exercise of the duties of local authorities under subsection (2A) or (2B).
(2BB) Before issuing the guidance the Secretary of State must consult such persons and the representatives of such persons as he or she considers appropriate.
(2BC) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
I will begin by returning to the point that has just been made about a fifth of women being turned away by housing teams due to their not having a local connection. That leads to the issue of training. I have been discussing consistency across the country, which puts into sharp focus the training of local government staff, who will be charged with executing the new duty. I have worked alongside staff in local government and recognise the funding challenges that local government is facing—I say that in the kindest terms, in the hope that the Minister will have open ears to my arguments. Unfortunately, as in any industry, training is usually the first budget to be trimmed.
We are fortunate to have good connections across the House with experts from the refuge sector, whether that is Women’s Aid, Solace, Refuge or SafeLives—all those organisations work day in, day out, on this. Some hon. Members have personal experience of dealing with domestic violence on a day-to-day basis, so will have been deeply immersed in the realities and the struggles of women who present themselves at a refuge, then require additional support going forward. Those organisations have great depth of knowledge, understanding and personal connections with those victims. They approach the issue from a very different perspective from a local housing officer. It is fair to say that the housing officers in the local authority, with the best will in the world, simply do not have access to the same depth of knowledge and resource of experienced colleagues to be able to properly support the women who are presenting.
There are a multitude of pressures on local authorities. It is not just individuals who have suffered domestic violence who present themselves to a housing officer. There are people who feel like they have been on a housing waiting list since time immemorial. The council house waiting list in Southwark stands at 20,000, I think. There will be people there who are in extreme need—new babies coming along. [Interruption.] I am not sure why the Minister shakes her head on that point.
Melanie Onn
With pleasure, if the Minister explains why she was shaking her head.
Mrs Wheeler
I have had the great pleasure of going to Southwark to talk about housing arrangements. Southwark’s statistics for getting people into homes and moving people out of B&Bs are stunningly brilliant. It has nobody in B&Bs now, and it has amazing statistics on temporary accommodation as well. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to talk about a different council.
Melanie Onn
Well, I will talk about my local council, which has 2,000 people on its waiting list. It is a small local authority covering one and three-quarter constituencies. We have about 180,000 people residing in the area, and 2,000 people on a housing waiting list is a significant proportion of that.
Hon. Members may wish to intervene and discuss their areas. There is no point denying that there are councils that are under strain or that there are excessive waiting lists. That is the whole point: we have a crisis. We do not have enough social housing in the country; private rents are far too expensive for many people to afford.
Jess Phillips
I want to mention Birmingham which, being the largest council, probably has the longest waiting list. Currently, for temporary accommodation in Birmingham, those moving house can expect to be sent to Burton upon Trent. I believe we have some people in Manchester. There is no available temporary accommodation in Birmingham today.
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. I applaud Southwark. I understand that it is operating some Government pilot schemes and I commend it for its proactive approach. Having met with the portfolio holder responsible for housing, I know how seriously she takes it. She is very committed to making sure that Southwark residents have the best housing opportunities, but we know that there is significant pressure in the housing sector. People are being moved around the country. I have often knocked on doors and found that suddenly there is somebody from London living in a street in Grimsby—as unexpected for them as it is for me.
Melanie Onn
The Minister is being quite disrespectful. She wanted me to talk about another council, so I have done so. This is important. We are talking about the pressure on local authorities and the struggles and strains that they face. The Minister expects local authorities to implement this legislation and they are under significant pressure. I began by making a point about housing officers, who are under great strain in trying to meet the needs of many different people.
In my area, one of biggest housing needs is for adapted housing: there is a real shortage of adapted properties. One of my colleagues was saying that if thousands of bungalows were suddenly built in his constituency, he would absolutely have enough people to fill them, such are the demographics. That is the reality of the different challenges that housing officers are facing.
When it comes to dealing with a specialised issue, and we have heard testimony from hon. Members about individuals coming forward who have had some dreadful experiences. I understand that the Minister has had some contact and association with the domestic violence sector. Some of the stories we have heard are quite shocking. The level of abuse and degradation that individuals are subject to can often leave them without any self-worth or sense of identity. They often struggle to know how they will get through the next day, let alone plan their housing future and support their children—children are often involved.
That sensitivity is critical, whether people have gone through a court case, are trying to report a matter to the police, seek legal support or avoid the far-reaching tentacles of an abusive relationship and the abuser. It does not matter if someone changes their phone or goes into hiding, because in reality, persistent abusers can still find their victims. They will often use their children, through school routes, to try to undermine victims and leave them feeling unnerved.
Stella Creasy
It feels like the most helpful thing that many of us can do for the Minister today is to try to give her some examples of the things that we have been dealing with, so that she understands why these amendments have been tabled. I appreciate and understand that she has what she considers to be a fantastic local authority. Sadly, for many of us—not through a lack of wanting to get services right—the reality is that services are not right.
It is worth remembering that there is no actual requirement for a housing officer to understand what domestic violence is. There is no requirement for them to know why it matters to have, for example, a confidential space in which women can come forward and tell people what has been happening.
Many of the things that the Minister talks about assume that the initial conversation, whereby somebody discloses that they are a victim of domestic violence, happens in such a way that there will not be a culture of disbelief. Sadly, my experience of working with victims of domestic violence in my local area, which I do not think is unique, is that they are often not believed, or that barriers are often put up that affect their ability to access services.
That is why training and getting housing officers to recognise that they are often the frontline is necessary. For example, we could train every single housing officer to ask why somebody needs repeated repairs—“Why does that door keep getting broken? Why does that window keep getting broken?”—because the answer is often not that it was an accident but that somebody has been violent in that household, which is very hard for people to admit.
It is frightening how many people in my local area, when turning up at housing authorities and housing offices presenting as victims of domestic violence, have been turned away or told that they would say that because that is how to get a house. That is the culture we have to deal with. I will give the Minister some examples of real cases from my local housing authority which, like many others, has a massive waiting list and is housing people in Luton and Bedford—well out of the area—because it does not have access to housing. It is trying to build more housing in difficult circumstances but, like many others, it still has not got it right when it comes to dealing with victims of domestic violence. The Bill is intended to get that right, and if the Minister wants to do so we have to deal with the reality of how these services are offered and why training would make a difference.
For example, one woman attended the housing authority on six different occasions before she was assisted. It started when she was heavily pregnant and continued with her attending with a newborn baby. The baby was three days old during one visit, and she was made to wait all day without being seen. The woman was homeless and was sleeping with the baby for more than five months in a single bed in a room that she shared with three adults in a friend’s property.
Another woman with two autistic children was provided with temporary accommodation—one room in a shared property. One woman had six children and was refused assistance. The authority insisted that she obtain a court order against her husband and request a panic alarm from the police, despite her being a high-risk victim who did not feel safe staying at her address. Additionally, the woman had a 16-year-old child who required 24/7 care, which was not taken into consideration. Another woman was discouraged from making a housing application when it was stated that she would only be provided with housing in faraway areas, such as Birmingham, which is a very long way from Walthamstow. Other women have had problems because they do not speak English as a first language.
As I said in my first contribution, we ask victims to navigate this system, rather than having a system that understands that domestic violence is far too prevalent in our society, and that offering housing and safe refuge is therefore one of the most important things that we can do. Training would fundamentally change that culture.
I am ashamed that there is not a safe space for women in my local authority to say, “This has happened to me; can I talk to somebody about it?” I am ashamed that housing officers query whether somebody is saying that they are a victim of domestic violence as a way to get a house, as if anybody would go through the shame of having to admit that. I am ashamed that housing officers and social care workers very often do not work together, even though a social services officer might have first seen the signs that something was not right in that family.
Training is absolutely crucial to put domestic violence at the forefront of people’s minds, rather than it being one of the tests that they might have to set to see whether somebody is eligible for housing. I am sure that the Minister wants the Bill to change that tick-box culture, but sadly, without that new culture, it is not going to change; all this will be is another set of obligations. If we truly want to keep victims of domestic violence safe, we have to change root and branch the way in which decisions are made.
The Minister might have a fantastic local authority, but I would love to hear from her local service providers whether they think that it gets it right every single time; whether every woman, when she first has the confidence to say, “This happened to me; I need to be somewhere safe” gets the right response. Training is a crucial part of that—getting people to think about how they deal with somebody who is disclosing trauma. These are victims of trauma, which is not easy to deal with. Any Member who has had somebody come in to their constituency surgery to talk about their experiences knows that. Sadly, for my local authority, the examples I gave were provided by independent sexual violence advisers. Those are the most serious cases of domestic violence.
One challenge we face is that, too often, we wait until something escalates before we intervene. In the past eight or nine years, we have begun to recognise that we do not want to do that, which is good. Concepts such as coercive control have become part of our conversations: we recognise that we can spot the signs when somebody is in a toxic relationship and we can intervene. However, that is not the reality on the ground. I know we are going to discuss later the questions about evidence—people having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these things are happening to them. The problem is that they are having to prove that to people who are not expert enough to be able to understand what they are being shown. Giving them training would start to change that conversation. Again, I say to the Minister: think of this legislation as a belt-and-braces measure. If, one day, somebody walks into her constituency surgery and this has not been got right, she will realise why belt and braces matter.
Alex Norris
Like the Minister, I have a very good local authority. I have long admired the housing officers there, who are exceptionally skilled people. When they open that door in the morning, when they open their emails or answer the phone, they never quite know what they are going to get. It could be somebody suffering domestic abuse, as we are talking about today; someone with drug or alcohol abuse issues, or mental or physical health challenges; or someone does not speak English as their first language. They face all sorts of challenges, they have to be very adaptable to meet the different needs of the people who require their services, and they have to do that against a difficult backdrop. These officers can face hard councillors, which many of us in the Committee were, who prosecute the case for their resident because they want to get them the best deal, and have to balance that because there are five other hard councillors that morning trying to do the same thing.
I believe fundamentally in the best in people—I think that is a strength, but some say it is a weakness. However, I acknowledge that there is still dishonesty, and we have to be able to pick through. We know from our casework that what a case looks like might not be so when we dig into it. We ask our housing officers to be extraordinary generalists—multi-skilled and aware of many different things, at a time when local authorities are under unprecedented pressure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby says, the first budgets to go are those for training, because they are not the immediate frontline services of the day. As a result we are giving our housing officers a difficult challenge, asking them to do more while others are asking them to do it with less. We are sending a real signal that we value their work by putting it on the face of the Bill.
Risk is an issue that weaves throughout the Bill and will do so throughout the next domestic abuse Bill, later in the Session. When I was in local government and had responsibility for domestic abuse services, it was not the women who were considered high risk who gave me the most anxiety, although of course those cases are really serious. Those women get the very intense, immediate support, wrapped round them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is some comfort in that. My concern was about those who were low and medium risk—cases that might escalate quickly, but one cannot know which ones might do so, or they would be classified as higher risk. The only mitigation against those fast-escalating, low and medium risk cases is to make every contact with people count. Someone might directly speak about their situation, or we can try to read other cues that give us a clue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said. That only works if, with every single contact, that person is skilled enough to read those cues. To give them a fair chance, we need to give them proper training. Putting that on the face of the Bill would send a strong signal.
Mrs Wheeler
Though I understand the intention behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Local authorities already have to identify whether a person who is applying for social housing or homelessness assistance has been a victim of domestic abuse. The purpose of the Bill is to provide important protections for victims and it does not require local authorities to make decisions in relation to domestic abuse cases that may be significantly different from those already made.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for that response. I challenge her statements that housing officers are not required to make decisions around incidents of domestic violence. They are required to make such decisions. She talked about consistency of approach between local authorities across the country, which is one of the problems, and she went some way towards solving that in the later part of her comments. We will discuss later cross-border working and how we achieve consistency on that basis, but she does not seem to have a plan for monitoring and checking to ensure consistency among local authorities, within a certain tolerance—I accept that there will not be an identikit model—when people present in that situation.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the NHAS and the Government’s funding and support for it, and her commitment to continue that support and to roll out further training. It is right that some training for housing officers comes from the likes of Women’s Aid and Refuge, because they are the experts. She says that 232 frontline housing staff were given that training. I do not know what that is as a proportion of housing officers around the country, but it does not seem very many given how many people are in housing need. How far has that programme gone, and have steps been taken to expand it? How many of the 232 are still in post, given that there has been significant restructuring in local authorities as they seek to manage their financial situations? On the basis of the training support in place at the moment, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Melanie Onn
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
“(2BA) A local housing authority which grants an old-style secure tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) has discretion to decide whether or not the maximum rent for the old-style secure tenancy should be determined according to regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/213) as amended by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/3040).”
This amendment will probably not find favour with the Minister as it relates to under-occupancy and the charges applied during the last three years, or even longer, that the bedroom tax has been in place. We know that that has caused significant difficulties for people not in a domestic violence situation. The purpose behind this amendment is to ensure that domestic violence victims are not penalised when they leave a secure tenancy and are then provided with a secure tenancy in another property with a spare room incorporated. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I will not speak ad infinitum on this. The principle behind the bedroom tax and its effectiveness will presumably be assessed over time.
We have to look at the Prime Minister’s intentions when she talks about her commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence, and we have to look at the circumstances. We should remember that every week two women die in domestic violence circumstances, ask ourselves why they do not leave their properties, and try to remove all the barriers to their doing so. I try to place myself in the situation that may befall some victims, and think about the significant barriers that would stop me leaving and trying to start again—not having a family network to rely on, not having the financial resources to fully support myself, the emotional difficulties that my children may be experiencing, and wanting to continue to support them and give them as normal a life as possible during a very challenging time. Given those burdens and blocks, had I been told that I was leaving a secure tenancy with the option of another tenancy that involved additional financial costs put upon me as an individual, it would worry me a great deal if I were on a low income or had limited means.
We must do everything we can to reduce the likelihood of victims returning to their abusers or ending up in an even worse situation through not having the security of a home. Removing those barriers is essential. We know that there are already exemptions to the bedroom tax, and victims of domestic violence should be included in that.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady for being succinct and for indicating that she will not push the amendment to a vote. I will also be brief, and try to give her some succour.
Under the Bill, we expect that a local authority offering a tenancy will ensure, wherever possible, that that does not result in a tenant under-occupying the property. Allocating a property that is too big for the tenant’s needs would not be in the interests of the tenant or the landlord. The tenant, if eligible for housing benefit, would be subject to the adjustment to remove the spare room subsidy, and under-occupancy would not be the best use of scarce social housing.
Statutory allocation guidance issued in 2012 clearly recognises that when framing the rules to determine what size property to allocate to different households and in different circumstances, local authorities should take into account the removal of the spare room subsidy. Where the victim wishes to remain in her own property after the perpetrator has left, or been removed, we would expect in most cases that that would not result in an under-occupation charge. Domestic abuse will normally occur between partners, and in this case between joint tenants, and in such instances the property is typically let on the basis that both tenants share a bedroom. Removing the perpetrator would generally therefore not result in under-occupation.
When deciding whether to grant a further tenancy to victims who remain in their home, local authorities must take into account a number of factors, including the particular circumstances of the victim and her household. In some cases it may be more appropriate to offer a new tenancy in another smaller property—but only where appropriate. There may be a small number of cases where, for whatever reason, the local authority allocates a new property, or grants a new tenancy in the same property, and that property has more bedrooms than the tenant needs, but I expect that number to be very, very small. Furthermore, in such cases it would be open to the tenant to apply for discretionary housing payment to cover any rental shortfall.
The Government’s policy is not to deal with personal circumstances unrelated to the size of the property by the inclusion of general exemptions to the regulations, but rather to take into account a person’s individual circumstances separately, through the process of discretionary housing payments. In 2016 the Supreme Court upheld that policy, and dismissed a challenge for the removal of the spare room subsidy brought by a victim of domestic abuse on the grounds that it amounted to unlawful sex discrimination. That case involved a victim who was being provided with protection under a sanctuary scheme. Since 2011, £900 million has been provided to local authorities for discretionary housing payments to support vulnerable claimants, including victims of domestic abuse. Funding for 2018-21 was set out in the summer Budget in 2015, and for 2018 there will be £153 million for England and Wales.
The spare room subsidy was introduced to bring parity in treatment between the social and private rented sectors, and to encourage mobility, strengthen work incentives, and make better use of available social housing. Rules on the removal of the spare room subsidy already exist, and include an exception for victims of domestic abuse in refuges. We do not intend to provide any further exceptions. Where local authorities grant tenancies to victims of domestic abuse, they have a choice: they can either ensure that they offer a property that meets the tenant’s needs, or they can consider providing a discretionary housing payment. For all those reasons, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will agree to withdraw it.
Melanie Onn
I naturally find the Minister’s view disappointing, but if she is confident that the current provisions will not result in any hardship—I accept that Women’s Aid say that the measure would impact on a relatively small number of people—I will therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Melanie Onn
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
‘(2BA) The person making the application for an old-style secure tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) must not be charged for obtaining any evidence of domestic abuse if this evidence is required to make the application.’
For local authorities to certify the reason for someone’s housing need—we have heard about occasional dishonesty when people present, but I certainly do not think that that is the norm—they should be in a position to check and have rigour behind their processes, establish that people are given, correctly and accurately, the housing they need and that their circumstances are taken fully into account. When a new duty is placed on local authorities to establish a prescribed reason for housing need, such as domestic violence, there is a requirement for evidence.
To my mind, that evidence is not a medical note, so that people can fly abroad on their summer holidays while they are taking prescribed pills, or go potholing or canoeing, nor is it a legal affirmation or warning letter for which one might reasonably expect to be charged a fee. It is a piece of essential documentation that supports the person presenting at the housing office, confirming that the information they provide—however scant that information is—can be backed by an official in a position of authority who has knowledge and experience of that individual and the circumstances that have led to them presenting at the local authority.
Notes from doctors or lawyers can cost significant amounts of money. Women’s Aid tells us of occasions where people have been charged £100 for this sort of evidence. I do not understand how that can be justified, in any sense of the word. For example, we might expect a £10 charge in support of a passport application, but £100 seems excessive. Perhaps that is because it is outside the norms, because it is outside GP contracts, or because it is not prescribed, so there is a freedom at these offices, to which women might ordinarily go, to charge whatever the professional chooses. I am sure that GPs will say that their surgeries are in need of additional funding—perhaps not lawyers’ offices. It seems to me a crass and opportunistic charge, and somewhat of a money-making exercise on the back of quite vulnerable people. Should we not just say that, particularly with GPs, there should be no charges?
GP contract negotiations are ongoing. I wonder whether the Minister has approached, or intends to approach, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to determine an exclusion for this advisory note. I wonder whether there is already provision or whether provision could be made to say that other services are suitable in providing that evidence—that there are no statutorily prescribed individuals who must give the supportive evidence for an individual. For example, that could be a refuge support worker, social worker, police officer, children’s schoolteacher or headteacher, or even someone’s boss if their boss is in a position of relative importance or responsibility in their local area, in the same way that they might support a passport application. There should be somebody in a position of authority, who can be taken as trustworthy, to easily support the victim.
Again, it is about avoiding those unnecessary barriers to accessing a property. If there is an excessive charge, it will prevent people from obtaining that information, which will in turn prevent somebody from accessing the property, moving on with their life and setting up afresh. Anything that can be done to remove those barriers must be seen as a positive step that the Government can take to make the path as easy as possible. I will leave it there and hope the Minister will consider that carefully.
Jess Phillips
Many of us who were part of the change in how legal aid was divvied up, certainly in civil and family cases, are all too aware of exactly how it has become par for the course for someone to prove that they are a victim of domestic abuse. There was a time when believing was just a thing that most people did. I have had lots of experience. I continue to help victims of domestic abuse almost weekly to seek legal aid clarifications in the family courts, where they have been turned down because they are not believed to be a victim of domestic abuse.
The timescale for proving that has been extended once again by judicial review—from three years to five years, if my memory serves—and the Government have recently widened the group of those who can give evidence that a woman is a victim of domestic abuse, recognising that the freest piece of evidence they can have is something from the police. The police do not charge for any evidence, supplying a crime reference number or writing a letter to say that someone has been a victim. However, we all know that the vast majority of women will never report to the police, so we must recognise refuge providers, charities and even Members of Parliament as those who can provide evidence for free.
However, a lot of women seek out help from their GP. A lot of people seek support from a solicitor, especially those who are migrants to this country, as they are more used to working with solicitors through our immigration systems. I watch every day as women are completely and utterly swindled and asked for money. It fills me with no pleasure to say this about where I live, but I once had to put on Twitter that a GP in my area was charging a woman who needed evidence £100 for that service. A woman from Norwich—God love the people of Norwich—sent me a cheque for £100. Twitter is not the answer.
Melanie Onn
Were any explanations given about what the £100 charge was for? Were there administration fees, or excessive delving into records and so on?
Jess Phillips
I was about to say something really rude and ask why a dog does something: because it can. It is a bit like anything, just putting stamps on letters—it seems stamps are really expensive in certain GPs’ surgeries. That is happening not just in cases of domestic violence, but in cases of disability. There are a lot of agencies that are potentially under reasonable strain and kicking back against that reasonable strain, because they are in a culture where belief, proof and evidence matter so much. There is an awful lot of call on GP surgeries and hospitals—primary care and secondary care—and all sorts of agencies to help individuals to prove that they are not lying about the fits that they have or about their husband bashing them about, so there is strain in the system.
We are calling on the Government to make it very clear that what is happening is totally unacceptable, whether in cases of this type or in cases involving legal aid. As I said, I still have to write to the Legal Aid Agency every single week to say, “Why have you not helped this woman? She has given you proof. Why have you not listened to her?” That must not be the case under a Government who I know really care about this issue and would not want women to be disbelieved. Unfortunately, our bureaucracy is not currently on side.
Stella Creasy
What price is a bruise? That is the question that we are asking ourselves today. The Minister might have cases; I have cases of constituents who have managed to disclose to a healthcare professional what has happened to them. The healthcare professional has seen the evidence of the bruises and still the practice wants 50 quid to write a letter to confirm that. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar screws up his face, and I can well understand why. It is shameful.
We wrote to our local clinical commissioning group to try to find out about charges, about why doctors are charging people, and the answer that we got back is very simple—it is not about dogs, which may disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. GPs charge for non-NHS work, and that is what this work is; it is private. It is in the same category as providing a certificate to allow someone to go skateboarding at seven months pregnant or giving people a certificate that they might need for work. Actually, it is not in the same category. This is about risk. One thing that I think all of us would like to see society doing when it comes to things such as domestic violence is moving away from challenging victims to prove what has happened to them towards understanding risk and how we prevent it. That is the way we will save a lot of money if nothing else. It is also the way we will stop people dying.
When it comes to providing evidence and having paperwork to prove what has happened, let us just think for a second about how humiliating it is for people not to be believed when they say, “This has happened to me.” They summon up the courage to admit that someone they love has turned out to be a monster, and our housing officers say, “Well, I don’t believe you, so I need evidence. Is there someone who can verify your claims? Is there someone whom we consider to be trustworthy? Obviously, by default, you are not trustworthy, because you are after something.” The person turns to their doctor, and their doctor charges them, so this is indeed the question: what price is a bruise? What price is the evidence for something that someone has admitted has happened to them?
We know how hard it is to tell someone, when people are asking for help, what has happened. Often people disclose in healthcare environments, or they might disclose to other agencies. This is not just about the cost of doctors. In my list of cases, which I am happy to share with the Minister, the cost of interpreters is an issue. Who pays for someone to come and explain? If women do not have English as a first language and want to say what has happened to them, finding someone they trust and who can explain that to housing officers is impossible. I find that, even with the independent sexual violence advisers who are working with them: they have to pay for these services because they are not provided by housing. If people are presented with evidence, they have to act, and if they are presented with evidence that meets their standard test, they have to act.
Something that we are now seeing in my local authority area, which I am extremely worried about, is that even when women are scraping together the money to pay for the paperwork to meet the tests—they are not trusted to explain what has happened to them, so a third party has to verify it—it is still challenged. Then they have to find the money for a lawyer, because they need someone to fight their case. In my local authority area, there is no independent legal housing service, so they have to try to find and pay for someone themselves. Every single step of the way, a financial barrier is put in place, and these are not women who have access to independent means. They have often been saving up money—money that they do not themselves have control of—to try to get out of the situation; they might have small children. One woman was trying to get evidence that her partner had Asperger’s, because the local authority said: “Well, Asperger’s doesn’t make you an abuser”. No, he was an abuser who had Asperger’s, but the evidence was part of the case that she was trying to put in place.
Alex Norris
I came this morning more in hope than expectation. I can count how many Opposition Members there are and how many Government Members, which brings a certain likelihood to whether we will get what we hope for out of the sitting. Come what may, I want to know that we have made the case for the person who has made that incredibly difficult decision and weighed up the pros and cons, and removed all the artificial arguments against leaving that very dangerous situation. There cannot be any worse argument in that column than, “I can’t afford the money to do so”. That would be an awful reflection on us as a society. Wherever that happens, we must do our absolute best to remove it. We will have let people down if, in their moment of greatest challenge, they turn to the services we rely on to live our lives freely and find out that they are asked for a fee that they cannot afford.
We have heard lots of sums discussed so far in the debate. We will have seen it in our casework as well. Every single time, whether the fee is £25, £50, £70, £100 or £150, it is always a suspiciously round number. There is no calculation that sits behind it. I do not think anybody is saying that we want to see public service finance suddenly decimated by this extra requirement of support—that is not the case. Hon. Friends have made the point that it is done because it can be done. We have the chance this morning to make sure that it cannot be done and we ought to take it. There are very compelling arguments for amendment 3.
On evidence, will the Minister say what evidentiary standard she thinks local authorities will be looking for and whether there will be local variants? That comes back to the arguments that we made earlier about training, local discretion and any possibility of a postcode lottery. I hope that that will not be the case.
What will be the exemptions? I am conscious of the exemptions in other pieces of legislation. I think about benefits from the Department of Work and Pensions which have a domestic violence exemption. Similarly, there is the application for the exemption from the Child Maintenance Service. Are similar exemptions likely to apply here?
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
As Opposition Members have mentioned many times, the barriers to leaving are crucial. We are talking mostly about women who have spent months, years, sometimes decades making mental lists over and again about their route out. Their route out will be to sort out the children’s school, to talk to their friends, to reach out to someone and to go to services. All those things take huge amounts of courage at the first step and then the next step, and then it possibly gets easier.
Our main responsibility today is to remove all the barriers on that route out. If those of us here decide to do something, we mostly have the money to do it. These women have been controlled financially, which is the main way in which women are controlled in a domestic violence situation. The partner may have run up debts that the woman cannot deal with, or certainly will have stopped access to money for anything from children’s presents to basic sanitary products and food. We have a duty to make sure that that crucial element is included in the Bill.
Finances are the barrier—the brick wall with no holes. Someone might be able to deal with the other things; they might be able to borrow a little money from a grandparent for a children’s present or for Tampax, but they will not be able to find £100—from the list of desperate, emergency things in their head—to prove that they have been a victim. It is essential to make sure that that is not a thing that happens.
Mrs Wheeler
I am sure we can all agree that we are not at ease with the idea of charging a fee to a victim of abuse who is seeking evidence of that abuse. The issue was raised when the Bill was debated in the Lords, and it was discussed on Second Reading in the Commons, particularly in relation to the medical profession.
As I understand the matter, the provision of notes or letters of evidence of abuse falls outside a GP’s NHS contract, and therefore a fee can be charged. Negotiations for the 2018-19 contracts are currently going on, and the Minister for Faith, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who took the Bill through the Lords, has written to the Department of Health and Social Care to raise the concerns that arose among peers about this issue during the Bill’s passage through the Lords. As I said to hon. Members on Second Reading, I shall inform the House when we have a response to that letter.
It is, however, important to remember that victims of abuse may seek evidence from a wide variety of sources—not just GP letters or notes—as set out in the homelessness code of guidance. As part of the variety of evidence that can be supplied, an individual, as a data subject, can ask to be provided with their medical records.
Stella Creasy
One of the things about this country is that we do not own our medical records. When constituents of mine have tried to do as the Minister describes, doctors have been able to say no. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care owns all our medical data and therefore access can be refused.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady. Forgive me; I was not quite clear. From 25 May, the general data protection regulation becomes directly applicable and a data subject cannot be charged a fee except where a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, or where requests are made for further copies of the same information. In that case, the fee must be reasonable and based on the administrative cost of providing the information. In the first instance, a person will be able to ask for their medical records from 25 May.
In addition, the British Medical Association advises GPs that where they intend to make a charge for providing a letter as evidence, they should inform the patient before doing so. The amendment has been introduced to deal specifically with GP charges, but it is widely drawn and, as a blanket prohibition, would apply across the public and private sector. I do not believe that regulating parts of the private sector is appropriate in the circumstances in question, or that it is a matter for the Bill.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to withdraw the amendment.
Melanie Onn
I trust that the new measure due to be enacted at the end of April will go some way to removing some barriers that women face, although it will not go all the way. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Melanie Onn
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
“(2BA) A private registered provider of social housing or a housing trust which is a charity that grants a tenancy of a dwelling house in England must grant an old-style secure tenancy if—
(a) the tenancy is offered to a person who is or was a tenant of some other dwelling-house under a qualifying tenancy (whether as the sole tenant or as a joint tenant); and
(b) the provider is satisfied that—
(i) the person or a member of the person’s household is or has been a victim of the domestic abuse carried out by another person; and
(ii) the new tenancy is granted for reasons connected with that abuse
and such a private registered provider of social housing or housing trust which is a charity shall be considered a person who satisfies the landlord condition under section 80 for the purpose of granting an old-style secure tenancy in accordance with this subsection.”
I was struck on Second Reading, and I have been struck more broadly within the housing sector, by how certain phrases are used interchangeably, particularly around social housing. When winding-up on Second Reading, the Minister mentioned council housing and housing associations. I am concerned—that is the best way to term it—about how the duty, which is conveyed on local authorities, can possibly be enacted in areas where there is no council housing and where social housing sits entirely within housing associations under the provisions in the Bill. Has the Minister given that any consideration, or does the broad term “social housing” mean that the duty conveyed on councils is also a duty conveyed on housing associations?
I know that some housing associations have a strong record of dealing with victims of domestic violence and other people in positions of vulnerability. During the Lords debate there was a conversation about Peabody and Gentoo, which set up the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance with Standing Together Against Domestic Violence. It is an admirable feat to go into that area independently. They have a mission to improve the housing sector’s response to domestic abuse through the introduction and adoption of an established set of standards and an accreditation process. There was a strong recognition during that debate that housing associations play a critical role in delivering the homes that we need up and down the country. They can only help to provide a home in these circumstances if they have the homes to put people in.
There is an obvious disconnect between a local authority duty and the liaison with a housing association. Is that the Government’s intention? I believe that the duty should be applied equally to whoever provides the broadest context of social housing in a local authority area. My local authority area only has a housing association, which provides all its housing stock. The local authority did not retain any of its housing stock. There are some that are mixed, so they will have different, more complicated issues, and London obviously has many different housing associations operating. How can a local authority ensure that the duty can be provided through those housing associations?
Has there been any consideration of the disclosure of private, sensitive information on the part of the individual—the victim? They may disclose information to the council, but may not be aware of how housing works and of that further disclosure to the housing provider, if it is not the local authority. The Bill does not specifically mention housing associations. It mentions local housing authorities, but people may well have had their lifetime tenancies with a housing association. If they then move from a housing association to an area that has retained all its local authority stock, will that be an issue in the interpretation of the legislation? Will housing association tenancies be recognised by a local authority, particularly if they are out of area? Those are questions aimed at providing additional certainty and comfort to people who might find themselves in this situation.
Mrs Wheeler
I am mindful that we break at 11.25, so I will be as brief as I can. Amendment 4 would extend the Bill so that it applied to housing associations. Generally, tenancies granted before 15 January 1989, the date the Housing Act 1988 came into force, were secure tenancies, even though they might have been granted by housing associations. With very limited exceptions—for example, in relation to their own tenants who already had a pre-’89 secure tenancy—tenancies granted by housing associations on or after that date have been assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 and not secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985.
The amendment would ensure that, where a housing association decides to rehouse an existing lifetime tenant who needs to move to escape domestic abuse, it must grant a lifetime tenancy under the Housing Act within—
Melanie Onn
I want to be sure I understand correctly what the Minister is saying. Is that the housing association within its own organisation or is that between housing associations, perhaps in different local authority areas?
Mrs Wheeler
I am responding to the hon. Lady’s amendment, so I suppose that is a question for her. I do appreciate the motivation behind the amendment, which is to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are treated on the same basis, whether the landlord of the new property is a local authority or a housing association. However, I cannot accept the amendment for a number of reasons.
In the first place, local authorities and housing associations are very different entities, which are subject to different drivers and challenges. Local authorities are public sector organisations. When schedule 7 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force, local authorities will generally be required to give fixed-term tenancies and will be able to grant lifetime tenancies only in limited circumstances specified in legislation or regulations.
Housing associations are private not-for-profit bodies. They will continue to have the freedom, as now, to offer lifetime tenancies wherever they consider them appropriate. The purpose of housing associations is to provide and manage homes for people in housing need. The vast majority are charities with charitable objectives that require them to put tenants at the heart of everything they do.
We would expect housing associations to take their responsibilities for people fleeing domestic violence very seriously. As some hon. Members may know, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance was set up, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, by two leading housing associations, Peabody and Gentoo, together with Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, a UK charity bringing communities together to end domestic abuse. The alliance’s stated mission is to improve the housing sector’s response to domestic abuse through the introduction and adoption of an established set of standards and an accreditation process.
I am sure hon. Members will agree that housing associations play a critical role in delivering the affordable homes that we need. That includes providing a home for people fleeing domestic abuse.
Stella Creasy
Many of us pay tribute to the work that Peabody, and particularly Gudrun Burnet, has done on this. Sadly, I have to say to her that not every housing association lives up to the standards that she just articulated. Many of them, including some in my area, seem to act as private landlords that are given public commissions. Why would we penalise those tenants, who have been allocated to those housing associations by local authorities, by not giving them the equal protection that we see organisations such as Peabody offering?
Mrs Wheeler
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. I have asked for guidance, and for clarification I will read it out so that we all know what we are talking about. Where council properties are moved over to an arm’s length management organisation—ALMO—that is included. These rules do not apply to separate housing associations, but they apply to ALMOs. That is crucial, because that will affect a lot of people across the country.
That includes providing a home for people fleeing domestic abuse, but we can only do that if there are the homes to put them in. It is vital that we ensure that housing associations remain in the private sector, so that they are able to borrow funding free of public sector spending guidelines. We must also avoid imposing any unnecessary controls that might risk reversing the Office for National Statistics classification of housing associations as private sector organisations.
The amendment would also require housing associations to offer secure tenancies. As I have explained, since 1989, housing associations have granted assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988, except in very limited circumstances—for example, when dealing with a tenant who has an old-style secure tenancy. The rights of assured and secure tenancies are very different. For example, secure tenants have a statutory right to improve their property, and to be compensated for those improvements in certain circumstances.
The amendment would require private sector landlords to operate two different systems, which would be an unnecessary burden over and above the very limited circumstances in which they still manage pre-1989 tenancies. It would introduce unnecessary additional costs, which would introduce an element of confusion for tenants and would risk the re-classification of housing associations, as I stated earlier.
Mrs Wheeler
I am sorry about that. For the reasons I have given, I invite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to withdraw the amendment.
Melanie Onn
It is with some disappointment that I will withdraw the amendment. I reserve the right to bring something back on Report and explore this matter a little further. I am sorry that we are running short of time; this is something that warrants a bit more investigation, because it will impact on thousands of people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kelly Tolhurst.)
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 View all Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 March 2018 - (27 Mar 2018)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. The most common scenario in domestic violence cases is that of a woman fleeing her abuser. She escapes a harmful and dangerous situation and tries to find a place of safety—often a refuge. As we said this morning, for 68% of those women that is in another local authority area. The Minister said she does not think there is a problem with that in the Bill and decided not to accept amendment 5, which we withdrew following our discussion this morning, but we still hold that there may be a problem if the cross-boundary duty is not made explicit. The situations becomes even clearer if we think of people fleeing from another country in the UK—from Northern Ireland to England, from Scotland to Wales, from England to Wales, or from Scotland to Northern Ireland.
There are significantly fewer resources in towns than in cities. For those living in the more far-flung reaches of our country, access to support services, including housing, may be much more limited. The homelessness services provided by, for example, Crisis, are well known, but Crisis clearly operates somewhere where a significant amount of rough sleeping occurs—London. The excellent services it provides at its Crisis Skylight centre in central London are much harder to come by in, say, Norfolk or Wiltshire, although it now has an excellent service in South Yorkshire. The groundbreaking work and the centrepiece services tend to be in cities, and the same is true for domestic violence services. It stands to reason that the more people there are, the broader the range of support services catered for, and the greater the experience and knowledge base that is built up.
The anonymity of cities can be a draw for victims. If there are services to support those experiencing domestic violence, or if that is the nearest place where spaces are available, that is where victims will go. Complications may arise if someone who lives in a border town—for example, Wrexham—is directed to or heads to Manchester to seek sanctuary. Similarly, people from Northern Ireland may head to Birmingham, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley tells me contains the largest diaspora of Irish people in the country, to be supported by extended family members. Will the rights conferred by the Bill travel with them? Will the rights follow the victim? When the system differs among our devolved nations, will victims find that they do not receive the same treatment and housing opportunities as someone who straightforwardly moves from one council house in their local authority area to another in that same local authority area? I fear that the Government are looking at this matter far too simplistically and that down the line they will come a cropper as they realise that the Bill has not worked as intended.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth recognised the issue presented by the Bill and has committed to taking this particular matter to the Ministry’s devolved Administration roundtable, which I believe is due to convene in Cardiff in April. He has also committed to provide the Library with a copy of the letter that follows the outcome of that roundtable. I am unclear about what that might mean for the Bill, because the outcome of that roundtable will surely serve as some form of response to some of the issues that have been flagged up in debates so far.
I very much accept the difficulties and sensitivities involved, so the new clause will not force England-only duties on to the devolved nations. It strives to ensure that full collaboration is exercised and provided for to enable all victims to be treated fairly and equally, wherever in the country they come from and wherever they end up. To do that, there must be some method of reviewing the issue, and I personally prefer to understand the issue that we are trying to fix with the import of new legislation.
The new clause would recognise that there should be no detriment to anyone travelling between Northern Ireland, Scotland, England or Wales who requires security of tenure. At the moment, the Bill does not do that, despite the recognition of the problem. The new clause therefore proposes a review period of six months to establish where the problems lie in the legislation and to enable the Government to take steps to resolve them.
We do not want to see anyone dissuaded from getting themselves to a place of safety if that place is in one of the devolved nations. The matter was recognised in debate in the Lords. Rather than having to reflect on a missed opportunity, and in full understanding that this is an issue of a premise accepted by Lord Bourne, I urge the Minister to take the necessary steps to future-proof this Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of new clause 1 and the principle of co-operation, and to give a couple of examples. I used to work for Shelter, and I lobbied successfully for the Homelessness Act 2002. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation because, for the first time, local authorities had to have a strategy in place to tackle homelessness. It also extended the definition of priority need to many different groups who had not fallen into that category before, including people fleeing domestic violence, as well as 16 and 17-year-olds and people leaving care, prison or the armed forces.
Shelter put a huge amount of resource into lobbying for the legislation. We worked during the passage of the Bill and lobbied civil servants on the guidance that followed. It was a good Bill and there was good guidance, but we knew that we could not necessarily guarantee that it would be implemented in the way that legislators had intended. As a charity, we funded about 15 full-time members of staff to work with every single local authority to help them understand the legislation and implement it.
My point is that even though we had a good Bill, good guidance and all this extra resource from Shelter, which was used widely by all local authorities, there were still differences in implementation, with pockets of good practice and pockets of bad practice. For example, the good practice was that a local authority should have a safe place—a safe room or a safe opportunity—for people once they came to the local authority and said that they were fleeing domestic violence. Not every local authority does that; there are differences in implementation. The implementation and what is written in the Bill are absolutely crucial.
We know that there are different definitions of priority need in different nations. If someone is fleeing domestic violence in England, the category of priority need is stronger than it would be for someone fleeing in Wales. If someone is fleeing in Wales, they have to have been the victim of domestic violence. In England, they have to be the victim or at risk of domestic violence. There is a slightly different way of interpreting that legislation, because it is different in the two nations. I would hate, as I am sure the Minister would, for us to introduce legislation that does not enable every single person we can possibly help to get the support that they need.
The new clause is a sensible addition to the legislation. Giving six months to look at this before anything has to be introduced is sensible. We can support those victims of domestic violence who need our support. Croydon, which I represent, has the highest number of applications by people fleeing domestic violence of any London borough. We have a fantastic service in Croydon. We have the only family justice centre in Europe, which brings together all the agencies that help to support people who are fleeing domestic violence, including housing and the police. We provide brilliant support, which I would like to see across the country and across the nations, but sadly that is not the case. I am supportive of co-operation and new clause 1.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Ms Ryan, this is the first time I have served under your chairship and it is a pleasure to do so.
In this morning’s sitting we had a long and interesting discussion on amendment 5. It was a shame we could not reach consensus. We ended up having a conversation about whether what the amendment said was already in the Bill and it became an almost semantic conversation about whether “a local authority” is the same as “any local authority”. That is what will happen when something is gone through line-by-line, and it is important that we get to that level, but it was a shame we were not able to establish consensus.
With new clause 1 we have basically the same principle, but grown out. We now know for a fact that “a local authority” falls once we get to the boundaries of England, but we also know that the need for refuges does not drop off that cliff as we meet that border.
We also spent a lot of this morning talking about not wanting to put up barriers. Our job is to remove whatever barriers there are to the survivor leaving that situation. Whether the barrier is money, housing, family or whatever, we should seek to remove it so that they can make that best decision for themselves. This is a pretty big barrier: it is a border. I almost hesitate to say that because we talk too much about borders, especially in the context of Northern Ireland, but mercifully we are not going in that direction today.
Nevertheless, we will clearly have to do something. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said very eloquently, the need will be the same around border towns, but the facilities will be different. In a big city such as Nottingham, we might have things that they do not have in small border towns. From the perspective of people going from Scotland or from Wales to England, I should like to think that we would be there for them if that was best for them. I am sure that everybody would share that thought.
We have to be mindful of devolution and the devolution settlement, but it seems sensible, and to behove us, to accept the clause because it will give us a proportionate way of looking at how to get to something sensible. I suspect that it will be said that there are different arrangements in these countries. I am perfectly willing to accept that; nevertheless, how the arrangements marry up with our own is really important. It is important for English survivors, but it is also important for survivors in those nations.
I do not want to rehash everything from this morning, but I thought it regrettable that we did not push forward on the question of training in amendment 1. This is exactly the sort of situation that will be very complicated for a housing officer. We ask housing officers to understand an awful lot of things about an awful lot of different needs, and this is yet another one. We need them to understand that, if they are talking about people moving to different communities, that will need to be in England. We would not want people to be advised that their secure tenancy will apply somewhere else if those are not arrangements that we have been able to secure. I do not think that that is asking for much, but it will certainly give us more confidence that down the line we will get to a point where we will have a stitched-up nationwide look at the issue laid before Parliament, which would be desirable.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I have sat on a number of Committees in this House, and Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party have always asked one question: have the devolved Administrations been consulted? They say little else apart from that. Whether it is a good or a bad idea to add this measure to the Bill at this stage, as a Unionist I think that if we are to ensure a good relationship between the Governments within the United Kingdom the devolved Administrations ought to be consulted first. Even on something that may be reasonable from the point of view of Government-to-Government relationships, they ought to be consulted first.
We have not yet reached the end of the Bill. There is a further stage on Report and, as Lord Bourne has already undertaken to have some discussions with the devolved Administrations, it might be better for them to be concluded before we add to the Bill, possibly ruffling feathers north of the border. Whatever the Westminster Parliament does can sometimes seem to be used by the SNP grievance machine. Therefore, we ought to tiptoe in that direction. If discussions subsequently take place so that changes can be made to the Bill, that is fine, but at this stage I am wary of adding something that, in essence, is a UK diktat—or will be seen as such by some in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby wants the best legislation for the victims of domestic violence, but I think it might be better for us to wait.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
The new clause calls for a review of the potential for future co-operation between local authorities in England and those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with consideration of how it may be possible to extend the provisions in the Bill to apply across the UK. The issue was raised during passage of the Bill through the Lords and, indeed, an amendment was tabled and subsequently withdrawn.
As hon. Members are aware, housing is a devolved matter, so it is for local authorities, or the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland, and social landlords to decide whether to allow access to social housing under the law that operates in that particular country. Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have their own homelessness legislation. There may of course be differences of approach, according to the requirements of the devolved area and the pressures on their housing stock. As I understand it, for example, in Wales, where social housing stock is in highest demand, the local authorities can and do discharge their duty to rehouse using the private rented sector.
The Minister for faith, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, wrote to peers on this issue following Second Reading, setting out how each devolved Administration would deal with the situation if a person, as a result of domestic abuse, were to flee from their home in England to a devolved Administration. I am more than happy to share that with the Committee.
I agree that there should be increased co-operation between England and the devolved Administrations on the question of victims of domestic abuse, including where a victim needs to move from one country to another to escape the abuse and to feel safe. Furthermore, I understand that the Minister, Lord Bourne, gave the commitment that he would raise the issue at the roundtable with the devolved Administrations, which I understand is next due to take place on 19 April in Cardiff. In fact, the noble Lord has written to ask whether the issue could be put on the agenda of that meeting. He has made it clear that he would like to explore whether we can develop a concordat or joint memorandum of understanding between the four countries on our approach to social housing and cases of domestic abuse.
I remind hon. Members that the purpose of the Bill is to remove an impediment that might prevent someone who suffers domestic abuse from leaving their abusive situation in England when the provisions under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 come into force. The Housing and Planning Act applies only to England.
In the current situation, a victim of abuse in another part of the UK, such as in Scotland, will not have an impediment to fleeing their situation from fear of losing their lifetime tenancy, as another council in Scotland will grant them a lifetime tenancy when they are rehoused. The commencement of the Housing and Planning Act does not change that.
I do not believe it would be appropriate to include a duty in the Bill, which applies to England only, to consider the potential for amending legislation in other parts of the UK. In this instance, I firmly believe that addressing the question at the devolved Administration roundtable is the correct approach, with a view to securing a memorandum of understanding or concordat. This is a common issue in which all parts of the UK have an interest, but, as I have said, the differences in housing legislation across the devolved Administrations mean that I do not believe a UK-wide provision in a Bill based on an Act that applies only to England is the correct approach. For all those reasons, I do not consider the amendment to be appropriate or necessary and I ask for it to be withdrawn.
Melanie Onn
Yes—yes please to the sharing of information that has been distributed by Lord Bourne. I very much welcome that, as I would a notification to confirm that the meeting of 19 April has taken place and the detail of the conversations that took place within it. I am slightly concerned that the legislation is almost being drafted with eyes shut to the reality of people’s lives. I would urge every consideration to ensure that that is not the reality.
For example, I do not know whether the concordat or memorandum of understanding would be legally binding, how it would operate in an enforceable way and how, if an individual felt that they were being treated differently because they happened to cross a nation’s border, they would go about challenging that, what the normal process would be, whether legal aid would be available, and so on.
There are still concerns that the legislation will not fully do what is necessary to meet the intention that has been set out, but I await the outcome of the meeting on 19 April. I agree that there should be a pause to establish whether that meeting can resolve this issue in an amicable fashion, rather that something that seems to have a UK parliamentary overbearing overtone, which may not be well received by the devolved nations, and I mentioned the sensitivities of the issue in my speech. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Mrs Wheeler
Ever so briefly, I thank everybody for the lively debate. It has been a very well-informed discussion. I think there will be some issues on which we will be able to give greater clarity and comfort to those who have asked questions. Ms Ryan, I thank you, and all the Clerks and staff who have helped us get through this Bill.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for listening in an open and honest fashion to the points that have been put genuinely to try to improve the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the staff of the House authorities and the civil servants [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]. I thank all of those who have participated in the debate for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Court Closures and Reform
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered court closures and reform.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am very pleased to have secured this debate on an extremely important topic that is long overdue for discussion.
The justice system is to undergo a radical programme of modernisation. The Minister will no doubt tell us about the potential for information and communications technology to deliver efficient and improved justice. However, against a backdrop of 40% cuts to the Department’s budget since 2010—the most of any Department—there is serious concern that this will be done without the proper safeguards to prevent our justice system from being undermined, and that it will therefore lead to reputational damage.
In January, the Government announced a consultation on the future estates strategy for the Courts and Tribunals Service, with a focus on ensuring access to justice. Separate to that are five consultations on proposals to close a further eight courts: the Banbury magistrates and county court and Maidenhead magistrates court, which will have a direct impact on my Slough constituents; the Cambridge magistrates court; the Chorley magistrates court and the Fleetwood magistrates court; Northallerton magistrates court; and Wandsworth county court and Blackfriars Crown court. Given how many courts the Government have closed in recent years—258 since 2010—there seems little doubt about what conclusion will be reached. Are the consultations not simply a smokescreen for yet more court closures and staff losses?
Capacity should not be the only criterion used to determine court closures. Geographical coverage and the representation of the justice system throughout our country are also important. As I will set out, there remain genuine concerns and a serious lack of detail to the Government’s plan to use technology in the court system, to reduce the court estate and to change the role of case officers. There could be no better response from the Minister today than an announcement that the Government are finally publishing the draft courts Bill. I hope she will give the date for that, as only then can the reforms be subjected to full scrutiny.
Thousands of court staff have been axed in recent years—more than 5,000 since 2010. That is an incredible number; however, the consultation is silent on the impact that further closures will have on staff. Indeed, they are merely called “other impacted groups”. On top of that substantial loss of expertise and experience, the closure of the eight courts would displace more than 130 staff. Does the Minister agree that court staff should be properly included in consultations?
Against this background of funding cuts, court closures and loss of staff and their expertise, outsourcing and temporary staff costs have rocketed. Figures obtained by the Opposition show the cost of the Government’s obsession with outsourcing, privatisation and the use of agency work. The Courts and Tribunals Service spent some £50 million last year on agency and contract staff—a tenfold rise since 2010.
The Government claim that these closures are part of a £1 billion modernisation of the courts service through better use of technology. Where is the evidence to justify the push for a digital courts programme? The Government should publish the business case for their modernisation programme so that the risks of a move to online and virtual justice can be fully examined.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I speak as the co-chair of the justice unions cross-party group. Does the hon. Gentleman share my fears that we have not yet had an effective evaluation of the impact of digital technology on justice and on whether court proceedings carry on? That should be done as a matter of urgency before the Government introduce yet further digital technology into the court system.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Lady for her pertinent point and fully concur, as I will elaborate.
Virtual courts may significantly increase the number of unrepresented defendants, discriminate against vulnerable defendants or those who do not speak English well, and negatively affect the relationship between defence lawyers and their clients. There are already concerns about video equipment that is in use, including technology failure, poor sound quality and mismatches of sound and image.
In my constituency, I have a large volume of immigration cases. Reports of video links between the Taylor House tribunal hearing centre and Gatwick detention centre breaking down are frequent, as are complaints about the poor sound quality. I am told that users must shout to be heard. That has been unresolved for many years. Likewise, there are concerns about the difficulty of holding confidential discussions where there is inadequate soundproofing. The Bar Council stated last month that
“virtual hearings diminish the ability of parties to follow proceedings and to understand each other. This inevitably will have serious consequences on the quality of justice as it is done and as it is seen to be done.”
Given the current situation, what plans are in place to guarantee that legal advice discussions between clients and lawyers remain confidential when held over video link? In the rush to digitalisation, where is the evidence, rather than the mere assumption, that there will be a reduced need for court buildings in the near future? After all, the Courts and Tribunals Service has recently confirmed that virtual hearings will not be imposed where participants do not wish it, so it is likely that physical hearings will be the norm for some time to come. Has that been a factor in any of the consultations?
I would also like to discuss travel times to court, which will be a significant issue if the courts estate shrinks further. Longer journeys will have a negative impact on the delivery of justice. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), wrote recently to the Minister:
“No convincing policy justification has been offered for the current proposal, which appears to favour the principle of value for money over the principle of access to justice.”
Liz Saville Roberts
I represent Dwyfor Meirionnydd. Dolgellau, the last magistrates court in my constituency, was closed in the last round. It is now impossible to arrive at either Aberystwyth or Caernarfon, the alternative courts, from Meirionnydd by 9.30 am. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given the situation in rural constituencies, this discriminatory approach needs to be evaluated thoroughly before we move to further changes?
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Lady speaks with a great deal of experience. Indeed, while this will impact everybody in our country, the impact on rural communities will be disproportionately higher.
Does the Minister agree with the Chair of the Justice Committee’s remarks? Our constituents must not be discouraged from seeking justice, and witnesses must not be put off giving evidence. Is the Minister not concerned that court closures will make it less likely that victims and witnesses will travel to courts to give evidence? The equality analysis accompanying the consultations makes no mention of the indirectly discriminatory impact of lengthy round trips on elderly people or women, who are more likely to be caring for pre-school and/or school-age children.
There are relevant points of fact on travel time that consultations neglect to take into account. The consultations assume that a court user is on time if they are there at the time when the hearing is due to start, rather than in advance, when negotiations may take place or further instructions may be given. The Minister will be aware that in a public law children’s hearing, it is a requirement that all parties attend court an hour before the hearing. Will she ensure that such factors are considered when travel time is assessed?
What assessment has been made of access to justice if court users are required to pay for overnight accommodation, leave home in the early hours or return home late at night?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the issue of accessibility, a few colleagues fought an ultimately successful campaign to retain the courthouse in Limavady, a small town in my constituency. The lack of public transport accessibility to the alternative locations that would have been available was a crucial factor in retaining it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should apply across the UK?
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That situation has been replicated in other parts of the country, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said in her intervention. All those issues need to be taken into account, especially when dealing with the more vulnerable in our community.
What assessment has been made of access to justice if court users are required to pay for overnight accommodation? Two or three-hour increases in travel time before and after a full day’s hearing, let alone post-hearing conferences, would be onerous—if not impossible—for many constituents.
In my region, the Thames valley, Maidenhead magistrates court and Banbury magistrates and county court are under consideration for sell-off. It is assumed that the workload would be redistributed to other magistrates and family courts in the region, including the small magistrates court in my constituency. According to the Government’s proposals for those three courts, people living in the areas affected by the court closures would be within an acceptable travelling distance of the court that the work was transferred to.
My constituents who rely on public transport will face a significantly longer journey if Maidenhead cases are redistributed to Reading. They will not find that acceptable. It should be noted that Reading has already received the workload from the closure of the West Berkshire magistrates court in Newbury in 2016. Instead of the 20-minute, seven-mile journey between Slough and Maidenhead, people will face a 20-mile journey to Reading or journey times of about one hour to High Wycombe or Staines.
Unsurprisingly, longer journeys also cost significantly more. An off-peak return journey by train between Slough and Maidenhead is £3.90. Between Slough and Reading it is £9.30. During peak times, the Maidenhead journey is £4.40 compared with £10.60 to get to Reading. Whatever the time of day, it is more than double, yet in the Government’s proposal there is no mention—not even one word—of addressing the financial cost to individuals travelling further.
The extra costs will be borne by victims, their support network, witnesses and others. How can the Government claim to have truly assessed the impact of possible closures on court and tribunal users when transport prices have not been considered? It goes without saying that such information is factual, freely available and easily found. There is no excuse for it to be overlooked.
It is not only Opposition Members who are concerned about the lack of information in the Government’s plans. The Minister will know that Cambridge magistrates court, which was purpose-built less than 10 years ago and which serves her constituents, is earmarked for closure. Has she had sight of a letter from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) that calls the plans “ambiguous” and “lacking in detail”? Does she disagree with her hon. Friend?
Much more could be said about the use of technology in the court system, the ongoing reduction in the court estate and planned changes in the role of case officers, and about the Law Society’s warning of substantial additional costs for legal aid firms and the impact on police resources and on other organisations that use the courts. Will the Minister address the lack of clarity in the consultations and confirm that more of the necessary research into the digitalisation of court services will be carried out?
While the “Fit for the future” consultation takes place, and until the courts Bill is published, further court closures and digitalisation contracts should be halted. It is time for the reforms to be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the Minister will be able to give us information about the scope of the promised courts Bill and, better still, to answer the fundamental question: when will the Government publish it?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am here because I am a member of the Justice Committee, which is meeting now. I have permission from the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), to attend and speak in the debate.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has raised an important point about access to justice. We ought to keep that concept firmly in mind. We in the Committee—certainly myself—are concerned for access to justice to remain a preferred concept throughout the process, and for it to permeate everything we think and do.
There is a need to maintain a network of well-maintained and fit-for-purpose courts. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said but, unfortunately, some courthouses are not fit for purpose, and it is necessary to root them out, look at them and make changes to the way they function.
There are three other reasons why the court system is undergoing change and why it needs to be rigorously looked at. The first reason relates to Lord Justice Briggs’s work to set up the online courts, which are not yet set up in full. Lord Justice Briggs has made proposals to change the civil rules that govern how the courts work, which are being piloted in a three-stage process. It is an attractive system for running the courts, particularly for people who wish to avoid huge legal costs. The way in which the courts are being sorted out by that process is focused on the needs of individuals, because litigants in person are expected to be its clients.
Liz Saville Roberts
I listen with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he share my concern that there are discrepancies in power between a person at a distant site contacting a court through video conferencing and a person in the court itself? We need to consider the impact of that on justice outcomes before moving ahead. As the process is at such an early stage, now is the time to do that.
John Howell
I will speak about aspects of the technology, but postpone answering that question for now, if I may. Having discussed online courts with Lord Justice Briggs, I am enthusiastic that they will come through in the fullness he wants.
The second reason for change is the need to improve technology. I recently did an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in law, where I sat with a number of judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal for two and a half weeks. I sat with Mr Justice Knowles in a hearing in the commercial courts that was conducted entirely in Portuguese, because a Portuguese lawyer had brought the case and had elected for his case to be heard in English law. The level of sophistication of the technology had to be seen to be believed. Almost instantly after the appellant said something, the judge got a transcript in English on his laptop on his desk in front of him. That was an extremely efficient way of using technology. In the Court of Appeal, I saw for myself in a number of sentence referral cases that the court had been connected via video technology to the individual who was still in prison, in order to hear the case. I am absolutely convinced that that is a correct way to try to improve the technology.
In contrast, I experienced sitting with an employment tribunal where, as far as I was concerned, it was so antique that we might as well have been using the quill pen. Three judges were sitting. I coughed and spluttered when they said they would sit for seven days, but it was seven days because a litigant was appearing in person. Nothing was done that could not have been done on the first day—the other days were scheduled in order to ensure that more time could be given to the litigant if necessary.
Liz Saville Roberts
I want to alert people to the need to be very careful about how we use different languages in the courts, with reference to the last round of court closures. The Ministry of Justice has a Welsh language scheme, part of which is a requirement to carry out an impact assessment of changes. I and others had to press for that impact assessment to be carried out. Welsh speakers have a right to use their language in court, but with technology and changes to courts, that is truly a matter of concern.
John Howell
I will stick to the point that I started making. From what I have seen of how the courts are using technology, it is going in the right direction. The courts are making full use of the technology—indeed, they are pushing the technology beyond how we would normally expect it to be used.
The third element is alternative dispute resolution—I say that as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution. Alternative dispute resolution takes cases out of the ambit of the courts and puts them in the hands of arbitrators who are able to hear the cases and resolve them, and they should do so. During the time I sat with judges in the commercial courts, it was obvious—the judge said it on many occasions—that people should have gone to arbitration before they went to court.
The last time I spoke on this issue, I was asked whether we ought to consider compulsory arbitration. I was doubtful at the time, but as I have come to consider it more, I now believe that a form of compulsory arbitration would be a good thing and should be included within the arbitration rules. This process is not just about the arbitration, or the alternative part of dispute resolution. Bodies such as Network Rail try to solve disputes before they happen by putting in place the mechanisms to solve them.
I mention that because it is an important point about how courts are not being used as much as they were. Alternative dispute resolution is cheaper, quicker and gives much more immediate access to justice—we should not forget that access to justice is one of the key elements of the process. It takes nothing away from the courts: if the alternative dispute resolution fails, there is still recourse to the courts at the end of the process.
Through all of this, there is a need to ensure that we connect with the communities that we are serving. Doing that through existing buildings without exploring the use of town halls and other buildings within a community is not the right way of proceeding.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My hon. Friend made the point right at the start of his remarks about access to justice. Is he aware of any system operating thus far whereby technology replaces the entire work of a magistrates court in a full criminal case, or is that yet to be proven?
John Howell
If I do not know the answer, I think my hon. Friend is about to tell me where that is the case.
John Howell
I do not know of a case where that is happening across the whole system. The courts’ use of technology and how they are pushing it, including the exemplary work by Lord Justice Briggs to set up an online court, is going in the right direction in respect of bringing access to justice within the ambit of a huge number of people for whom—I say this with all deference to the Minister—the legal fees involved are out of this world. We should keep that in mind as being a fundamental part of ensuring access to justice.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction to the overall subject.
It will perhaps come as no surprise to you, Mr Gray, that I will mainly concentrate my comments on the potential closure of the magistrates court in my constituency of Cambridge. I should say that I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions that we have had. I understand that she will not make the decision about Cambridge in particular, although I am sure that she is in a position to pass the comments made in this debate to whoever will make that decision and to respond to some of the points that are made today.
The reaction in Cambridge to the news that our very expensive court, which was newly created just a few years ago, was up for closure was one of universal astonishment and dismay across the board. We have heard from court users and magistrates. There has also been an open letter from 39 very senior academics, as one would probably expect given that there are a lot of experts in penal injustice issues in Cambridge. They made many of the points that have been made very eloquently today by my hon. Friend and they also reflect the fact that the justice system is changing. No one is denying that the world is changing; the question is whether this is the right pace of change and the right way to change it.
Some of the opposition has come from quarters that would not normally be expected to provide opposition. The police and crime commissioner for Cambridgeshire, Jason Ablewhite, is a Conservative, of course, and I do not always agree with him on everything, but he has produced a very detailed response to the proposed closure, with many sensible points. He describes himself as being “deeply concerned”, and he finds it “surprising” and “disappointing” that the Ministry of Justice is making these suggestions about Cambridge, and he needs to be convinced that the proposals have been fully thought through.
The latter is the point that I wish to develop, because I hardly need to point out to the Minister, who knows this very well, that Cambridge—and Cambridgeshire—is one of the fastest growing parts of our country, and it has huge problems in terms of its local transport infrastructure. With one of the fastest-growing economies in 2018, the combined authority assumes that the population will grow by more than 100,000 by 2031, and we have seen the Government’s enthusiasm for promoting such growth, with their ideas about east-west rail and so on. Obviously, we would all hope that such growth would produce a record number of well-behaved citizens and that there would be no further problems and no need for a justice system but, sadly, I do not think that likely. At a time when our city is growing so fast, it seems absurd to suck out of it modern facilities that were provided at huge cost only a few years ago. A particular irony is that the consultation talks about the capital value that may be unleashed but there will be no capital savings because the building is leased—the value might not even exceed the £1 achieved when Ely magistrates court was sold a few years ago.
A final point on the Cambridge position is that I am grateful to local blogger Antony Carpen for digging out the history of the city’s justice system. He tells me that Professor Helen Cam found out that Cambridge’s first courthouse was established in 1572. So here we are, 450 years on, and I hope that the Minister will not be the one responsible for undoing that long tradition of local justice in Cambridge.
In the details that underlie the proposal to claim Cambridge magistrates court, the basic case is that it is underutilised. When I visited the court a few months ago, and when I talked to people involved, that was the crux of the issue. Sadly, it has taken freedom of information requests to drag out some of the detailed figures that one would hope would shed more light on the claim of underutilisation: why is this modern court underutilised? When we look at those numbers, an even more puzzling story begins to emerge. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service management system tells us that in 2014-15 just over 7,000 cases had their first hearing at Cambridge magistrates court. The following year, the number jumped dramatically to more than 14,500 but the year after that it lurched back to 8,000. That is not about virtual courts, nor is it about changes in the number of people brought to and from court; I am afraid it is about a system that is woefully understaffed and effectively in chaos on a daily basis. I am told that listings are currently running seven or eight months away. It is not underutilisation; it is a building that does not have enough staff in it.
The comparison would be running a village shop with nothing in it—Government Members love the village shop analogy when talking about economics. If there is nothing in the shop there is nothing for people to buy, so it gets into trouble and the answer is to either close the shop or stock it properly. I would say that we have a very modern facility that should be used properly. I understand that there is an issue with the configuration; we have three court buildings in Cambridge and others around the county. The question is how best to do this.
There is also a cost issue. Possibly due to commercial confidentiality, the Ministry of Justice sadly seems unwilling to share this information, but figures are bandied around locally and I am told by some that this is the cheapest court to run in Cambridgeshire and that the private finance initiative court in Huntingdon is extremely expensive by comparison. There may well be contractual issues as to why one might be chosen over the other, but perhaps we ought to know and, particularly at a time of changing lease values in city centres, we ought to look ahead rather than responding in a short-termist way.
We have heard the argument about travel times—travel times will always be discussed in debates on these issues—and the Minister needs no reminding of how difficult it is to travel in and out of Cambridge. Many of the people who have come to me and have written to the local newspaper have explained just how difficult it would be to go to Peterborough or Huntingdon, with the journey sometimes taking much longer than an hour. One person said it took her 40 minutes to get in from Grantchester, which is roughly the time it would take to walk. To get to Peterborough and back in a day is impossible for some people. Those are the same issues as the ones my hon. Friend the Member for Slough raised.
Going back to the fine detail, we also have concerns about the suggestion that non-custodial work might remain in other court buildings in Cambridge. That is to be welcomed, but it might have been useful if the Ministry of Justice had been able to explain at the outset just what the split between custodial and non-custodial work was. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) asked about that in a letter, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, and a freedom of information request revealed dramatic numbers: 326 of the 14,000 cases in 2015-16 and 481 of the 7,500 in 2016-17 were custodial ones. That rather raises the question of whether it is possible to configure the three courts in Cambridge creatively, to most effectively help everyone.
The consultation has been run oddly, starting with a headline about closing a magistrates court when it should have been about how to make best use of the buildings we have. One of the most useful things I have done, apart from visiting the court and seeing it in action, is to have a conversation with a group of defence lawyers in Cambridge. Their account of what the system is like on a daily basic verged on harrowing. They said that it was extremely pressured, with real issues of access to legal aid in the area and pressure on local defence lawyers, and that there was the possibility, with this kind of change, that people would no longer have access to defence lawyers, because many of the smaller practices would not be able to bear the costs of travelling to and from Peterborough and Huntingdon. I have made an offer to the Minister, which I hope she will pass on to one of her colleagues, to come to Cambridge and sit down with the dozen women lawyers, as I did. They are all friendly, pleasant people and would explain what their daily lives are like and what life is like for defendants. They have very legitimate concerns about what they potentially face.
I conclude by reflecting on a couple of accounts by people who are in and out of the courts. When I visited, it was a long time since I had been in a court and it was pretty much as I remembered from elsewhere—a busy, fraught experience. It was also difficult to organise, and I sympathise with those trying to list cases, ensure that people turn up and deal with what happens when cases overrun or not everything is ready. It is of course hard to run a system to maximum efficiency, but a local journalist, Tara Cox from Cambridge News, who regularly goes to the court, writes:
“Every day there are delays, adjournments, and rescheduling of court hearings at the last minute. If you want to find out exactly how the magistrates’ court operates”
come and see. I extend that invitation to whichever Minister is making the decision: come and see exactly what people are up against.
Another journalist who spent a day at the court talking to its users was told:
“it would have taken me a silly amount of time to get to Peterborough”.
The mother of a teenage defendant said it had taken her an hour and 15 minutes from a village just outside Cambridge and one can imagine how much longer it would take her to get to Peterborough or Huntingdon —it could well be the best part of two and a half hours each way, which is impossible to do. The journalist also spoke to court staff, who told her that in their view the court closure would lead to an increase in the number of defendants and witnesses not turning up, which, they said, was already a significant problem. Surely the extra cost of failures to appear must be balanced against any potential savings—a point the police and crime commissioner makes forcefully in his submission.
I ask the Minister to consider the matter closely and think hard about the best way of configuring services in a city such as Cambridge. I have nothing against considering how to make best use of our existing estate but the overall message should be clear: keep the magistrates court in Cambridge open.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing the debate.
I speak with a Scottish element. I will not take up too much time as that is not the remit of this Parliament, but it provides the experience of similar changes north of the border. I was my party’s justice spokesperson in the Scottish Parliament at a time when a number of courts were closed by the Scottish National party Government. The Library briefing for this debate states:
“Successive governments”
—of both political persuasions—
“have identified the courts estate as a target for efficiency savings”.
It states that that is for two main reasons:
“The first is that the utilisation rate of some courts is low…The second is the policy aim of reforming access to justice through modernisation, and by increased use of technology in particular.”
I want to focus on both those points in terms of what we have been discussing today and what we have been through in Scotland. Between November 2013 and January 2015, 10 courts were closed in Scotland for exactly the reasons mentioned in the briefing. Those closures were objected to by many people across the political spectrum—even SNP Members, although ultimately when it came to a vote, they voted with the Government. It is useful to look at Scotland as an example. Figures uncovered by the Scottish Conservatives in November last year show that in the previous year, only three of the 39 sheriff courts across Scotland met the target for dealing with 100% of cases within 26 weeks of someone getting a citation or caution. We have seen the impact that closing 10 courts across Scotland has had on the remaining courts. The problems are getting worse. In the past year, Elgin sheriff court in Moray has not once met its target to deal with 100% of cases in 26 weeks.
I also want to speak about digitalisation. I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Slough has articulated, but there are great benefits. We are behind the curve in Scotland. Lord Carloway did a review in 2015 of evidence and procedure. He was a very good person to do the review, because in 2013 he said that there should be “clear sky thinking” about digitalisation in our courts system. We are no further on from his comments in 2013 or his report in 2015. We are still suffering as a result of the lack of use of digital in our court system in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Lord Carloway said:
“Police Scotland is currently migrating to a unified IT system, known as i6”—
that was a computer programme that Police Scotland was going to take in—
“which will resolve the inconsistencies currently experienced because of the incompatibilities of the legacy systems from the eight predecessor forces.”
He said that in his report in 2015. We are now in 2018, and Police Scotland has abandoned its plans to introduce i6. Three years on, we have not resolved the issues. In fact, the issues remain. He also spoke about a
“digital evidence vault to securely store all documents, audio, pictures and video content, preserving citizens’ privacy”.
There is now an evidence vault, but it is rarely used, because lawyers and the police are not happy with it. There are still problems with getting digital to have an impact in our courts. It would have great benefits.
When I was on the Justice Committee, we did an inquiry into the issue. We were looking at the role of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We were given an example of a case that had been given a date. Everyone turned up—the witnesses turned up, the accused turned up and the defence was ready. Then they said that they were not able to view the key piece of evidence, which they had had months and months to look at. It was a CCTV image. When the police had copied it on to a disc and given it to the defence solicitors, the defence solicitors could not view it on their DVD player. Witnesses had travelled a considerable distance. We had the cost of the court sitting that day only for the case to be put back again to get a new disc produced that was compatible with the defence solicitors’ DVD player and Police Scotland’s DVD player. It is 2018, and we still have such instances. They are causing delays in our court system, which is causing significant strain on our resources and considerable difficulties to witnesses and victims. They are turning up for trials, which are being put off and delayed because what we are doing is not in the modern era.
Since Lord Carloway’s report, there has been some progress on child and vulnerable victims, but not enough. I listened carefully to what Members have said, but I think that part of the barrier is the legal profession itself. It may be ironic that Members of this House are speaking about moving into a more modern age, but there seems to be resentment of change in some parts of the legal system. It has been their career, and their lifestyle has been immersed in a more traditional way of doing things, but we have got to overcome that. We are in the modern era, and there are modern technologies that we can adapt and use in our court systems. We should look to do that.
In conclusion, the Minister is obviously carefully considering the changes being proposed for England and Wales. She has to take care with those changes. I have no doubt there will be many benefits, but there will also be some dangers. I urge her not to do what the SNP Government have done in Scotland, which is to ignore all the warnings and forge ahead with the changes regardless. By doing that, the SNP has introduced changes that have resulted in our justice system suffering north of the border. More crucially than that, our victims and witnesses are being let down by justice in Scotland just now.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important debate. The Ministry of Justice finishes consulting later this month on eight closures across five regions, which would add to the 200 courts and tribunals closed since 2011. The lack of clarity from the Government on the court reform programme has been appalling. Bedford magistrates court closed in 2017 amid confusion over when services would be lost and where they were going. We were told that employment tribunal court services would remain, but then a shock announcement by the Ministry of Justice in July confirmed that Bedford tribunal court would close due to the termination of the lease on the building. That problem surely could have been foreseen.
I was assured by the former Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), that the tribunal service would move to the former home of the magistrates court in Shire Hall. Technically, tribunal cases can be listed at Shire Hall, but that is not happening in practice. As I understand it, only one case has been listed at Shire Hall since the move. That case, to be heard in June, was granted under exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister will clarify the status of court listings in Bedford when she speaks.
Access to justice is being denied to Bedford residents. Nearly all cases are now heard at least 30 miles away. The cost of transport is prohibitive to many, and the change comes at a time when peak rail services are also set to be cut. What about the dedicated court staff and lay members who have to make difficult journeys to work? The number of court officials and lay members leaving the job is rising at a time when the workload is vastly increasing.
One of the Government’s main arguments for closing courts is the underutilisation of facilities, but that argument does not stack up. Since the Supreme Court ruled employment tribunal fees unlawful in 2017, the workload for cases in Bedfordshire has gone up by 100%. Those are new cases, not the backlog. The Government can talk up their series of reforms and modernisation to make much greater use of digital technology and increase access online, but none of that means anything if people cannot access it.
The Government have committed to moving to a system where access to justice is not defined by proximity to a court or tribunal building, but ordinary people are finding it more difficult to access justice because of legal aid cuts, court closures and increased court fees. There is little evidence of the benefits the Government are trying to sell us. Instead, we have further announcements of closures, and further consultations that seem to ask questions but not listen to the answers. The Government should cease any further court closures until their promised courts Bill is published and their reforms can undergo full parliamentary scrutiny.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this very important debate. The policy certainly affects my constituency, with Northallerton magistrates court scheduled for closure. We cannot disconnect this policy from the overall policy of trying to improve our public finances. It has been a long road from the position in 2010 when our day-to-day spending, which is a key measure, was in deficit by £100 billion a year, but finally in 2017 we got that back in the black, if we exclude investment spending, for the first time since 2001, which is a remarkable achievement.
We must always be careful when talking about the spending of taxpayers’ money, so it is absolutely right that we look for efficiencies. That cannot exclude our courts and court estate. The Minister has been a model Minister in her engagement. She has gone out of her way to engage with me, and I am sure other colleagues, to ensure we understand the policy and the reasons behind it. My principal question is: has the policy been properly rural-proofed and is it fair?
My constituency of Thirsk and Malton is very rural with far more acres than people. It is not a rotten borough—just a huge constituency, with 77,230 people entitled to vote in it—although it was rotten in the 18th century when Edmund Burke represented it. There are many similar constituencies up and down the country: 20% of our population live in rural areas; such areas have 25% of all businesses; 3.4 million jobs are in rural areas; and 16.5% of our economy is in rural areas. There are demographic challenges in rural constituencies. I know we are not debating the NHS, but I can draw a parallel in some of the consequences of policies. I recently had correspondence from a constituent who lives near Scarborough and had been forced to travel to York for her operation. She had to take a bus and stay overnight even for a consultation. Policies in rural areas have a profound effect and might have a similar effect in terms of people’s access to justice.
Many other services are impacted, such as bus services. In my constituency, because of the demographics, we have many bus passes but not many buses. All that needs to be taken into account in policy. If Northallerton court closes, travel times will increase significantly. The logistics must be considered. For example, a journey from Rosedale to York would require three different buses and would probably be a four-hour round trip. Hawes to Skipton would take a similar time. That can affect access to justice in rural areas.
It is important that defendants are able to access justice fairly. I have talked to magistrates, including one who works in my constituency office, Nigel Knapton, who is a JP. A lot of defendants are vulnerable and have mental health conditions, and difficulties in accessing a different court would be more profoundly felt by them.
The journey times would effectively transfer cost and time from the Ministry of Justice budget to the police budget, because our police officers would have to travel to the courts. We have seen that in other areas with the closure of the custody suite in Northallerton, which means our police officers have to take an individual they have arrested to Harrogate, which is an hour’s journey. That might seem like a sensible efficiency, but is transferring costs from one budget to another a false economy?
There is also an effect on witnesses if they have to travel to courts that are hours away. They can be compelled to attend, but that is not usually the approach. Having to travel early to get to a morning session would be harshly felt by many witnesses, which could mean fewer prosecutions being brought. Magistrates, who are volunteers—we need more magistrates and are looking to recruit—might be less attracted by the prospect of travelling to a court in Teesside, Harrogate, Skipton or York, miles away from my constituency.
I have talked to JPs such as Michael Colyer, who came to see me in 2016. He was worried about the potential closure of Northallerton magistrates court, and we were assured at that time that there were no plans to close it. He made the point that 95% of all criminal work is heard in a magistrates court, yet only 1% of the cost of the judicial system is in our magistrates courts. He asks why, instead of saying magistrates courts are not busy enough, the threshold for cases that can be heard in a magistrates court cannot be opened up. The current limit is six months. The Minister will know more than I do but, if we increased that to 12 months, magistrates could hear many more cases, and those cases could be heard in the most efficient part of the justice system.
The Minister was clear that we need to look at the issues carefully and to see whether technology can provide a solution to some of the challenges for rural areas. I am certainly very happy to move with the times, but we need to ensure that there has been a successful evaluation of the technologies to ensure they can deliver suitable access to justice for people in rural areas. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) talking about Justice Briggs and his online courts. I am not against that, but my concern is that the announcement of the potential closure, which is rightly subject to a consultation, is premature, coming before we have seen the outcomes of the pilots. I would welcome a pilot in my area to see whether my concerns and those of many other people who have contacted me, including my police and crime commissioner, can be eased. I am happy to move with the times, but the policy must be fair and rural-proofed. People in rural areas must have access to justice just like everyone else.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on setting out the case so very well and on giving us an opportunity to participate in the debate.
We increasingly live in an age that seeks to centralise things and to consolidate physical holdings. Why have a bank in rural villages when people can bank online and can attend the bank in the next bigger town? The next step, more recently, has been the closure of banks in our bigger towns, with the main town of my constituency, Newtownards, having lost the First Trust Bank, the Bank of Ireland and the Halifax bank, and all branches making changes to the way they do things, all in the name of streamlining.
Yes, we have to streamline—in a way this debate is about streamlining—and yes, we have to modernise, yet there is a time and a place for that. Like the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), I want to comment on that and encourage the Minister. I know she listens to what we say and makes sure our viewpoints are taken on board, which is important.
I recently had a proposal on my desk to close the courthouse in Newtownards in order to centralise in Belfast. It was a worrying move that concerned us. The proposal was, if I can use these words, Mr Gray, absolutely crazy. The idea of closing the third biggest courthouse in the Province was simply a threat to justice in the area. The issue is as simple, as big and as important as that.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The former Minister decided to close a lot of courthouses in Northern Ireland—a decision that the new Minister reversed. The former Minister would have closed the only courthouse in the city of Armagh, the citadel city. That decision was rightly reversed, so that people could still access it.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will tell the story from my constituency, as the hon. Member for Moray told his constituency’s story. It is wonderful to discover that things in my constituency are very similar to those in Moray, because things happen that are universal across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Department of Justice proposal was to reduce the court estate from 20 to 12—a 40% reduction. That is a massive reduction, and that did not include the courts that had already closed, including smaller courthouses such as a neighbouring one in Bangor, the closure of which was a downwards step. I believe that the level of closures was disproportionately high compared with the closures in England and Wales referred to in the Department of Justice consultation paper; there was a 28% reduction in 2010. That level of culling of courthouses in Northern Ireland was not necessary or beneficial, and did not provide basic access to local justice.
Newtownards courthouse has a significant volume of business. I want to put something important on record that relates to the reasons for retaining that courthouse: it is the busiest court outside Belfast and Londonderry, dealing with all types of specialised court business—civil, criminal and family. It is now a specialist centre for children’s courts, youth courts, magistrates courts, civil courts and Crown courts. The work of that courthouse has increased, taking a bit of pressure off the larger ones. Many disability living allowance and other benefit appeals are now held there, because the safety and security aspect is much better. That is important not only for confidentiality but for those who attend. The courthouse is now seen as thriving and constantly busy. It also brings business to the local coffee shops. The spin-off from the courthouses to the surrounding area can never be ignored, and shops in the town must also be taken into consideration.
The idea of taking justice from Ards to Belfast without just cause, closing the courthouse after spending almost £1 million on refurbishing it—the hon. Member for Slough referred to the spend on another courthouse—made no sense. Asking people to make the journey from Portaferry to Belfast made even less sense, and would in itself have been a barrier to justice, as the courts there are already overworked. The Department’s target that people should be able to reach a courthouse within an hour by car is fine for those who have a car in which to travel, but for too many people it is a matter of catching a bus or train. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) spoke about people having to make three bus changes to get to a new court. That is illogical and unfair. Catching a bus or train rarely, if ever, takes less time than it takes someone to jump into their own car.
Another important point is that people have to be at court at a particular time. They have to get up at whatever time is necessary and get on buses or trains to ensure that they arrive in advance. The hon. Gentleman referred to a four-hour journey for some people to get to court on public transport. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I hope I said that right, Mr Gray; my Welsh accent is atrocious, but I tried very hard to grasp those two words—mentioned that as well. The issue of distance is very real to all of us in the Chamber.
I do not find the mentality of “Oh, what’s an hour’s drive?” acceptable. I do not accept it in my constituency of Strangford. I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, if I can call him that, in his stand against the reforms in his constituency. The good news is that we managed to overturn them in ours. The legal community, the community of Newtownards, elected representatives, the local council and elected representatives from the Northern Ireland Assembly managed to combine our efforts and present an evidence base to Ministers to overturn the “economy savings” in my constituency by proving that it was a false economy. Ministers accepted that, and we now have a thriving and retained service in Newtownards as a result.
Douglas Ross
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s passionate speech about what happened in Northern Ireland, and how the Assembly listened to the concerns of the local community and experts. The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party failed to do that north of the border. There was clear evidence from experts and local communities that the 10 closures over two years would be damaging. We are now seeing that in Scotland, but the Scottish Government and the SNP would not listen.
Jim Shannon
I will not get involved in the local politics, but I will say that it is important always to listen to the evidence.
I trust that the hon. Member for Slough will succeed in showing that what matters more than the red or black line in the accounts is accessible justice—enabling victims to come to court and do what needs to be done, without being stressed by additional worries about journeys, bus routes or anything else. We should enable victims to have time to speak with their solicitor, rather than their solicitor being on the commute, unavailable to meet them until the court time. There are so many ways in which a victim is better supported by a court that is close to hand rather than removed. I know that the Minister has listened intently to all the comments in the Chamber, and will listen to those of the shadow Minister. I hope that the Minister will take on board those viewpoints and the evidential base for keeping courthouses in place.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing such an important debate at a crucial time. The scale and pace at which the Government are pursuing change necessitates careful consideration of the costs and benefits of the proposed changes. With £1 billion being spent and more than 250 courts having been closed already, it is crucial that they are carefully considered and scrutinised.
We are not against court closures or digitalisation in all instances, but we want to see justice done in the most effective manner possible. We believe that the local court system must meet the demands of the 21st century, catering to the needs of all our citizens. However, we have become increasingly concerned that the Government have instituted changes that will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable, and have prioritised cutting expenditure over the delivery of justice. The Government have closed courts, or proposed closing courts, without taking into account, for example, the issues surrounding the Cambridge magistrates court closure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) set out in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) set out his own case as well.
Importantly, in 2010, the travel time standard used to determine court location was one hour, but that has now gone up to a whole day for a return trip. Clearly that will affect many courts, and the most vulnerable will bear the heaviest costs. For young mothers who are unable to find care, or the elderly who find long journeys difficult, such court closures will prohibitively reduce access and will cost more. It is therefore hard not to share the conclusions of the Justice Committee last month that underlying such changes is an approach
“which appears to favour the principle of value for money over the principle of access to justice”.
In the light of that, I ask the Minister directly whether the Government are seriously not concerned that court closures will make victims and witnesses less likely to travel to courts to give evidence.
I acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who set out in detail what court closures could involve for all the people who use the system. It may be a case of a false economy: saving in one budget, but spending from another. Does the Minister agree that the reduction in courts is a backward step for our criminal justice system, because it would be difficult for people to access it?
Another important point is that the price at which the vast majority of such buildings has been sold seems alarmingly low. We recently found out that 80% of courts sold—that is, more than 120 courts—raised an average of not much more than the price of an average UK home. Research has shown that half the courts were sold for less than one and a half times the price of an average UK house. That is worrying, considering that most courts are in central city locations and are much bigger than most houses. Of the money raised so far, almost two thirds was generated by the sale of just nine courts in prime sites in and around London. Indeed, with courts in Ely, Rochdale and Consett being sold for a grand total of £21,000 combined, we see a clear picture of public property being sold off at knock-down prices. Perhaps that is not unsurprising from the party whose Government oversaw the underselling of Royal Mail by £1 billion.
The pace and width of sales bears the distinctive hallmarks of a Government who are selling off the family silver, which Conservative Governments have engaged in in the past. They find underutilisation and say that it is done for that reason, but that is not right. We know that courts are being utilised far more than is said. Hon. Members have already alluded to the fact that, for many of the courts that have been earmarked for sale on the basis of underutilisation, that is not actually the case, for example in Cambridgeshire or at Blackfriars Crown court, not far from here. Are the Government not concerned that selling recently updated buildings represents a clear waste of public money? Clearly, they need to reconsider whether there really is a need to close a court, in light of not just cost but the impact on everyone who uses it.
The digitalisation of courts is a historic shift. Digitalisation and virtual courts will have a lasting impact on our judicial system. Again, we have no objection to that. As the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) said, technology can be used very effectively in courts. However, we are concerned about whether the Government have carried out proper consultation, looking at not just cost-effectiveness but the impact on people. At the moment, there is nothing on record from the Ministry of Justice to show what impact virtual courts and digitalisation will have on people involved in court proceedings.
A recent survey of magistrates, lawyers, probation officers and defendants highlighted serious concerns that appearing on video may make it more difficult for defendants to understand and participate in court hearings. Shockingly, prior to the introduction of the Prisons and Courts Bill in the previous Parliament, which was aborted due to the general election, no research had been carried out on the effects of virtual justice reforms on victims or defendants. In light of that failure, I ask the Minister again that she will guarantee that research into that key area will be done and published in advance of the courts Bill being brought to the House.
Further, in the push to move to virtual courts the Government seem to be assuming that town halls, police stations and other civic buildings will be able to provide space for virtual courts, and witnesses giving evidence from one court to another. No research has been done on whether any of that is plausible.
In addition, little consideration has been given to ensuring that there is proper legal advice for defendants. In the present system, if someone goes to court, a clerk and sometimes even friendly lawyers are on hand to give advice. I remember being in court and hearing somebody who was unrepresented saying something. I intervened, saying that they might need to see a lawyer or get advice. Obviously I cannot give advice in that situation, but guidance can be given. That happens so much in court, but it will not happen in a virtual court, because nobody is going to be there to see the problems arising. That aspect of the change has not been considered at all.
For most people, courts are something they only face once in their lifetime and the court system is alien, highly intimidating and difficult. Constituents have come to me with simple, straightforward issues, and they are so worried about what to do if they have to go to court, because it is an unusual situation for them. Although we have no problem with virtual courts, digitalisation or technology, there is again a question about how that is rolled out and how people who could be affected are considered.
The Government’s plans for automatic online convictions risk defendants pleading guilty without understanding the full implications of doing so. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that defendants will have sufficient legal advice to ensure that that does not happen. What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that people online understand what is happening? Some of us may be computer-literate, but there are many people who do not have email accounts or internet in their home. What will be done about that?
In the reform proposals, the Government have spent more than £100 million on contractors, £30 million of which has gone to management consultants such as PwC. The amount of money spent—I would point out that it is equal to the amount raised from the sale of 223 courts —on projects that depend on an unpredictable future is a worrying sign of this Government’s attitude to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Going forward, I ask the Government to ensure that all those concerns are addressed and that the issue of transparency is taken into account. If people are sitting in small rooms in different offices in civic buildings giving evidence or being dealt with, how do we ensure that our justice system is transparent? At the moment, we have physical courts that we can go and see, so how to ensure transparency in the court system must be addressed. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. I ask the Government to look at the issues we and other hon. Members have raised and to promise that there will be no further court closures or reforms until they have published the draft courts Bill, fully detailing their proposals, and this House has debated those proposals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate. He made some important points about the justice system in general. I am grateful that he secured the debate, has raised those points and has given me an opportunity to respond.
I make one point at the outset. The hon. Gentleman talked about cuts. The reform programme is certainly not about cuts. As he mentioned, the Government are putting £1 billion into our court reform programme and every time a court closes, the money from the sale of that court goes straight back into our justice system—more particularly, our court system.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like to address the issue of justice in broader terms. We should start by asking ourselves a question in the context of the debate. What is justice, and how should it be administered? It is not necessarily about a court, a wig and a dock—it is much broader than that. It is not constrained by a particular location or a setting. It is about the fair determination of rights. Although a court of course plays an important part in the determination of those rights, we must also think about how in the modern world we can deliver better, fairer and more effective justice, which is why the Ministry of Justice has started to invest £1 billion in our justice system over the last few years.
We are upgrading our system so that it works better for everyone—judges, legal professionals, vulnerable victims, witnesses, litigants and defendants. We are modernising the system. The hon. Member for Slough asked what the evidence is of the advantage of technology, and I will answer that. The Civil Justice Review of the 1980s said that we needed to use computers to manage listing. Lord Woolf called for the use of technology in the 1990s. In 2015, the Civil Justice Council stated that online dispute resolution had the possibility and potential to bring forward advantages to our justice system, such as lower cost but also more access to justice. When the court reform Bill went before the House before the general election, a document on transforming justice was put together by the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor of the time and the Senior President of Tribunals. They all called for our justice system to be brought up to date using technology. They recognised that it would bring our system forward and that by doing so, we would need fewer court buildings. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) calling for more digitalisation in Scotland.
John Howell
Would the Minister accept that the move towards, for example, online courts has come not from judges but from potential litigants who would like to see that as an alternative?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not only justices who are advocating online courts but people who use the system. We recently launched our online digital court process, through which people can make claims of up to £10,000. The pilot has been extremely successful.
That brings me on nicely to our other pilots. We are in the midst of upgrading our system in a variety of ways, in different courts and for different remedies that people need. It is now possible to apply for an uncontested divorce and for probate online. It is possible to make pleas for lower level offences, to respond to jury summonses and to issue and respond to civil money claims online. In the social security tribunal system, it is possible to track an appeal online and get mobile updates about the progress of a case. Those changes are making access to justice more efficient, quicker and, for many, much easier to use.
Thousands of people have already used those pilots and received straightforward digital access to justice for the first time, and the public feedback has been extremely positive. By providing services online, we are significantly improving the experience of those using the courts. We see that in the number of forms completed correctly. The rejection rate for paper divorce applications was 40% due to errors and omissions. Since the latest release of the online divorce service, the online rejection rate is now less than 1%.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) made some important points about vulnerable people. She is right that not everybody has a computer, uses the internet or is comfortable doing so. We are establishing a range of support channels, including telephone and face-to-face assistance, and we have worked closely with other Departments to ensure vulnerable people are protected. Our experience shows that the most vulnerable will still be able to access digital services. For example, in relation to our help with fees, the rejection rate stands at about 20% after the introduction of digital processes, compared with 75% for the paper version.
The hon. Lady also said that court can sometimes be intimidating. I said previously that we have social security updates for people going through the system on their mobile phone, and the feedback from that has been extremely positive. Someone said recently, “Courts, judges, decision all quite frightening. This completely calmed me down.” My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the possibility of technology improving our court service—not only in the commercial court but elsewhere. It is right that we consider the possibilities for justice.
We are not just investing in digital. Since April 2015, we have spent £108 million on capital maintenance to improve our estate, including £2 million for refurbishments in Manchester Central, £1.5 million for rewiring and replacing windows in Preston and more than £1.5 million for a roof and lift replacements in Leeds Central.
Other hon. Members raised issues about court closures. We must recognise some important facts about the court and tribunal estate, which is underused. About 41% of courts and tribunals used less than half their available hearing capacity in financial year 2016-17, and much of that space is in poor condition. The hon. Member for Slough talked about Maidenhead. The court is underused and sat for less than one third of its available hours in the past financial year. It is in a poor state of affairs and requires a new roof and windows, generating a total maintenance backlog of more than £1 million.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is making a very good point about buildings that need investment, but is she aware that Northallerton is in fantastic condition, having recently been refurbished, and that it has the best disabled access in North Yorkshire?
Lucy Frazer
I was coming to Northallerton, but as my hon. Friend raises it I will deal with it now. As always, he made some very valid and rational points in his speech, including about the need to keep our finances under control. We are doing that and must continue to do so. He also made some valid points about rural areas. I represent a rural area, and I understand his concerns. I am pleased to have met him and the police and crime commissioner for his area. There is a good service in Northallerton, but it is underused. An interesting fact that has recently come to light is that only 11% of cases held in Northallerton magistrates court actually come from the Northallerton area, so the court actually serves a much wider area. That is how our civil justice system operates.
It is important that when we are looking to close courts—of course, no decisions have yet been made about any of the courts that are under consultation—we need to ensure that the technology we are talking about is operative so people still have access to justice.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Should we not thank lay magistrates and justices of the peace who support our magistrates courts across the country for very little recompense, other than the satisfaction of contributing towards society? When court reorganisations take place, should we not consult magistrates to ensure we get the best outcome for local people?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Magistrates voluntarily make a significant contribution to our justice system. I recently met the Magistrates Association, which does incredibly important work, and I will continue to engage with it. I met a number of magistrates in my constituency. This is not just about them; there are also volunteer legal professionals and victim liaison and support workers. A lot of people do pro bono work. The justice system relies on the voluntary work of a lot of people in our communities.
It is important that we ensure witnesses can get to court. Our use of video technology means that people do not necessarily have to go to court at all. Therefore their journeys are non-existent, rather than increased.
The hon. Member for Slough asked whether court staff should be invited to respond to the consultation. They have been, and we welcome any responses to it.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) acknowledged that justice is changing, and that we need to adapt to that. His points have been heard and will be passed on.
The hon. Member for Slough talked about the principles we should think about when we close a court. That is why, alongside the consultation on the eight courts, we opened the consultation “Fit for the future: transforming the court and tribunal estate”, which sets out our strategy for the wider reform of our court system and underlines principles that should be considered. People can have input into it as we go forward.
It is important that we have a sensible, proper debate about how we spend our money in the court system. We have consolidated our court and tribunal estate since 2016, and we have put the money from those surpluses into our court estate, and we will continue to do so. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this important topic. The Government are investing to transform the service provided by our courts and tribunals so we continue to deliver an effective and fair justice system that serves all users whenever they need it.
Mr Dhesi
Again, I am grateful for having secured this important debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to it. Many talked about the effect on their constituencies. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the use of technology in hearings and about alternative dispute resolutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) spoke persuasively about the impact of the court closure in Cambridge, and about how local justice, which dates back centuries and for which we in this country are famed, will no longer be available if the court is closed.
I thank the hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their kind support. They spoke passionately about the impact that this is already having on Scotland and Northern Ireland. We need to be careful, because the closure of banks, which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, and courts is ripping the heart out of local communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke passionately about the impact in their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East called for a halt to the sell-off until the courts Bill is published.
Nobody would argue against reform, but it must be done in a holistic and sympathetic manner. The Minister referred to Maidenhead, but it is not merely about costs and savings—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Lymphoedema Services
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered provision of lymphoedema services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank the Minister for being here to respond. This is the first Westminster Hall debate I have secured, and I am proud it is on an issue that affects many people in the United Kingdom. It was first drawn to my attention by my constituent Melanie Thomas MBE.
Lymphoedema or chronic oedema is a chronic swelling due to the lymphatic system failing. It mainly occurs when the lymphatic system is damaged by surgery, radiotherapy, trauma or infections. People can also be born with lymphoedema if the lymphatics have not developed properly. It affects people of all ages, and the swelling can occur in any part of the body. People think it is rare, but it is not, and research suggests that about six people per 1,000 have lymphoedema which, to put that into perspective, is about 400,000 people in the UK. If we look at the legs and feet of people in supermarkets or even here in Parliament, we will see swollen oedematous legs.
The problem of chronic oedema is getting worse as we get fatter and live longer with the consequences of other health conditions. Fifty-five per cent. of the average community district nurse case load is people who have swollen oedematous legs, with or without wounds. Such nurses, however, are not lymphoedema experts, and most do not have the skills in lymphoedema bandaging or prescription of compression garments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on achieving this Westminster Hall debate. She referred to 400,000 people suffering from lymphoedema. Macmillan Cancer Support has estimated that there are 124,000 sufferers in the UK. Does she agree that there must be a better NHS support system, including more practice nurses, and specific training in lymphoedema care? The Government need to allocate the funding to support those suffering from this chronic condition.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will discuss training needs later—there is a definite need.
Lymphoedema can affect people physically, psychologically and socially. It has a significant impact on quality of life and prevents people from undertaking the normal activities of daily living. Reported issues include: massively swollen limbs that leak through clothes and soil carpets and beds; poor mobility; the inability to find shoes that fit and a limited choice of clothes; increased pain; inability to work; frequent admissions to hospital with cellulitis; stigmatisation and people being scared, anxious and depressed; and inability to cope and a feeling of lost control.
We might think that people can get treatment, but they cannot—that is the problem. Lymphoedema services are scarce. People suffering with lymphoedema cannot access the treatment they need or deserve. There is wide variation in the organisation and delivery of lymphoedema services throughout the United Kingdom. Some areas have commissioned full lymphoedema services—services for both cancer and non-cancer patients—others offer cancer-only services, and others provide no lymphoedema services at all.
Lymphoedema services that have been commissioned range from lone practitioners to small teams, so waiting and treatment times vary, as do treatment options. That diversity is not a result of patient need and is not patient-centred. Most people with lymphoedema go undiagnosed and untreated for long periods as a consequence of the poor level of knowledge among health professionals and the limited support from healthcare managers and commissioners. Lymphoedema is a growing condition, so what support are the Government providing to develop pre-graduate and postgraduate education for healthcare professionals to raise awareness of the condition? Something has to change.
Becoming aware of the lack of lymphoedema services in Wales, the Welsh Government listened to its members. I am very proud of that. The Conservatives might slate the Welsh NHS in the Chamber, but this is a wonderful area of work that has been developed in Wales, and I want to hail it. In 2009, the Welsh Government commissioned a lymphoedema strategy for Wales, which sets out clear aims to enable access for all lymphoedema patients to the appropriate services at the right place, at the right time and with the right person, regardless of whether their lymphoedema is related to cancer. Lymphoedema strategies have also been written in Northern Ireland and Scotland. England is the only nation not to have one.
In 2011, the Welsh Government invested £1 million to implement their lymphoedema strategy. The funding enabled lymphoedema services to be set up under every health board in Wales, managed by Lymphoedema Network Wales to maintain strategic oversight of the strategy for lymphoedema in Wales. Services are also made available in the more rural areas of Wales by the Tenovus Cancer Care mobile unit, which works closely with Lymphoedema Network Wales and the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board.
Lymphoedema has always been a chronic, incurable condition, but new evidence suggests that significant improvements can be made for patients. In Japan and Europe, a super-microsurgical technique, which joins the defunct lymphatics to a functioning vein, has seen a 96% reduction in cellulitis episodes, and 70% of treated patients have stopped utilising compression garments as a result. The technique—lymphatic venous anastomosis, or LVA for short—is available on the NHS only in Wales. The Welsh Government supported the investment to make that happen and 42 patients per year can now have the innovative surgery that has the potential to cure their lymphoedema.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I have a constituent called Caroline, who is in her late 30s. She has had lymphoedema affecting her leg for several years. She recently had an infection and had to go to accident and emergency three times. She now has to wear surgical stockings for the rest of her life. Had she been diagnosed earlier, she would not be in that situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a strategy had been in place, my constituent would not have needed to go to the NHS so often, saving money by controlling the condition when she was first diagnosed?
Tonia Antoniazzi
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about the waste of money. The money is wasted on services because the lymphoedema is not being treated properly with the correct garments. We hope that that will be addressed so that the NHS can save money and be more effective.
We want better outcomes for patients as well as to save the NHS money. LVA is available privately in the UK, but not everyone has the £15,000 needed to have the surgery. LVA has the potential to cure lymphoedema and stops the need for admissions to hospital for cellulitis and for expensive compression garments. When will this surgery be available on the NHS for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Wales also leads the way in developing a national paediatric lymphoedema service. Children can have lymphoedema, and in Wales 260 have the condition. Last summer I had the opportunity to meet some of them in Margam at an event organised by the Lymphoedema Wales Network. I saw them participate in a wide range of sports—that is important, because having lymphoedema does not mean people cannot participate in sport, and those young people were being actively encouraged to play football and rugby. The most important thing that came out of that day was the opportunity for young people to meet people like them, and for parents to meet one another. It was absolutely invaluable for those young people and their families to discuss things and have a support network.
Hon. Members should not think that Wales has it easy, because it does not. When it got the funding, the prevalence of lymphoedema was two per 1,000. It has now tripled to six per 1,000. It is the same story in Northern Ireland—when the Lymphoedema Network Northern Ireland was started, the prevalence was 1.33 per 1,000; it is now five per 1,000.
A small change can make a difference. If Wales and Northern Ireland can do it, why can we not have an equitable service among all nations? In England, I have been made aware that Herefordshire, Bedfordshire, Tamworth, Coventry, Luton, Southport and Aintree have services available only for cancer patients. Warrington, Barking and Bolton have no lymphoedema services at all. Morecambe bay’s services were under threat, but there was good news of additional funding. What is NHS England going to do to support its clinical commissioning groups in commissioning lymphoedema services, to end the inequity of service provision and patient suffering?
The NHS is wasting money trying to treat lymphoedema patients, as well as having a huge impact on patients’ lives. Many tell stories of wasted time, of being referred to numerous hospital specialties, of inappropriate wound dressings, with bandages often used, and of patients being admitted to hospital with cellulitis because the lymphoedema has not been treated. We need to save money and start treating patients with lymphoedema better. Let us improve education on chronic oedema, get more clinical expertise in the community to prevent complication and admissions, and ultimately, stop the current postcode lottery as well as the non-cancer inequity.
In 2002, a debate was held in this place. Very little has changed in the 16 years since. What will the Government do to support our constituents to gain the lymphoedema services they so rightly deserve? I would welcome the opportunity to facilitate a meeting between Lymphoedema Network Wales and the Minister at his earliest convenience.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—I knew the last one—on securing her first debate in Westminster Hall, as she said, which is on a very important issue.
Lymphoedema Awareness Week took place earlier this month, so today’s debate is timely. We heard much from the hon. Lady on the impact of the condition, which she set out very well, although Members should watch themselves looking at people’s legs and feet in supermarkets. I am sure therein lies a problem for me in Winchester, but I take her point. She set out very well the difference that high-quality care and support can make. We can all agree that we want that for people affected by lymphoedema. I hope the debate will encourage service providers across England to consider the improvements that they might make.
It is estimated that between 75,000 and 220,000 people in England are affected by lymphoedema. The condition is caused by abnormal accumulation of lymph fluid in body tissue, which can be the result of a congenital defect, of damage to the lymphatic system or of removal of lymph nodes by surgery, radiation, infection or injury. Obviously, cancer plays a role in that, which I will come to. Regardless of the cause, it is important that the NHS responds appropriately in diagnosing and managing the condition, and that it provides appropriate support and advice to those affected. A lot has changed since we had the last debate.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Will the Minister say more about consistency of services for lymphoedema across the country, and acknowledge the role of our hospices? In my constituency, the Mary Ann Evans Hospice, of which I am a patron, has a lymphoedema care service, which is very valuable to local people.
Steve Brine
In my response I will touch on services across England. My hon. Friend is right to mention the hospice movement. Many people working in hospices become experts in this field by virtue of their day-to-day work. I am very happy to endorse what he said, and I thank everyone working in the hospice movement who is helping patients affected by lymphoedema.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, certain national lymphoedema initiatives have been developed—we have heard about the initiatives in Wales. Health is a devolved matter, and devolution is important. The devolution settlement from the last Government stands, and allows the four nations of our United Kingdom to develop the services that they believe meet the needs of their resident populations and the respective size of them. In England, responsibility for determining the overall strategic national approach to improving clinical outcomes for healthcare services lies with NHS England, and the provision of lymphoedema care is the responsibility of local NHS commissioners.
Although lymphoedema has no cure, interventions such as decongestive lymphatic therapy, skincare, exercise advice and weight management can ease symptoms and improve quality of life for those affected. The hon. Lady was absolutely right to raise the issue of weight management—there is a lot of discussion in this place about the obesity challenge that we face. This condition is a not-often-talked-about consequence of the obesity challenge, and I am grateful she raised it. People with lymphoedema can usually be treated through routine access to primary or secondary care services with access to dedicated lymphoedema clinics. I have experience in my family of attending such clinics.
To support clinicians in the diagnosis, treatment and support of patients with lymphoedema, an international consensus document on the condition was produced in 2006, which is endorsed by the British Lymphology Society and the Lymphoedema Support Network. Additionally, the Royal College of General Practitioners offers an e-learning course on lymphoedema—the hon. Lady said that that was one of her concerns. That often supplements GPs’ existing understanding of the condition, which is covered in the GP curriculum, and I am pleased to say that it is identified as a key area of knowledge that we expect of them in their qualifying exams.
We heard from the hon. Lady about calls for a national lymphoedema service in England. Hon. Members may be aware that, in 2015, the British Lymphology Society submitted a proposal for a nationally commissioned specialised lymphoedema service to the Prescribed Specialised Services Advisory Group—we like our titles and acronyms in health—which is an expert committee appointed by the Department to consider these very matters.
Four factors should be considered when determining which prescribed specialised services should be directly commissioned by NHS England, the first of which is the number of individuals needing the service. The second factor is the cost of providing the service—after all, it is a publicly funded health service. The third consideration is the number of persons able to provide the service—the workforce—and the fourth is the cost to clinical commissioning groups in England for providing the service.
Taking account of those four factors, the advisory group concluded that lymphoedema services were not suitable for national commissioning. As the patient population was high in England, there were numerous providers and the burden to commissioners was low. However, we keep that under constant review, which links to my next point about Wales. We recognise that there can be opportunities to learn from our partners in the devolved Administrations while taking high-quality clinical advice from our advisers, such as I just mentioned.
We are aware of the recent evaluation of the lymphoedema service in Wales, which was published in the British Journal of Nursing, and we agree that the results appear to be very positive in addressing the challenges faced in Wales. We also note the caution applied to some of the figures but, as I say, we keep it under constant review, and the hon. Lady’s debate is helpful in that regard.
In my experience as a Health Minister, NHS commissioners are always keen to hear about services that have demonstrated savings and improved care in other parts of the country and the United Kingdom. For example, the Healthy London Partnership, a collaboration including London’s NHS, councils and Public Health England, for which I have responsibility, has drawn on the work of the Welsh lymphoedema service for its own service. We watch that closely. NHS England is also aware of the evaluation of the Welsh service and—the hon. Lady asked about this—is in touch with the national clinical lead for lymphoedema in Wales, who is one of her constituents. That relationship is ongoing and bearing fruit.
The hon. Lady mentioned cancer, for which I am the Minister responsible. Lymphoedema resulting from cancer treatment, which, sadly, has touched my life, is common. About one in five people have lymphoedema of the arm after breast cancer treatment that affects the lymph nodes, which are so difficult. Much of the lymphoedema service improvement in England has developed as a result of national initiatives to improve cancer services and, sadly, the high number of breast cancer incidents. There is growing recognition of the need to support cancer survivors after they fall off the cliff edge when their treatment ends. Lymphoedema services are a key part of that, and I have seen them when out and about doing my job.
Over the years, the Government have driven forward the cancer survivorship agenda, which I am passionate about and committed to, first through the national cancer survivorship initiative, and then through the living with and beyond cancer programme, for which I am responsible. Central to that work has been embedding in mainstream NHS commissioning a recovery package, which is a combination of interventions that, when delivered together, can greatly improve outcomes and the co-ordination of care beyond the cancer pathway, which is what we are looking at, including through better and earlier identification of the consequences of treatment for conditions such as lymphoedema.
Members will be aware that our world-class cancer strategy for England, which has another two years left to run, was published in July 2015 by the independent cancer taskforce. It recommended that NHS England should accelerate the commissioning of services for cancer survivors, including the development of a minimum service specification to be commissioned locally for all patients, based on the recovery package I just mentioned. That specification was published in April 2016 and includes provision of lymphoedema care. It was followed by £200 million of funding to support the implementation of the recovery package and other areas of the strategy, which I am sure I will talk about again in debates in this place. Those services should be provided on the basis of need, not of whether someone has had cancer.
Finally, let me highlight the research that is being undertaken. We invest more than £1 billion a year in health research through the National Institute for Health Research. The NIHR is currently supporting three important lymphoedema studies: an analysis of genes and their functions in primary lymphoedema; an investigation of the pathophysiology of breast cancer-related lymphoedema of the arm, which I mentioned; and a feasibility trial of early decongestive lymphoedema treatment for women newly presenting with breast cancer-related upper limb lymphoedema, which is very important.
As well as thanking you, Mr Gray, for sitting through what I hope has been as interesting a debate for you as it has been for us, let me thank the hon. Lady again for using her first Westminster Hall debate to raise this important issue and highlight the many challenges that people with lymphoedema face. I am confident that, by continuing to build our expertise, increasing the research I listed and ensuring that our commissioners and clinicians have the training, tools and guidance to deliver high-quality lymphoedema care, we can ensure that patients receive the treatment and support they need and deserve. As ever, I am grateful to Members. We keep everything under constant review, because ultimately we have a publicly funded health service that is there for patients. As the Minister with responsibility for primary care, I have responsibility not only for cancer but for prevention, and I am interested in anything that can help us to reduce people’s suffering and the cost to that publicly funded health service.
Question put and agreed to.
Digital Taxation
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered digital taxation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. Let me start by thanking all hon. Members who have come to take part in the debate. I feel we have a slight imbalance of forces in the Chamber, but none the less it shows the high level of interest in the subject.
My interest in it comes from talking to the small businesses in my constituency. Those Members who know my constituency well will know it is not a place with one large or dominant employer or sector but a place of very successful small businesses. We have wonderful independent shops in Market Harborough and on Bell Street in Wigston, we have fantastic manufacturing businesses such as COBA in Fleckney, which I visited the other day, and we have great high-tech businesses, particularly around Kenilworth Drive in Oadby. A lot of small businesspeople ask me, “We are paying our business rates and taxes, but are large international digital businesses paying their fair share of tax?” We need to ensure that the answer is an unambiguous yes.
This debate is timely. At the time of the spring statement, we saw the Treasury publish its position paper, “Corporate tax and the digital economy,” and since then the OECD has produced a report on the same issue as part of the work on base erosion and profit shifting that the UK has led on and, just last week, the European Commission published a paper on the same subject. It is significant that both the European Commission and the Treasury have independently arrived at some similar conclusions. In fact, both the Treasury paper and the European Commission put forward two options: a comprehensive international reform, or an interim tax to be levied before such a reform can be agreed internationally.
It is clear from reading all of those documents that taxing large digital businesses and distinguishing them from other firms that trade internationally is not simple or straightforward at all. None the less, I was encouraged to see the Treasury consulting on that question and being prepared to think radically about what we need to do to address it.
What is the case for action? Put simply, international tax treaties were designed in an era when doing business internationally inevitably meant having to have physical premises, offices, factories and lots of people in the country where business was to be done. However, today things are different. A large digital business could sell advertising to firms in country A, to be seen by users in country B, served off servers in country C, perhaps under a brand owned in country D, which is financed and owned by a company in country E. That business can ensure that its profits are booked in whichever jurisdiction taxes are lowest.
That is the issue in abstract; let me give a concrete example. I do not want to pick on a particular business, but I use the example cited by Jonathan Ford in the Financial Times relating to Google in 2014. He reported that the firm had made about £4.3 billion of sales in the UK and that, in line with its global profit margin of about 26%, that would have meant about £1.1 billion of profits to pay tax on—and, in turn, a corporation tax payment of £220 million. However, he reports that in that year it paid only £30 million in corporation tax.
A simple division of Google’s global profits by its share of users in the UK would not be a fair basis to work out its tax liability here, because obviously a large proportion of its engineers and research and development are in the US. None the less, it feels like we might expect a bit more of the value created by UK users to be reflected in taxable value in the UK.
Since 2014, things have moved on. We have seen the introduction of the so-called Google tax to stop some of the worst abuses of the international system, stopping firms from artificially signing all of their contracts in a particular country, and looking through some of the artificial arrangements put in place by some firms. However, there is much more to do.
In fact, this issue is far from unique to the UK. The European Commission reports that digital companies pay on average roughly half the effective tax rate of firms in the traditional economy. A revealing map in the Commission’s impact assessment shows very little correlation between where digital businesses’ user activity is and where in Europe their profits are booked. In other words, there is no real link between where value is being created and where tax is being paid. It is therefore absolutely right that the Treasury is consulting on going further.
That is the case for action. Our approach should be guided by three principles. First, any new tax has to be for the largest international businesses only, with generous allowances to carve out small firms. We do not want to do anything to hamper the vibrant tech start-up scene we have in the UK, and it would make no sense to try to impose a large and complex tax on minnow-sized companies where the cost of administration would outweigh the benefit of the tax we might collect. I was glad to see a nod in the direction of carving out smaller firms in the Treasury paper, if I have interpreted it right.
Secondly, we need a tax that has a clear distinction between tech businesses and other international firms. We do not want to unravel the complex web of global tax agreements we have at the moment or come up with something that can never be agreed internationally. We need to distinguish between tech and other sectors. Let me give an example. There is no real difference between selling advertising on a British newspaper website or a popular blog and selling it in a physical newspaper—the value is still created by the journalists based in the UK. If, on the other hand, I post a video I have made or a song I have recorded—many Members will be horrified by the idea of listening to me singing—even if that website is ultimately owned in some tropical tax haven, I have created the value in the UK, and it is right that the profits should be booked here and taxes paid here. The emphasis in the Treasury’s paper on the concept of user-created value is the right way to make that distinction.
Thirdly, we need small businesses to reap the benefits from any new tax on large digital firms. I am proud that we have helped hard-working people in the small firms in my constituency by reducing corporation tax and taking large numbers of small firms out of business rates altogether, but many still do pay a lot and it would be good to be able to go further.
Realistically, a new tax on large tech firms is unlikely to raise more than a few hundreds of millions of pounds, which is not a huge amount in the grand scheme of Government spending but none the less enough to help level the playing field a bit and allow the Government to do more to cut tax on small businesses. For example, the Government recently allocated £25 million to reduce business rates for small pubs, which has been a huge help to many of them. If we could raise more from large tech firms, we could do even more of that.
Those are the principles. Let me turn to the detail of how we might implement such a tax. There are a number of important decisions to make about its design. First, what should we be trying to tax? The clear principle we must push for internationally is that a business’s profits should be taxed in the countries where the value is created. At present, the accounting profits are simply too easy to move to a low-tax jurisdiction. Some in the media have talked about a tax on sales, but ultimately they are not a good proxy for value being added. Sales overseas are far from unique to digital businesses, and the idea of sales is not necessarily easy to define for businesses that have a free-to-use model. The Government are right to focus on the core concept of user-created value. What kinds of businesses does that mean we should try to tax? It means the free-to-use services that many of us use, be they search engines, social networks, app stores or online marketplaces; I am sure we could all name firms in all those categories. Those online platforms are not like other kinds of businesses, which perhaps create or store a bit of data on their customers; they are platforms substantially made up of user-generated content or have very valuable data from deep engagement with their users.
It is sometimes said online that with some of these businesses, “If you aren’t the customer, then you are the product.” Personally, I would put it more positively: the users are both the producers and the consumers for those new types of business. The European Commission uses the rather ugly word “prosumers” to describe that business model. That new business model is the reason why the tax system now needs to change to keep up.
The third question of detail is how exactly to design a tax on that new category of business. There is a distinction to be made between the ideal international agreement and something we could implement in the nearer term. Looking to an international agreement, I note that the Treasury’s paper talks about allocating,
“a share of the profits of the principal companies after routine functions in the group have been remunerated with an arm’s length return. That share would be designed to approximate the value that users generate for the business.”
That is simultaneously the right thing to be taxing, and something that will be quite an art to determine. I will give a couple of examples of the complexities here. The Treasury paper includes a discussion of the different kinds of value created by more or less active users and the issues created by users who cross borders regularly. It also explores some of the potential avoidance measures that firms might be tempted to take.
Looking at the positions that different Governments around the world are taking on this question, it seems unlikely that a new global agreement will be reached soon. Both the Commission and Treasury papers talk about a simpler interim tax on revenues in the meantime, which I think it is right for us to consider despite the difficulties of revenue-based taxes. The Commission paper talks about three types of revenues that would be taxed—revenues from selling online advertising, from digital marketplaces and from the sale of user-provided information. The Treasury’s paper has a similar range of options on the design of a tax: types of business, types of activity or a hybrid of the two. Personally, I think types of activity looks like the simplest option, but any of them could potentially work.
Finally, questions arise about what rate we might reasonably set, how much a tax could raise and who would be paying such a tax. A study by the United Nations of the largest 100 digital businesses in the world suggests that around two thirds of them are based in the United States, compared to only one fifth of other multinationals. We might expect such a levy to fall mainly on US-based firms. The European Commission in its paper goes a little further than the Treasury and sets out some potential thresholds and rates; it suggests taxing firms with worldwide revenues of over €750 million and European Union revenues of €50 million. There are, of course, very few firms with revenues on that scale. To me it feels as though that is the scale of businesses we should be aiming to tax.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This is an important, interesting and tricky subject, and one that we need to take a good long run-up to, so it is exactly the kind of debate we should be holding. He seems to be addressing mainly the question of how to make corporation tax, the historic tax on profits, work in a new age with these new kinds of businesses. Does he not feel that we should also be thinking about what is happening to the property taxes we have historically raised from business, and our likely need to replace business rates as a source of revenue? Rather than just fixing the profit tax, which he seems to be mainly suggesting, should we also be thinking about whether we might use whatever new tax base and taxing mechanism is created to also replace some of the property tax that businesses currently pay?
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to Westminster Hall for, I think, the first time in two years. I will just remind him that interventions need to be short.
Neil O’Brien
I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution. I agree that there are a number of different aspects of the tax system that are no longer very buoyant and need to be modernised. He picks on one that is perhaps a debate for another day, but none the less an important one.
Coming back to my point, few businesses would be affected by a tax with the kind of carve-outs that the European Commission is talking about. I hope that similarly, when a detailed proposal comes from the Treasury, we will also see a generous carve-out for smaller businesses. To give a sense of the difference it makes, I note in the Commission’s impact assessment that reducing the threshold for inclusion from €750 million to €500 million would double the number of firms affected and caught up by such a tax, but only raise revenues received by 7%—a lot more bureaucracy for not a lot of gain. That suggests to me that a focus on the very largest players is the right one.
On that basis, and on that base, the Commission suggests a 3% tax on revenues of those kinds, which it believes would raise around €5 billion a year across the EU as a whole. That would potentially mean hundreds of millions of pounds in the UK if we did something similar. As the Treasury moves towards making its own decisions on setting rates and thresholds, I am sure the Minister will be thinking about the same considerations and thinking about how a UK tax might fit alongside an EU one, if the EU ends up with a consensus to take action.
To conclude, while a new tax on large digital businesses might not raise vast sums, it could raise enough to make a substantial difference to small businesses in my constituency. It would be a welcome addition to the raft of anti-avoidance measures that we have seen in recent years—over 100 measures now, raising over £175 billion since 2010 alone—and if we can get those large, digital businesses to pay a fairer share of tax, we can go further in cutting the taxes small businesses pay, such as doubling the small business rate relief we have seen and extra help for small shops and pubs on top of that.
To get big tech to pay a fair share of tax, it seems to me that the Treasury is gearing up to propose some pretty bold and unconventional measures. I am sure some people and some firms will come out to oppose that, but given that we have completely new business models changing our economy and a clear case for reform, Ministers should be bold and I encourage them to go for it.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I am delighted to contribute to this debate and champion the transition to a digital form of taxation. The issue here is not only the businesses that we will be looking to tax, but the form that our taxation regime takes. Far too often, Governments are slow to modernise and adapt to the times, and I am glad to see that my colleagues in the Treasury have chosen to focus their attention on this area. I will follow the results with great interest.
Although I would never encourage digitalisation simply for its own sake, developments over the last five years have made the creation of a workable, transitional period leading to digital taxation an absolute necessity. We live in an age when cryptocurrencies, challenger banks and blockchain technology are taking off, while e-commerce continues its shake-up of the retail sector. Furthermore, the closure of local bank branches en masse around the country has resulted in individuals having to adapt to a rapidly changing pecuniary landscape. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can and must keep pace with the innovations of Silicon Valley and Tech City, as more and more tech companies enter the financial arena.
From a purely practical standpoint, the current annual system of tax returns is an administrative burden and an overly lengthy process for businesses. The programme of reforms will contribute to the HMRC target of reducing tax administration costs by £400 million by the year ending 2019-20. The old system was far too complex, and businesses would often only know their tax liabilities at the end of a financial year, which imposed uncertainty on them and ultimately prevented them from planning for the future.
As I understand it, by 2020, businesses, self-employed individuals and landlords will have the option of keeping track of their tax affairs digitally, updating HMRC at least quarterly via their digital account. Those quarterly updates will not amount to four separate tax returns in a year, despite a degree of uncertainty on that point. The Government have assured us that bureaucracy and constant form-filling will become a thing of the past, with the information that HMRC requires being automatically uploaded on to people’s digital accounts.
Businesses will be required to use the Making Tax Digital for Business system only from April 2019, and even then only to meet their VAT obligations. That will apply to businesses with a turnover above the VAT threshold; the smallest businesses will not be required to use the system, although they can choose to participate voluntarily. I believe that businesses with a turnover of below the £85,000 VAT threshold can also be great beneficiaries of digital taxation, and I hope the Government will give a lot of thought to the bespoke and innovative ways in which small businesses will be able to engage with these new foundations of tax.
Currently, most taxpayers cannot see a single picture of their liabilities and entitlements in one place. However, by 2020 customers will be able to see a comprehensive financial picture of their digital account, as they can with their online banking. HMRC customers and their agents will be able to interact with HMRC digitally and at their convenience. They already have access to a digital account, which will allow them to access an increasingly personalised picture of their tax affairs, along with prompts, advice and support through webchat and secure messaging. Digital record-keeping software will be synced with HMRC’s systems, allowing customers to exchange information directly from their software. I welcome these innovations and can see the utilisation of this system eventually being as natural as online banking.
The Government have said that they will not widen the scope of Making Tax Digital beyond VAT before the system has been shown to work well. I, for one, will be following the development of the programme throughout its implementation, with the expectation that this change will result in the desired outcomes. There will inevitably be some kinks in the system, and I hope that they will be ironed out. However, make no mistake: this is a progressive move that will encourage greater engagement with HMRC, save both the Government and the taxpayer money and ensure that businesses, whatever their size, are not shackled by bureaucracy and burdened by paperwork.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on bringing about this extremely important and timely debate. I know that many points will be made that reflect the strength of feeling in our own constituencies, as well as points about what we will look for from the Government in due course. I declare an interest at the outset as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for small and micro business.
Online businesses are growing rapidly and will continue to do so. I think we probably all agree that, as that happens, our tax system must catch up. As my hon. Friend said, international tax treaties and much of our domestic tax system were designed in an era when doing business necessitated having a physical presence. Large tech companies are able to create large, complex international tax structures to keep their taxes as low as possible, at the same time as their businesses stretch across borders. Small businesses in west Oxfordshire often ask me whether those large companies, which now take up so much of the market, are paying their fair share of tax. It is a real sore point and a bone of contention for small businesses that are required to have a concrete, bricks-and-mortar presence when many larger companies do not.
Independent high street shops, trading from brick-and-mortar premises, are now competing, in a very real sense, against large online companies that do not pay the same business rates in particular, because they do not have that same physical high street presence. Moreover, large companies can absorb the costs of bureaucracy and overheads—the costs involved in all businesses—much more because they have a larger presence but without the physical footprint.
Small businesses do not have international structures, and they do not have teams of expensive accountants and lawyers to help them to make the system work for them. In many cases they are run by a husband and wife, a father and son or members of a family who have owned a business for years and still work every hour God sends to make it work. The role of Government is therefore to help to level the playing field, to make sure that these engines of our economy and these jewels of our high street are able to compete with the large multinational companies on the internet.
We can all agree that we want our high streets to remain vibrant, buzzing and full of different businesses that sell, make and create all sorts of different products and jobs. I am particularly reminded of that every time I spend a day in my constituency in west Oxfordshire, or when I go around the streets of Witney or Chipping Norton or Woodstock. I know that the shadow Chancellor has a red book that he likes to illustrate his points with. I also have a red book that I will illustrate my point with. I can see the alarm on the Minister’s face as he wonders precisely which red book I am about to brandish, but it is a leaflet for the west Oxfordshire business awards 2018, which I attended last Friday night.
There are an extraordinary number of businesses in west Oxfordshire that do wonderful work, covering everything under the sun that one could possibly imagine: coffee, children’s clothing, travel, gardening and speciality milkshakes—who would have thought it? That is only the finalists for this year’s competition. Hundreds of others were not listed as finalists, and hundreds were listed last year or the year before.
If ever there was an illustration of quite why it is important that the Government pursue the business-friendly policies that they do, it is contained in this little red book—this bible, if you will, of economic success. It is a real testament to the dedication, passion and commitment of people all over west Oxfordshire who wake up one morning, have an idea, take a chance and then, without a large physical presence or large teams of international lawyers and accountants, make that idea a success. It is to help them that I rise today.
I have set out my stall, but what can the Government do? I submit that they can take a number of actions. In 2017, Amazon—I should say that other large online retailers are available—paid £7.4 million in corporation tax, despite making sales worth more than £7 billion in the UK, because tax is of course paid on profits, not on revenue. I suggest that more can clearly be done, and I know that the Government are starting to look at doing it, to reflect the true value of such companies and to ensure that our tax system is designed for the 21st century, not the 20th or the 19th.
I welcome the Treasury’s consulting on a new tax on the tech giants. We need to ensure that they pay their fair share alongside the smaller companies, and moreover that small companies are confident that the tax system is not stacked against them. I draw a distinction between types of online companies. My point is about large online companies; of course, many tech start-ups are online but are very small. I suggest that any such taxation—whether a new tax or an amendment to the existing tax system—should be reserved for the largest international businesses. What better way could there be to fund the NHS, defence or schools than by ensuring that those larger online companies pay their fair share of taxation alongside the small companies?
I am delighted that the 2017 global start-up ecosystem report from Startup Genome ranked London as the third best city in the world for tech start-ups—the only European city in the top five—behind only New York and Silicon Valley. Large cities tend to dominate the headlines, but as I hope I have illustrated, in the green lanes and rural villages of west Oxfordshire are hundreds of companies that drive our economy every day. It is those businesses that will make a real difference to all our constituents, our constituencies and the nation’s economy overall. We must not burden those start-ups with further administrative costs or further taxation. I welcome the action that the Government have taken to reduce corporation tax, but the additional revenue from any tax on big online retailers could enable us to help small businesses further with their corporation tax or to provide for further relief or exemptions for small firms—particularly those on the high street.
The Government can help with this issue, but I am very keen, in the final moments before I let others have a say, to say that there is more that we can do as well. The Government can help to level the playing field, but we must not forget that we all have a responsibility to shop local whenever we can and to support local businesses when possible. We must try to shop from them and not simply go to the large online retailers. That may make things easy, but it does not support those who are living in our towns and villages. We need small businesses—they are the engines of our local economies and they bring jobs, services and colour to our high streets. I ask the Government to bear those points in mind as they consider a way to tax the large retailers.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this vital and incredibly timely debate on an issue that we talk about in this Chamber and beyond.
An important principle that needs to be established is that of a level playing field on taxation as a whole across commerce. If we do not ensure that people have confidence in that, legitimate questions can be and are asked about how markets work, whether they are effective and whether the Government are regulating them properly.
Before I talk about the specific issue before us, it is important to recognise the huge benefit that the development of the internet has brought over the past 20 or 30 years. It is something of a truism to say this, but we have an entirely epoch-changing set of opportunities before us because of what the internet offers us and what e-commerce hopes to drive. We have been able to make more perfect—I use that phrase advisedly—markets in terms of reduced barriers to entry. We are able to serve customers in an easier, more timely and more convenient way. We can ensure that people have the things that they want, and that we respond to the combined views of people, as demonstrated via the mechanism of the market. In the United Kingdom, 1.5 million people are employed in e-commerce businesses directly, and a vast supply chain and vast group of people support those industries indirectly. It is important to recognise and acknowledge the benefits that the internet has brought over the past 15 or 20 years—within our lifetimes—to the country as a whole and to the world in general.
However, the principle that my hon. Friend advances is absolutely right. We must have a taxation system that is fair, notwithstanding the huge benefits that have been brought to society by the internet over the past 15 or 20 years. I completely agree with the statement in the Government’s paper that failure to find the right system undermines the fairness, sustainability and public acceptability of the corporate tax system, which we need to avoid at all costs.
I therefore welcome the review of taxation and what the Government are doing to look at the matter in more detail. I acknowledge and recognise the challenge—my hon. Friend outlined that better and more comprehensively than I could ever hope to do it. The Government are right to have an open mind on many aspects. It is right that they will have an open discussion with those who are interested, and to set out that, of necessity, they are likely to look at both short and longer-term solutions.
Underneath, there is an inherent tension and problem, which is how we define user-created values. I think I accept the principle that taxation should be based on value creation as a whole, but how we define that and whether we create a system that is incredibly complicated in order to be able to tax it is something on which the debate and discussion has a long way to go. It is good to see the Government are approaching the matter in that open way.
I also think we have to get away from some of the tendencies over the past five years or so on corporate tax to shout loudly as a collective political class about corporate tax, rather than doing some of the hard spade work. That is exactly what the paper suggests and what many hon. Members are debating. It is no good shouting at companies in Select Committees when they are obeying the letter of the law, even if they are not obeying the spirit. Let us change the law so that that does not need to be done. I say that as someone who has just joined one of those Committees and will probably be shouting at people over the coming months and years as a result.
I understand why that happens, but I am similarly sceptical of gifts, benevolence and contributions to the Exchequer for no apparent reason, much as I understand the principle. That kind of approach is not one that we should perpetuate over the long term if we want to create the stable taxation system that attracts companies, promotes economic growth and supports development on all sides.
I therefore welcome the discussion. I welcome the willingness to review and to do so in such an open way. I agree with many of the points that have been made, particularly in the introduction. I would just like to broaden the subject slightly and make two additional points.
This is a symptom of a much wider challenge in capitalism, corporation tax and taxation in general. We are entering an era of internationalisation with regard to many of the challenges. That has been evident for a number of years, but has come increasingly to the fore over the past decade or so. I am thinking of the cross-border challenges that my hon. Friend outlined. What the OECD has done to date is a good start—the principles it has outlined are positive—but there appear to be limited opportunities to move that forward in the short term. We have to encourage supranational organisations to take on these knotty problems and look more closely at how they can solve them over the long term. If we do not have the institutions that can support the regulation of things such as tax, we will lose the confidence of populaces that rely on us to ensure that taxation is taken. We can debate in this Chamber how big or small that taxation should be, but we have to ensure that the framework is there in the first instance to support it.
There is a much wider conversation to be had, not just about taxation but about the approaches within the sphere of the internet, and how it has commercialised over the past 20 years or so. That is probably a debate for another time, but I hope you will allow me to spend just 30 seconds on it, Dame Cheryl.
I separate out entirely the many hundreds of thousands, or millions, of companies that use the internet to deliver services daily in a cheaper, and a more efficient and effective way. I welcome and celebrate them as an excellent example of how capitalism works, but a very small number of very large companies at the top of the tree have created what are essentially monopolies. They have essentially taken over whole swathes of industries. Some of them have created those industries, and all credit to them. Many of them have become very rich in doing so, or the people behind them have. But they have essentially annexed an individual industry. In any other area of commerce, we would call them out for what they are. They are monopolies or oligopolies. If someone has 90% of the search engine market, they are a monopoly. If they have 100% of the social media market, they are a monopoly. If they have 47% of the e-commerce market in the United Kingdom, they are a monopoly.
We can debate the definition of monopoly, but there are monopolistic companies at the top of these industries, and we have to think in the longer term about how we address that. If we do not do so, we will lose the confidence of people that we can regulate effectively. Either they have become so embedded that they are ultimately the infrastructure—they are the pipes upon which things run—and should be regulated accordingly, or we have to look at how we can stop monopolistic practices. The first duty of those of us who are pro-free market and pro-capitalist is to avoid corporatism and monopolistic practices at the top. Perhaps that is a debate for another time, but it is important for the wider point about how we tax, because of the activities of those companies. The reasons why we tax them in the first place derive from some of the things that they do—some of the practices and some of the monopolistic instincts that, for good or otherwise, have grown up over the past decade or so.
I therefore very much welcome the debate. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough for introducing it and for giving us the opportunity. I look forward to the Government’s response in relation to the paper.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and to see in his place the Paymaster General, who is one of the most thoughtful Ministers in the Government and whom I look forward to hearing from later. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. I do not wish to go through content that has already been provided to hon. Members, but I do wish to approach the topic from a slightly different direction.
This is an exciting time for the United Kingdom. Whatever side of the fence people were on, we are leaving the European Union, and we need to ensure that the economy and the country are fighting fit, not only for businesses to exist for their own sake, but for the people they are there to create jobs and wealth for, and for the next generation who will live with the consequences of our decisions today.
I am very pleased that the Government have an agenda for a more global Britain. We are finding our feet in the world and want to ensure that we build bridges with more countries around the world, and become more internationalist and a great trading nation once again. In that context, it is important to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak), who is not able to be in his place this afternoon, would say, the fourth industrial revolution, which is at a critical juncture in our country’s and the world’s history.
Technologies are emerging and affecting our lives in ways that former generations could not have imagined, perhaps in ways that we could not have imagined only 10 years ago. We are in a new era that builds and extends the impact of digitalisation in new and unanticipated ways. In that context, it is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough secured this debate.
In 2016, digital tech employed some 1.5 million people in this country with about £6.8 billion worth of investment in the United Kingdom, which is 50% higher than any other European country, which shows that this country is leading the way. There is always more to do, but we have a good track record of success. It is important to cite that, because we must ensure that, as we develop our industrial strategies, and as the Government develop their digital taxation policies, we continue to back the innovators and drive growth. We must support those creating jobs and those who trade with the world to create lower prices for our consumers, providing greater choice for people across this country, but we must step in when people do not play by the rules.
Some Members have made the point about the delicate balance whereby we want to grow the economy and back those who do the right thing, but must ensure that it is fair. It is that sense of fairness—it is almost a gut feel—that people out in the country feel is often not delivered on. I welcome the fact that the Government are trying to tackle that but, as I said, there is always more to do. That comes in the great context of the UK economy growing. It continues to grow—it has grown 14.8% since 2010, perhaps confounding those who are pessimistic about the United Kingdom’s prospects in the years ahead. I mention that because it is important that digital taxation and the plethora of Treasury policy is pro-business and pro-people.
Corporation tax is 19%, down 9% since 2010, with a target of going further, which is a good thing, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who referenced earlier in an intervention that it is not just corporation tax that counts, and that business rates are very important to small businesses, to which we have given a significant number of exemptions. That is welcome, but there is always more to do. Why? Someone can have a big warehouse in any town or even in the countryside selling lots of very low-margin products, on which they will not make much profit.
Such businesses face challenges when they compete with small offices, or perhaps not even offices, selling high-margin products but paying low rates or no rates, and of course they compete with others further afield who have a different tax regime, with different rates or different regimes entirely. We must ensure we are internationally competitive. Just as we have reduced corporation tax so that we are leading the world, we must ensure we do the same in other taxation.
It is important that we raise taxation in a fair way. We are raising taxation because, without a strong economy delivering it to the Exchequer, we cannot fund public services. Nor can we help people to keep more of the money they earn. We have cut income tax for 31 million people, raising the personal allowance to do so. We have taken a lot of people out of tax altogether. We can afford those things in the long run only if we get taxation right, and only if we ensure that business taxes are internationally competitive. We should encourage businesses to base themselves here, and ensure that they genuinely get money into the Exchequer.
As I said earlier, we must ensure that the system is fair, because tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance irks people. I am pleased that, since 2010, HMRC has recovered £160 billion for the Exchequer, which is good news. That money can go into public services when it did not previously. I understand we are trying to combat online VAT fraud as well. That is good progress, but there is more to do.
I note in the Government’s report that they seek to have more OECD and G20 co-operation to control those measures and tackle the issues. The report states:
“the preferred and most sustainable solution to this challenge is reform of the international corporate tax framework”.
I agree with that because there is no point in our doing one thing if other countries do not follow, and no point in our doing one thing if we cost jobs in this country and put businesses out of business. That is not in the Government’s, the country’s or the people’s interest.
Businesses employ people who need to look after themselves and their families through the security of a job. We must maintain competitiveness and ensure we deliver lower taxes for all, but we must ensure that those taxes are fair and that they are paid. I am afraid to say that that is absolutely in stark contrast to Labour party policy. Although the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is a good chap with whom I have had many pleasant exchanges, I have concerns that the Labour party—I wait to be confounded and corrected—does not seem interested in how to make businesses and taxes work, and instead is looking at policies concerned only with protectionism, looking at the past and taxing hard-working people more.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point about Labour and tax, but it is not just about Labour. It is important to take into account the Scottish National party. Its tax-varying powers were used to increase bands of taxation, which has led to unintended consequences. The impact on marriage allowances and pensions and things will disadvantage people in our constituencies.
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. It is right that we consider the implications across the whole of this country of the policies of the Labour party and the SNP-led Government. We should also look at where the Liberal Democrats and Greens wish to take our taxation system, which is wrong-headed in so many ways. The tax systems they espouse seem to look back and to tax people more. They do not seem to be interested in how to boost business. They are not interested in the future. They do not seem to care about the next generation and how we will ensure that we create a Britain fit for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Thank you, Dame Cheryl, for a carefully considered selection. I am glad I was the least worst alternative.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. I was expecting another hon. Member to stand to indicate that they wished to speak. They have not yet stood, so you may speak, Mr Philp.
Chris Philp
I am sorry that that more attractive alternative did not present itself. However, it is of course an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing the debate.
I am not sure I want to confess this in public, but I will: when this document, “Corporate tax and the digital economy: position paper update”, arrived in my inbox this month, I quivered with excitement because the topic is so important. I am delighted to see the Government, and particularly the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who I gather has been upgraded to be the Paymaster General as well—
Chris Philp
He is a man of many talents. I was delighted to see him taking the initiative in this important area.
It is worth saying that significant progress has been made in the past eight years, as some colleagues have mentioned. The country’s tax gap is at just 6%, down from 8% in 2010, and is the lowest among OECD countries, which is a very good thing. The amount of corporation tax that we have collected has gone up from about £35 billion to about £55 billion in the past eight years, despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) mentioned, the rate at which it is levied has gone down. That is all extremely welcome, and the Government are to be warmly commended for that progress.
It is, however, also true—I think this view commands widespread support—that a number of typically large multinational companies, often providing digital services, such as Google and Facebook, have succeeded in organising their affairs, fully in conformity with current international tax laws, such that they manage to argue that the substance of their economic activity takes place in very low-tax jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are often in the Caribbean, and I suspect that they are not selected for their clement climate. That situation strikes me as fundamentally unfair and unreasonable. The Government have, of course, already taken a lead in the matter, via the base erosion and profit shifting initiative, including such things as limiting the deductibility of interest expense to 30% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. The UK Government led on that, and are to be strongly congratulated on it. However, there is scope to go significantly further.
It just does not seem right or fair that a company such as Google, with revenues in relation to UK customers in the order of £4 billion, pays virtually no tax by successfully arguing that the substance of its economic activity lies elsewhere. That is why I was so excited by the position paper update, published a few weeks ago. The approach laid out in the excellent position paper, which by the way I fully support, is a multilateral one of trying on an international basis to redefine economic activity to account for the value created by users. It is exactly the right thing to do, and I hope we are successful in that. However, I suspect that as with any multilateral enterprise, it will take time to get agreement with many other countries, particularly when some of the companies concerned will use their influence to try to slow things down and stymie progress. While it is certainly right to take a multilateral approach to changing the way we define economic activity, it is important to have a plan B that could be implemented much more quickly.
The position paper deals with that admirably. It discusses a tax on sales and, as hon. Members have said, the European Union is looking at that. I fully support that approach. A threshold of the kind that we have talked about, to exclude small and even medium-sized companies, is the right thing. The number that I heard mentioned—3% of sales—seems reasonable. A point that I want to make more for the 27 European countries than for us is that care should be taken to ensure that the EU does not use it as a pretext for retaining the tax receipts and developing a European Union treasury function for the first time. That will not, I think, concern us, but it might concern the other 27 members.
I advocate that if the European Union does not move quickly enough and implement the sales tax in a timely fashion—and by “timely” I mean that I hope it would happen in the next 12 to 24 months—the UK should take unilateral action. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire made a cautionary point about not making the UK uncompetitive, but of course the tax would be based not on where the company was domiciled but on where its sales occurred and where its users were. It would not be a disincentive to locating in the United Kingdom, either for permanent establishment or locus of incorporation. A sales tax or, indeed, a user tax would not violate the principle of competitiveness to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. We are generally speaking the second largest market for the companies in question, behind the United States of America. We are significantly larger than Germany because our economy tends to be rather more intensively digital. I do not think that, if we took unilateral action, Google or Facebook would suddenly refuse to do business in the United Kingdom. If they did, they would be pulling out of their second largest global market.
I suspect that unilateral action on a sales tax while we are a member of the European Union—and, I suspect, during the transition period up to December 2020—would probably be classed as VAT, or sufficiently similar to VAT to fall foul of European regulations. If we have to consider unilateral action, which I advocate and support, prior to our exit from the EU or the end of the transition period, something other than a sales tax would have to be considered. Something we might consider that would not fall foul of EU regulation on sales taxes and VAT would be a tax based on users. We might set a user-based tax of a certain pound amount per active user, for example. That would, again, apply only to the very largest companies with, perhaps, a UK turnover in excess of £100 million. That would make sure that they made a reasonable contribution before we managed to come up with a multilateral solution at global level or a sales tax at European level. It would, I think, be a good move. It would not undermine our competitiveness and it would mean that those companies were seen to make a fair contribution.
The proceeds of such a tax could usefully be applied in the area of business rates. Several colleagues have mentioned that, and I am sure that small businesses in all our constituencies have raised the issue of business rates with us. Of course, digital companies such as Google and Facebook—and even Amazon, because it operates from large warehouses in remote locations that do not have a high rateable value—pay little in business rates. They also pay little in corporation tax, although of course they pay their full share of payroll taxes. It is inherently rather unfair: local high street businesses pay their full share of business rates and corporation taxes. So some of the money raised by the digital tax, whatever form it might take, could be applied to offer business rate relief, particularly to smaller businesses—perhaps those with less than £28,000 a year of rateable value.
I should be interested to hear the Financial Secretary’s response to the one or two ideas that I have set out. Really, however, I want to express my strong and enthusiastic support for the course that he has laid out. It is a great pleasure to come here and support it.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl.
When I heard that there was to be a debate on digital taxation I was really excited, because digital and tax are two of my favourite subjects. I am sure that hon. Members know that I classify myself as a low-tax Tory, but not many people will know that my career to date has been in digital. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing the debate and wholeheartedly support his comments and suggestions. I shall focus on user-generated content, an important matter that he spoke about.
Many hon. Members have spoken today about property taxes, business rates and the losses that smaller companies have had to endure in competing with large digital companies. Inevitably, the wider discussion when we talk about large tech companies is about tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax has various purposes, and one is to deal with the negative side-effects of those activities. The Financial Secretary will be familiar with Pigouvian taxes, which are designed specifically to tackle those negative externalities. That is what I propose today.
The main externality for my constituency is to do with crime and policing. Cyber-crime has grown exponentially, and user-generated content is a significant part of that. There are crimes we never saw previously—the creation, sharing and distribution of indecent images, especially of children; harassment on social media; cyber-bullying and other activities designed to cause distress and anxiety; and, of course, online activities related to terrorism, hate crime and all sorts of incitement. All those activities take place on large digital platforms, but it is claimed that the content is not theirs but belongs to the user. How are we going to deal with that? This issue has taken up a significant proportion of the time and priorities of Essex police. The police and crime commissioner and the chief constable have reiterated that dealing with cyber-crime is their No. 1 priority, and a lot of police time is redirected to that area. Who has suffered? The people with whom many of these large digital businesses are competing.
Local businesses in my high street have suffered an unprecedented spate of burglaries. I will not get into arguments about cuts in police numbers or whatever, because I do not think it is about that. This is about the police having to do so much more than they ever did before. Many of the crimes that I have listed did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. This is not just a matter for the Home Office; it is one for the Treasury.
The principle of a Pigouvian tax is a financial matter and has been established in many other areas. For example, the British Transport police are funded by subscriptions paid for by train companies, and local businesses in certain towns invest in business improvement districts that fund police officers. Pubs and clubs have to pay licence fees that contribute to the policing of the negative externalities that come from their activities. Recently, I have seen beauty parlours have to get a licence because they have been used as a cover for money laundering and other illegal working. We should consider taxing this new area. I do not like to propose new taxes, but the cost of these activities is being borne by citizens and businesses across the country, and it is those who make the most money from them who should be paying.
A double dividend comes from these sorts of taxes—we can see the cost of the crimes and direct money to the areas most affected. It is not good enough for companies to say that the issue has nothing to do with them, or not to appreciate the social cost of their activities. My remarks have been brief, but my question to the Minister is this: given the many externalities from online businesses, and particularly from user-generated content, should the large digital companies that create and run those platforms pay a significant amount of the cost?
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this genuinely important debate. I agree with much of what he said at the start of his contribution, particularly about tax base erosion. That is why I welcome what the Government have said previously about the focus being on economic activity rather than simply profit. We must begin to tackle the rather vexed and long-standing issue of profit shifting.
However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s interim solution would work. In essence it would be a turnover tax, and although there might be some superficial merit in that, it could potentially be damaging for high-volume, low-margin businesses. It would also, I suspect, immediately increase the risk viewed by those who provide capital for large digital start-ups—perhaps those with a large turnover and a business plan that will not see profit for some time. One can see how the funders of capital for such start-ups might be tempted to put their money into similar businesses located elsewhere.
Chris Philp
Google and Facebook can be described as many things, but “low-margin” is not one of them. I suggested a threshold of £100 million for UK sales or €750 million for EU-wide sales—such businesses are certainly not the start-ups referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
Stewart Hosie
Indeed they are not, but I was referring specifically to an increased risk for start-ups that perhaps have a similar model. That is important if we are to tackle the monopoly argument that was raised earlier.
This debate is not only about taxing digital companies; it is also about the UK Government policy of making tax digital. The SNP fully supports the principles behind that and the move to a phased introduction of digital reporting, not least because we called for it previously. However, we have concerns about the implications that digital reporting might have for small businesses with limited connectivity or in rural areas. We are also concerned about the closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and the rest of the UK, because that will limit the Revenue’s ability to provide the help and guidance that small businesses and individuals need.
Let me briefly take those three issues in turn. Following the consultation, on 13 July the Minister outlined the new timetable, which we welcomed, and said that only businesses with a turnover above the VAT threshold would have to keep digital records, and only for VAT purposes. That will happen in 2019, and businesses will not be asked to keep digital records or to update the Revenue quarterly for other taxes until at least 2020. We welcome those measures, but they will still require businesses to face challenges. Those challenges include changes to record keeping, because businesses will no longer be able to rely solely on manual records. There will also be changes to VAT returns, which must be submitted through the functional compatible software and not the normal HMRC portal, and all that is supposed to take place at around the same time as the UK leaves the EU. We all know that in a period of flux when there are changes to systems, there is more opportunity for fraud. What action will be taken so that we are observant and ensure that people do not try to fiddle the system at a time of a number of simultaneous changes, which include leaving the EU and the introduction of the online digital report?
As I said, the SNP is concerned about the effect that digital reporting could have on small businesses with limited connectivity or in rural areas. In particular, we are concerned about the impact on small businesses with limited technology for connectivity—or those that do not make much use of the internet—if they have to report online. Such measures will also affect smallish businesses in rural areas, where connectivity may not be as good as is required. I know there is a fall-back position, which I welcome, but will the Minister confirm that if digital capacity is not there, the fall-back position will be the current manual system, and that we will not create a new manual system to replicate the online system as it goes live?
The closure of HMRC offices could limit the Revenue’s ability to help businesses and individuals. That is important because as we know, a large part of the tax gap is due to error by both those paying and the Revenue. With the introduction of a new system, combined with the closure of local tax offices, may we have an assurance that there will be a good degree of forbearance for anything identified as an honest mistake during that period? I am also aware, as other hon. Members will be, of how specific local knowledge has uncovered fraudulent activity that would have gone undiscovered in a more general, generic system. Will the Minister confirm what checks and balances will be introduced with the new digital reporting, particularly on VAT, to ensure that some of the rather more obvious scams that we all know and have seen are detected, and the fraudsters punished?
My final point is slightly tangential, but it is important: we must not let technology drive the policy. If the digital tax roll-out is a huge success, one can see the temptation for the Government to say that we should lower the VAT threshold—after all, it is only a change to a number in the computer system. However, if the VAT threshold is lowered—it was rumoured that that would happen at the last Budget—businesses that turn over £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000, and make a good living for someone, or even two livings, will suddenly have to take 20% off their bottom line because their raw costs are low and they can claim little back. If the digital tax roll-out works, the Minister must not allow that to drive the policy and drive down the VAT threshold. I believe that would be a mistake, because it would crush entrepreneurialism and start-ups if people thought that with that additional VAT burden, it would be a struggle to make even one living out of a business that turns over £60,000 or £70,000.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on this important topic. I am in agreement with much of what has been said: I am not sure whether I should be worried about that or the other side of the Chamber should be. As for the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), I am more than happy to get the shadow Chancellor to sign his red book, if he thinks that will be of help. I think I will give the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) a copy of “Funding Britain’s future”, and he will be as excited and quivering as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) as he reads it.
In today’s tax system there is clearly one rule for workers, small businesses and the self-employed and another rule for large multinational corporations, which have successfully harnessed globalisation to maximise profits while minimising the tax they are required to pay. People have indicated that today. According to HMRC, multinationals avoided as much as £5.8 billion last year in corporation tax alone. That represents a 50% increase from the Government’s previous forecast.
The growing discrepancy, as hon. Members have alluded to, between the revenues that companies such as Google and Amazon record and the low level of tax they pay in the UK only demonstrates how divorced from the reality of the modern economy our corporate tax system has become. Small businesses, on the other hand, will be subjected by April 2019 to increasing regulations and stricter timetables for the filing of online taxation, notwithstanding some of the amelioration of that process. The Opposition have raised that issue many times. The mandated start time for small businesses to file online for returns will coincide closely with Brexit, so there is a serious risk that they will be overwhelmed with the nature and scale of changes required during that period, especially in relation to digitalising tax returns.
I congratulate the Minister on his Paymaster General position. That reminds me, when the cheques are signed in Her Majesty’s presence and it is not the Minister, I am not sure who does not trust whom in that situation. Despite the Minister’s promises over the past year, I am not quite sure that enough has been done to trial the software and that should be looked at. There is a consensus across the Chamber about large multinational technological companies not paying their fair share of tax, and increasingly shifting profits offshore to tax havens and countries with low-tax regimes. We have heard, for example, that eBay paid £1.6 million on £1.3 billion worth of revenue raised in the UK. It goes on and on. Credit to those hon. Members who have raised this.
There is also the question of HMRC resourcing—raised by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)—which is an elephant in the room as far as I and other hon. Members are concerned. The Government launched two consultations last year on corporation tax and the digital economy, and royalties on withholding tax. Those are important steps, but they remain pretty poor compensation when considering the deficit of meaningful action that is being taken. The EU, on the other hand, is already considering, as hon. Members have indicated, the introduction of 3% tax on the revenues of multinational digital businesses. That tax would affect firms such as Facebook and Google with a global annual revenue—as the hon. Member for Croydon South has said—of above €750 million and taxable EU revenue above €50 million. So the policy reflects a growing shift across the world, where many countries are moving towards a tax system where companies would be expected to pay a tax on revenues rather than profits. For example, there is currently a Bill going through the Indian Parliament that would force companies to pay tax on their economic presence. Those are all options for discussion and debate. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harborough has brought this debate to us today, because we can start the particular process of teasing out those options. That was a problem first raised at the global level by the OECD in 2012 via its base erosion and profit shifting initiative, which has also been mentioned today.
In the press, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that a tax on the revenues of tech companies in the UK is the “preferred option”. It might come out in the Government’s review. It will be interesting to know how the Financial Secretary came to that decision. Perhaps he can tell us more about that today. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has rightly pointed out that any action must be in co-operation with other states, as far as possible, to prevent the UK becoming an outlier. It argues that unilaterally abandoning a negotiated international approach to allocating taxable profits between countries would risk retaliation, double taxation and perversely new arbitrage opportunities.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that in terms of profit allocation that does need to be done multilaterally on a global basis, but does he accept that a sales tax—or certainly a user tax—could be done unilaterally?
Peter Dowd
I think the debate is to be had. That is the point. In the spirit of co-operation the debate has been started today and I have tried to put in my tuppence worth, as have other hon. Members. With that in mind, I ask the Minister what discussions the Chancellor has had with EU counterparts about an EU-wide initiative to tax tech companies’ revenues. How will the EU’s initiative complement the Government’s plans? What is the likelihood of the EU’s tech tax being introduced before we leave the EU on 29 March 2019? Will the UK adopt the EU’s tax on tech companies’ revenues irrespective of us leaving?
Finally, what discussions has Her Majesty’s Treasury had with representatives from other countries outside the EU on a tax revenue for tax companies, particularly at last week’s G20 meeting? It is extremely important that the UK acts as part of a collective effort to stand up to tax avoidance and to ensure that tech companies and other multinational corporations pay their fair share and cannot operate outside the law. I exhort the Government to test out some of the suggestions made today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. It was a pleasure to hear the opening speech, because it was insightful, clear and well-structured and set out. Given that this is a highly technical subject, that was quite an achievement. It was also extremely thoughtful. It has been remarked by a number of hon. Members that there are quite a few of us on this side of the House. That is because we care deeply about issues such as tax. Traditionally, we like to see taxes as low as possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) rightly pointed out, but we also recognise that tax is important, because it provides the finances for vital public services—our national health service, our social care, our armed forces, our police, our teachers and so on. We also recognise, as several hon. Members have pointed out, that it is important in terms of fairness and of having a level playing field—particularly, in that context, for those hard-working small businesses that occupy our high streets, which have to pay their business rates, a tax which cannot be avoided whether a business is profitable or unprofitable. On this side of the House, we recognise the paramount importance of getting to grips with the issues we have been discussing today.
Hon. Members have, understandably, raised the issues of avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. Conservative Members have dealt at length on the great success we have had in that respect. We have raised or protected £175 billion since 2010. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world—the difference between what we could collect and actually do collect—at 6%. HMRC is doing a great job, by and large, in ensuring that those who are due to pay tax do indeed pay it.
It is important to point out, as several hon. Members have, that what we are discussing today is predominantly not about avoidance and evasion. That is an important distinction. Whatever we may feel about tech companies or internet-based businesses—and they do not always acquit themselves admirably—the accusation is not in any way that they are avoiding taxation, but simply that the current international tax regime does not effectively accommodate the way they generate value within the United Kingdom.
If this is not about avoidance, what exactly is it all about? It is about the way the current international tax regime assesses taxation and where corporation tax should fall due based on where the economic activity occurs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) rightly pointed out, typically we would be looking at the factories, the employment of people, where the intellectual property lies and where the decisions around risk and investment in the business are taken. We know that for certain types of digital platform—typically, the search engines, the online marketplaces and the social media providers—a lot of the value is generated via the interaction between the end user and the platform itself. Therein rests the actual value. The question we then have to ask is how do we effectively address that situation and ensure that where businesses generate huge sums of profit within the United Kingdom, a fair share of corporation tax falls due to them.
We have already brought in a measure, announced in the autumn Budget, to tax the royalties that flow to intellectual property held in zero and low-tax jurisdictions. This is very much a front-foot approach to those digital-based businesses that are shifting profits out of the United Kingdom in tax terms. We are consulting on that and legislation will come forward in due course. We expect it to raise around £800 million by 2023. That is a significant sum. It is the kind of amount that could potentially be useful to ease the pressure on our high streets, as many have called for this afternoon.
The position paper last year and the March paper we just introduced by way of consultation were mentioned. In those papers, we have suggested that our preferred route is a globally negotiated deal with our partners in not just the European Union but the wider OECD. That is to ensure that any agreement works effectively, and that we avoid the problems associated with unilateral action, such as situations of double taxation between ourselves and countries that we trade with around the globe. However, in that paper we do set out an interim position.
I should make clear the Government’s intention that if we do not move forward at sufficient pace to put the appropriate measures in place, we will seriously consider an interim position—a unilateral move, which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) was keen to see. Under those circumstances, we would potentially look at a tax based on revenue, recognising that we do not want to capture market entrants or early-stage companies that may have some level of revenues and therefore fall to this type of tax, but which could be unprofitable at that stage of their development. This is where the whole issue of de minimis and thresholds comes in, which hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon.
In that context, it might be worth briefly referring to the proposals put forward by the European Union in its recent paper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, it has suggested that a 3% tax on revenues would be appropriate, raising about €5 billion, but that there should be a de minimis on the basis of those companies’ worldwide turnover and the level of taxable revenues that would fall due within the European Union. It also makes the point that it is important, within EU domestic tax legislation and the treaties between member states, that we have a definition of the concept of significant economic presence, which captures this idea of creating value in the way that I described. It also recognised the importance of going further and factoring in those definitions within the bilateral or multilateral trade agreements and tax treaties that we have with the rest of the world—with non-EU member states. That is to capture the fact that it is often companies outside of the EU that are transacting in this manner—many of those businesses are in the United States.
I will conclude by saying that we are very serious about this matter. I have a great deal of time and some affection for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), despite the red book that beats in his breast pocket as I address him. In response to him I have to say that it is this party, the Conservative party in government, that is doing something about this issue. It is not the Labour party that ever got on top of avoidance, evasion and non-compliance—just look at the 6% compared with the 8%-plus under Labour. We are the party that is bearing down on these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who will wrap up the debate in a moment, has my personal assurance that we will continue to take this matter extremely seriously. We will press ahead with vigour on the basis that, ultimately, it is only fair to do so.
Neil O’Brien
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. It has been a huge pleasure to see so many right hon. and hon. Members and Friends taking part in this debate and we have heard some brilliant contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) made a series of good points about Making Tax Digital and the huge £400 million benefit of reduced administrative costs that we might see from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) represents Woodstock. Although it was not in his constituency, it is sometimes said of the Woodstock festival that, “If you can remember it, you weren’t there.” Clearly the same is true of the West Oxfordshire business awards. He made the good point that we must all shop local.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) made a brilliant speech and talked about the potentially monopolistic nature of some of these firms. That was a further rationale, which I did not pick up in my speech, for having a tax that is targeted on the very largest firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) added another rationale for such a new tax—to pay for the externalities caused by this. People running trains pay for the police on the trains. People in business improvement districts pay for extra policing. It is right that some people pay for the costs created by the growth of the online economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) made the point about Britain’s incredibly strong tech start-up scene compared with those of other countries, and the need to protect it. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) made the really interesting point that we might be less concerned about the development of the EU’s tax in this area because we are leaving. It might unite leavers and remainers to think that this is an instance in which we might be leaving, but becoming good neighbours.
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raised some important questions and concerns about such a tax, including answerable questions about carving out start-ups and lower margin businesses, which my right hon. Friend the Minister answered well. The hon. Gentleman is right that a turnover tax is quite an unusual thing to be doing. However, because it is the only way to solve the problem, it is right to explore it.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said that we might all wonder who is more worried about the growing consensus. All I can say is that I look forward to being in the same Division Lobby as him later in the year perhaps. I thank the Minister for his kind words and reassurance that the Government plan to press ahead carefully but decisively to ensure we have what we all want on this side of the House—a low-tax system that is also a fair tax system.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered digital taxation.
Emergency Services and New Estates
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the response of emergency services to calls from newly built estates.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this issue to hon. Members’ attention. In August 2017, my constituent Charlotte told me about a heartbreaking incident that claimed the life of her partner and changed her life dramatically. My constituent and I want the debate to be the beginning of a meaningful conversation, and to press for change in the way that emergency services and local authorities communicate when a house becomes occupied on a new housing estate.
On average, it should take the emergency services seven minutes to be on the scene of a critical incident, or a maximum of 15 minutes. In my constituent’s case, it took over half an hour. Neither the operator nor the paramedics were at fault. Instead, we found a significant problem with the GPS system on which our first responders rely.
We all have new developments springing up in our constituencies.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the important debate. I had a similar incident in my constituency in Kirkby on a new housing estate, where the ambulance took 30 minutes to arrive. Thankfully, that did not result in my constituent’s death, but we are talking about life and death situations. There must be a practical way of solving the problem.
Jenny Chapman
I agree, and I am grateful to see my hon. Friend and other hon. Members present. I regret not asking for more time, because conversations that I have had with hon. Members in the lead-up to the debate have indicated that there is substantially more interest in the problem than I had realised.
Like many young couples, Andy and Charlotte had recently moved into their new property. It was their first home together, in which they dreamt of starting a family. On the night of 11 February 2017, Charlotte found herself in a situation she had never thought she would encounter. Her partner Andy, a fanatical cyclist, had just completed a 50-mile bike ride—he had ridden more than 1,000 miles in the previous year. After settling down for the night, Andy became unwell, and it was later confirmed that he had suffered a cardiac arrest. Charlotte called 999, proceeded to carry out CPR on her husband and spoke to the operator.
Charlotte told the operator that the ambulance crew would need to access her estate via a particular road. Unfortunately, although a property may have a postcode, many homes on the 40,000 unadopted roads on new estates are not visible on the systems used in emergency or first responder vehicles.
As I later found out by sending freedom of information requests to all ambulance trusts, in many cases, emergency vehicle sat-navs are updated only every six to eight weeks on average. Even when updated regularly, the information used to update the sat-navs is only as up to date as that provided by Ordnance Survey. There is no standard process across ambulance trusts or other emergency services. One trust stated that it is
“aiming to update a minimum of every 6 months but sooner if practically possible”.
Thanks to Charlotte’s directions, the paramedics were in the correct area, but the ambulance ended up driving down a lane that led to a river bank with no bridge across to her estate. Charlotte could see the ambulance, but its way was blocked by a five-foot wall on one side and a six-foot fence on the other. The paramedics had no choice but to reverse back up the lane for three quarters of a mile, causing further significant delay.
Charlotte heroically gave CPR to her husband and directions to the operators. Thirty minutes after she dialled 999, paramedics finally arrived on the scene and took control. Their best efforts to resuscitate Andy tragically came too late to save his life.
I applied for the debate because in different circumstances, we would not be having this discussion. It is often the case that, through awful events, faults are identified and can be dealt with. Although nothing can bring Andy back, Charlotte would like his story to be used to stop similar incidents happening in future.
About 200,000 homes were built in 2017. Many hon. Members have such developments in their constituencies, so it is important that we get this right.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend given any consideration to earlier action? Perhaps local authorities could better engage with health services, ambulance services and Ordnance Survey at the planning stage.
Jenny Chapman
Yes. As I will go on to explain, the problem is that there is no standardised approach, but there ought to be.
At the moment, ambulance trust mapping databases are provided under the national public sector mapping agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, Ordnance Survey releases updates free of charge every six weeks, but it is reliant on local authorities or developers submitting a request. As I mentioned earlier, emergency vehicle GPS systems are updated only every six to eight weeks on average, when they receive a routine mechanical service—though even that is not the case for all trusts. There is potential for delay at several stages of the process.
There is no consistency between local authority areas, and I have found idiosyncratic practices. In one local authority, the ambulance trust said that its way of dealing with the problem was to send its officers along to planning meetings in person so that it could be promptly informed of new developments. Surely we can find a better way of doing it than that.
If different systems operate across emergency services, we miss the opportunity to find a much more collaborative approach. I ask the Minister whether, given the technological advances at our disposal, an auto-upgrade solution is possible. Most of us have self-upgrading smartphones. With lives at risk, surely we must be able to find some kind of new solution along those lines.
The practices of local authorities and developers could be standardised to ensure that they request that Ordnance Survey carries out work when at least one property on a development is occupied, even if the development is not completed and the roads are not adopted. If the postal service and Amazon can find a property such as Charlotte and Andy’s to deliver mail, could procedures and knowledge not be shared in a joint approach?
A good example can be found in the north-west. The North West Ambulance Service Trust response to my freedom of information request stated:
“On new large developments the map is often blank…so the team add descriptive route notes to aid crews. For example, take the first left on to Flower Crescent off New Bridge Street”,
which might be an existing road. That highlights that different and better ways of developing new mapping systems could save such incidents from occurring.
In speaking on Charlotte’s behalf, I want to make it absolutely clear that what happened was in no way the fault of the paramedics or the operator. It is a flaw in the complex system that our emergency services work with. I have called the debate to make the Minister aware of the problem in the hope that he will commit to act promptly to find the best way to resolve it.
To give some additional information, we sent an FOI request to every ambulance trust. I can provide the Minister with the responses we received, so he can see the disparity for himself. London Ambulance Service said that it had recorded 17 of these occurrences during the last three years, whereby crews had encountered difficulties in locating new build properties. The Welsh Ambulance Service recorded four occurrences, but most ambulance trusts just did not record incidents at all, so we do not know how frequently they are happening.
Given the risk to our constituents and the number of new developments, and the fact that this is a completely solvable problem—it does not require additional resource, and requires only someone’s attention to look at the process and organise it—the Minister could commit to action today.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing a very important debate and for sharing the details of the extremely regrettable tragedy endured by her constituent. After 31 years in the fire service, I understand what she is saying, and my heart goes out to the family and to those who responded, for the challenges that they face in dealing with incidents that would have affected the fire service, the police service and other emergency services. I agree with her point that if Amazon and DHL find places, we should be doing it, and doing it better.
Should that be a planning obligation somewhere in the conditions of planning consent? Prior to a purchaser occupying a house, the developer could be obliged to ensure that the emergency services are aware, so that they can respond to calls using new technology? It is so important.
Jenny Chapman
That is a very sensible suggestion. I called for this debate not to provide the Minister with the answers—I just wanted him to know what the problem was and make him understand that it has a direct impact even though it is completely solvable. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion may well be a helpful contribution and could well provide us with a sensible way forward that would help significantly.
That is all I wanted to say. I just wanted to make the Minister aware of this problem, and I look forward to hearing his reply.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay)
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for securing this debate. First, I extend my sympathies and, I am sure, the sympathies of all those present, to Charlotte for her loss.
The hon. Lady has used a Westminster Hall debate in the finest tradition, by raising an issue that I was not previously briefed on to the degree that I am now as a consequence. There is ongoing work on it, which I will happily update her and the rest of the House on. She has highlighted an issue that affects all of us in all our constituencies, because as the Government seek to build more housing, this issue will grow across constituencies and have greater reach. Also, as she rightly said, it applies not only to the ambulance service but to the blue-light fraternity as a whole, so I very much commend her for raising the issue.
The hon. Lady showed that she already has an in-depth knowledge of some of the challenges caused by the time lag in how systems are updated. However, I am pleased to reassure her that there is work ongoing in this area specifically. The Department of Health and Social Care is centrally procuring new control room and vehicle communications systems for NHS ambulance trusts, which will be able to update wirelessly. There are questions as to the frequency of those updates, which relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) made about the flow of information from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the planning system and the Ordnance Survey. The ongoing work in the Department is looking at how the central procurement of information into control rooms can ensure that there is a better supply of data about new housing of the sort that the hon. Member for Darlington referred to.
Although the effective deployment and maintenance of GPS systems is, as I am sure the hon. Lady recognises, an operational matter, they are centrally funded systems. As she said, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sponsors the Ordnance Survey, which owns the public sector mapping agreement. That is a 10-year agreement entered into in 2011, which provides the geographical datasets that are used centrally. That information includes data to advise emergency services of the best locations in which to position their vehicles at any given time of the day, based on historic patterns of where they are most likely to be needed. Updates to those datasets are available every six weeks, and the Ordnance Survey is engaged with the emergency services on their specific needs and on whether increasing the frequency of that supply of information would be useful.
As the hon. Lady may be aware, there has recently been a trial, which concluded at the end of February, and the Ordnance Survey is currently analysing the findings of that work in order to develop options. The North West Ambulance Service—not the north-east service—was part of the initial trial, and it has fed its experience into that process. So there is ongoing work on central procurement and also on that trial, examining the issues that the hon. Lady has brought before the House today.
I recognise that the frequency of the updates has been variable, and the hon. Lady was quite right to draw the House’s attention to that. As part of the ambulance radio programme, a replacement mobilisation application has been procured for use in ambulance vehicles across all the NHS ambulance trusts in England. Under that contract, the supplier is required to provide mapping software and an embedded satellite navigation system to assist ambulance crews with the prompt location of emergency incidents. The contract also requires the supplier to provide automated, over-the-air map and satellite navigation updates on a quarterly basis, and to report the current versions of the maps being used for audit purposes.
I am sure the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming those developments. The new system will make up-to-date map and satellite navigation data more readily available to all emergency crews.
Melanie Onn
Has the Minister given any consideration to my hon. Friend’s concern about the lack of data that has been collected, and would there be any benefit to collecting that information, to make sure that the new system that will come on-stream is distinctly preferable to the old system?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady makes a pertinent point; I was just going to come on to the issue of timing. There are two aspects to this process: the updating of control systems and the updating of vehicles. Different work is happening on both those things, but she suggests a third point to be considered—the data that feeds into those two systems, and the time period between housing development coming on-stream and the systems being updated. Those are the points that I take from her remarks and they will inform further discussions with Government as part of the pilots and the other work that is already under way.
The North East Ambulance Service has improved the processes for updating its mapping system, and I suspect that much of the credit for that goes to the hon. Member for Darlington for raising the issues that she has raised. The trust has upgraded its computer-aided dispatch system and control room mapping updates, and they can now be installed without affecting the wider system, which was one of the difficulties previously. The upgrade allows for six-weekly additions of notifications received from local authorities when new housing estates are opened, better equipping 999 dispatchers to guide ambulance crews to locations when they need assistance. Other ambulance trusts have similar arrangements for updating the control room systems that are currently in place.
The North East Ambulance Service Trust has also improved the frequency of its updates to its individual vehicle mapping systems, moving from an annual update to one every six months. Again, that is not the timeline that the hon. Lady quite rightly highlighted, but it does show that there is a focus on this area, and it shows the direction of travel on improvements.
We recognise that there is variation in the updating of ambulance vehicle systems. That is driven by the fact that different systems are in place in different services. For example, some trusts are able to update their ambulances through wi-fi, while others require lengthy manual updates to be performed during regularly scheduled vehicle servicing. Following this debate, one of the issues that I will be keen to explore further with officials is what will happen as we procure new vehicles. We will consider what can be done to address the issues that the hon. Lady raised today.
The common ambition among ambulance trusts is to upgrade vehicles in a six-month rotation, and we will improve on that rate further with the new national solution. Some trusts have also taken the approach of providing personal-issue tablets with online-style mapping, which can be used by ambulance crews as a back-up to the vehicle’s satellite navigation system and use the most recent commercially released maps.
A range of work is under way within the ambulance service on changes to how calls are triaged and processed, which will address some of the imbalance between rural and urban areas that we have seen in the past. There is work on changes to control room systems and on upgrades. I will happily take forward the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) about the timescales and about what work can be done and is being done on that.
The hon. Member for Darlington deserves credit within her own trust area for raising these issues as a consequence of the tragedy that Charlotte has had to endure. There is a focus within ambulance trusts across England on the need to ensure that upgrades are made in a more timely fashion. The hon. Lady has rightly brought that point before the House, and I will continue to take it forward with officials in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Legal Aid: Birmingham Pub Bombings
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered legal aid for families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This debate follows on from an Adjournment debate in October 2016 led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). What I am going to say has the support of every single Birmingham MP, irrespective of party, and has wide support across the House, as I think will be demonstrated by the contributions we will hear.
At around 8.20 pm on 21 November 1974, two explosions rocked two pubs in Birmingham: the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town. Twenty-one people were killed and some 222 people were injured. A third bomb placed at Barclays bank on Hagley Road was defused the same evening. We know that six men were jailed for that atrocity, and we now know that that was a miscarriage of justice. It took years for that to be addressed and for those six innocent men to be finally released.
There was, however, to be no release for the families of the 21 who died and the hundreds who were left with injuries and the trauma of that night in November 1974, because nobody has been brought to justice for those 21 murders. There remain big unanswered questions about what exactly happened that night, including the circumstances surrounding the plantings of the bombs, if and how warnings were given and how the police reacted that night and subsequently. Some of those family members are watching our debate, and I am sure all Members would wish to join me in welcoming them to this place and in paying tribute to their tenacity over so many years in trying to get the answers they deserve.
For years, those families have had to overcome hurdle after hurdle in pursuit of justice and to get answers. They had to fight to get the inquest into the pub bombings reopened in the first place. They then had to fight to be granted legal aid to be legally represented at that inquest. Now, having eventually won those battles, they have once again been denied legal aid for a Court of Appeal hearing on the rules governing that self-same inquest. Why is that? Last year, the Chief Coroner, Sir Peter Thornton QC, ruled that the people suspected of carrying out the pub bombings cannot be identified at the inquest. The families disagreed and took their case to the High Court. They won, and the coroner was directed to review the ruling he had made on the identification of suspects. We now know that the coroner has responded by applying for leave to take the case to the Court of Appeal, as he has every right to do. The fact that different conclusions were reached by the High Court and the coroner himself—he is a senior QC—underlines the difficult and complex legal issues that the case raises.
Today’s debate is emphatically not about taking sides on whether suspects should be identified at the inquest—that is properly a matter that should be decided by the courts—but about whether both sides should have an equal opportunity to put their case to the court. However, as things stand, that equality is missing in practice, because although public funds will rightly be available to present the coroner’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment, the families have been told that they have to pay for their own legal representation to defend the High Court’s decision. That is the disparity I am asking the Minister to address today.
The disparity was not addressed when the case was at the High Court. The families were refused legal aid at that stage and were only able to fight and win their case there by the generosity that ordinary citizens showed in response to their crowdfunding appeal. The families should not have to go through that again at the Court of Appeal. It is in the public interest that all the arguments for and against the identification of suspects at the inquest are heard by the Court of Appeal so that it can make its decision on the merits of the case with confidence that a shortage of resource has not hampered either side from putting forward their cases.
It is not only Members and the families who are asking for the situation to be rectified. The coroner himself has said that public funding should be made available to the families so that legal representation can be secured for them to contest the case he is taking to the Court of Appeal.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate so that we can show our concern as MPs for the families, who still have no closure. The early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has garnered, as far as I know, 21 signatures across the House. It emphasises that the Chief Coroner has called not once, but twice—and recently—for legal aid to be provided. While these events occurred a long time ago, it is still a live issue, and the Chief Coroner, whom we must respect in this matter, has called for legal aid to be granted.
Richard Burden
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. The early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley—I am pleased to welcome her to the debate—is getting wide support across the House, irrespective of party. This is not a party matter; it is a matter of justice and parity. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) said, the fact that the coroner supports public funding being made available for the families of the pub bombing victims underlines that he understands that this is a question of justice. We are asking for Ministers to have that same level of understanding.
The Legal Aid Agency is insisting that existing regulations prevent it from providing assistance, even though the families were eventually granted legal aid for the inquest. One reason the LAA put forward is that the families should instruct lawyers on a no-win, no-fee basis. That argument is undermined by the fact that a protective costs order was already accepted by the High Court and would quite possibly be accepted by the Court of Appeal. The avenue of getting representation on a no-win, no-fee basis is simply unlikely to be available to the families.
However, it seems that the Legal Aid Agency’s main reason for refusing legal aid this time is because the collective capital of the families provides
“potential source of funding from which it would be reasonable to fund the case”.
Indeed, in a letter to one of the law firms representing the families, the Legal Aid Agency went so far as to suggest that the possibility of further crowdfunding appeal could suggest that the families do not need legal aid to present their case. I find that suggestion astonishing. It is in the public interest for this case to be heard; it should not be dependent on how successful the families are in passing the hat around. The bottom line, however, is that in a letter to me and other Birmingham Members, the Legal Aid Agency insists that it has no discretion to come to any decision other than to refuse legal aid.
From my reading of the rules governing legal aid, I do not know whether the Legal Aid Agency has no discretion here. It is not clear how the refusal of legal aid for the Court of Appeal hearing logically squares with the fact that families finally won legal aid for their representation at the inquest. As inconsistent as it may appear, if for whatever reason there is no discretion by which the families can be granted legal aid, my request to the Minister is for the Government to step up to the plate for justice by directly authorising that public funding be made available outside the regular legal aid framework.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced the debate. He is right that this is a cross-party, cross-nation issue. One of the premises of British law is that justice must be seen to be done. Is he as perplexed as I am by what has happened in this case? The British public are aghast, wondering why other groups and individuals appear to find it so easy to get legal aid, while a group of victims who have gone through the wringer for many decades cannot access justice, and are therefore having justice denied them.
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman is right that people in Birmingham, and people throughout the west midlands and beyond, are looking at this situation and saying: “If it is the public interest for the case to be tested at the Court of Appeal, how can it be that only one side is being funded to do so?” I am not sure that I agree with him that it is easy for a lot of other people to get legal aid. In fact, the changes to the legal aid system have been a concern for a wide range of people seeking public support in their quests for justice. Certainly in this case, however, it is astonishing that legal aid has been denied.
Ministers know that public funding has sometimes been made available outside the legal aid system. It was rightly made available for the Hillsborough inquests, when legal aid was not available. I therefore ask the Minister: does she agree with the Legal Aid Agency’s contention that it has no discretion at all to grant legal aid for the appeal court hearing? If she does not agree, will she put the Legal Aid Agency right? If she agrees with the Legal Aid Agency, does she also agree with my contention that it is in the public interest for both the coroner and the families to have equal resources to test their cases at the Court of Appeal, and that the Government should therefore make available the public resources to achieve that objective outside the regular legal aid framework?
Beyond the specifics of this case, I refer the Minister to what the then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), said in response to the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley in 2016. He said that
“families in very difficult circumstances with complicated cases have gone unrepresented while public bodies and individuals are represented at a cost to the public. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are rightly working collaboratively to consider that issue”
and
“are looking at the best way forward.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 400-402.]
Furthermore, in October last year the Lord Chancellor issued a written ministerial statement confirming that a post-legislative review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, better known as LASPO, was commencing. Will the Minister please update the House on the progress of that post-legislative review, particularly given that a number of bodies, not least the Law Society, have called for the criteria for providing public funding to be simplified, and for the guidance to the Legal Aid Agency to be amended to widen the scope for funding for representation, particularly of bereaved families?
Irrespective of what progress is or is not being made in those inter-departmental discussions and in the post-legislative review, the issue of how these families’ cases will be funded at the Court of Appeal will not wait. If the system has failed them, and if legal aid has failed them, it is time for the Government to step up to the plate directly and make public funds available some other way. It is simply about fairness and parity. Justice demands no less.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am obliged to call the first of the Front-Bench spokespeople at no later than 5.7 pm. The guideline limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Mr Burden will then have three minutes to wind up. Until 5.7 pm, the debate is open to Back-Benchers. Two stood to speak, and more may be motivated to stand as the debate goes on, but first I call another Birmingham MP, Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for a forensic trot-through of the problem that we face. I will not cover the same ground, but I associate myself with everything he said in laying out exactly how long we have been to-ing and fro-ing on this issue.
I feel as if I am on a merry-go-round. I have been on it for only about four or five years, from just before I was elected. I meet with the families regularly. They are in their 40th year of dealing with this issue, and I feel tired of having to bring it up once again. We have won this argument before, and we have been here before. They were refused legal aid at the inquest stage and there was a lot of hullabaloo from many of the same people who are in the Chamber today, from both parties. We won that argument, yet here we are again.
For me, the fundamental problem is inequality of arms. These people are ordinary citizens. It is not okay for the public bodies involved, whether they be police forces, Government Departments, or in this instance the coroner, to have a resource that is simply not available to the party that represents the victims. Not a single one of the families of the 21 people murdered on that night wishes to be in this position. They do not want to be any trouble and to have to constantly make these arguments. They wish, more than any of us, that we were not standing here having this debate. They wish that in a way that most of us in this place will never understand, although unfortunately some Members of the House do have personal experience in that regard. The fact that we are here again, with ordinary citizens feeling as though they were begging the state to allow them to be represented, is a source of deep sadness. I feel a bit tired by this constant battle, although having met the families I know that they are battle-weary but fairly tough.
I want to go over some of the reasons why legal aid, at this stage, has been refused, most recently to my constituent Margaret, who was the mother of one of the victims. Just to big up the women who come from my bit of the world, hon. Members will never meet a woman as tough, steely and certain as this woman. She makes me look like a wallflower.
Jess Phillips
Yes—you can imagine. As her MP, I know what it is like to sometimes have to disappoint her. The fact is that as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield outlined, the most recent round of legal aid has been endorsed by the coroner as the only fair way for justice to be served in the appeal process.
The reason given to the families for legal aid not being granted is that, despite the eligibility of one applicant, the other families cumulatively have sufficient resources to fund the legal action. I know these families. They are not rich people. They are ordinary people who live in ordinary houses. They are all extraordinary people in their own way, and in what they have been fighting, but they are not like the people we meet in this building. They are not people with thousands and thousands of pounds in the bank. They are ordinary people who perhaps own ordinary houses.
Are we saying, as the state, that if someone—a normal Joe or Jill—wants to seek justice, they will probably have to sell their house? That if someone’s family is murdered, in order for them to go through the process of getting justice we will take away all their assets? My constituent will also be judged on the assets of her children—we are going to strip away those assets because they want to go through the process. What they want is justice. Taking away their assets is not an acceptable standard for any of us here; I am certain that Government Members do not feel that it is. I wish that I could hold up photos of these people’s homes, so that hon. Members could see what ordinary lives they lead. They are ordinary Brummies.
Dame Caroline Spelman
The hon. Lady is making a very good point. There is an absurdity to any argument that justice should be means-tested, in the sense that property prices are so significantly different around the country that there is an in-built disadvantage for some parts of the country. I do not know whether the Minister knows what the average property price is in the west midlands, but the average home in the west midlands is sub-£200,000. Most people living in London could only dream of a house at that kind of level—they do not exist anywhere in London—so straight away there is an absurdity to the argument that a person’s principal home should be considered as part of a means test for achieving justice. It just is not right.
Jess Phillips
It certainly is not. I remember giving the figures on the day when the threshold for inheritance tax was raised to £375,000, when I stood up and told the Minister that, in my constituency, eight people would benefit from that, and they had to be dead. My husband said that that Budget day was a great day to be dead. That gives a bit of an idea of the property prices in the area that I represent and live in.
The second issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield raised was the idea that because the families have previously been successful in raising funds themselves, they could probably lean back on that. To be clear, are we saying that if families, victims or anyone else wants to seek justice, the state currently feels that it should fall to those who can shake a tin best, or perhaps run a fun run? We could dress up as—I don’t know—victims, and do the London Marathon, and see how many people wanted to give us some cash so that we could find out some of the answers that the families have waited decades for. Even for those who do not know the families and do not have personal involvement, that cannot be a standard for our justice system. Crowdfunding and who can write the best tagline on a website and bleed the most hearts should not be the most likely way for people to access justice, going up against a state actor that is paid for by the same people’s taxes—we are the same people.
Stephen Pound
My hon. Friend will be aware that on 6 November 2014, Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, addressed this issue. His ruling, which we signed up to and support, was:
“It is clear that budgetary cuts should not be used as an excuse to hamper the work of those working for justice.”
We as a nation support that. Should we not extend that to this horrendous case?
Jess Phillips
I could not agree more. There are probably endless quotes from the bishop who did the inquiry into the Hillsborough situation, and we will almost certainly face the exact same arguments when the Grenfell disaster eventually comes before inquiries, courts and inquests. This is not just about the families in Birmingham; it is about a standard of justice. It is a David and Goliath situation, where David is the one paying for Goliath. That cannot be right, yet these families, having already lost family members, are having to do the heavy lifting for the rest of us to have a better system. For that, on behalf of anybody who has ever gone up against a state actor, we owe a debt of gratitude to families such as the Justice for the 21 families and the Hillsborough families, who are doing this on behalf of all of us to make justice better and fairer.
I worry that the Legal Aid Agency is using its powers to make decisions on whether it grants funding based on the merits of a case, and is deciding that it has authority on those merits. A High Court judge has agreed that the review should take place. It is perfectly reasonable that the coroner feels they have the right to appeal against that decision—that is absolutely fine—but it is not acceptable for the Legal Aid Agency to decide on the merits of that case. Are we saying that in the very complicated hierarchy of justice that these ordinary people have had to learn—they could probably sit legal degrees with ease now, these ordinary people with ordinary jobs, who did not know anything about this—the Legal Aid Agency now sits above a High Court judge in deciding which cases have merit? I hope the Minister can answer that question, because I am confused. She is learned; I am not learned—nobody gets to be learned just from being street smart, unfortunately. If only there was a degree in that.
Jess Phillips
I would be an emeritus professor in street smarts.
I feel that the Legal Aid Agency or the Government will eventually renege on this point. I associate myself with all the requests made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, but we have had to go around the hamster wheel again to ask whether, if the Legal Aid Agency is not the route for families, justice can be served through extra funding that the Government allocate from elsewhere.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Most people can remember where they were on the day when this tragedy happened. It is interesting that the Government can find the money when they want to do something, but when ordinary families want to take legal action and get justice, the Government cannot find the money. I always thought it was the Government’s duty to protect people, and one way to do that is through securing justice for them. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Jess Phillips
Quite. I cannot remember where I was on that day, because I was not yet born, yet it has stayed in the history of the city that I come from and have lived in all my life. If Birmingham were cut, it would bleed still with this unsolved disaster. After years of quite rightly hearing about the miscarriages of justice for those who were convicted of the crimes, the victims in the story have been lost, and it is now time for their story to be told.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—the Government will perfectly easily fund the side that fights against this. I have no doubt that the coroner will have all the resources that are needed. Why can they always find it for one side and not the other? This is not a case of people making vexatious claims that will open the door to everybody being able to make a load of claims against the state really easily. If these families have proved anything, it is that this is no picnic. It is not easy. There is nothing easy about this process, and that suggestion should be disregarded as a reason why what seems to be an austerity measure is affecting them so much.
I finish my remarks by paying a massive tribute to the families in this case. I am often proud to be from Birmingham—in fact, almost daily. These families make me incredibly proud of my city’s resolve in keeping on going.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on bringing this issue to the Chamber. He and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) passionately presented the case of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombs.
I am here today not because I am from Northern Ireland but because, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), I have empathy with and a real understanding of the victims’ families. In my constituency, there are many people in a similar situation, whose lives have been torn apart by evil men. The victims had no sin and no guilt, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time. While the world seeks to brush over the atrocities of the past, and people—at least in New York—seek to rename St Patrick’s day after the unrepentant terrorist Gerry Adams, the families of the 21 people murdered by the Birmingham bombs daily pay the price in sorrow and tears. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield and for Birmingham, Yardley spoke with passion and belief. I am sure everyone in the Public Gallery is proud of them and of all Members who are here to support the case of the victims’ families and make sure it is well made.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, in her passionate and compelling speech, told us about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster. Let us be quite clear: we all wanted them to get legal aid, but we also want the families of those who were killed in the Birmingham pub bombs to get it. Those families see single parents where once there were two; mothers at their child’s graveside, against the natural order of things; little girls walking down the aisle without their father; lives half-lived because huge parts have ripped away—all because IRA men decided to make their point by choosing that place at that time. That is my concern, and that is why I am here today. When the hon. Lady secured her Adjournment debate, I went along to support her, not because I intervene in them all but because I agree wholeheartedly with what she was trying to do. I am here to do the same thing again.
Those families seeking justice should not have to fight so hard in this day and age. When I think of the public money that was spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry into an incident in which 13 people died—I am in no way trivialising those families’ heartache—and see a bill in excess of £195 million, I am flabbergasted. I cannot understand the rationale for not allowing the families to seek justice through the legal aid system. I make that point about the Hillsborough inquiry and about the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
Do the lives of those 21 people not count enough? Is it simply that the wrong people were killed? Do we run a two-tier system, in which some people are entitled to legal help for justice and closure while others are not allowed that support? I hope we do not. I am putting the Minister on the spot, but we look to her with concern, and we request a positive response. That is not the system I signed up for. I believe in real equality—hon. Members know that. Everybody aggrieved by the troubles deserves the same time, attention and support.
I read an article that said that although the application of the families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombs for legal aid was turned down, the black cabbie rapist has accessed £166,000-worth of legal aid. Am I the only person who sees something wrong there? We all do. He got an obscene, disgraceful amount of legal aid. I am really lost for words sometimes when I try to understand how the system works. I stand by people’s right to have legal support regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty, but it hurts to see these families denied access when there is no question of guilt. I understand the system, but understanding it does not make it right. The fact is that this is wrong.
I say respectfully and gently to the Minister that I am looking to her to make it right and ensure this case is reassessed. For too long, the victims of IRA atrocities have had to fight for the recognition that their families are important. This fight for legal aid is yet another example of salt being poured into wounds that cannot heal because they are not allowed to. Reopen the inquest, hear the evidence, do the right thing by those people, who have done no wrong. Please—for those victims and the victims of terror at home, enough is enough. I want to send this message to those families: they are not being asked to drop the case while watching the perpetrators and masterminds being celebrated, lauded and, in some cases, almost canonised and made into saints. The families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombs deserve at least as much help, support and consideration in their quest for justice as those affected by other troubles-related murders.
I support the families’ quest and that of the two MPs who have spoken and those in the Public Gallery who are here to request legal aid help. I am sorry for the price they are paying and the grief they continue to go through. I am sorry that they are not getting the support they should get without question. They are not alone; I stand with them in this House.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It really is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing this important debate, and the other Members of Parliament who have fought for this right and just cause. I pay tribute to the families’ courage and bravery.
As the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, those who were alive at the time of this incident will never forget it. I was just a little girl, but I do remember it. I looked again at photographs of the victims today, and it is fair to say that their faces are familiar to those of us who are strangers to them: they have haunted us for many years.
It puzzles me that it has taken so long to get to the bottom of who carried out that atrocity. One almost wonders whether it suits some in authority for us not to get to the bottom of it. We are close to getting to the bottom of it. It is many years since innocent men were imprisoned and cleared in relation to the atrocity. There should have been inquests. The inquests that were originally opened in 1974 should have been reopened when the Birmingham six were cleared, but they were not. They were reopened in 2016 because of the families’ campaign.
The coroner’s decision—he is entitled to make it, but it is controversial—should be challenged because the decision to exclude the perpetrators from the scope of the inquest means that it will avoid the crucial issues of who carried out the bombing, who organised it, who ordered it, who made the bombs, who planted them and who their associates were. The families of the victims have the right to know the answers to those questions. As others said eloquently, this is about access to justice and equality of arms.
As others said fairly, the coroner himself said that the families should get those funds so the fight can be equal. Other parties will be publicly funded, so why should the families not be? I am a Scots lawyer, so I do not really understand how the Legal Aid Agency works down here, but it puzzles me greatly that people are seriously expected to give up the homes in which they live to fund this litigation.
I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we are currently carrying out an inquiry into the enforcement of human rights and access to justice, which is a very important issue in our society—it is a fundamental right. Many of the witnesses who have given evidence to our inquiry have said that an independent review is needed of legal aid in England. The LASPO review is under way, but it is not independent. The witnesses who have given evidence to our Committee have, in the main, said that there should be an independent review separate from the Government so the matter can be looked at independently.
North of the border, there has been an independent review into legal aid, separate from the Scottish Government, who run legal aid in Scotland, and it has made certain recommendations. It also found that although the Scottish Legal Aid Board spends less per head than is spent in England per head, there is much wider scope to and eligibility for legal aid in Scotland—indeed, 70% of the population of Scotland are eligible for legal aid.
It is therefore possible to run an economic and effective legal aid system. A legal aid system that denies access to funding for people to get to the bottom of the truth about who killed their loved ones cannot be a just system. Will the Minister consider holding an independent review into the Legal Aid Agency and into the criteria and eligibility for legal aid south of the border? In support of others’ requests, will she tell us clearly whether some special arrangement could be made to fund the families pending the outcome of any independent review into legal aid? If the answer to both those questions is no, will the Minister tell us how she thinks it is possible for there to be true access to justice when there is such inequality of arms?
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for securing this debate. He and other colleagues who have spoken today have stood with the families of the Birmingham 21 as they have campaigned tirelessly for justice for the loved ones they lost on that terrible night. As others have done, I pay tribute to the families themselves. I am in awe of the determination of people such as Margaret Smith, Brian and Julie Hambleton, and all the family members who are still fighting for the truth about what happened on that terrible night. It is testament to the strength of their love for the family members they lost that they are still fighting for justice 43 years later.
Fight is what the families have had to do every step of the way. They fought to reopen the inquest after 40 years without support or answers, and they had to fight to receive legal aid for that inquest. I am proud that the Labour party has long supported the families in their quest for legal aid so that they can pursue justice for their loved ones. The Labour party will continue to do that.
Dame Caroline Spelman
Over 43 years an awful lot of Ministers of different political persuasions have looked and looked at this. Will the hon. Lady join me in appealing to the new Minister who is picking the issue up for the first time to look at it with fresh eyes? Everyone who has filled her role comes to the view that it needs to be put right, but every fresh start is more pain for the families concerned.
Gloria De Piero
The right hon. Lady is right: this is an opportunity for a fresh start, and I agree that there have been many opportunities for such fresh starts. Now the families are fighting for the scope of the inquest to include those believed to have been responsible and their actions leading up to the bombing. They therefore raised £20,000 through crowdfunding for the judicial review into the scope of the inquest. At the end of last year they won their battle in the High Court.
Even now, however, the families cannot stop fighting—they have been denied legal aid to represent themselves at the coroner’s appeal against the High Court’s decision. Mr Malcolm Bryant, in his letter to the families denying legal aid for the challenge, stated:
“I am confident that a new crowdfunding drive could provide an alternative means of funding the appeal.”
The head of the exceptional case funding team for high-cost complex cases is suggesting that families must resort to crowdfunding in order to obtain justice. Is that not a sign of something very wrong in our justice system that bereaved families are being told to resort to crowdfunding drives to continue their quest for answers?
Families must apply for exceptional case funding and meet stringent tests in order to receive legal aid at an inquest. In certain cases the Legal Aid Agency may decide to waive the financial eligibility test for family members, if it can be argued that it would be unreasonable for the family to bear the full costs. Where the family has lodged a legal challenge to the basis of the inquest—the Justice for the 21 group has asked for the suspects to be named—there is no such discretion, even though legal fees to defend the families’ point in the Court of Appeal might run into tens of thousands of pounds.
Will the Minister therefore ask the Lord Chancellor to review the Legal Aid Agency’s decision not to grant legal aid in this case? Will the Government consider extending the financial eligibility waiver to proceedings directly related to the inquest so that the families of the Birmingham 21 and others can be sure of a level playing field when fighting for the truth? When families are grieving and simply looking for the truth, they should not have to think about taking out loans, resorting to crowdfunding or being burdened with legal fees.
The Government claim that families do not need legal aid for representation at an inquest because it is not an adversarial process, but if that really is the case will the Minister explain why the Government still feel the need to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in public money to ensure that their side is represented effectively at inquests? Why should families not have access to the same degree of representation? It is a simple matter of ensuring a level playing field.
The families of the Birmingham 21 were victims of an act of terrorism, and then of a system that has made them fight every step of the way for answers. Families who have been through so much, who have suffered the death of sisters, daughters, husbands and fathers, should not have to fight every step of the way for answers to how their loved ones died and who was responsible. I hope that today the Minister will back the families of the Birmingham 21 and all those fighting for answers, and guarantee that legal aid will be made available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to respond on such an important issue in such an important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing it. He has been very active in supporting his constituents and in making representations to the Legal Aid Agency, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has been in raising the profile more broadly. Like them, I welcome the families to Westminster today.
I understand why there is such strength of feeling on the subject from hon. Members on all sides. I have the deepest sympathies with the families and friends of those who were injured or lost their lives in the terrible atrocities that took place in Birmingham in 1974. I cannot imagine what they have been through. I understand the inquest plays a crucial part in the investigations that continue, and I appreciate that it plays an important role in enabling families to understand and make sense of what happened to their loved ones.
Much of the debate has focused on legal aid. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield asked me to explain how legal aid differs in the various types of cases for which it can be granted in relation to an inquest. It is therefore important to identify the types of assistance that can be granted and have been sought in this case.
The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that, in certain cases, legal aid in the lead-up to an inquest may be required, and has ensured that early legal advice for inquests is available under legal aid for those who are eligible. I understand that such legal aid was sought and granted in this case. Next is the issue of legal aid for representation at the hearing itself. An inquest should be an inquisitorial process that focuses on establishing the facts of death. It should not really be an adversarial hearing, and should be conducted in a very different way from a court proceeding. Participants do not always need to present legal arguments and so, in most inquest hearings, the bereaved family do not need representation to participate in the process. Most inquest hearings are conducted without the need for publicly funded representation.
Having said that, publicly funded representation may be needed in certain circumstances and is then sought. Legal aid is available for legal representation at inquests under the exceptional case funding scheme. Legal aid is awarded through that scheme on a case-by-case basis. In deciding whether funded representation may be necessary, the Legal Aid Agency considers all the relevant individual facts and circumstances of the case, which usually include the particular circumstances of the family. Legal aid for representation at inquests is subject to means and merits tests. In such circumstances, means can be waived.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield highlighted, the families have previously received publicly funded legal representation for the inquests on this matter.
Joanna Cherry
Like me, the Minister practised in the courts before she became an MP. Does she agree that, where the families of the bereaved are not represented at inquests, stones are often left unturned that would have been turned had the families had a lawyer?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point, as always. The position is that it is not always necessary. If it is necessary, families are able to apply for it, but in his report on Hillsborough, the Bishop of Liverpool identified that, according to a 2003 fundamental review of death certification and investigation cases, no representation was needed in 79% of cases, because the families could represent themselves.
In many inquests, legal aid is not needed because the families do not need to advance legal arguments, because it is not an adversarial process, but I recognise that in some cases, it becomes a very adversarial process—that is not really appropriate, but it does become that—and legal aid can be and is sought. In fact, exceptional case funding has been granted in half the cases where people have applied for it.
Gloria De Piero
The Minister mentions the Bishop of Liverpool’s review. His report called on the Government to instate:
“Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families at inquests at which public bodies are legally represented.”
It has been five months since that report was published, but we still have not had a response from the Government.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady is right—others have also called for that. That is why the Government are undertaking a review, which has started and which I will come to, in relation to legal aid funding and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 generally, but more particularly and more relevant in this case, in relation to legal aid funding for inquests.
I have identified the two circumstances where legal aid was sought and granted in this case. The third, which is what the debate centres on, is the provision of legal aid for judicial review. Legal aid is available for judicial review in generic terms. However, as with legal aid for inquests, this availability is subject to a number of restrictions. Applicants must satisfy statutory tests for their means and merits in order to qualify for legal aid for judicial review. The reason that they are required to satisfy those tests is to ensure that the resources that are available for legal aid generally are given to those who are most in need. In the case in question, which was an application for funding for a judicial review, the Legal Aid Agency determined that those requirements were not met.
I fully appreciate that the families have found that decision of the Legal Aid Agency very frustrating. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) asked whether I can review that decision, but it is important to point out that funding decisions are made by the Legal Aid Agency independently of Ministers. I am not privy to the details of the decision. The decision whether to provide legal aid funding in an individual case should not be a political one. It is solely for the director of the legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency to decide whether a case is within the regulations and the laws that Parliament has set. I was not aware of the reasons why legal aid was determined—that is a decision of the Legal Aid Agency independent of Ministers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield made very important points at the beginning of the debate about the coroner having called for legal aid to be reinstated but, as I said, that is not a decision for me or for him—the decision on legal aid is a matter for the Legal Aid Agency.
Lucy Frazer
I am conscious of the time, so I would like to press on.
I will make two wider points about legal aid outside this case. First, legal aid is a fundamental pillar of access to justice. More than a fifth of the Ministry of Justice’s budget is spent on legal aid in England and Wales. The system was designed when it was implemented in 2012 to ensure that those who are most vulnerable and have no other means of funding support are provided with assistance. Those principles in generic terms are fair ones.
Secondly, we recognise that it is right to look at and review inquests more broadly. An inquest ought to be an inquisitorial process that focuses on establishing the facts of death and should not be adversarial. The presence of several lawyers at a hearing often adds to the distress and anxiety of the family, who feel, as was stated by many hon. Members, that there is an imbalance and unfair representation. With that in mind, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking and exploring a number of ways to make inquests less adversarial and more sympathetic to the needs of bereaved people. We are working with other Government Departments that are often represented at inquests, as well as the legal profession. We are looking at ways to reduce the number of lawyers, training for coroners and lawyers, extending support services, updating our written guidance and updating the legal guidance on deaths in custody, so that we ensure the starting presumption is that legal aid should always be available.
Many Members mentioned that we are reviewing legal aid for inquests in general. That review has started already. Experts are giving evidence, and there will be a public consultation. I encourage family members to give evidence to the public consultation if they wish to do so. I also encourage Members to respond. The hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for Birmingham, Yardley and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made powerful points in relation to justice, and said that justice needs to be done. They put forward many arguments for why the families need support.
I recognise that getting the inquest right for the families is incredibly important. Families who have suffered dreadfully are entitled to justice. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and all hon. Members who have spoken and contributed to this important debate.
Richard Burden
First, I express my appreciation to hon. Members from across the House who have given their support in the debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—he could not stay for the entire debate but was here to give support—for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham); the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman); the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and on the Front Bench for the Scottish National party, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry); and for Labour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). They all made powerful points.
I have to confess to being disappointed by the Minister’s response. She spent time discussing whether legal aid should be available and the circumstances in which it should be available for inquests. I think she was wrong in saying that any legal aid has been provided in this case—I do not think that a penny of legal aid has yet been paid—but she is right that legal aid has been granted for the inquest. The point that we are putting to her is that, if it is appropriate to provide legal aid for the families for the inquest, why does it become inappropriate to provide legal aid for those same families for an important point of law arising out of that inquest? It is simply illogical. I am afraid that the Minister did not answer that point.
The Minister says she cannot intervene in the Legal Aid Agency decision on whether legal aid can be granted, but has not said whether she feels it has discretion to come to a different decision.
Lucy Frazer
I am sorry if that was not clear. The reason that it can be granted in the first two circumstances is that the means test is discretionary and can be waived, but in a judicial review, it cannot.
Richard Burden
The Minister says that there is no discretion, and that the matter is being reviewed. I am glad that it is being reviewed, but frankly, this case will not wait. The families need a decision now. The decision that they have had from the Legal Aid Agency is not in the interests of justice. If there are no avenues through the regular legal aid system to provide them with the support that they deserve—support that the coroner himself says should be paid—in the interests of justice, either because the Legal Aid Agency does not have discretion or because it does not feel that the means test requirements have been met, the problem is still there. It therefore comes back to the Minister to say what she is going to do about that problem, which will not wait.
In the situation applying to the Hillsborough inquest, the Government eventually said that this was a matter of such fundamental public interest that a special fund should be made available to ensure that families have legal representation. We are simply saying that if that rightly applied in the Hillsborough case, it should also apply here. It is simply illogical that the families are denied equality of representation in the Court of Appeal, where representation is available to the coroner. That has to be put right. Only the Minister can do that, and I hope she reconsiders the points she has made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered legal aid for families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings.
Written Statements
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Companies House Public Targets: 2018-19
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) has made the following statement:
I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2018-19:
Public targets
Ensure our digital services are available 99.9% of the time.
Ensure no vacancy within the digital area remains unfilled for more than three months.
Provide a digital service for the filing of small full accounts.
Achieve a digital take-up rate of 40% for filings for voluntary dissolution.
Ensure that 97% of companies have an up-to-date confirmation statement.
Respond to 95% of complaints about information on people with Significant Control (PSC) within 10 days.
Achieve a customer satisfaction rate of 88%.
Reduce the cost of our business activities by 3.5%.
[HCWS587]
Decommissioning Relief Deeds
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
At Budget 2013, the Government announced it would begin signing decommissioning relief deeds. These deeds represent a new contractual approach to provide oil and gas companies with certainty on the level of tax relief they will receive on future decommissioning costs.
Since October 2013, the Government have entered into 86 decommissioning relief deeds.
Oil and Gas UK estimates that these deeds have so far unlocked more than £5.7 billion of capital, which can now be invested elsewhere. In compiling this estimate, Oil and Gas UK discovered a clerical error in their previous estimate. As a correction, the figure reported for 2015-16 should have read £5.5 billion. Independent checks have been made to ensure the error has not been repeated.
The Government committed to report to Parliament every year on progress with the deeds. The report for financial year 2016-17 is provided below.
Number of decommissioning relief agreements entered into: the Government entered into 11 decommissioning relief agreements in 2016-17.
Total number of decommissioning relief agreements in force at the end of that year: 83 decommissioning relief agreements were in force at the end of the year.
Number of payments made under any decommissioning relief agreements during that year, and the amount of each payment: two payments were made under a decommissioning relief agreement in 2016-17, totalling £5.4 million. These were made in relation to the provision recognised by HM Treasury in 2015, as a result of a company defaulting on their decommissioning obligations.
Total number of payments that have been made under any decommissioning relief agreements as at the end of that year, and the total amount of those payments: two payments have been made under any decommissioning relief agreement as at the end of the 2016-17 financial year, totalling £5.4 million.
Estimate of the maximum amount liable to be paid under any decommissioning relief agreements: the Government have not made any changes to the tax regime that would generate a liability to be paid under any decommissioning relief agreements. HM Treasury’s 2015-16 accounts recognise a provision of an aggregate £327 million in respect of decommissioning expenditure incurred as a result of a company defaulting on their decommissioning obligations. The majority of this is expected to be realised over the next five years.
[HCWS590]
General Affairs Council
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting in Brussels on Tuesday 20 March. The main items on the agenda were preparations for March European Council on 22 March and the European semester. Under any other business, the Commission provided an update on its dialogue with the Polish authorities over the rule of law in Poland.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2018/03/20.
Preparation of the European Council on 22 March 2018
Ministers discussed draft council conclusions ahead of March European Council, which included: jobs, growth and competitiveness: trade; taxation; and external relations.
On jobs, growth and competitiveness, I supported calls for further ambition on the Single Market and Digital Single Market. Ministers also discussed climate action, social and economic issues and preparation for the EU-Western Balkans summit in May.
Discussions on trade focused primarily on recent US announcements on tariffs on steel and aluminium.
Deliberations on external relations included Turkey and the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on 4 March. I thanked member states for the solidarity and support shown and welcomed the inclusion of this item on the agenda at the March European Council. I informed Ministers that, at our invitation, experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had arrived in the UK on 19 March. I also called for a strong leader level statement which was clear on attribution and on building collective resilience.
European semester
The Commission updated Ministers on its ongoing dialogue with Poland regarding the rule of law and the triggering of Article 7 (1) of the Treaty of the European Union. Poland confirmed that it would submit its response to the Commission on 20 March. I intervened to stress the importance of continued dialogue between Poland and the Commission, with the best solution being one that is mutually agreed between them. I emphasised that the UK would not want to prejudge the outcome of that process. I reiterated that the UK places great importance on respect for the rule of law while recognising constitutional arrangements are primarily a matter for national governments, within the framework of international norms.
[HCWS591]
Maternity Safety
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I am today announcing steps towards ensuring that the majority of women will receive care from the same small team of midwives throughout their pregnancy, labour and birth by 2021, starting with 20% of women benefiting from a ‘continuity of carer’ model by March 2019.
Women who have continuity of carer are 19% less likely to miscarry, 16% less likely to lose their baby and 24% less likely to have a premature baby.
To support this, the Department of Health and Social Care is planning the largest ever increase in NHS midwives and maternity support staff, 650 new training places for midwives in 2019—a 25% increase. We will continue to work with universities and the NHS to create even more training places in subsequent years to fill the gap of 3,000 midwives.
Other key parts of the announcement include:
Professionalising the maternity support worker role by developing a nationally defined role and national competency frameworks for maternity support workers together with a voluntary accreditation register.
Working with our key partners including the Royal College of Midwives, to identify better and clearer pathways for staff to progress and to develop new training routes to become a registered midwife.
[HCWS588]
Paterson Inquiry
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
On 7 December 2017 the hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), then the Minister of State for Health, announced an independent, non-statutory Inquiry, under the Chairmanship of the Right Reverend Graham James, Lord Bishop of Norwich into the circumstances and practices surrounding the former breast surgeon Ian Paterson, who was convicted in April 2017 of wounding with intent and unlawful wounding.
Since then the Bishop has worked with affected families to ensure their views are taken into account in shaping the terms of reference.
Today, I can announce the terms of reference for the inquiry, which will report in summer 2019.
The remit of the independent, non-statutory Paterson Inquiry will be to:
Examine and seek to learn from what happened to former patients of Ian Paterson, both in the independent sector and in the NHS informed by their experiences and concerns; and
Review the circumstances and practices surrounding Ian Paterson as a case study, and consider other past and current practices, so as to draw conclusions in relation to the safety and quality of care provided nationally to all patients.
The inquiry will consider issues raised in previous relevant reports about Ian Paterson, but does not intend to revisit the evidence that led to his conviction.
A central objective of the inquiry is to afford former patients of Ian Paterson and their families an opportunity to tell of their experiences and to be heard.
The inquiry will aim to report its conclusions and recommendations by summer 2019. It will publish its report and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will make arrangements for its presentation to Parliament.
This announcement marks the beginning of the important work of the inquiry in listening to the experiences of former patients and gathering other evidence to ensure that the independent healthcare sector and the NHS are able to learn the lessons from Ian Paterson’s appalling malpractice that has taken or damaged the lives of so many people who invested their trust in him.
It can also be viewed with the Terms of Reference at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS589]
Troubled Families: Update
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
As required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, section 3(1), my Ministry has published the second annual report, setting out how the Troubled Families Programme (2015-2020) has been supporting disadvantaged families. We are laying this report today, and are placing a copy in the House Library.
This notice details what the report covers, for the period up to the end of March 2018, as well as for the next financial year, including setting out which families are eligible for the programme and how the progress of families will be measured.
“Supporting disadvantaged families, annual report of the Troubled Families Programme 2017-18” details how the programme is working with families as a whole to provide the stability and practical support they need to overcome complicated problems including ‘worklessness’, uncontrolled debt and truancy.
This programme of whole family working has achieved significant progress over the past 12 months with:
more than 90,000 families having met the improvement goals agreed with local services against each of their agreed ‘headline’ problems. This is up more than 48,000 on the previous year;
almost 14,000 of these families where progress has been achieved, one or more adult has succeeded in moving into continuous employment, an increase of over 4,800 since last year; and
reduced demand on children’s social care services. The programme’s focus on preventative services is starting to show positive results with families getting the type of help they most need, so lowering the number of cases for example that need to be escalated to costly children’s social care.
Rather than responding to each problem or single family member separately, and merely reacting to crises assigned Troubled Families keyworkers champion working with the whole family so that they receive support from co-ordinated services working together to identify and solve their problems as early as possible.
Since the current programme began in 2015, local authorities and their partners have worked with 289,809 eligible families. This compares with only 2,000 families who had received whole family support in England between January 2006 and March 2010.
Following a review of the programme’s funding model, the report notes which local authorities will pilot a new payment model, named “Earned Autonomy”, whereby upfront payments will be given to areas to accelerate ambitious plans for service reform.
Families classed as ‘relevant households’ on the programme, as defined by section 3 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, have at least two of the following problems:
parents or children involved in crime or anti-social behaviour;
children who are not attending school regularly;
children who need help; that is children of all ages who need help, are identified as in need or are subject to a child protection plan;
adults out of work or at risk of financial exclusion or young people at risk of worklessness;
families affected by domestic violence and abuse;
parents or children with a range of physical and mental health problems.
The rationale for these eligibility criteria and an explanation of the way in which local authorities should identify families using a range of indicators, suggested referral routes and information sources were set out in the refreshed version of the Financial Framework, published on 8 December 2017. The Financial Framework also sets out how the progress of families supported will be measured.
As the Troubled Families Programme enters its final two years, we will continue to drive forward changes to services which secure positive and lasting outcomes for families. We will continue developing a robust cost benefit analysis to show the savings to the public purse.
[HCWS592]
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
Good afternoon. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes.
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) (Custodial Premises) Subordinate Provisions Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) (Custodial Premises) Subordinate Provisions Order 2018.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in bringing forward this statutory instrument the Government are seeking to restore the long-established principle that responsibility for enforcing fire safety regulations across the whole of the Crown’s custodial and detention estate should lie with those who have been appointed or authorised as Crown inspectors by Ministers in England and in Wales. At present, Crown inspectors in England and Wales are not the enforcing authorities for fire safety in the small number—about 7%—of custodial and detention premises where the Government have contracted out the provision of services to private providers.
That this was a significant issue became apparent in 2016 when responsibility for Crown inspectors in England transferred to the Home Office. Crown inspectors, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice instigated an investigation into the contractual arrangements in place for the provision of custodial or detention operations. As a result of this detailed review of contracts and ownership arrangements, it became clear that a number of contractual arrangements had been put in place for the operation of these premises, which had had the effect of transferring ownership or occupation for the purposes of the fire safety order away from the relevant Crown departments to private companies. Where this has happened, the responsibility for enforcing compliance with fire safety regulation has similarly been transferred away from our dedicated teams of Crown inspectors, and lies instead with the individual local fire and rescue authorities in which the relevant premises are located. This is not what was intended when the fire safety order was enacted in October 2006.
At that time, the then Government were clear that, irrespective of any contractual arrangements that were in place with the private sector for the provision of services, they wanted Crown inspectors to be the sole enforcing authorities in these types of premises. Indeed, they went so far as to spell this out in the guidance on enforcement that they published, to which all those with enforcement responsibilities under the fire safety order are required to have regard.
Now we are aware that the policy intent no longer aligns with the law, we want to rectify the position and ensure that the original policy of Crown inspectors inspecting, and where necessary enforcing, fire safety regulation across the whole of the Government’s custodial estate is re-established. We want to ensure that there is absolute clarity, both now and in the future, about the scope of enforcement responsibilities for the fire and rescue authorities and the Crown inspectors. This order therefore amends article 25 of the fire safety order to set out specific legal definitions of the full range of custodial premises for which the Crown inspectors are to be responsible. These will be established beyond doubt and will not, as is currently the case, be contingent on the often complex contractual leasing or ownership arrangements that may now be in place. Essentially, this order delivers through legislation the clarity that was intended by the 2007 policy guidance on enforcement.
It is the Government’s intention, shared by our counterparts in Wales, for there to be a single national organisation in each of our areas of jurisdiction: an organisation charged with the responsibility and invested with the specific skills and expertise necessary to provide three key things.
First, we want Ministers and relevant departments—which of course have the ultimate responsibility for fire safety in these types of custodial and detention premises—to benefit from the strategic oversight of fire safety compliance across the whole of the Crown’s custodial estate that is available where a single national body is in place. Secondly, we want there to be a clear and easily accessible route established for ensuring that any concerns relating to fire safety in our custodial estate can be raised immediately and addressed promptly by those with day-to-day responsibilities for fire safety management. Where reluctance or poor communication militates against appropriate action, we want an immediate escalation mechanism—direct to Ministers, if necessary—to be in place and delivered through our national fire and rescue advisers. In England, this means the Chief Inspector of the Crown Premises Fire Inspection Group. In Wales, as in Scotland, it means the Welsh Government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser. Thirdly, we want a dedicated cadre of fire safety inspecting officers, each with the necessary training, maintained and regularly updated, to operate safely and effectively in this unique type of premises, where the risk to life in the event of a fire is generally high.
The order will re-establish robust national arrangements across all of the Government’s custodial estate. As such, it will specify the full range of custodial premises for which the Government are responsible, providing absolute clarity on the scope of the Crown’s responsibility for inspection and enforcement. This will ensure that our dedicated team of experienced Crown inspectors are clear that they have the powers to ensure that appropriate fire safety standards are in place to protect the lives of those living in, working on or visiting the Government’s custodial or detention estate. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. I heard from what she said that this anomaly, whereby privately run prisons and custodial premises were not being inspected by national inspectors, was stumbled across when responsibility for Crown inspectors was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office. Will she confirm that that is the case, and is it not a little worrying? How long might it have continued if that transfer had not taken place? Clearly, it is very important to have consistency across all privately run prisons and other places of detention, rather than to have the potential for different standards being applied by local fire and rescue services. On that basis, we support the order.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am very happy to support the order before the Grand Committee. It is certainly very sensible to have the experts in fire safety and security to be looking after the whole of the estate. I am very happy to support it.
I have one query; it is a little disappointing—I refer to page 5 of the impact assessment at paragraph 1.9. I am surprised that we still have this ridiculous “one in, three out” rule. It does not apply here because the Government have clearly tested it against that ridiculous rule. It is an example of the worst kind of ideological, political dogma. You would have thought, in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Grenfell, we would not be using it, but clearly the Government still are. I hope that any regulation is in force at any time because it is necessary and proper. I cannot believe we still have this arbitrary rule. It is a matter of much regret, which I will probably take up elsewhere. Other than that, I am very happy to support the order, but I was surprised to see this when I read through the papers this morning.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I acknowledge the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but first the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that we “stumbled across” this issue. Fire and rescue services were inspecting private prisons during the said period. Responsibility for Crown inspectors transferred from MHCLG in January 2016, but, going back, when the regulatory reform order was implemented in October 2006 the then Government issued statutory guidance to all those bodies that had a duty to enforce its provisions in the range of premises to which it applies. The guidance, to which all enforcing authorities are required to have regard, specifically addressed the issue of enforcement in the custodial estate. As it made clear:
“For the avoidance of doubt all civilian prisons, young offender institutions, immigration detention, holding or removal centres, court custody suites, customs and excise detention areas are the responsibility of the Fire Inspectors of the Crown Premises Inspections Group regardless of whether they are operated by the relevant Government department or contracted out”.
But as we know, what the law actually says does not always align with the policy intent, no matter how sound the principles are on which it is based. The principles are sound, as they were in 2007 when the guidance was issued, and they remain so. I hope that the statutory instrument before the Committee clarifies the situation and I beg to move.
Police Powers of Designated Civilian Staff and Volunteers (Excluded Powers and Duties of Constables) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Police Powers of Designated Civilian Staff and Volunteers (Excluded Powers and Duties of Constables) Regulations 2018.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall the debates we had on the Policing and Crime Bill during the last Session—it seems a long time ago. The Bill received Royal Assent on 31 January 2017 and many of its provisions are already in force, with a number of further measures due to be implemented on 1 April.
The Committee will recall that the Act provided the legislative underpinning for a number of important reforms which included provisions enabling chief officers to make better use of police staff and volunteers, freeing up police officers to focus on their key tasks. Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 amends Section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to enable civilians employed by police forces to be designated with additional police powers. These reforms also enable volunteers under the direction and control of a chief police officer to be designated with powers for the first time. Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out a list of powers that are reserved solely for use by constables and cannot be used by police staff or volunteers. Included within that list are some of the most intrusive powers available to constables such as stop and search and arrest.
When we consulted on these reforms in 2015, the Police Federation proposed the removal of one of the original powers of detention officers made available in 2002, that of carrying out an intimate search when a medical professional is not available. While the number of intimate searches conducted by police staff rather than constables is very low—they have been carried out three times nationally in 15 years—this is a very intrusive power and I committed in our debate to restrict its use. Unfortunately, due to an oversight in the drafting process, the Act does not in fact restrict the use of this power, so these draft regulations would deliver on that commitment. Regulation 2 would add the power to undertake an intimate search when a medical professional is not available, under Section 55(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to the list of excluded powers and duties. As with the other powers already on this list, they are reserved solely for use by constables and cannot be used by police staff or volunteers.
The addition to the schedule of excluded powers and duties of the power to conduct an intimate search in the absence of a medical professional will ensure that the most intrusive powers remain available only to police officers, thus preserving the office of constable as central to the delivery of policing in England and Wales. These draft regulations deliver the full intent of the measures already approved by noble Lords in the last Session. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. I recommend that it is used by Radio 4 as one of its puzzles of the day because the complexity of the legislation had me going for a little while.
As I understand it, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 allows chief constables to confer powers of a constable to community support officers and community support volunteers unless the power is specifically excluded by its inclusion in Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002. I am getting reassuring nods from the Minister’s officials. The Government have woken up to the fact that this would include the power to conduct an intimate search if a police inspector or above—it used to be a superintendent but that was changed in other legislation—considers that an intimate search by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse is not practicable. This would be, presumably, where there was concern that something was concealed that might cause harm to the individual or to other people, or that important evidence might be concealed which could be lost if the search did not take place straightaway.
I was going to ask the Minister to explain how this power was highlighted as not being suitable for PCSOs or volunteers to undertake but she has already explained that it was the Police Federation which raised this as an issue. However, I wonder how many other powers should be included in Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 that we are yet to discover. I was also going to ask how many times the power had been used by PCSOs or volunteers but the Minister said that it had been used three times in the past 15 years.
During the passage of the Bill we made quite clear our concerns about powers that should be reserved for police officers potentially being given to police community support officers and police community support volunteers. However this is an important and welcome addition to Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 and therefore we support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am happy to support the regulations before the Grand Committee. It is obviously sensible that civilians are designated as having certain additional police powers as and when an appropriate police officer believes they are needed. Equally, of course, it is important that certain things are prohibited, and certainly an intimate search should not be in the hands of anyone but a warranted police officer. That is why I fully support this order.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about how many other powers should be included, he is right that the Government should keep these excluded powers under review. They will give careful consideration to any request to add powers but it should be noted that the regulation-making power within Section 38(6)(c) of the 2002 Act can only be used to add powers to the list—that is, to remove further powers from designated staff and volunteers. The noble Lord probably knows that primary legislation would be required to remove any powers from the list and enable them to be designated to staff or volunteers.
Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations, which are highly technical, make changes to the regulatory framework governing the day-to-day operation of the business rates retention scheme. The amendments in these regulations are necessary to ensure that the regulatory framework properly reflects the impact of the 2017 business rates revaluation, our decision to create new 100% business rates pilots in London and 10 other areas of the country, and changes to the compensation arrangements in enterprise zones.
Before saying something about each of the changes, I remind the Committee that the rates retention scheme was introduced with effect from 1 April 2013. For the first time since 1990, it allows local authorities to keep a percentage of the business rates they collect from local ratepayers and gives them a direct financial interest in maintaining and extending their business rates’ bases.
When the scheme was first set up, local government was able to keep 50% of locally raised business rates, subject only to a redistribution mechanism that requires authorities which have more business rates than their relative needs to pay over some of that income as a so-called tariff, while authorities that have a lower business rates income than their relative needs receive a top-up payment.
In 2017-18, we allowed local authorities in five newly created 100% pilot areas to keep all the local business rates they raised. Additionally, we increased the GLA’s share of business rates from 20% to 37% and, in return, it took on direct responsibility for financing Transport for London’s investment grant from its additional share.
In December last year, we announced that we would create a further 11 100% pilot areas, including in London. In 2018-19, therefore, local authorities in Berkshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Kent, Leeds City, Lincolnshire, Liverpool, London, Solent, Suffolk, Surrey, West of England and the West Midlands will all keep 100% of the business rates they raise locally. The regulations before the Committee this afternoon will give administrative effect to the 11 new 100% pilots that will come into force on 1 April 2018. They will ensure that the sums paid and received by the pilot authorities over the course of the year reflect the new pilot arrangements.
As well as amending the administrative arrangements of the rates retention scheme to reflect the new 100% pilots, the regulations also make changes to tariffs and top-ups following the revaluation. As I said earlier, tariffs and top-ups are the way in which we redistribute local tax income between richer and poorer authorities under the rates retention scheme. They were originally set in 2013-14 based on the difference between the business rates that authorities were expected to collect in that year and their relative need, as established in that year’s local government finance settlement. Since then, they have been uprated only by inflation.
However, as a result of the business rates revaluation that took effect on 1 April 2017, the amount of business rates that authorities will actually collect in 2017-18 will be very different from what they collected in 2016-17. If, therefore, we were simply to uprate the existing tariffs and top-ups by inflation, as we have done in the past, authorities could find their income from business rates substantially changed, for reasons quite unconnected to their efforts to secure growth. Therefore, when we set the scheme up in 2013, we announced that we would adjust tariffs and top-ups to strip out the impact of revaluations.
In the 2017-18 settlement, we announced adjusted tariffs and top-ups for all authorities, but, as we said at the time, we would revise them in the 2018-19 settlement to reflect updated data. These revisions were duly made in February as part of the local government finance settlement for 2018-19. However, the revised values are also used in the calculation of levy and safety net payments under the rates retention scheme. The changes made by the regulations before the Committee this afternoon ensure that the revised values for tariffs and top-ups in 2017-18 and 2018-19 will be used in levy and safety net calculations. Without these regulations, the calculation of the levy and safety net payments due to or from authorities would be wrong. Authorities that needed a safety net payment would fail to get one, and other authorities might be forced to pay a levy that they could ill afford.
Finally, the regulations make changes to the financing of enterprise zones. Under the rates retention scheme, certain areas have been designated as enterprise zones. In those zones, authorities are entitled to keep all of the growth in business rates income. The growth is used by local enterprise partnerships, or LEPs, to help regenerate the zones. Enterprise zones were first set up in 2013, and there are now more than 200 separate zones in nearly 100 local authorities. As well as keeping all the growth in business rates in an enterprise zone, authorities are also able to give business rates relief to new businesses relocating there, thus further stimulating economic development. Where authorities use their powers to award relief, they can be compensated by central government for the reduction in their income. Compensation is given to local authorities by allowing them to deduct the cost of the relief from the 50% share of business rates that they otherwise pay to central government under the rates retention scheme. Of course, with the advent of 100% business rates pilots, any compensation owed to 100% pilot authorities will be paid via a Section 31 grant because there is no longer a central share from which it can be deducted.
When the first enterprise zones were set up in 2013, authorities were entitled to receive compensation for the relief they gave for a period of five years until 31 March 2018. That period, set out in the rates retention regulations, has not changed since, despite the fact that we have set up new enterprise zones in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. In order to ensure that every enterprise zone is treated on an equal footing, regardless of the date that it came into being, the regulations ensure that authorities can be compensated for up to five years after the enterprise zone came into existence, regardless of whether that was 2013, 2017 or any year in between.
To sum up, the regulations make technical changes to the administration of the business rates retention system to reflect the impact of the revaluation. They allow the new 100% rates retention pilots to operate from 1 April 2018, and they put all enterprise zones on a level playing field. Without the changes, authorities would be unable to receive the income from the business rates retention scheme to which they are entitled. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I register my interest as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees, which is part of the Leeds combined authority, rather than Leeds City, for the 100% business rates retention scheme. The people in Kirklees would not be happy to think they were part of Leeds City, so we had better make that clear.
Baroness Pinnock
Not ever, I would say. As the Minister said, these are quite complex technical amendments, which, in the circumstances, I particularly welcome. Obviously, as he has indicated, they are to enable the so-called 100% business rates retention pilot authorities to come into existence next week.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the Grand Committee to my relevant interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should say at the outset that I am happy to support these regulations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has just said, this is a technical document and she made a valid point when she highlighted the formula. I must say that the key she is after would have belonged in the Explanatory Notes. It is strange that we have notes but no explanation of what the letters mean. It cannot be changed now, but perhaps it is something that the department should take back for the future. However, as I say, I support the regulations which are useful and will be helpful.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer a couple of questions. We will have 10 pilot authorities. How many actually applied for this? I might be wrong, but I think that it was around 24 authorities. What is the department doing in terms of providing feedback to the unsuccessful authorities to explain why they were not selected? If I was a member of an authority which had not been selected, I would certainly like to know why that was the case. There may be all sorts of reasons, but it would be useful to know what is said to those authorities which are not to be part of the scheme.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the fair funding review. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say a little more about that. Can he confirm whether any councils will see a reduction in their income as a consequence of the fair funding review? Will everyone get a bit more or will they all remain as they are now? It would be useful if he could respond to that.
There is also the question of the business rates appeals. I think that something like 150,000 appeals have been hanging around since 2010. We have to deal with them because at the moment the system is not working. The Valuation Office Agency needs more resources to speed up its work because it would be better for everyone if these issues were resolved as quickly as possible. Some of these appeals now go back almost eight years so they need to be sorted out. Again, I would be grateful if the noble Lord can tell us something about the position.
I am also aware of the grant error set out in a Written Ministerial Statement published on 20 March. There appears to have been an overpayment of £36 million which the Government are not going to claw back this year, but may do so in the next financial year. How did the error come about? I would like to understand what has happened because it is quite a large sum of money. Has provision been made for councils to hand the money back or will the repayment be spread over future years?
With those few points, I am happy to approve the regulations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their contributions and I shall try to deal with the points raised. I am flying solo at the moment so one or two caveats may be entered here and there.
On the technical issue raised by the noble Baroness and echoed by the noble Lord about the nature of some of the schedules with the figures and letters set out in them which make Einstein look rather straightforward, perhaps I may get back to them to try to explain how they work.
I shall take up the point made by the noble Baroness about Leeds City Council. I have checked the schedule where it is referred to simply as “Leeds”, but I very much take the point she made about the fierce local loyalty in Kirklees and I readily understand the point she is making.
I gently disagree with the noble Baroness on fiscal devolution. This is significant fiscal devolution. Obviously, at the end of the day there have to be adjustments, which I think we all support. Without a smoothing mechanism, so that rich authorities contribute towards poorer authorities, the system would break down as being totally unfair. I understand the point that she makes, but I think that this is significant fiscal devolution.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the fair funding review. In a sense, we have twin-track processes, both of which kick in in 2021. Significant work is being done on the fair funding review. I say to the noble Lord, without anticipating precisely what the review will show, which of course I cannot do, that I would be amazed if everywhere got a larger sum of money. That is not how it will work. I would have thought that some will get a lesser sum of money, while others will get more. The essence of it is that it will be fair.
The noble Lord asked how many applicants there were to be pilot authority areas. Twenty-six made an application. We have sought to explain to those authorities that were not chosen that the field was competitive, that there was a lot of interest and how we made the decisions. He then, fairly, raised the issue of appeals. He will know—we were both party to the discussion—that the check, challenge and appeal process that we are now adopting will significantly cut down the time taken for appeals. We are working alongside those that are appealing to cut down the time further. Considerable work needs to be done, but we are progressing that.
Lastly, the noble Lord, again fairly, raised the issue of Section 31 overpayments. We have taken the decision not to claw back the overpayment for the last financial year, so to that extent the authorities affected are all better off by virtue of that, but for the next financial year, 2018-19, we have decided that we are not going to overpay. Those authorities will get the correct amount of money. It is not as if we are clawing it back, as it has not been paid yet, but it will be a lesser amount than we were proposing to pay, because we got the figures wrong in the department. Mea culpa on that—lessons are being learned and there are red faces. As I say, this has resulted in a windfall for those authorities overpaid last year, but we are ensuring that this year we pay the correct amount—some £80 million less than it would have been if the error had not been spotted.
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their support. I will ensure that I respond to them on the points that I was unable to deal with, particularly the technical one about the figures and letters in the schedules. As I say, I am grateful for their support and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Work in Fishing Convention) Order 2018
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Work in Fishing Convention) Order 2018.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I ask that this order, which was laid before the House on 22 February 2018, be considered. This draft order would give the Government the powers to implement the Work in Fishing Convention into UK law by declaring that this 2007 convention, ILO Convention No. 188, is to be regarded as an EU treaty as defined in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. As a result, the provisions of the 1972 Act would apply in relation to the convention and could then be used to implement the convention. The order does not in itself implement it; that will require new and amending statutory instruments, which will be laid later this year, if this order is approved, under negative procedure.
So what is the Work in Fishing Convention? It was adopted in Geneva by the International Labour Organization—the ILO—on 14 June 2007 and entered into force internationally on 16 November 2017. It entitles all fishermen to written terms and conditions of employment, decent accommodation and food, medical care, regulated working time, repatriation, social protection and health and safety on board. It also provides minimum standards relating to recruitment and placement. Sadly, in too many cases, as the Committee may be aware from reports in the press during the last year or so, such basic requirements are not always met.
The convention provides global minimum standards for decent work and a framework which enables both flag states and port states to enforce them. The UK should therefore ratify the convention to tackle the fortunately rare cases of labour exploitation in the UK industry and to give the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA—the tools to enforce the same standards on non-UK fishing vessels visiting UK ports. At a domestic level, it will also help to further safety.
Fishing remains the most dangerous industry in the UK and the Government are committed to making it safer. The MCA works with the Fishing Industry Safety Group to improve fishing vessel safety. One issue which has hindered progress is that much of the UK legislation covering fishermen’s health and safety, and living and working conditions, applies only to employed fishermen when a large proportion of the UK fleet is manned by self-employed share fishermen. The Government consider that the implementation of the convention into UK law is an important step forward in the development of health and safety policy for the fishing industry, as it provides protection for all fishermen regardless of their employment status.
ILO conventions must be ratified as a whole. UK legislation is already compliant with parts of the convention, while the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides the necessary powers to implement other parts of it. However, some provisions of the convention cannot be implemented under that Act. This order will allow us to use the powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972 to give effect to those provisions.
The MCA conducted a public consultation on proposals to implement the convention between November 2017 and January 2018. These proposals were developed through extensive discussion with industry representatives. Consultation responses generally supported implementation in principle but raised some concerns about the practical implications. That is why the MCA is considering these responses and will work with industry representatives to mitigate any impact before implementing regulations are made.
I should like to make clear the thinking behind having this choice of instrument, as opposed to new primary legislation. The convention is ancillary to the EU treaties because it contains some matters that lie within the competence of the European Union, although the EU is not itself able to be party to the convention. Other matters are ancillary to the transport and employment provisions of the EU treaties, in particular the promotion of social protection and the raising of the standard of living and employment of fishermen. As an EU Council decision was passed authorising ratification by EU member states, a directive has been adopted on the European social partners’ agreement on the convention; and, as it is not possible to ratify conventions piecemeal, it is appropriate that the convention is deemed to be ancillary to the treaty. I hope the Committee followed all of that.
There is also precedent. The convention is a sister convention to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. The MLC, widely regarded as a bill of rights for seafarers, was implemented into UK law in 2014. This House approved the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Maritime Labour Convention) Order 2009 to use the powers in the European Communities Act to implement the MLC into UK law. As this convention is intended to provide similar protections for fishermen as the MLC did for merchant seafarers, it is appropriate that the same method be used to provide powers to implement the convention.
I therefore propose that this order be made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 in order to use the powers in Section 2(2) of that Act to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of the convention that are not either already implemented into UK law or capable of being implemented using existing powers, thus enabling the United Kingdom in meeting its international obligations and improving working conditions within the fishing industry.
The draft order before the Committee is intended to ensure that the Government have the powers to fully implement the convention into law to improve the health, safety and well-being of all fishermen in the UK. It is fully supported by the UK social partners and by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the Marine Management Organisation.
I thank the Minister for her explanation but I still do not get how we will use this legislation. This specifically is not EU legislation. The fact that this process might have been used before should not act as a precedent for repeating something that is wrong. None of the areas covered by this—minimum age and some on the medical side—are exclusively EU competencies. There is a number of EU competencies which are exclusive under the common fisheries policy, but these are not them. This is the wrong instrument with which to effect these measures and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
As this has an EU context, I am particularly interested in whether all 28 EU member states are signatories to the convention and whether there has been a pan-European signing-up to it.
I welcome the convention. The Minister made the valid point that the order applies to foreign vessels that might come into UK ports and enables us to enforce this. The vast majority of vessels will be from either EEA or EU member states and I would be surprised if they were not meeting the terms of the convention. However, it is an excellent backstop.
It is interesting that the Minister used exclusively the term fishermen whereas the convention refers to fishers. Certainly in North America, “fishers” is the English word that is always used in this context. Will the Government in future always use the term fishers rather than fishermen when they refer to this industry and its participants? Fisherman is an ancient term, it is gender-specific and inappropriate to this industry in the 21st century. I do not accuse the Minister of being inappropriate while she was making her explanation because that has been the way in which we do it in this country, but it is time for change.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might raise a query. I thank the Minister for introducing the convention order. My query is on the medical aspect that was picked up. Paragraph 4.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to ILO 188 and “medical care”, but paragraph 4.5 refers to “shared competence”. It then goes on to describe,
“medical treatment on board vessels”.
Obviously the vessels will vary in size. Can we be given any clarification on what is expected in the difference between medical care and medical treatment on board vessels?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Teverson by saying that we support the basic aims of ILO 188, but I have some questions for the Minister. I start with a really easy one. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the territorial application says,
“this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
What happened to Wales and to England? It then says that,
“it is not a financial instrument that relates exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
What happened to Scotland then? I find that particular paragraph confusing.
This whole process has been very slow. ILO 188 was laid before Parliament in 2008. The Government say they now hope to rectify this as soon as possible. Given that we are a decade on, when will that be? Is that what the Minister was referring to when she said that the Government hope to take further action by later this year? Do we have any clarity as to exactly what that phrase means?
The Government are making this order under the European Communities Act 1972 to facilitate the implementation of ILO 188. My noble friend drew attention to the appropriateness, or not, of using this method, but the Government have chosen to do it by that system. It raises a wry smile, of course, at this stage of our attempts to leave the EU, but nevertheless that is the Government’s chosen path. One has to ask: what would be the implications of Brexit on how we implement this? There are obviously issues of shared competence here. It is not that the EU has remained uninterested in this. The Council exhorted member states to ratify it by the end of 2012. We are clearly lagging behind that timescale, but at least the work is now being done. One applauds that.
I realise that this is a mechanism for further implementation, but the impact statements say that there will be “no impact on business” and that it,
“does not apply to activities that are undertaken by small businesses”.
What we are doing by agreeing to this is unlocking the door to rules and regulations that will surely apply to small businesses. I am confused by the lack of an impact assessment and by the statements on the lack of impact on business. Are the Government saying that there is no impact because we do all this anyway? I thought that might be the answer, but in fact the Minister just stood up and said that very often these rules are not observed. We need to receive an explanation to find out exactly why the Government feel that an impact assessment is not necessary.
Finally, I refer to regulated working time, to which the Minister referred earlier. She pinpointed the fact that these standards often are not met. I wonder what the Government have in mind to improve conditions in relation to regulated working time.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I am a late draftee to this Committee and already I feel out of my depth—I tend to feel out of my depth in three feet of sea-water, but I will get accustomed to the situation, I am quite sure. I understand that this may well be the Minister’s last speech, as she is leaving the Front Bench. Of course, we all wish her well. I do not have the slightest doubt that she will, with her usual skill, answer the challenging questions that have already been presented to the Committee, and I can reassure her that I do not have a challenging question.
Although I was born in south Wales, I was brought up 14 miles from Stratford-upon-Avon, so of course we lived by the works of Shakespeare. I remember when I played the part of Orlando, who was proud enough to boast,
“yet am I inland bred. And know some nurture”.
In other words, he was born in the Midlands, a long way from the sea, and was therefore a polite, dutiful citizen and well respected; and heaven help those people who went anywhere near where rougher trades were practised—for which I have no doubt fishers qualified.
I very much enjoyed the point that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made, and I am sure that the Minister will respect it. After all, I thought it had a biblical origin—“ye shall be fishers of men”, not “fishermen”. So the word has a tradition to it, and I am sure the Minister will accept that point.
I also recognise the obvious fact that the issue of small businesses is bound to apply as far as fishing is concerned. My own perspective on fishing was that it used very small vessels indeed, until eventually, by some mischance, I arrived in Ullapool—actually, it was deliberate: we enjoyed Ullapool very much. The amount of fish being landed there and the activities of the trawlers were enormously impressive. However, what seems be going on is the absolute reversal of 16th-century trade patterns. Whereas Drake went to the Spanish Main and brought home Spanish treasure, it looked to me as though the great trucks came from Spain to take Scottish treasure—the catches brought in by the local trawlers—back to Spain.
Let me assure the Committee that we are in favour of this instrument. We recognise the point that it is not an EU document. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will explain why we continue to use this framework and why it will stand us in good stead. It needs to, because there is no doubt that in recent years there has been growing anxiety about the conditions in which men—it is almost universally men—are employed in the fishing fleet. Many are in ships in which conditions can be quite deplorable.
A recent development is the recognition of people trafficking. I do not know how far back it goes, but I can certainly recall a time when the concept of trafficking did not apply to people who worked on British fishing vessels. The trafficking that has been exposed must be a shock to us all, and it involves people from a very long way away indeed—Sri Lanka is very far away for a fisher involved in work on a British vessel to claim to be in home waters, and certainly he did not arrive on that vessel when it was directly off the coast of Sri Lanka. But it is an indication of the extent to which people trafficking is an increasing problem. We know it most acutely, of course, in the migration in the Mediterranean, but it is not just there that it is happening: ask the Australians about the problems in their part of the world.
We are aware of the fact that there are cases of British vessels being involved with people who look as though they have appeared in the crew not through orthodox recruitment but through trafficking, where it is the intermediaries who make all the money out of them. Often, therefore, they work in appalling conditions on vessels, and they have great difficulty working out any strategy for escape. It is difficult to know what the correct word for “work” is if you have no escape from it and no control at all over conditions—I suggest that it is some form of modern slavery. That is the seriousness with which we should address this issue today. I am very glad, therefore, that both in the other place and here my party is fully behind these steps to improve the situation—and not before time.
I am interested in the question of enforcement measures, and perhaps the Minister might dwell a little on these. If the legislation is not directly anyone’s, the problem is who then takes responsibility for the effective policing and operation of these areas. I am sure that the Minister has a clear answer to that question.
This may be a brief document and a brief debate, but it is about the most serious of issues. We certainly want our fishing industry to be clear of the malpractices that have been identified here. Of course, it may be that it is always foreign vessels identified in British waters that are involved, but we cannot be too careful. We need the response of international action because, of all industries, fishing is so obviously an international practice for so many—fishers do not just stay in home waters.
The other dimension is obvious as well. There is no industry with a greater casualty risk than the fishing industry. Only two days ago, I was talking to a steeplejack—retired, I hasten to add. He had been in the employ of the Church Commissioners and had spent all his working life working on contracts for English cathedrals. What a joy that must have been in so many ways, and he was a wonderfully enlightened man. When I questioned him about the risks involved in his industry, he said, “We don’t take risks; we’re professional in what we do and accidents are few and far between”. Would that that were entirely true of our fishing industry also.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his kind words. Unless there is an Urgent Question, which can easily happen, this probably will be the last time I stand up from the Front Bench. But that is probably just as well, because when I finish replying to this I will probably get the sack anyway—I have to say that I have found it quite a difficult order to understand. However, I thank everybody for their words and I will try to answer all the questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the words “fishermen” and “fishers”. Funnily enough, I brought that up when I was given my brief. It turns out that, even though in academic circles “fishers” is the term it is thought should be used, apparently the industry particularly said that its members still want to be known as fishermen. That is why we are referring to “fishermen”, but it will be interesting, as time goes on, to see whether that does indeed change.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also asked why we are implementing the convention in this way, as it has nothing to do with the EU. Some aspects of the convention come exclusively within EU competence, but an EU directive that comes into force later in 2019 requires the implementation of the social partners agreement, which incorporates the provisions of the convention only for employed fishermen. Therefore, the convention will form part of EU law and Section 2(2) is appropriate for that reason. That is why we are doing it in this way.
The noble Lord also wanted to know how many states had signed up to the convention so far. The answer is three of the 28.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about impact assessments. A full impact assessment has been done on the SIs that have been introduced to implement ILO 188 and this has been subject to public consultation. The noble Baroness also talked about the speed of implementation and asked why it has taken so long. The measure was originally laid before Parliament in May 2008 and we then started consultation with the fishing industry. Some Governments have continued to support the policy, but I am afraid that it has taken time to get round to implementing it.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked about medical treatment. There is what I suppose you would describe as a trained first-aider, with equipment, on board vessels. If somebody falls ill while they are abroad, the owner of the vessel has to pay the bills for any hospital treatment. However, part of the point of implementing the convention is that we wish to highlight safety on vessels and the need to check the health of fishermen, ensuring that they are fit when they go to sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked, quite rightly, about the problems of modern slavery in the fishing industry. There have indeed been such problems, and in fact I think that there was a case last year. It is felt that this measure will tackle the scourge of modern slavery in the industry through enhanced inspections and regulations. That is being borne very much in mind, as is the safety of all fishermen. As we know, it is one of the least safe industries in which to work, which I suppose is not surprising when you consider what fishermen are up against on the sea.
I think that I have covered all the questions. If there are any that I have not answered, I will make sure that I write to noble Lords. However, I hope that the Committee will agree that the Work in Fishing Convention will help to overcome the dangers associated with the fishing industry. The Government are committed to improving safety in this sector and it is right that all fishermen are afforded the protections within the convention relating to working conditions. I commend the draft order to your Lordships.
Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to bring forward this important set of regulations which introduce a new system of local authority licensing of activities involving animals in England. The regulations form part of an important package of reforms that the Government are delivering to improve animal welfare.
These regulations meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to continue their review and reform of the pet licensing controls and specifically to update the licensing system for dog breeding, pet sales, riding establishments and animal boarding establishments. They also modernise the system for animal exhibits, which are currently regulated under the Performing Animals Act 1925. The current licensing and registration system that covers these five animal activities is outdated and complex. The new regulations create up-to-date minimum welfare standards for these five activities in England, while streamlining the system for both local authorities and businesses. We have worked closely with stakeholders from the sector, animal welfare organisations, local authorities and veterinary bodies in drafting these regulations and are very grateful for their support, in particular the work of the Canine and Feline Sector Group and the Equine Sector Council for helping to co-ordinate this.
One of the key issues with the current licensing system is that the animal welfare standards with which businesses are required to comply have not been updated for many years. The schedules to the new regulations include detailed animal welfare standards for each of the activities that have been developed in close consultation with stakeholders. These will ensure that anyone who receives a licence for dog breeding, selling pets, boarding dogs and cats, hiring out horses or keeping or training animals for exhibit will need to meet these new minimum welfare standards. This should help to drive up animal welfare standards across all of these sectors.
Many people and organisations have been calling for more restrictions to be placed in particular on the breeding and selling of dogs, where it is felt that there are unscrupulous businesses that breed dogs in poor conditions for maximum profit. The regulations address this issue in a number of ways. We are making changes to the definition of dog breeding so as to ensure that the regulations capture both large-scale dog breeders as well as smaller-scale dog breeding businesses. Under the new regulations, anyone who is in the business of breeding and selling dogs will need a licence. In addition, breeders that are not classed as a business will also need a licence if they breed three or more litters a year and sell any of them. Overall, this will ensure that more breeders are captured under the regulations and will need to comply with the high animal welfare requirements set out within them. They ensure that we can crack down on unregulated backstreet breeding.
It is important to acknowledge the sad fact that many unsuspecting potential buyers are providing a lucrative market for rogue dog breeders and animal dealers who work illegally outside the licensing system. The regulations therefore include a number of measures that will help consumers to identify these rogue traders and make more informed decisions when purchasing an animal. No licensed breeder or pet seller will be able to sell a puppy, kitten, ferret or rabbit which is below eight weeks of age. In addition, we have ensured that the recently updated welfare codes for cats and dogs carry the same requirement, so that no one should be separating puppies or kittens from their mothers before eight weeks of age unless there are genuine welfare reasons for the mother or the offspring.
Following the excellent work undertaken by the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, we have placed a number of the PAAG voluntary minimum standards in the regulations. Licence holders are now required to publish their licence number on all adverts, including online adverts, so that consumers can check this with the relevant local authority to make sure that it is a legitimate business. Adverts will also have to include a photograph of the animal and state its country of residence and origin. All licensed businesses will also receive a risk rating from one to five stars, based on the welfare standards that they adopt and their compliance record. This is a similar system to the one used in the food hygiene rating scheme.
For puppies, there is an additional requirement for any sale of a puppy to be completed at the premises where the puppy was bred, to make sure that the purchaser sees the puppy and the conditions that it has been kept in before making the final purchase. All licensed breeders can only show a puppy to a prospective purchaser if it is together with its mother, unless separation from the mother is necessary for welfare reasons. All licensed pet sellers are also required to provide purchasers with information about how to care for the animal they are buying. These measures will ensure that consumers are able to make more informed decisions when buying an animal, and are better able to care for it once they have taken it home. This is particularly important for more exotic species such as reptiles.
Many people are concerned about the increase in the online sale of pets. Currently, the legislation is not clear on whether or not these businesses require a licence, and so enforcement is inconsistent across the country. Under the new regulations, all commercial sales require a licence, including those that take place online. All of these businesses will have to comply with the minimum welfare standards set out in the regulations. These measures will ensure that the licensing system is consistent and fit for purpose in this modern age.
The licensing system is run by local authorities and funded by full cost recovery, so there is no financial burden on local authorities. Licences can be issued at any point in the calendar year, which will help to spread the workload across the year. The maximum licence length that can be issued is increased from one to three years, with longer licences going to businesses with earned recognition. This should reduce the workload for local authorities, allowing them to spend more time on enforcement of unlicensed businesses and on the less compliant businesses.
This will also reduce the burden on good businesses, such as those that operate to a particularly high standard of animal welfare and those associated with a body accredited by UKAS—for example, breeders in the Kennel Club’s assured breeder scheme. Such businesses will already be exceeding the requirements of the regulations and so will be able to achieve longer licences for a lower fee. This clearly also provides an incentive for businesses to improve welfare standards.
We recognise that the implementation of these regulations will be crucial to their success, and so local authority inspectors will be required to undertake specific training on licensing and inspection. This will ensure that they are suitably qualified to undertake inspections for all of the animal activities covered by the regulations. To that end, the City of London has worked with the pet industry to develop a syllabus for a level 3 training course for animal activities inspection, which inspectors will be required to attend. Local authorities will be able to recoup all their reasonable costs for this training from the licensing regime.
The regulations have been drafted in consultation with stakeholders from the industry, animal welfare organisations, local authorities and veterinary bodies, and we are very grateful for their assistance. The regulations are proportionate and targeted and will help to improve animal welfare across a number of sectors. For these reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their time and explanations regarding this SI and for his comprehensive introductory remarks. I declare my interest as a district councillor. It is now two years since Defra’s initial consultation on this important issue and I welcome moving it forward.
This SI covers a number of domestic animal welfare issues that are of great concern to the public, including the breeding and selling of animals, animal boarding establishments and, as the Minister said, the hiring out of horses. While it is essential to ensure that animal welfare is paramount, I welcome the introduction of requiring only one licence instead of the two previously needed. This is a sensible cut in bureaucracy. The Minister has provided assurances that those working in the sector have been consulted in the form of the equine, feline and canine organisations and that the Government have been working closely with them and with vets. A licence lasting up to two years instead of being renewed every year will be welcomed, as will the risk-based approach to the length of the licence and the ability for it to be given at any time during the year, not just at the year end.
My colleague and noble friend Lady Parminter has raised the issue of puppy farming on a number of occasions inside and outside the Chamber, and was extremely concerned that there should be adequate regulation of this often very distressing industry. Defra launched a call for evidence on the third-party sale of puppies and kittens on 8 February. This consultation will close on 2 May and we look forward to its results. We would be grateful if the Minister could give us an indication of when the results might be published.
We welcome the restriction of the number of litters that a bitch may have to one a year as a great step forward. The prohibition of the sale of a puppy—as well as kittens and other animals—below the age of eight weeks, and the need for a puppy to be shown with its mother by breeders prior to sale, will also be welcomed by those legitimate breeders and owners who have the best interests of their animals at heart. Similarly, the detailed restrictions on the size, height and type of boarding kennels and catteries should ensure that domestic animals can be left by their owners, in confidence that their pets will be well looked after during their absence.
As a local councillor, I am aware that local authorities are under tremendous pressure with budget restraints. I fully support the move to allow them to have full-cost recovery for their work in granting licences, as well as being able to raise fees for reasonable enforcement. In the past, it has not always been possible for the cost of extra work passed to local authorities to be recouped in this way. There will, of course, need to be an adequate number of suitably qualified inspectors to ensure that this legislation is properly enforced. I welcome the comments that the Minister made about the new qualification. I understand that it will take three years to meet the necessary standard and that vets on the list of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons will carry out some of this work.
While Defra is going to publish guidance, this will not be available until the regulations come into force. Does the Minister believe that this will give enough time to local authorities to be prepared to issue the new licences in an efficient and responsive manner?
I fully support the measures covered by this SI but I have one concern. Part 4 of the schedule, which covers the hiring out of horses, does not appear to cover riding for the disabled. While the regulations cover the welfare of animals in a commercial operation, they do not apply to those which operate on a charitable basis. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that if establishments which offer riding for the disabled are operating not on a charitable basis but as a business, they will be covered by this new legislation. That apart, I believe that this is a great step forward and look forward to its implementation eagerly.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I generally welcome these regulations. I declare an interest as an owner of a rescue mutt, which we are told is a cross between a poodle and a Shih Tzu. I would welcome suggestions from noble Lords as to what we should call that breed.
It must be right that puppies are not sold below the age of eight weeks. It is also right to draw the line at three litters a year. I am in favour of a risk-based approach to licensing and inspections by local authorities. In the same vein, it is helpful to avoid a backlog of inspections by operating on a basis of fixed-term licences set at any point in the year. I support the regulation of advertisements, as these regulations do, although I ask my noble friend how this will all be enforced. Are there the funds to allow the necessary inspections and monitoring of advertising? Perhaps PAAG and the excellent dog charities can help with the latter. However, what about enforcement?
I note that these regulations apply in England and I wonder what discussions my noble friend has had with the Welsh Government with a view to ascertaining whether they might do something similar. Not that it is introduced by these regulations, although they refer to it, but I have a concern about the dead hand of bureaucracy, which demands that someone who very occasionally looks after someone else’s dog, and perhaps has done so for years, should be required to obtain a licence if they are to be even modestly recompensed. Having said that, there is no excuse for poor welfare conditions for animals, and, as I have said, I generally support these regulations.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support these extremely welcome changes to activities licensed by local authorities under five earlier Acts through regulations under powers in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These licensing conditions will now reflect the welfare requirements of animals as required in that Act and as will be required in the specific guidance being produced in association with this instrument—guidance that will be statutory, which is very important. The activities have been outlined by the noble Lord and I commend Her Majesty’s Government for introducing this instrument, which will undoubtedly have a very positive effect on animal welfare. I should like to make one or two comments and ask one or two questions.
On the breeding of dogs, the measure to reduce the numbers of litters per year from five to three, at which point a licence is required, and to apply various sensible measures, such as a prohibition on the sale of pups less than eight weeks of age, the requirement to provide information to the buyers and other sensible measures, are very welcome. However, it is worth emphasising, as the noble Lord did, that these requirements would apply to anyone breeding and selling puppies, even from one litter, if it was deemed to be a business. My understanding—the Minister may want to correct me on this—is that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regards a profit of more than £1,000 a year as a business, but that needs clarity.
In toto, this instrument addresses several serious animal welfare concerns which many have had for some time. They include online sales, which have been addressed, exotic pets, for which more guidance will now have to be given at the point of sale, and various aspects of the breeding and sale of puppies.
Another measure with which I strongly concur is relevant to current concerns about the breeding of dogs where their conformation or genetics predispose to health or welfare problems among mothers or puppies. This is contained in paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 6 of the guidance:
“No dog may be kept for breeding if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, phenotype or state of health that breeding from it could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare or the health or welfare of its offspring”.
This is extremely welcome. It clearly has relevance to issues of current concern, such as brachycephalia, where short-nosed breeds have a much higher incidence of respiratory disorder. There is even a name for it: BOAS—Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome. There will clearly need to be consideration and discussion of the words “reasonably be expected” but I very much hope that this guidance will hasten current efforts to improve the health status of various breeds that intrinsically have a higher risk of suffering ill health. Indeed, I hope it will persuade dog owners and breeders to be much more selective in the dogs that they buy and breed.
I have some questions for the Minister. The guidance is essential to this instrument, so can the Minister assure us that it will be available by 1 October when the instrument is enacted? Will local authorities be given enough scope to charge reasonable fees? Will those fees be ring-fenced so that they cover all the costs incurred by local authorities—not just the training costs, about which we have heard a little, but all the costs of the measures—so that no local authority can claim insufficient resources to enforce this instrument?
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome this animal welfare regulation before us. I think that there are two of us here in Grand Committee who took the original Bill through, back in 2006, and I know we spent many hours on the Bill trying to get it right. Clearly, however, times have moved on—there was no such thing as buying and selling animals online in those days, which, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is a challenge.
I want to follow up on the last comment made, about breeding healthy dogs, because that is a huge problem. I do not know if it is so relevant in cats—it could well be—but it is certainly relevant for dogs. Therefore, I am glad to see it mentioned and hope that the Minister will be able to reinforce it. However, I have one question: what about some of the dogs that come in from abroad? Again, that is a question relating to their health and breeding.
In general terms, I welcome this improvement and tightening up of some of the regulations, and I know that a lot of outside bodies were consulted so that they could comment. I have four specific questions that I would like to raise about the document. I turn first to paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3, which states that anybody who wants to buy a cat or dog has to go in person to see it. But I am thinking of those who are housebound: in that situation, those who want a cat may not necessarily be able to go and see it. Has any thought been given to this? Could a carer or somebody else go on their behalf?
My second question relates to paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 4: why do boarded dogs require daily exercise only once but breeding dogs require it twice? It seems to me slightly strange that they are not both under the same regime, because surely they both need good exercise. However, I suspect that the Minister will have an answer.
My third question concerns Schedule 7, which talks about private persons who train or show one or more pets. This may not apply directly to farm animals, but many of us in the Grand Committee go to county shows where animals are shown. They are perhaps not trained in the technical sense, but they are trained to show. Originally, I presumed that they would not be classed as a business, but some of the animals at these shows become very valuable if they manage to win championships. I have not found an answer in what is before us as to whether they would qualify and need a licence, or whether they are not regarded as a business, although they might be a business. It is fairly fine line and I would be grateful for some clarification.
My last question, which has been picked up by other noble Lords, goes back to the responsibilities that have been placed on local authorities. I accept that local authorities are able to claim back and get full costs, but will those local authorities that do not have many demands on them under the regulations have different charging rates? I am sure that that is not the intention, but how will we overcome this? The best way forward is not clear to me. There is a responsibility on local authorities and the move from one year to three years will help to lessen the demands on people’s time and expertise, but I would be glad to hear some clarification from the Minister when he responds.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, when I was looking through the regulations, I was trying to see whether they would stamp out the bad practice of illegal, back-street puppy farming. I welcome the provisions on the eight-week period and viewing with the mother. I was also pleased to see that the regulations require non-commercial breeders to obtain a licence if they breed three or more litters per year, which is down from five or more previously. That will make it more difficult for breeders to claim that they are non-commercial in order to avoid having to have a licence.
Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment. It is not difficult to see that, if a breeder wanted to avoid this restriction, he could say that he owned two bitches, his wife owned another two bitches and each of his children owned two bitches. It would be impossible to prove otherwise. I think that the regulations have missed a trick. If the requirement for a licence for more than two litters per annum was applied not to the breeder but to the premises, it would be much more difficult to circumvent the rules. My question to the Minister is this: is there any way that the Government could add to “breeder” the words “and/or premises”, perhaps in the guidance notes to the local authorities?
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I was about to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as my noble friend—we have been friends for such a long time, even though I am independent and she is a Conservative. She touched on something that is absent from this statutory instrument, which is the breeding of cats. Just as with the dogs that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned, you are getting cats with flat faces, because they are attractive to people who think that they look like babies. It is a real menace in the cat world and should not be allowed. Many people acquire cats—we have two farmhouse-bred moggies. Cats living on farms have litter after litter, and I feel that there needs to be some regulation on spaying or castrating them so that we can reduce the overall number of cats and breed nice, healthy animals—like ours.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I just want to say a few words. First, I declare that I am a member of a local authority. I welcome the new regulations on minimum welfare standards. I hope that we will have tough customs checks when puppies come into the UK. I also welcome the important provisions on streamlining, enforcement and full costs for local authorities. As previous speakers have said, this is an opportunity to stamp out unscrupulous, back-street puppy farms, which should be banished as soon as possible.
My second declaration is as a dog lover: I have dogs and I love them dearly. I agree with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on the breeding of dogs, under Part 5 of Schedule 1. I acknowledge the move from five to three litters, but I think that if something is a business it should be licensed, even if there is only one litter. It is a commercial enterprise and obviously it is going to make a profit. Instead of having it go down to three, it should be one. If it is a commercial enterprise it should breed a litter to sell. It is a business. Could the Minister clarify that for me?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the intent behind the regulations. As he says, the proposals provide a long overdue update on a number of aspects of the regulations about keeping and selling animals as pets, which, as he says, are well out of date. We welcome much of the content, which would improve the licensing requirements of owners, breeders and sellers alike. I might have been guilty of this, but while we have used the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reports to criticise the department, it is also worth placing on record its unusual praise on this occasion in drawing the regulations to our attention. It says:
“We commend Defra on a well-judged and informative”,
Explanatory Memorandum. I echo that and say well done to the staff.
We welcome the new licensing approach, which encourages businesses to become low risk through delivering high standards, with those that conform being able to have licenses for a longer period, rather than having to reapply each year. That seems to make sense. However, it is important that this flexibility is used for the right reasons and that it is not just seen as an easy option for local authorities that do not have the staff or the resources to visit premises only every two or three years. It is important that that high standard underpins all this and that it is not traded off for financial constraints. We also welcome the obvious thing of having one standard licence rather than multiple licences. Again, that is good common sense, but we have some concerns about the application of the licensing system, which I will come back to shortly.
In addition, we have campaigned for a long time to require puppy sales to be completed in the presence of the new owner, for a ban on the sale of puppies and kittens under eight weeks old, and for the licensing threshold for dog breeders to be reduced, so we welcome all of those developments. However, as the Minister knows, we very much regret that the opportunity was not also taken in these regulations to ban the third-party commercial sale of puppies and kittens. Indeed, it is not really clear how many of the other improved welfare standards that underpin these regulations can be enforced while third-party sales continue, many of which happen under the radar and are not properly regulated.
The reality is that, as the noble Lord said, there has been a huge rise in online sales of puppies and kittens fuelled by “rogue traders”—I think that was his expression—which are often overseas and are sadly renowned for having poor welfare standards. This all has a knock-on effect. The poor animals that are traded on this basis have health and behavioural problems associated with long journeys, often travelling many hundreds of miles in unhygienic conditions, and often with premature separation from their mothers, who themselves are often kept in exploitative and inhumane puppy farms abroad. There have been numerous whistleblowing cases where we have seen examples of this—in particular in eastern Europe, but they come from all sorts of places across the continent.
I still do not feel that the measures before us address this problem. The noble Lord was talking about curtailing adverts. Obviously those sorts of measures are welcome, but we are still seeing that illegal trade taking place. I do not see that it will be dealt with until we have that third-party commercial ban. We believe that it is time to stamp out this trade, which is why we support such a ban. However, the fact that the Government have now issued a separate consultation that revisits this issue has given us some hope. We look forward to participating in that debate and hope that, in time, the Government will see the error of their ways on this issue.
In the meantime, I have some questions for the Minister arising from the regulations before us. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, there seems to have been a very long delay between the end of the consultation in March 2016 and the appearance of these regulations today. That seems to be a bit of a hallmark of the department. Can the Minister explain why it has taken two years to process the regulations?
Secondly, the regulations are to be supported by more detailed schedules and guidance, but the way in which they are written at the moment uses very simple language. In one sense that is great, because it is easy to understand. However, they use phrases such as “adequate” facilities, “sufficient” space and a “suitable” environment, all of which are open to interpretation, so it is important that as soon as possible we have measurable requirements so that local authorities can make a proper assessment of whether welfare standards are being maintained. When will that more detailed guidance be provided so that we can be assured that there will be proper ways to measure the improvement in welfare standards?
Thirdly, has any further thought been given to introducing a microchip database recording microchip numbers on entry to the UK and extending microchipping to cats? Does the Minister agree that this would help to cut down on the illegal trade in puppies and kittens?
Fourthly, a number of noble Lords have talked about the new inspection arrangements. We are concerned that local authority inspectors will be undertrained and underresourced to manage the new licensing regime successfully. What, if any, additional resources are being provided to local authorities to carry out these duties? Is the Minister concerned that the proposal for level 2 qualifications for inspectors is not really high enough for them to understand the complex animal welfare needs that they will be required to inspect? Indeed, what plans are there to require licence holders themselves—the actual owners of these animals—to demonstrate minimum competence standards and meet best practice?
The impact assessment assumes a one-off familiarisation for businesses and local authorities of two hours a week. Does the Minister agree that this is wholly inadequate and that a much more rigorous training regime needs to be developed? Can he shed some further light on how the licensing fees will be established? In response to questions in the Commons, the Minister there said that the licences would be,
“funded by full cost recovery … so there is no financial burden on local authorities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/03/18; col. 5.]
We understand what that means, but how will it be calculated in practice? We are talking about a differential cost for licence holders in every different local authority. Will all licensed operators be compelled to pay a contribution not just towards the inspections of the good guys, if I can put it like that, but towards the enforcement activities taken against all the illegal operators too? The people who own up and pay up will be paying for the policing. It differs in different parts of the country, but there could be quite widespread potentially illegal activities, and that does not seem very fair. Is that not a case of penalising those who play by the rules, rather than getting everyone to up their game?
Lastly, the regulations address only certain kinds of commercial animal services, such as providing boarding for cats and dogs and day care for dogs. Several noble Lords have mentioned other kinds of commercial animal services. My bugbear, which I have mentioned to the Minister in the past, is that commercial dog walkers are becoming big business these days: they often deal with large numbers of dogs during the day, yet they do not seem to be covered by these regulations. Has any thought been given to requiring commercial dog walkers to have a licence? Are any reviews of other animal licensing arrangements currently taking place for new businesses that are developing?
In conclusion, while we welcome many of these proposals, there seems a lot more work to be done in raising animal welfare standards across the board. We therefore look forward to receiving these details from the Minister in due course. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the many very pertinent questions that have been raised today.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been a very important discussion, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for recording what I would call some praise, but some chastisement as well. Her genuine praise was for the officials who have been engaged on this matter over a considerable period. I will be in longer form in a moment but the most important thing is to have got these regulations right. They may have taken some time but it is better to get them right, because this has involved fairly intricate work with a number of parties, which I will explain in greater detail.
I am very struck by the universal endorsement of the spirit of what the regulations are seeking, which is to enhance animal welfare. Again, I acknowledge that it would not have been possible to get to the detail that we will have without the support of the Canine and Feline Sector Group, the Equine Sector Council, the local authorities, vets charities and participants in this sector generally. We always want to root out the bad but we should also remember that there are some extremely good and dedicated dog and cat breeders, who care immensely for their animals and would not dream of selling them to what they identified as an indifferent home, so these things can work both ways. The purpose of much of what we have been wrestling with is to ensure that we endorse the good, raise the standard of the intermediate and root out the bad. In my lay man’s terms, that is how I see our objective.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell, raised the issue of third-party sales. As has been mentioned, we have issued a call for evidence in relation to a ban on the third-party sale of puppies and kittens. I should say that part of the issue was that not all the interested parties in the animal charity world were of a common view on this. But—I stress “but”—I acknowledge that there are strong feelings on this issue, and such a ban would prevent commercial sellers selling puppies and kittens unless they had bred the animal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the call for evidence closes on 2 May, after which we will consider the way forward. We are seeking to publish that by the end of July. One possibility, if we were to go down this route, would be to amend these regulations using the powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. However, we felt that in the meantime it was not sensible to delay the implementation of what are already advances in the range of these regulations. Clearly, as always, guidance is where we will have further and better particulars, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that we are very conscious that guidance needs to be published. We aim to publish by the end of July precisely for many of the reasons that have been outlined.
I will seek to answer some of the questions asked and if, in my view, I have not answered any sufficiently, I will of course write to noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, queried whether organisations such as charities that provide riding for the disabled would require a licence for the hiring out of horses. I can confirm that the regulations apply only to commercial businesses, so it is extremely unlikely that a registered charity would be required to hold a licence. But I emphasise that it depends on what might be undertaken in each individual case. The point is that these regulations deal with commercial businesses.
Earl Cathcart
I am confused about one thing. It is not to do with the Minister’s response to my questions—for which I thank him—but my noble friend Lady Redfern referred to needing a licence for fewer than two litters and the Minister said that you need a licence if you are selling your puppies. In the Explanatory Notes it states that these regulations remove the existing exemption whereby someone who breeds from their own pet dog does not need a licence to sell puppies. So if one of my dogs has puppies and I want to sell a few, give them away or whatever, do I have to get a licence for that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I might look sideways slightly as I say this, but the precise distinction is if the owner is in the business. In other words, the point is that if you have three or more litters you must have a licence, but if you are in the business you would have to have a licence even if you had only one litter. That distinction of being in business will be set out in the guidance. The whole purpose is to capture those who are in the business of dog breeding if they have any number of breeding bitches. It is important that we can license those who are in the business, but we have a catch-all that if you breed and sell more than three litters and you are not in the business, you have to be licensed as well. I say to all breeders who are breeding and selling to look at the regulations. Obviously the purpose of this is not to be bureaucratic, but to raise animal welfare standards. I will reflect on what my noble friend has said. If there is a clearer response I will of course write to my noble friend and all noble Lords, but I think that Hansard will report what are the varying elements of requirements for a licence from the local authority. If there are any ambiguities and noble Lords would like to ask me afterwards so I do not confuse myself, I would be very pleased.
Baroness Redfern
If, as my noble friend Lord Cathcart said, you are in the business and you breed one litter, then should you not be licensed because you are in business? That was the emphasis of my intervention earlier.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think my noble friend answered that. If someone is in the business the number is irrelevant, so that is caught.
Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to introduce these important regulations on the mandatory use of closed circuit television in slaughterhouses in England. These regulations meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to make CCTV recording in slaughterhouses mandatory. Our manifesto commitment reflected widespread public concern over animal welfare in slaughterhouses. They are made under powers in Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Government have encouraged the voluntary uptake of CCTV in slaughterhouses, but the number of slaughterhouses with CCTV has stalled in recent years, with only 50% of red meat slaughterhouses and 70% of white meat slaughterhouses having some CCTV for animal welfare purposes in 2016. Those slaughterhouses which had installed CCTV had not always done so comprehensively. In 2016, only 46% of those slaughterhouses with CCTV had coverage in the unloading area. The level of CCTV coverage was even lower in the stun area, with less than 40% of slaughterhouses having CCTV in this area or in the bleed area. So even in slaughterhouses where CCTV is installed, key areas are not currently covered by cameras.
The Farm Animal Welfare Committee, FAWC, produced an independent assessment of the benefits of CCTV in slaughterhouses in February 2015. It identified CCTV as offering real benefits as an important complement to official inspection of slaughterhouse practices and as an evidential method of recording animal welfare abuses.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that this is not taking away the need for a vet to be present for the inspection?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I will of course address that. I am grateful to my noble friend.
FAWC also identified the significant benefits of CCTV systems to slaughterhouse operators, from in-house review of their operations and effective staff training to providing evidence of due diligence, which can increase public confidence in the meat industry and its adherence to the UK’s high animal welfare standards. FAWC’s report provided a useful basis for the Government’s proposals on mandatory CCTV which we published last summer. We received nearly 4,000 responses to this public consultation, with more than 99% in favour of mandatory CCTV recording in all slaughterhouses.
These regulations will require all slaughterhouse operators to install and operate a CCTV system that provides a clear and complete picture of areas where live animals are present. This will include where animals are unloaded, lairaged, handled, restrained, stunned and killed. We would expect CCTV installations and their use to be proportionate to the size of premises and their throughput. Slaughterhouse operators will be required to provide access to CCTV recordings for the official veterinarian of the Food Standards Agency and other authorised inspectors. An official veterinarian is required in every slaughterhouse when in operation. Access to CCTV recordings for monitoring, verification and enforcement purposes is essential and will be especially useful where the official veterinarian is undertaking other duties in the slaughterhouse and does not directly witness an incident.
We would expect official veterinarians to carry out a timely review of CCTV to address any immediate welfare incidents and take advisory or enforcement action. Nevertheless, the slaughterhouse operator will need to retain recorded images and information for 90 days. This is in line with the requirements of some farm assurance schemes. While CCTV should not replace, reduce or be considered a substitute for the current inspection and control of slaughterhouse practices by official veterinarians, access to CCTV recordings will provide more opportunities to assess compliance with animal welfare requirements on a proactive and reactive basis. Requirements for mandatory CCTV recording should be applied to all approved slaughterhouses on the basis that all animals should be offered the same level of protection at the time of killing.
Ninety-five per cent of our meat is killed in abattoirs which have CCTV in some form. The regulations ensure that all slaughterhouses of whatever size must now have CCTV at all stages of the process.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I want to clarify something at the beginning of the debate. The Minister said that the Government expected the arrangements to be “proportionate”. Can he explain what “proportionate” means, because it might worry some of us?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if the Minister introduces the regulations. I can then put a Question to the Committee and we can have a debate.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Sometimes a debate is helped by an early intervention on the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I would like the opportunity of finishing these remarks. I am afraid that I am not acquainted with the practice of not permitting a Minister to introduce regulations. I will be more than pleased to receive comments when I have unfolded the argument. That helps the flow for the Minister. My task is to give a respectable introduction, deploying all the points of the regulation. I will then of course be very pleased to answer the questions that come from it.
We are conscious that some of the businesses that will be affected by this legislation are small, so we thought it appropriate that the regulations should allow six months for them to become compliant. In view of the considerable gains to animal welfare and the many other benefits identified, particularly for the slaughterhouse operator, the Government consider that the benefits justify the costs involved and do not deem financial support to the sector to be borne by the taxpayer.
This legislation will introduce mandatory CCTV recording in all 270 slaughterhouses in England as an additional monitoring and enforcement measure to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during the slaughter process in all approved slaughterhouses. These regulations form part of an important package of reforms that the Government are delivering to improve animal welfare, such as the new system of local authority licensing of activities involving animals and the publication of updated animal welfare codes of practice. The regulations are proportionate and targeted, and will help to improve animal welfare at slaughter.
These regulations have been widely welcomed. Indeed, following our recent announcements, I have heard from a number of farmers who are pleased that we have ensured a respectful end for the animals they have cared for throughout their lives. These regulations will also assist the Food Standards Agency, which has been most supportive, as has the British Veterinary Association as well as a large number of other interested parties. I want to emphasise once more that the regulations will work in the interests of the slaughterhouse operator. It is the case that many people will be reassured that with the enforcement of these regulations, animals are much more likely to reach the end of their lives in a manner which shows them respect.
Many noble Lords along with many Members of the other place have been extremely supportive of these measures. For all those reasons, I endorse the regulations. Again, they are proportionate. I have mentioned specifically that for smaller slaughterhouses, the extent and cost of their installations will clearly be less than those for larger enterprises with no CCTV provision. Again, 95% of our meat is killed in abattoirs that already have CCTV in some form. For those operations, the regulations may be about updating or if necessary upgrading their systems so that all the stages of the process are covered. For those with no CCTV provision, it will be a cost, but the Government believe that this measure is in the interests of the sector. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has already said why the voluntary take-up of CCTV has been disappointing. I am certain that this regulation will satisfy customers, consumers, retailers, certification/assurance scheme operators, NGOs and animal welfare organisations who have been pressing for CCTV in 100% of slaughterhouses. I should probably declare that I farm in Norfolk and we have livestock. We like to give all the livestock a really good life while they are with us on our farm, and when they go to meet their maker, we want that to be to the best possible standards, stress-free and humane. If that does not happen in slaughterhouses, perhaps CCTV will help.
I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is the cost and the second is the effective viewing or reviewing of the CCTV footage. I know that the Government think that the installation will cost only about £2,500 per slaughterhouse, but I think that is way too low. Even a small slaughterhouse needs about five CCTV cameras to ensure that all areas are covered. At £1,000 per camera, that alone will come to £5,000. I have been told that it will cost between £5,000 and £10,000 per slaughterhouse to install.
In 2012, it was reported in the Scottish Parliament that the cost of installing CCTV in a slaughterhouse in Scotland varied between £6,000 and £25,000. Whatever the cost, it will be considerably more than the Government’s £2,500. For small plants, that cost may be prohibitive, and that is not the only cost. There is also the annual cost of maintenance, which will vary according to the number of CCTV cameras and could be between £500 and £1,000 per annum. Then there is the cost of a secure, locked cabinet to store the 90 days of footage per camera to prevent tampering with the evidence. Then there is the cost of training and employing CCTV monitoring staff.
That brings me neatly to my second point: who, if anyone, will be viewing or reviewing the CCTV footage? Obviously where there is a known incident the relevant footage can be pulled out and looked at, but CCTV is really effective only if it is viewed or reviewed, and here is the rub. One of the limitations of CCTV is that it is rarely viewed or reviewed in a systematic, consistent and effective manner by the slaughterhouse operator, enforcement agencies or the official vet. If it were, considerable costs would be incurred in training the staff required to view the footage in real time—that is, as it is happening—or to review large amounts of footage from multiple cameras. Whether this is done by the slaughterhouse operator or the official vet, ultimately the cost will be borne by the slaughterhouse, which already balks at the hourly rate charged by the official vet—£70 to £80 an hour or around £600 for an eight-hour day.
Twenty years or so ago, there were probably six or eight slaughterhouses near my farm in Norfolk; now there is one large one quite near me. In the past 20 years, about 100 small slaughterhouses have shut down, as have a further 100 medium-sized ones. This does no good at all for the welfare of animals as they must now travel further to their final destination. I can understand the need for this regulation, but I hope that an unintended consequence will not be that more slaughterhouses have to close down.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, first, I will deal with the issue of cost. The costs of the CCTV equipment have dropped dramatically over the past seven or eight years. In many areas, they are a quarter of what they were. So it is quite probable that the estimates that have been given by the Government are not accurate, even though the ones that were given in Scotland will have been accurate at the time.
What drew me to this issue was paragraph 42 of the FAWC report of February 2015, where it says:
“Where examples of animal abuse have been brought to light … FBOs, AWOs and OVs”—
that is, food business operators, animal welfare officers and official veterinarians—
“have consistently asserted that they were unaware of such abusive practices”.
That is a shocking statement. Professionals went into slaughterhouses where the law was being breached, yet they were unaware of what was going on. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this extremely important measure, which I warmly welcome. I also welcome the policy position of my own party on this matter: the document produced by Sue Hayman, our spokesperson in the other place, which has come up with some fairly radical measures to deal with this problem in slaughterhouses.
In addition to that concern, I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum the following statement, in paragraph 8.1, under the heading “Consultation outcome”:
“The responses from slaughter industry bodies and abattoirs were more balanced”—
when I hear those words, I always think, “Oh yes, here it comes”—
“with a number arguing against the proposal on the basis of proportionality of application of the requirements to all slaughterhouses regardless of size or record of compliance and the length of time records should be retained for”;
in other words, there was opposition. I would like to know what the scale of the opposition was. Perhaps it is reflected in the fact that, as we were told before, only 50% of slaughterhouses have even introduced these cameras. In the case of the ones that have introduced them, we are told, as I think the Minister alluded to, in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“Moreover, those slaughterhouses that have installed CCTV have not generally installed cameras in all areas where live animals are kept and where animal welfare could be compromised”;
in other words, there is a real problem out there and I regard these regulations as a good attempt to deal with it.
However, I have one or two concerns. One is about the retention of documentation. The committee recommended three months. In this measure, is it nine months?
Lord Campbell-Savours
Oh, it is 90 days. So basically we are talking about three months. So the Government followed that recommendation. But I wonder why not five years? We are talking about equipment which produces a tiny disk, I presume—why not keep it long term, unless it deteriorates? If we are talking about prosecutions, we may need more evidence than simply one or two occasions. It might be that consistent breaches can be revealed only in the event that there is far longer retention of the tapes in question. So I suggest not 90 days but five years—let us really retain this in case we have to prosecute.
Another issue that interests me is the question of visits. I heard someone refer earlier to a charge of £80 an hour for veterinarians to visit. I presume that there must be many slaughterhouses that rarely get a visit, if visits are charged up to them. Why do we not have more impromptu visits? So many visits in such areas are never impromptu. I remember when I was dealing with nursing homes some years ago, we found out that the managers were often informed in advance of when the so-called impromptu visits by the Care Quality Commission, or its predecessor, would be made. I presume that in these cases, too, information may well be provided to a slaughterhouse that there will be a visit by a veterinarian officer, charging for his services at £80 or £90 an hour. I would like more impromptu visits to these places. Then they would be more on guard against potential abuses.
Under “notices”, the regulations say:
“Any notice required or authorised to be served under these Regulations on any person may be served by … delivering it to the person; … leaving it at the person’s proper address; or … sending it by post to the person at that address”.
Can we presume that there are no options? In the case of slaughterhouses, a number of routes could be used to ensure that they actually received the notice. If the attitude of slaughterhouses is as my earlier quotation from paragraph 42 of the report suggests, it seems that there will still be some resistance in the industry.
As in all such cases, even with the presence of cameras, people will try to find their way round the regulations in some way. They may perhaps even position the cameras in such a way that they do not fully reveal what is happening in that slaughterhouse. Who decides where the cameras will be? Who decides whether a certain camera is going to point here or there? At the moment, this comes out only in the enforcement proceedings. I could not find anything in the proposed arrangement that said that the authorities—I presume that would be the veterinarians—would tell people where to put the cameras to ensure maximum coverage. There was one reference to requiring,
“any person to produce or make available for inspection any images or information retained and stored”,
and making,
“any enquiries, and take recordings or photographs”.
There is nothing really, although there is something about requiring,
“any person to provide such assistance, information, facilities or equipment as is reasonable, without delay”.
There is nothing about directing slaughterhouse owners to use the equipment in a particular way so that it will reveal fully what is going on. That is a bit loose in the regulations.
Perhaps, in winding up, the Minister can give us an assurance that that will be dealt with, and that more than guidance will be given. There should be requirements; there should be some sort of arrangement whereby, at the beginning of this process, people are required to place the cameras in a particular position so that there is no avoidance of what is intended under the law.
I have the FAWC recommendations here. They start in paragraphs 90 to 94, and there is then more detail. I want to go through them briefly. I am sorry if I am delaying the Committee. I normally speak quite briefly in such Committees, but I want assurances that all this is being implemented—that there has not been a selective acceptance of what is required. They say:
“CCTV systems should be installed in all live animal areas within the slaughterhouse including those used for unloading, lairage, moving live animals through the facilities, stunning and killing”.
I think the Minister said that before, but I was not absolutely sure whether a word or two had been missed. I would like an assurance that that will be the case—that that recommendation has been accepted. The recommendations continue:
“CCTV … should be recorded at all times when animals are present in the areas listed above … CCTV … should be installed so as to permit a clear and uninterrupted view of the processes being recorded at all times … Cameras should be installed in a manner that facilitates easy access and repair … CCTV cameras should record continuous visual images but, if audio is captured, should not record conversations between slaughterhouse personnel … footage should be viewed, whether in real-time or from recording, from designated areas that permit detailed review”.
I will stop at that point.
Can I assume that civil servants, in reviewing the debate, will go through that list of FAWC recommendations as a checklist from paragraph 90 right through to paragraph 101 and give us an assurance that they intend to implement every one of those recommendations fully? We will know then if any of the FAWC recommendations have not been accepted and that they will be subject to further scrutiny, perhaps at a later stage.
Finally, I repeat that I thoroughly welcome this. I think it will be one of the big changes from this Government. To some people it might not seem important but for people outside, animal welfare is a huge issue, as we know. I believe that if this policy is managed, organised and implemented properly, it will be a feather in the Government’s cap.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because getting this right is hugely important. I do not know whether anybody happened to see the response to the Question that I tabled the other day on the number of abattoirs, because this reflects and follows on from some of the concerns that have been expressed. I asked what the number of small and medium-sized abattoirs was between 2001 and 2017. The data provided for that—if I go through it—was that back in 2001 there were 32 large abattoirs but 463 small ones. Looking at the last ones—I will not go through them all for the Committee; that would not be fair—the change that has taken place is that the number of large abattoirs has gone up from 32 to 44 but small and medium-sized abattoirs have declined from 463 to 276. As far as I am concerned that rings huge bells for animal welfare.
I welcome the move to have CCTV in all abattoirs. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, identified some of the things that I would have done. Cameras need to be in the right place, at the right time and they need to be consistent. My query would be: what happens if you get a power cut? Do they automatically keep going? The power cut could happen naturally or could be from deliberate tampering. I do not think there is anything in these regulations that would cover that. I am afraid in this instance I am very concerned about some of the staff operating in our abattoirs and the way they have been dealt with.
I look back to a shocking case where halal abattoir staff taunted sheep before they were slaughtered. Halal and the way stunning is done or not done is not addressed here—and I know there are good reasons for that—but I think on this occasion it should be raised. It is crucial that we get right the whole question of how we deal with animals, how we look after them—we are not livestock producers—and how the end of life comes.
Bearing in mind my early comments I have a couple of queries. I draw the Committee’s notice to page 5 of the regulations before us. I am very keen that where penalties can be legally introduced they should be really strong. At the end of the awful case that I brought to the mind of the Committee, two halal slaughtermen were found guilty of causing suffering and were given,
“16 weeks and 18 weeks imprisonment—both suspended for 12 months”.
Alongside that, they had to do 250 hours of unpaid work. Both were disqualified from control over sheep and ordered to pay £500 costs. I would have preferred to see something much stronger there. I hope that other noble Lords will reinforce the idea that we have an opportunity here to make sure that the correct fines are in place where they are clearly needed.
I apologise—I have deviated a little. I come back to Regulation 12, which concerns penalties. The footnote to this regulation states:
“Section 12(4) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides that the power in subsection (1) does not include power to create an offence punishable with a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. Section 85(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10) allows the power to be exercised to create an offence punishable by a fine of any amount”.
I do not quite understand what is going on here. With one piece of legislation the fines are limited, whereas another gives the option to create an offence punishable by a fine of any amount. I seek clarification on this because it is hugely important. We have the opportunity today to try to improve animal welfare. CCTV plays a part in that but it is important that we have a chance to debate fines and the way that we deal with people who are proved to be guilty of unacceptable behaviour, whether that involves halal slaughter or the way that animals are stunned—sometimes stunning is not done in the best way possible. I suspect that noble Lords who follow me will be able to clarify that.
Going back to an earlier comment, my understanding is that veterinarians have to be present at all times. It is not a question of making unexpected visits; veterinarians should be there all the while. If it is suggested that veterinarians are not doing a good job and that, in addition, experts should be brought in, that is another matter, but for the benefit of the Committee I seek confirmation that a veterinarian has to be present when abattoirs operate.
I hope that what I have said will prompt others to comment because we are at a crossroads in dealing with end-of-life issues. There are certain things that I would love to have seen in the regulations but we want to make sure that what is in them will be enforced and will work properly.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations, which, as other noble Lords have said, are hugely important. My one question is this: why has it taken so long? That is a rhetorical question, not a criticism of the Government, whom I congratulate.
We live in a country that is hugely surveilled. I understand that there is one CCTV camera for every 13 of us. By my calculations, that amounts to 5 million CCTV cameras throughout the country. Every day we see how important they are in investigating and solving all sorts of wrongdoing, yet we have failed to get them introduced into every corner of every abattoir. It is great that 95% of animals are under surveillance but surely it is the other 5% that we should worry about because, if malpractice is likely to happen, it will surely happen in the places where people do not volunteer to have surveillance.
Therefore, this measure is very important in ensuring compliance with the rigorous regulations that, rightly, are in place to ensure the welfare of animals in our abattoirs through the inspection of their health and well-being, both in the lairages where animals are often kept overnight or for 12 hours and more, and then throughout the killing process. Your Lordships may not have been in an abattoir—they are not very nice places—but the killing lines often move very fast and it is very difficult for a veterinarian to be everywhere at once. With things moving so fast, things can happen that can go unseen. I would suggest, and it has been mentioned, that CCTV is also useful to aid training and management by those who own the abattoirs. So there are two benefits, but the benefit to animal welfare is obviously the major one.
Stunning and non-stun has come up. I do not want to labour the point, but there are breaches of regulations that can happen in both situations. These rules will be extremely important in helping us to ensure that the regulations in both types of killing process are observed. There are some particularly stringent regulations pertaining to non-stun such as standstill times after the neck cut, which must be 30 seconds in the case of cattle beasts and 20 seconds in the case of sheep. That is a long time to hold a killing line, but it is essential for the welfare of the animals, if we are to permit non-stun, that those standstill times are honoured. CCTV will help us to ensure that that is happening because it is sometimes difficult to supervise.
I absolutely share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the loss of our abattoirs. There is very much an animal welfare issue in terms of the distance animals have to go between the point of rearing and the point of slaughter. That distance should be minimised as much as possible. We are all therefore keen to ensure the financial sustainability of abattoirs, big and small, but I remain to be convinced that these costs would be the last straw. If they are critical, we must find other ways in which to address that problem, not simply give up on enforcing these regulations. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the technical costs of cameras these days are incredibly low; people are putting these sorts of cameras in birds’ nest boxes, and so on. I understand that the observation of the stored material, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred, is going to be done by the official veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency who are already employed. I would have thought that they would incorporate that observation as part of their working day.
In conclusion, this is a long overdue and extremely welcome innovation that we should all endorse.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I understand why Her Majesty's Government are following this course of action and I am aware of some fairly horrible cases, which means that CCTV is prima facie desirable in slaughterhouses. We are all on the same side in trying to ensure the least suffering for animals. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just said, there is nothing nice about slaughterhouses or what animals have to go through. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—he made a number of strong points. But I would just point out that not so long ago almost every rural town of a reasonable size had a slaughterhouse. From figures produced by my noble friend the Minister for my noble friend Lady Byford I can say that in 2001, Great Britain had 495 slaughterhouses. By last year that number had fallen to 320, which is a drop of 35%. The adverse effect on the welfare of animals which have to travel long distances to slaughter have been well aired. Those slaughterhouses closed down because they became commercially unviable. In many cases, it does not take much additional cost to tip any commercial operation from the black into the red. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. CCTV of the standard required is not inexpensive. You cannot just buy it on eBay. The system needs to be robust, built to last, operated in quite demanding circumstances and positioned carefully, out of reach of tampering and so on. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Cathcart said, it has to be watched, which costs money. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister what research has been done into how many of the remaining 320 slaughterhouses are on the margin of commercial viability. The crunch point for me is whether they will be tipped over the edge.
We all want a better outcome and less suffering for animals. I just hope that the Government have done enough homework to ensure that animals will not end up having to travel much further in what are often, to say the least, uncomfortable conditions, and perhaps even to countries with less rigorous rules than our own.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I have had some experience of this subject over the last 20 years. I declare an interest in that I farm in Northumberland and have livestock. During the 1990s I chaired the Meat and Livestock Commission for eight years, during which time we had the outbreaks of BSE and foot and mouth disease. Noble Lords might be interested to know that when I took over there were about 750 abattoirs, and I presided over the decline of a large number during that period.
Noble Lords have quite rightly highlighted concern about the geographic positioning of abattoirs and their importance to local and regional food production. I continue to monitor this as chair of the Prince’s Countryside Fund because we have been requested to assist where abattoirs appear to be under threat. The most recent case was in Orkney where the abattoir was closed, although it is crucial to the economy of Orkney. Work has been taking place to try to assist in the retention of critical small abattoirs. However, according to the association, over the last two years the decline has stabilised and the number of closures has been matched largely by new abattoirs opening. I am quite encouraged by that recent data.
I will ask the Minister four questions and then make a final comment. First, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that inspections should be unannounced and made at random. I assume and hope that the Food Standards Agency will adopt the practice. Secondly, I hope that the CCTV system will include views of the lairages so that the standard of animal welfare there is also monitored by the cameras. Thirdly, I hope that if CCTV footage is not retained for 90 days, and there is evidence, it would fall under a penalty. I know that mistakes can be made and footage can be lost, but it is often too easy to lose the CCTV footage to cover up potential breaches in regulations. I hope that that will also be regarded as attracting a penalty.
Fourthly and finally, on the issue of proportionate penalties, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I was horrified to read of these suspended sentences. If that is an example of how penalties will be applied under this legislation, it is not good enough. We need to make sure that the penalties are penalties and that they are meaningful so that businesses are stopped if it is proved that their animal welfare standards have fallen short of what is desirable.
My final comment is that the Secretary of State has made it very clear that he wants Britain to be seen, post Brexit, as a nation with very high animal welfare standards. We should be trading in a world where animal welfare standards are recognised and provide us with a potential commercial advantage. It is essential that that happens and that we use this regulation to help present ourselves as having very high animal welfare standards. I remember only too well through the 1990s how confidence in our abattoirs and our meat processing was at an all-time low. That was because of bad practice. We must never let that happen again.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, again I thank the Minister and his officials for their time and extensive briefing ahead of today’s debate, and for the Minister’s introduction. We welcome these regulations. I declare my interest as a district councillor.
The public are extremely concerned about animal welfare in slaughterhouses, regardless of whether they eat meat or are vegetarian, as everybody has demonstrated. Currently, CCTV is in place in some slaughterhouses but the coverage is not comprehensive and the cameras may not be in the right places. CCTV is present, as the noble Lord has said, in 50% of red meat and 70% of poultry slaughterhouses. Making it compulsory in all slaughterhouses regardless of size will reassure the public and, we hope, ensure that animal distress is kept to a minimum. We note that the CCTV film has to be kept for 90 days and be available for inspectors to scrutinise at all times. The film and equipment will be owned by the slaughterhouses but they are still required to conform to the regulations. Enforcement for slaughterhouses with no CCTV is to be welcomed, as is making it an offence to obstruct an inspector in his or her duty.
We are concerned about the cost of installation for smaller slaughterhouses, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, about this. We understand that installation can cost about £2,500, although there seems to be some debate about the actual cost. Obviously systems will be proportional and therefore smaller outfits will need smaller installations, but we do not want smaller slaughterhouses to be put out of business, resulting in animals having to travel further to the next nearest slaughterhouse. The transportation of live animals is in itself a stressful process for them, as has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I attempted to find a map of the slaughterhouses in England on the Food Standards Agency website, but I was not successful. We would be grateful if the Minister could provide such a map so that it is possible to see just what kind of coverage there is, especially in deeply rural areas.
There has been a lot of debate about the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses. Since 2001, many slaughterhouses have fallen victim to the catastrophic foot and mouth outbreak in that year. I have not seen the figures on the reduction but I suspect that quite a number will have closed as a result of that outbreak. There are 290 slaughterhouses in England—or 270, depending on your maths—and it is of some concern that there may not be enough staff and vets to oversee what is going on. Other Members have made that comment. Many vets are EU migrants. Is the Minister confident that there are currently sufficient numbers to ensure animal welfare at the point of slaughter? What are the arrangements for overseeing vets? As well as the issue of the sufficiency of overseeing vets, is he confident that the current numbers can be retained, given the impact of the impending Brexit Bill? Official veterinarians are currently partly paid for by the slaughterhouses themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has said, and partly by the Food Standards Agency—that is, by the taxpayer—so we need to ensure that there are sufficient OVs.
As well as CCTV monitoring, there are also meat hygiene responsibilities. We understand that 80% of the slaughterhouses in England are owned by two companies—although that is not what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, so there may be some discrepancy in the figure. This has led to larger rather than smaller operations. In the larger plants, meat inspectors will also be needed on site. Given their current budget constraints, are local authorities able to fulfil their requirement to provide meat hygiene inspectors for those larger plants?
We fully support the introduction of this statutory instrument, which comes into place in May, with enforcement coming in six months later. I thank the Minister for his time and effort in explaining the processes.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the details of these regulations today. I should say at the outset that we support the regulations, which have been a manifesto commitment of our party and are long overdue. More importantly, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and others, it is something that vets themselves have been calling for and will undoubtedly help them in driving up animal welfare standards in slaughterhouses. The introduction of the regulations is important, as more than 4,000 serious breaches of animal welfare laws in British slaughterhouses were reported by the Food Standards Agency in the two years to August 2016. Indeed, its audit report showed that not one UK slaughterhouse was in full compliance when the data was analysed in June 2016.
We welcome the measure today, but of course it is only one tool in tackling the problem. The vets, the RSPCA and indeed the Minister have made it clear that access to CCTV footage should not replace physical observations by the official veterinarians, and we agree with that. The vets on the ground still have to have the ultimate responsibility for upholding welfare standards and prosecuting when necessary.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, clarified that vets are expected to be on the site the whole time when killing is taking place. However, that raises the question of why all these animal welfare issues are still arising. It has to be a matter of real concern that so many incidents of animal cruelty have come to light only because of covert filming on the premises by whistleblowers and so on rather than by the vets themselves, even when a vet has been in attendance. This is an ongoing problem that we have to address. Hopefully, the added deterrence of CCTV in all quarters of the animal’s journey—from arrival to slaughter, as the Minister spelled out—will prevent further abuse.
I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Of course there is concern about the cost and about small abattoirs, but I did not really hear from the noble Lords what the alternative is. If the alternative is the status quo then I think that is unacceptable. We should be tightening up on these standards, and if that means we have to make unpalatable decisions, then we should do so. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that, if anything, we should be looking at higher penalties. We need to clarify what the penalties are in the proposals before us.
In giving these measures broad support, I have a few questions of clarification for the Minister. First, how will the department ensure that the CCTV cameras are installed and used correctly to avoid blind spots? Can he confirm that the requirements for storing the CCTV records once they have been taken will be such that they cannot be tampered with or have times and dates changed after the event? I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, said: although 90 days is a start, I can well see that there is a case for a longer period of storage because these cases might unfold over time rather than happen in a short period. There is a case for longer storage, and perhaps the Minister can reflect on that.
Secondly, apart from the official veterinarians, who else will be entitled to view the tapes? For example, if there are allegations of cruelty that have not been addressed by the OVs, will the police and other enforcement agencies be entitled to view the tapes? On the other side of that, can we be assured that the tapes will be used only for animal welfare purposes and not, for example, for staff to be observed by immigration officers or other people who are not concerned with animal welfare? Also, many animal welfare organisations have called for additional independent monitoring of CCTV footage. Has the Minister given any consideration to introducing that extra layer of oversight? That might go some way to addressing the issue of impromptu inspections, which was raised this afternoon. Maybe that is where that extra intervention could come from.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been a really worthwhile debate. I have learned a great deal about the intricacies of this matter from some of the experiences of noble Lords, but I repeat that we are absolutely clear that these regulations require all slaughterhouse operators to install and operate a CCTV system that provides a clear and complete picture of areas where live animals are present. To directly reply and reaffirm to the noble Lord, Lord Curry, this will include where animals are unloaded, lairaged, handled, restrained, stunned and killed. It is the complete operation within the slaughterhouse.
Some really fascinating questions have been asked and I will take them in the order they were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, encapsulated that this is a matter of zero tolerance, in which nothing can be as important as ensuring that welfare during the operation at a slaughterhouse is of the top order. I will not go into the other questions associated with this because they are not directly germane to the CCTV issue, but this is precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, spoke about and that noble Lords alluded to. If this country wishes to have a recognition and a reputation for high animal welfare standards, this is precisely the sort of area where we can say to consumers at home and abroad that we are doing everything possible to assure them that the meat they consume is of the top animal welfare quality through our farm assurance schemes, that it is produced and lives a life to good animal welfare standards—in fact, above the norm of animal welfare standards—and that the animal has met its end in a proper and dignified and respectful manner. The contribution that these regulations make is that it will be absolutely clear to everyone, from the operators and everyone engaged through to the official veterinarian, and indeed to the person undertaking the work, that this really is of prime importance.
For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked who would decide about the positioning of the cameras. FSA official vets will discuss with operators where the cameras should be sited in order to meet the requirements set out in Regulation 3(1) which states that the CCTV system must provide,
“a complete and clear image of killing and related operations”.
That is essential. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, also talked about the FAWC recommendations being implemented. Those which were directed to the Government are precisely what is set out in the regulations and the guidance. They all address the challenges which have been posed to Government, which is why we are dealing with them today. I do not have in front of me the precise wording of the recommendations, but I identify what the noble Lord has said as being the very essence of the creation of these regulations. Let us remember that some of the FAWC recommendations were directed at the industry as well.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart asked about who will be viewing and reviewing. As a part of normal duties, official veterinarians will view about 10 minutes to 20 minutes of the footage, but I emphasise that the moment they think something needs to be looked at, they will be able to do so. The point of keeping these records is that they will be able to go back and review the situation. The FSA welfare assurance scheme will also review footage as part of any audit process, and the number of audits depends on the size of the operation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord is talking about viewing and reviewing the operation. There may be a dozen slaughtermen of whom just one has been identified as being at risk of bad practice. Surely a far more extensive backlog of material will be needed to nail that one slaughterman. You need to look at this selectively over a long period of time. That is the argument behind the 90-day period. It is not sufficient to gather enough material to identify one particular abuser of the law.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I understand the essence of what the noble Lord is saying. The FSA feels that 90 days is sufficient for its enforcement purposes. However, because I believe in zero tolerance in these issues, I contend that with all the CCTV provision, I expect that the official veterinarian will be able to identify someone who is not behaving properly very much earlier. The point about the 90-day period is that we are looking at the official veterinarian and the other means which I will come on to.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to come back on this again, but I go back to my opening comments where I quoted from paragraph 42 of the FAWC recommendations which points out that in many cases the officials were unaware of what was happening in terms of animal abuse.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I understand that. It is why CCTV will cover all areas, and that will provide the extra scrutiny. The FSA and the official veterinarian will be able to enhance animal welfare and, if necessary, identify people in slaughterhouses who are not behaving properly. Obviously the CCTV will need to cover all areas of the operation and the official veterinarian will need to look at the footage. The whole purpose of this is to enable the official veterinarian to see when any elements of the operation are not being undertaken properly.
I think some of this will unfold in a way that I hope will satisfy the noble Lord that we are really keen to get this one properly sorted. As I say, the FSA will be viewing the tapes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Cathcart may have raised this in terms of viewing the tapes. The FSA inspectors will include the OVs, meat hygiene inspectors and FSA auditors from the health and welfare angle. In addition, I will be mentioning random visits; it is somewhere in my papers.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked whether it is an offence not to retain footage for 90 days. This is indeed an offence under Regulation 9(1)(b). The penalty for a breach is a fine of unlimited amount. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Campbell-Savours, and a number of your Lordships who have raised this, official veterinarians must be on the premises at all times, but the FSA also undertakes random inspections and risk-based audit visits of slaughterhouses. So with the requirement of the official veterinarian being in place at all times, the random visits, the arrival of this new regulation and the work we will need to undertake in that respect, I believe this advances these points.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
Excuse me for coming in at this point. When you were talking about the official veterinarian being there at all times, I presume that means all times when the slaughterhouse is operating officially. Will the cameras run at other times or will the cameras switch off when the official veterinarian leaves?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Again, I may look slightly sideways. The whole purpose of these regulations is so that at all times that the slaughterhouse is in operation—I stress “at all times”—whether at the arrival or at the end, the CCTV has to be on. If no animals are present or if everyone has gone home, the CCTV camera would not be in operation. But when any animal is present, at all the stages that I have outlined, there will be a requirement for CCTV to be in operation so that it can be viewed by the range of people that I have outlined. I think that is very much a positive.
A number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lady Byford, have raised the level of the fine. The level of fine that can be imposed under these regulations is unlimited. By way of background, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed the cap on level 5 fines, allowing them to be unlimited in amount.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart raised the question of costs. I can only, in this honest venture, set out what I know from the impact assessment. The impact assessment published with the consultation last summer estimated the average cost—I underline “average”—to be £2,500 for installation. The cost of installation in slaughterhouses will clearly be proportionate to the size of premises and whether CCTV is already installed. The costs would be incurred only to cover live animal operations not previously covered. This is estimated to be about £500 per area. Again, in the figures I have, total one-off costs to the English slaughter industry for the installation of CCTV were estimated at £670,000. Ongoing costs, to include staff, maintenance, replacement and electricity, were £250,000, with a view that the cost to the regulator was considered to be minimal. I am going to go on to talk about small slaughterhouses. One knows the benefit of these regulations for animals, but what they mean for the provenance and reputation of British food is also very strong.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned the issue of standstill periods. Animals which are subject to religious slaughter and which are not stunned must not be moved after the neck has been cut until the animal is unconscious—that is at least 20 seconds for sheep and goats and 30 seconds for cattle. We are very clear on that.
First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) (Amendment) Order 2018
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) (Amendment) Order 2018.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the principal purpose of the draft order before us is to provide the Senior President of Tribunals, to whom I shall refer as the SPT, with greater flexibility in setting panel composition within the First-tier Tribunal. These changes are being made with the support of the senior judiciary in order to address restrictions in the existing law. The order will also introduce a level of ministerial involvement with panel composition in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, bringing their processes in line with other parts of the justice system. The current SPT, Sir Ernest Ryder, has been consulted on the draft provisions and has confirmed his support.
Tribunals were designed to be user-friendly, allowing citizens to seek impartial redress. The tribunal system should be proportionate, accessible and simple to use, though it has become increasingly complex and burdened with bureaucracy. The Government have therefore committed to reforming the tribunals as part of our wider reform of the justice system, delivering a tribunal system that is more efficient and delivers better value for money. This will involve a greater use of technology. New online processes will enable tribunals to be more accessible and easier for users to navigate. As these reforms progress, the use of tribunal panel members should be more tailored and flexible. This will ensure that the tribunal can benefit from panel members’ specialist expertise and knowledge when it adds specific value to the decision-making process.
The terms of the existing composition order specify that in setting panel composition in the First-tier Tribunal, the SPT must have regard to the arrangements that existed before its creation. That requirement means that many tribunal panels are based on historical precedents, dating back over 10 years to 2008 and earlier. In a system that will be reliant on digital processes, the provision of specialist expertise should be looked at afresh to ensure that it remains appropriate. The current legislation restricts the SPT’s ability to do so.
I shall explain further. Tribunal reform will see the introduction of continuous online resolution. Parties will be able to submit a claim and evidence online, and judges will be able to review and request additional information, meaning that where appropriate a decision can be reached without the need for a physical hearing. This will be possible because, unlike the current system where the first interaction between the judge and tribunal user is usually the hearing, there will be an opportunity to offer information and resolve disputes earlier in the process. It will essentially be a triage system, where the most straightforward cases are resolved online and more complex cases continue through to a full hearing.
In this digital context, it would not be reasonable to require the SPT to have regard to panel arrangements that were in place before these alternative means of resolving disputes existed. Rather, the SPT may wish to consider whether specialist expertise could be provided in alternative ways that were more compatible with new online processes. The draft order therefore intends to remove the existing requirement on the SPT to have regard to previous panel arrangements. Instead, it will provide for a requirement to consider the nature of the matter and the means by which it is being decided, as well as the need for members of tribunals to have particular expertise, skills or knowledge.
I turn to ministerial involvement in panel composition. The existing provisions delegate the Lord Chancellor’s responsibility for setting panel composition to the SPT. The current arrangements have been made in practice statements, which do not include any form of ministerial involvement. It is intended to introduce a requirement for the SPT to set panel composition by practice direction. The process for doing this, as set out in legislation, is subject to consultation with the Lord Chancellor. There is nothing unusual about the use of practice directions, and they are used in other parts of the justice system. In the civil courts, decisions on judicial allocation and assignment are similarly matters for the judiciary, and are set by practice direction after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. The existing determinations made by practice statement, however, would continue to apply until such time as they are superseded. Although the SPT will be required to consult the Lord Chancellor, panel composition decisions will remain a judicial matter and the SPT will continue to make the final determination.
As to the number of panel members, two years ago the MoJ consulted on proposals to amend the panel composition provisions. At that time, it was proposed to introduce single-member panels as a default and to provide the SPT with the power to specify where additional members should be used. The intention was to ensure tribunal panel composition was proportionate to the case being determined.
However, we listened to our stakeholders and the Government subsequently announced that they would not proceed in this way. Instead, this statutory instrument provides that the SPT will determine whether a panel should consist of one, two or three members. While this still allows for some cases to be heard by a single-member panel—indeed, many tribunals are already ordinarily heard by a single member—the SPT will have regard to the nature of the matter and the means by which it is to be decided, and the need for particular expertise. We can therefore be confident that single-member panels will be used only in appropriate circumstances. Previous changes to panel composition have not proved to be controversial. In 2014, a former SPT conducted a pilot in the tribunal’s special educational needs and disability jurisdiction, reducing the number of panel members from three to two. This did not affect user experience. Importantly, the tribunal was flexible enough to ensure panel composition could be adapted according to the complexity of the case.
The Government of course recognise the valuable contribution that panel members make to the tribunal system. While there will continue to be a need for specific experts, the greater use of technology and new ways of resolving disputes will be an important new factor to consider. This instrument will not itself change panel composition. It will be for the SPT to review and consider whether new panel arrangements are needed.
There are sufficient safeguards to ensure that users are not adversely affected by any panel changes implemented under this order. The SPT has an existing statutory duty: to have regard to the need for tribunals to be accessible; for proceedings to be fair and handled efficiently; and for members of tribunals to be experts in law or the subject matter applied in cases. Additionally, as I have already stated, the revised order will specify that the SPT must have regard to the nature of the matter to be decided and the means by which it will be decided, as well as the need for members of tribunals to have particular expertise, skills or knowledge. Previously, wherever the SPT has sought to amend panel arrangements, he has done so in collaboration with senior members of the judiciary, who in turn have undertaken consultation appropriate to, and proportionate with, the nature of the proposed changes. The SPT has confirmed that he would remain committed to that practice.
In conclusion, the proposed measures will provide the judiciary with greater flexibility to ensure that tribunal panel composition is proportionate and suitable to the case being heard. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have two main concerns as to this order. The first is the risk of damage to the quality of tribunal decision-making because of the reduced recourse to specialist expertise. We welcome the fact that in response to the consultation, as the Minister said, the Government have abandoned their proposal for a default position that tribunals should be single member. Nevertheless, we are concerned that tribunals may not benefit from specialist membership when they would otherwise do so.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who was planning to stay and speak but has had to leave because of the hour, is concerned about the composition of tribunals hearing personal independent payment cases. Her views apply equally, of course, to employment support allowance and disability allowance cases. Presently such appeals are heard by a tribunal judge together with a doctor and a disability specialist. It is important that experts have full membership of the tribunals in important cases because, in my noble friend’s experience, assessors advising tribunals are not always, as she puts it, up to the job. Her views are fully supported by Disability Rights UK, which has done a great deal of work in this area.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has just mentioned the little question I was going to ask and I apologise if my noble friend covered the point while I was scribbling some notes and trying to listen to the technical detail. It is simply about the cost: is there any additional cost to this measure or is there a cost saving? That is all I want to know.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, there is no objection to reviewing the composition or indeed the working of tribunals in a system that covers significant areas of public policy and provision but which also extends to areas of law and practice in which the Government do not have a direct interest. The effect of the order as drafted is to enhance the role of the Senior President of Tribunals, notably in relation to the composition of panels, which hitherto has been the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.
In many areas the tribunals will be adjudicating on claims and issues between the citizen and the state in relation to a variety of claims, and it may be that in many and even perhaps most of the cases in this category the proposed changes will not be controversial. There are, however, real concerns about the impact of the changes on the employment tribunal system in which the adjudication is between two independent parties, employees and employers, rather than the citizen and the state in one of its many manifestations. This is already an area in which the Government have intervened when they imposed fees for applications to the employment tribunals, an action which was of course struck down by the Supreme Court last year. The number of claims to employment tribunals has since risen by 60% with no perceptible increase in staffing and a consequential growing backlog in cases, to the detriment of both employees and employers. Can the Minister say what measures will be taken, and when, to address this issue?
However, there are issues about the application of the provisions of this order to employment cases. In a previous incarnation I had some professional experience of employment law, in all but one case on the part of employees. Employment law is, as the TUC has pointed out, a complex and specialist field of law. Among other things it is frequently concerned with equalities issues and, at least for the moment, the provisions of European law. There is therefore a very strong case for excluding these tribunals from the general provision in the order removing the requirement for the panels in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal to have expertise in this area of law. In this I concur with what the noble Lord has said.
The TUC urges that the panels from which employment tribunals are drawn should be composed of people with experience of employment law, although not necessarily lawyers. This has the support of the CBI and other employers’ organisations. A majority of those responding in 2011 to a government consultation on the issue opposed the proposal to limit the role of lay members in unfair dismissal cases. Specifically, the TUC urges that lay members should sit in all employment-related cases, including fast-track cases, unfair dismissal and discrimination cases. It concedes, however, that where a case involves complex legal issues and, importantly, all the issues of fact are uncontested, employment judges should have discretion to sit alone.
The Government are keen, perhaps for understandable reasons, to promote virtual hearings and teleconferencing. Can the Minister say whether this extends to tribunals in general, and employment tribunals in particular? There are concerns about the reliability of these approaches and the stress on those who are unfamiliar with these systems, among whom I would probably have to include myself. There would need to be safeguards where, for example, the parties to an employment case give evidence of that kind rather than in a conventional forum, and there are some doubts about the ability of panel members to assess the credibility of witnesses or parties when such approaches are used. At the very least, will the Government pilot such methods before requiring them to be applied across the piece? Finally on this aspect, do the Government agree that virtual hearings of this kind should have to be agreed by both parties?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the system does indeed work pretty well. The proposals today are just to make sure that it works slightly better than it currently does by focusing resources in the areas where we need them most.
Perhaps I could tick off an easy win by turning to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. There are no costs relating to the proposals and indeed, there may be some cost savings, but of course the proposals themselves do not assume that. It will be up to the SPT to do the panel composition. However, in certain circumstances, lay members may not be required as a member of the panel, and in that case there will be a saving. One might assume that if there was a 25% reduction, for example, the saving would be somewhere in the region of £3 million. Again, I do not think that we should bank that; we need to be aware that resources need to be used effectively, but that is one possible consequence.
I turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the risk of damage to the quality of decision-making. I would point him to the changes which have already been made to panel composition and various other elements. For example, the Immigration and Asylum Chamber made some changes in June 2014. It decided that there would no longer routinely be a non-legal member on those panels. Over the period it looked at the proportion of cases that went to appeal and found that there was no change. I think that there is evidence that there is no risk of damage to the quality of decision-making. It will always be front of mind for the SPT to make sure that the panels are made up appropriately.
The appropriateness of the panel was raised by a number of noble Lords. It is clear that the SPT must ensure that in making these decisions, he or she has a legal duty to consider the need for tribunals to be accessible, for the proceedings to be fair and to be handled quickly and efficiently, and where needed, for the members of the tribunal to be experts in the subject matter. We do not see that that would need to change under this order. It will be up to the SPTs to decide the panel composition, whether that is for different types or groups or cases or sometimes on a case-by-case basis for very complex cases. I would go back to the original thing about this order which is that it will respond to the sort of triage system that we hope will come into force, whereby some very straightforward cases can be dealt with much more swiftly within the new system, which is good in terms of access to justice for people wishing to make a claim. On the impact of the changes in the panel composition, HM CTS routinely collects data relating to all tribunals, covering success rates, appeal rates and overturn rates of first instance appeals. We will continue to monitor that data as these changes come into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to employment tribunals. The order does not impact on those at all as it is not related to them, so it is probably not wise for me to go down that particular road today. We may look at similar provisions for employment tribunals in the future, but that would come under a different type of legislation and it is certainly not on the short-term horizon. If there are issues about employment tribunals that the noble Lord mentioned, I will be happy to write, but I am afraid that at the moment it is not wise for us to discuss it.
The provisions we have discussed today are an essential component of the Government’s ambitious plans to modernise Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.
House of Lords
Israel-Palestine Conflict
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tonge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the right of return of Palestinian refugees to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as part of a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there needs to be a just, fair, agreed and realistic solution to the question of Palestinian refugees in line with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1515. Any such agreement must be demographically compatible with two states for two peoples. The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Palestinian refugees, including through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, to which we have so far provided over £50 million in 2017-18.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that response, but is the Minister aware of families like that of Haj Abdullah Shahata from Kuwaykat in Palestine who were driven from their homes and prosperous farms 70 years ago, and have been living in camps and temporary accommodation in Lebanon since then? Is he aware that the Lebanese Government continue to restrict Palestinians’ right to work, prohibit them from owning property and refuse them access to healthcare and education, leaving them dependent on UNRWA, which has diminishing funds? Can he really be content to let this continue for another 70 years, or will the Palestinians be allowed the right of return to their homeland as prescribed in international law?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I have already said in my original Answer, of course the importance of refugees returning to the Holy Land, to the Palestinian territories, is an important part of the peace resolution. Let me reassure the noble Baroness that, in terms of money and financing, as I have already said we remain committed to UNRWA and continue to provide support. We also continue to provide financial support to the Palestinian Authority. This financial support allows for the education for the next generation, which I know is a priority for the noble Baroness. While I fully acknowledge the challenge of the Palestinian refugees, particularly those living in camps, from a UK perspective we remain committed to the two-state solution and also committed to supporting UNRWA in its efforts.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister keeps mentioning UNRWA, but the President of the United States has decided that the Palestinians’ position needs to be punished and that there needs to be some form of retribution because of their decision over Jerusalem. What are the Government doing to persuade the US that punishing the Palestinians is not the right way forward, and that we should be working together as allies to support UNRWA? Have the Government had any discussions at Foreign Office level with the new national security adviser and the new Secretary of State, both of whom have taken positions that could make life very difficult for the Palestinians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I reassure the noble Lord that I speak for Her Majesty’s Government, and the Government remain committed to a two-state solution and to UNRWA. Regarding the relationship with the United States, we continue to implore the United States, which is a key player in finding a lasting Middle East settlement, to engage fully with all parties and to continue engagement with both the Palestinians and the Israelis in finding a resolution to this crisis, which, as the noble Baroness has said, has gone on for far too long. In response to the question about specific meetings, most recently my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had discussions on a range of issues relating to foreign policy with American counterparts, and we continue to do so.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that this is a problem that need not exist? Of the 60 million refugees in the world, only the Palestinians are treated as refugees for generation after generation, when they should have been resettled in the lands where they are living now, as were the same number of Jews who were expelled from the Middle East in the late 1940s. It is time to call a halt to this artificial definition, which is destined to use people as bargaining chips.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The one point on which I will agree with the noble Baroness is that it is important to find a resolution to this long-standing issue. The Palestinians, as the Jewish communities of Israel before them, have suffered for too long from being disassociated and removed from the holy lands. We need to find a lasting solution that is fair for both the Palestinian people and of course Israel.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I say to my noble friend that achieving the right of return is going to be extraordinarily difficult and probably impractical. What we can do is to urge upon the Government of Israel the importance of desisting from building settlements around Jerusalem. That could make a substantial contribution to a resolution of the conflict in the Middle East.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with my noble friend. The issue of return in any refugee crisis that we have seen since time immemorial has always been challenging. I agree with him totally on the issue of settlements. Our position is clear: any settlement that is built in the Occupied Territories is illegal and against UN resolutions.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in this regard: I am a Zionist. Many of my family have been living in Israel since the 15th century after the persecution in Spain. Is it not fair to point out that one of the problems about the repatriation or readmittance of Palestinians is the firm resolve by so many of them to try to destroy the state of Israel? As long as that happens—the openly avowed intention is to ensure that Israel does not exist—that remains a very big problem in these negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Any party that believes in the destruction of Israel of course cannot be party to a peace process. The UK Government have made it clear that, before taking part in any peaceful negotiations on the two-state solution, any party at the negotiating table needs to agree the right of Israel to exist, so I agree with the noble Lord. Equally, I am sure he would agree with me that there are many on the Palestinian side who not only recognise Israel’s right to exist but believe most passionately in the coexistence of Arabs, Jews, Christians and indeed all faiths and communities living peacefully side by side. That is what we believe the two-state solution provides.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, on the question of taking forward a two-state solution, does the Minister not feel that the UK should recognise Palestine, as most other countries in the world do?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It has been the position of Her Majesty’s Government that we will recognise officially the state of Palestine when we feel that would be most constructive and progressive to ensuring a peaceful resolution to the conflict, which has gone on for too long. At the same time, we also recognise the right of Palestinian children and Palestinian people to get support in terms of health and education, and we continue to support them and the Palestinian Authority in that regard.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Palestinian refugee population—particularly in the neighbouring countries, as mentioned by the noble Baroness—has been consistently excluded from all political negotiation? Therefore, would Her Majesty’s Government favour consultation with those people to discover what are their own wishes? Could UNRWA, as their friend, advocate and protector, be allowed at least observer status?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We continue to abide by the agreement reached at the UN for a two-state solution. The Palestinian people, including the Palestinian refugees, are represented and their views are known by the Palestinian representatives in the peace negotiations.
Brexit: European Council and Commission
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what response they have given to the most recent submissions from the European Council and Commission on the Brexit negotiations.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the European Union published a draft withdrawal agreement text as part of our ongoing negotiations under Article 50. We have made significant progress towards concluding much of the withdrawal agreement by agreeing the chapters on financial settlement and citizens’ rights, in line with the joint report, as well as the terms of a time-limited implementation period. We will carry this momentum forward and aim to reach agreement on the entire withdrawal agreement by October.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. How long will the Government need to renegotiate the existing trade agreements with non-members who have trade agreements with the European Union as a whole? Will the 21 months of the transition period be enough?
Lord Callanan
We are pursuing many of these multilateral agreements in a whole range of areas, including trade agreements, and we are confident that we have enough time to complete those negotiations.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
Perhaps my noble friend could clarify a point from the Statement yesterday. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that,
“we remain committed to the agreement we reached in December in its entirety”.
A little later, she said, on the Northern Ireland border:
“I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop were unacceptable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/18; col. 524.]
Which is it: do we accept the agreement in its entirety or do we not?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his question. The Government are committed to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls. The UK’s intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the UK would propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Do we confidently expect to get a better deal on our own with, for example, South Korea, than the EU will get?
Lord Callanan
It will be a matter for the negotiations, but we hope to achieve an agreement at least as good as the existing trade agreement with South Korea, yes.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, is not the truth that, despite barbs often directed at Brussels, EU institutions have proved far more transparent, accessible and accountable—and, I might add, more honest—than Ministers and departments in Whitehall? There is no way that we would have this annotated withdrawal agreement if it had been left to the UK Government. Does not the Brexit process show how much our democracy and governance need modernising?
Lord Callanan
I am afraid I just do not agree with the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. We are extremely transparent and very accountable. We published a draft legal text on the implementation period. The EU publishes many documents; we publish many documents. We appear at numerous Select Committees and debates in this House to account for the Government’s strategy. We are committed to being as transparent as possible but, obviously, as is the case with the EU, we do not want to do anything to prejudice our negotiating position.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is disappointing that I should have to get my feet. There is time to hear from both noble Lords. I think it is the turn of the Conservative Benches first.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, could my noble friend perhaps arrange some sort of education process for those people on the other side of the House who do not believe that the British people are capable of running a democratic process? We had been doing it for quite a long time before most of those on the continent got round to the idea of having a democratic process.
Lord Callanan
I see that my noble friend is as provocative as ever. We believe in democracy; part of the referendum was about taking back control. I am sure that this House, and the other place, are quite capable of organising our own affairs in the future.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Was that not a waste of a question? You would have thought the noble Lord would have learned by now. Would the Minister now care to try to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, without reading from a pre-arranged brief? Which statement is correct: the first, that everything is agreed; or the second, that we have not agreed in relation to Northern Ireland? Which is correct?
Lord Callanan
We have a number of things to discuss with the EU about Northern Ireland. As I said to the noble Lord, it is one of the areas that has not been bottomed out into a legal agreement yet. We are committed to taking those discussions forward with the Commission and the Irish Government, but our red line of having no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic remains, and of course, the indivisibility of the United Kingdom also remains a red line.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Has the Minister studied the part of the guidelines which says that the European Union would reconsider its approach to trade issues if the British Government were to change their mind? Will the Government show any of that flexibility that the Prime Minister is calling for?
Lord Callanan
We have been flexible throughout the negotiations. We want to reach a good flexible agreement with the European Union. We have given some ground, and the EU has given some ground. That is in the nature of European negotiations. I am sure that will continue into the future but, of course, we have our red lines, which will not be crossed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes was right: the statements read out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, are not compatible with each other. Will the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, undertake to clarify the position and to come back to the House with a clearer and more satisfactory answer than he has been able to give?
Lord Callanan
As in all these negotiations, when we reach an agreement with the European Union and the Irish Government on the precise details of the border, we will be sure to report to the House on that matter.
Housing: Right-to-Buy Sales
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further measures, if any, they plan to take to increase the supply of council housing stock to replace homes for rent lost through right-to-buy sales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that more must be done to build a new generation of council housing. We are giving councils £1 billion additional borrowing headroom and £2 billion more to deliver more affordable and social housing in areas of high affordability pressure, and we have set a longer-term rent deal to provide investment stability. We continue to listen to councils and these conversations will feed into the forthcoming social housing Green Paper.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, since 2010, just 10,000 council homes have been built, and more than 60,000 sold off through right to buy. Given that councils can undertake land assembly, and have planning and borrowing powers, why will the Government not back a major council housebuilding programme? Does the Minister share my distaste at the now regular auctioning-off of social housing, in lots like family silver, to private landlords for profit when we have a national affordable housing crisis? Will he now act to ban this obscene plunder of the public realm?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I take issue with the noble Lord on the figures. The latest figures, from September 2017, show that 14,736 new houses were built under the three-year rolling figures that we have. With anything that is not sold—where there are proceeds, of course—by local authorities, the relevant part of the money goes towards affordable housing programmes. I therefore take issue with that point. As the first Answer indicates, I agree that there is definitely an issue to address in social housing. That is why we are making the £1 billion additional money available on borrowing and why we have announced £2 billion more for affordable and social housing.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Canadian Government have defined adequate housing as a human right. Does the Minister think, as I do, that that is an extremely good idea? Might the UK Government think of defining adequate housing as a human right?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very interested to hear that. I was not aware of it. I think the most important thing is that we address what is definitely a massive issue for people. Clearly, people need to have an appropriate home and we are seeking to do that. From the latest figures, I think we have built more in the past year than in any year for the past 20 years. However, there is, as noble Lords are aware—and as I have said more than once, even today—a considerable issue in addressing the shortfall in housing in our country.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the impact of selling existing council housing at very substantial discounts varies considerably from place to place? Obviously, losing affordable housing is a huge problem in London. It is also a huge problem in many villages where we have lost, in some cases, all the council housing. Has not the time come for local authorities to have discretion as to the sales that they make and the discounts that they use?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord—who knows a considerable amount about this area—is right that its impact varies. He will know, of course, of the rural exemptions that apply in relation to right to buy and also the total exemption in relation to right to acquire in rural areas. We are looking at that. Of course, there is also the forthcoming social housing Green Paper that I referred to, which will look at this issue in the round.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
May I push the Minister a little more on the whole question of rural housing? Only 12% of the rural housing stock is social housing, compared with 19% in urban areas. How exactly are Her Majesty’s Government going to increase the level of rural social housing over the coming years?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate also is an expert in this area—he does a lot on rural housing, and I applaud him for that—and he is right. As I say, there is an issue that needs addressing in relation to rural areas and social housing. It is a more difficult issue there. I expect the social housing Green Paper to come up with thoughts on this but meanwhile, as I say, there are particular policies on right to acquire and right to buy that alleviate the position in rural areas.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, the original question referring to 2010 was slightly disingenuous. Do Ministers—certainly this Minister—agree that the housing crisis has been caused over the last 30 years, not the last 10 years, and that the only way of building enough homes is by diversifying the amount of people who can get into that space? History shows that the only time this country has ever reached 300,000 homes is when councils have been allowed to take up their proper role and deliver a major part of them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right on all those matters. I am sure that the “Hear, hear!” was in relation to the slight chastisement of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who I know is far too wise to think that this problem started in 2010. It is much longer term than that. Yes, it is right that local councils will have a considerable role. That is recognised by the department and the Government. It is very important that we engage with local councils. We are doing that now, as the noble Lord will be aware, in terms of meeting the shortfall that exists in social housing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, the evidence suggests that a very high proportion of right-to-buy council housing—the Minister will no doubt have more up-to-date figures than I have, but my figures are something like 60%—has been recycled into the private rented sector, at double the rents and double the housing benefit, without meeting some of the most desperate need that social housing was designed for. Will the Minister give us the latest statistics?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I do not have those to hand but I am very happy to write with them to the noble Baroness and copy that to the Library. She is right that there is an issue in relation to the reselling-on of houses. She will be aware that in rural areas there are restrictions on that. Again, that will be open for discussion following the social housing Green Paper.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interest in the register. Can the noble Lord tell the House how many social rented homes have been lost in the housing association sector by converting social rented properties to affordable rented properties? Does he agree that it is a most regrettable policy that is eroding the social rented stock at an alarming rate, with no replacement?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, where I agree with the noble Lord is that there is a considerable problem in addressing the shortfall. By ensuring that some of this is affordable rather than social, we are going to reach the target more easily of supplying additional homes, as the noble Lord is aware, but that is not to say that we do not have a challenge, even on the social housing front. That, again, is something that the Government are determined to address. As I say, we have the £2 billion committed to affordable and social housing in terms of money available, and we are alleviating the borrowing cap by £1 billion from 2019, which will also help.
Schools: Free Lunches and Milk
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to undertake a full impact assessment of the Free School Lunches and Milk, and School and Early Years Finance (Amendments Relating to Universal Credit) (England) Regulations 2018; and what further action they intend to take regarding those Regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government listened carefully to the views that arose in the debate last week. I can confirm that our changes will help those on the lowest incomes. The Government have published an equalities impact statement, which was updated following our public consultation. We are committed to ensuring that at least 50,000 more children will benefit from free school meals by 2022, compared to the previous system, and that no child will lose out during the transition to universal credit. We have also reviewed the threshold following the rollout of universal credit to ensure that those who need support are benefiting.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, last week your Lordships’ House voted in favour of a regret Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam, calling for a delay in the implementation of regulations which, by the Government’s own admission, will result in more than 100,000 children receiving free school meals under the existing benefits system losing that right under universal credit. In passing, I should say that the vote was carried by 52% to 48%—a margin that may be familiar and one that the Government have consistently told us is decisive and must be respected. But the Government showed your Lordships’ House no respect, because, as the Minister said, guidance was issued two days later.
Ministers have been unable to explain why there has been no full impact assessment on such a controversial issue, not just the equalities impact assessment that the Minister mentioned. It is surely inconceivable that the Department for Education would not have undertaken an internal impact assessment on such a controversial issue. Will the Minister confirm to noble Lords that the outcome of that assessment was so damaging to the Government’s plans that it was suppressed, and will they now either publish it or undertake a proper, public, full impact assessment?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord that we take very seriously the concerns raised about this important policy issue. As I mentioned, we published an updated equalities impact statement on 7 February. The majority of respondents agreed that there would be no adverse impact on the protected characteristics. The reason, really, is because we are improving the system, basing eligibility on income rather than the number of hours worked. All the existing recipients of free school meals whose parents move to universal credit will be protected for the full rollout period.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is no cap on those people receiving a heating allowance. As the Government are in a listening mode, does he not think that we should ensure that every child who is officially defined as being in poverty should receive a free meal?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the free school meal mechanism was designed for those in the most serious stages of poverty, and with the transition to universal credit we have been very careful to ensure that the number of children who benefit from free school meals is retained. We have made an absolute commitment that during the transition period, any child eligible for free school meals will retain his or her entitlement, and that will continue if they are in the school system beyond the rollout period.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, last week the Minister told the House that only some £450 million of the total £3 billion cost of extending free school meals to all on universal credit would go on the meals themselves—a tiny fraction. Most of the cash will go on the pupil premium, which is linked to free school meal eligibility. Given that an income threshold would undermine the cardinal universal credit principle of making work pay and leave some children hungry, would it not make sense to go ahead with the threshold for the premium but provide free school meals for all children on universal credit, who are by definition in some need? Why do they have to be linked?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, if we did not have a cap on the eligibility for free school meals but relied purely on universal credit, over half of children would end up being eligible. We have a number of recipients on universal credit earning in excess of £40,000 a year.
I believe that the pupil premium has been a tremendous success. We have closed the attainment gap by 10% since it was introduced in 2011, and invested more than £11 billion in schools to encourage them to recruit pupils from the poorest backgrounds.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What does my noble friend make of the claim that has been bandied about that 1 million children may be deprived of free school meals as a result of these reforms?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, that was a very theoretical figure. It simply presumed that there would be no cap on the numbers of recipients if the universal credit system carried on without any cap. It was misleading, and it has concerned a lot of parents out there, because it has set hares running that are simply not relevant. We have been meticulous in trying to ensure that recipients of free school meals today will continue to receive them. Indeed, we have made that commitment not just for the current phase of their education but up to 2022, or thereafter if they are still in the school system.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Government’s policy not mean that although present claimants are protected, future generations will not be and children will go hungry?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we must look at our Government’s broader track record since 2010. As I said when summing up the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, last week, we have intervened in a number of areas for the most disadvantaged children in our society: 15 hours for disadvantaged two year-olds, 30 hours for working parents, early years pupil premium, disability access fund, tax-free childcare and shared parental leave. None of those are designed other than to help the most disadvantaged members of our society. I urge noble Lords to look at universal credit and free school meals in the context of all that we have done over the past eight years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, if that is the case, why did a recent report point out that 1 million more children would be in poverty by 2020? How does the Minister justify the policy and answer that question?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I am not familiar with those figures. However, we have done more than previous Governments to ensure that families are taken out of poverty—and we know that the route out of poverty is through work. The items on the list I gave a moment ago are all aimed to help parents become working parents and not to be exposed to poverty.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
House of Lords: Allowance
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That—
1. (1) The Resolution of 20 July 2010 relating to the House of Lords allowance is amended as follows with effect from the beginning of 1 April 2018.
(2) For paragraph 1(3) substitute—
“(3) The amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in the year beginning with 1 April 2018 should be—
(a) £305, or
(b) if paragraph (4) applies, £153.
(3A) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2019, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph (3) or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph (3) or this paragraph) in the previous year.”
(3) After paragraph 1(4) insert—
“(4A) In paragraph (3A)(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
(4B) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph (3A)(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.”
(4) In paragraph 2(1) for “Accordingly, the” substitute “The”.
2. In respect of a day of attendance before 1 April 2018, the Resolution of 20 July 2010 relating to the House of Lords allowance continues to have effect without the amendments made by this Resolution.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Motion in my name proposes changes to the current and future rates of the daily allowance that would come into effect from 1 April. It follows the agreement of a report by the commission, which has also been put to the House for agreement. The current system was introduced in 2010 and was rightly considered to be a more direct, simpler and more transparent system, as well as being much easier to administer than the previous, discredited expenses system.
The daily allowance rates of £300 and £150 have been fixed since their introduction in 2010, and the House made a conscious decision at that time that this should remain the case until the end of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament. No decision was taken about how the scheme would operate after that Parliament, and rates have remained the same. I believe that, after almost eight years of the rate being frozen, the time is now right to introduce a modest uprating. While freezing the rate during that time was justified in line with public sector wage restraint and expenditure more generally, it is clear that, unless some means of providing a modest uprating mechanism is introduced, over time the amount of the daily allowance will reduce significantly in real terms.
The question then arises of what uprating mechanism should be used. I believe that the method that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has used to determine annual increases in MPs’ pay for the last few years, in line with the independent ONS figures for average increases in public sector pay, is a sensible method which we should apply to the level of the daily allowance, beginning this year and for subsequent years. I am pleased to confirm that the commission agreed to my proposal that an initial uprating should be made to the daily allowance from 1 April 2018, in line with this year’s IPSA increase to MPs’ salaries of 1.8%, with subsequent annual upratings being pegged to subsequent annual IPSA determinations. Initially, this would result in a new rate of either £305 or £153. The result would be a modest and sustainable adjustment to the rate which I commend to the House. I also welcome the commission’s endorsement.
The overall cost of such an uprating in terms of the impact on the House of Lords estimate would be approximately £339,000 per annum. This can be accommodated within the current financial plan, which reflects overall savings year on year in the total running costs of this House, and means that we would continue to fulfil our important role at a rate that represents good value to the taxpayer. If IPSA were to change its method of determining future upratings, the commission would, of course, want to reconsider this approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. This seems a sensible and appropriate approach to an uprating mechanism. As she pointed out, Members of your Lordships’ House have not seen any increase in allowances since 2010. To have an automatic annual increase on the same basis as Members of Parliament seems an entirely fair and appropriate way to proceed. She will understand that issues and anomalies remain that colleagues across the House will seek to address. They have not been addressed today, as she commented. However, the approach to the uprating mechanism is entirely appropriate. On a personal level, I thank the noble Baroness as I have raised this issue for a number of years, and without her personal commitment I do not believe that we would have seen this uprating at all.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Leader on securing this settlement. It is modest but it protects the current level of allowances after years during which they have fallen and provides the basis of a regular uprating in the years to come—and it is closely linked to what happens in the Commons. In the current environment, I simply do not believe that a more generous settlement was politically possible, so it is very much to be welcomed.
In my view this does not mean that we have anything like a satisfactory approach to allowances. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, produced a simple political fix when he introduced the current system, and, while it has met what I am sure were his objectives—namely, a system which survived without inviting much adverse comment—it is by any logical perspective deeply flawed. In the past 10 years, I have seen my allowance in effect doubled—I lived in London when the Strathclyde measure was introduced—and then, when I moved last year to north Yorkshire, halved again. These changes have borne no relation to my participation in the affairs of the House.
Colleagues who have lived outside London for the whole period have seen a real terms fall in their allowances of nearly 20% at a time when London accommodation costs have increased faster than the overall rate of inflation. Personally, I can see no reason why, within a slowly rising funding envelope, we should not move towards a position in which expenses start again to reflect the actual costs incurred by Members who live outside London. I think that would be a much fairer system. However, I realise that there is no consensus in the House to move in such a direction and that the overall funding available to the Lords is likely to remain tightly constrained for the foreseeable future. That being so, I reiterate my thanks to the Leader for securing the increase she has announced today.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I realise that I am unlikely to win the popularity stakes in your Lordships’ Chamber by the comments that I am about to make—but, having exhausted all other opportunities available to persuade those who hold offices in this House to change this system of allowances, I feel that I have no other alternative but to say a few words in this debate.
In 2010, shortly after I was introduced to your Lordships’ House, the system of allowances was changed. I have to say today that I am opposed to this Motion on two grounds. First, I am opposed to the increase; that will certainly not make me very popular. I do not believe that £300 tax-free, available to every Member of this House indiscriminately, is justifiable in terms of public opinion or the public purse. Secondly, I am opposed to it because it entrenches the discrimination that was introduced into the system in 2010.
For those Members of your Lordships’ House who have been introduced since 2010, I will remind the House of what the allowances were back then. The day allowance, which is effectively the equivalent of the £300, was £86.50. It was introduced for the majority of Members of the House, who went from £86.50 to £300 overnight. There was an office allowance—a secretarial allowance—of £75, available to all Members, and there was an overnight allowance of £174 for Members who lived outside London. That was a total of £335.50 for those Members who could legitimately claim the overnight allowance because they lived outside London and were paying sometimes up to £200 a night for a hotel in London.
In 2010, that was changed to £300 for every Member of the House, available every day that the House sat. The Members who lived outside London received a reduction of £35.50; the Members who lived inside London—even with the ending of the secretarial allowance—received an increase of £138.50. That system continues to exist today and is entrenched by the report of the House of Lords Commission that is in front of us. It was basically introduced because leaders in your Lordships’ House assumed that it was impossible to police a system that relied on the trust of Members living in London not to illegitimately claim an overnight allowance to which they were not entitled. So those who were legitimately incurring costs through living outside of London were effectively penalised because people who lived in London—it was perceived—could not be trusted. That is a shocking state of affairs: it should have been dealt with long before now.
There have been assurances again and again over the last eight years that, if there was any change at all to the allowance system, the first change would be to rectify this anomaly. The impact of this anomaly is clear: there are Members here today, in your Lordships’ House, who have moved their residence from outside London to inside London solely for financial reasons, because of the impact of the allowances scheme. People who were introduced in 2010, 2011 and 2012—because they lived outside London and because of the desire of the then Prime Minister and others to bring in more people from outside London to your Lordships’ House—have moved to London since then. There are Members here who have an incentive to move to London, when the incentive should be to increase the geographical diversity of this House: to get people here from the devolved Parliaments who have not served in Westminster and to get people here who spent their working lives in Northern Ireland, Wales, the north of England, the south-west and Scotland. This system acts as a disincentive to that objective. All the political parties say that they have that as an objective, and yet they will not take the one simple step, based on receipts, that would make a difference. So I am opposed to this report because it entrenches that discrimination: it is an unjust system and it is a disincentive to greater diversity in this House at a time when, I hazard to suggest, it is deeply needed.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, you can agree with my noble friend on the anomaly he highlights and the unfair system that penalises those who live—and remain living—distances from London, and still be in favour of passing the Motion this afternoon. They are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly feasible to recognise that after eight years, a modest increase in the allowance is justified whether the media mislead the public or not about your Lordships’ House, and to want to look at changes in the future. I encourage my noble friend to support what is put forward by the Leader of the House this afternoon and then to work with others on seeing whether we can have a watertight system.
There are many other anomalies. One of the things we should greatly encourage is to get the work of this House better known and better connected across the United Kingdom. One small measure in that regard would be to pay the same allowance for activities outside this House that are paid when they take place inside the House. In other words, we do not discriminate, for instance, against committees that take themselves out of London to find out how the real world lives out there.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I back my noble friend Lord Blunkett, and I have total sympathy with the concerns that were raised by my noble friend Lord McConnell and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, although perhaps he did so in a gentler way. As Members on all sides will know, I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. I pay tribute to the Lord Speaker—I hope that this does not sound too gratuitous and crawling; it is absolutely genuine—who agreed to meet a deputation of all parties and the Cross Benches, which I had the privilege of taking to him to make the arguments, including the argument my noble friend Lord McConnell made. The Lord Speaker has been working with deft diplomacy behind the scenes, and the result is what we have achieved today. It is the first step towards getting these considerations dealt with properly, and I look forward to meeting the Lord Speaker afterwards, with a deputation, to raise other issues that need resolving, particularly those raised by my noble friend Lord McConnell. I hope that on that basis, my noble friend will not vote against this. As my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, it is a small step in the right direction.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have briefly contributed. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for the work they have done and for their support for this approach, which has allowed us to make progress, notwithstanding the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. I understand that this is not what many Members of the House may have hoped for, but I hope they see that we have understood some of the comments noble Lords have made and that we have tried to take a step in the right direction. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this is the right thing to do at this point. I accept that it is a modest increase, but I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Motion.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the House of Lords Commission Financial Support for Members of the House of Lords (1st Report, HL Paper 113) be agreed to.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2018
Baroness Goldie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 25 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 5 and 7 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-R-I(a) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 54KB) - (19 Mar 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2018 View all Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to all three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The UK Government take seriously our responsibility to uphold our commitment to govern in the interests of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. To that end, there are three Bills before the House that represent a series of necessary steps now required to protect and preserve public services, ensure good governance and increase public confidence in Northern Ireland’s political institutions. We have deferred action on these measures for as long as possible in the hope that a restored Executive could take this legislation forward. That is now not possible. So, with the greatest reluctance, it is important that we proceed with the Bills.
With the leave of the House, I will discuss each Bill in turn, starting with the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. Members of the House will recall that, last November, Parliament approved the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017. This was a step we took reluctantly. This Act gave the Northern Ireland Civil Service the clear legal basis required to manage resources and perform the important work it continues to do in the absence of an Executive. The Northern Ireland Civil Service has continued since then to assess where pressures lie across the system, taking decisions to reallocate resources as required. It has also requested since then to draw down £20 million in 2017-18—of the £50 million of support arising from the financial annexe to the confidence and supply agreement—which the Government committed to releasing for 2017-18 to help address immediate health and education pressures. The remainder of that £50 million will form part of the resource totals available in 2018-19.
Noble Lords will want to be reassured that the additional funding for 2017-18 was confirmed in the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2018, which received Royal Assent on 15 March. These changes to the financial position approved in the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017 in November must now be placed on a legal footing for the Northern Ireland Administration as we approach the end of the financial year, and that is what this Bill does.
In addition, the Bill will provide for a vote on account in the early months of next year to give legal authority for managing day-to-day spending in the run-up to the estimates process. This will avoid the unorthodox need for the Northern Ireland Civil Service to rely on emergency powers set out in Section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act and Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 to issue cash and resources. For 2018-19, we do not consider it would be appropriate if we did not provide the usual vote on account facility to the Northern Ireland Civil Service—a facility provided to the UK Government departments through our own spring supplementary estimates process.
To be very clear, this is not a forward-looking budget for the year ahead. The Bill does not seek to set out in legislation the departmental allocations of the Secretary of State’s Budget Statement on 8 March, nor does it seek to vote any new moneys for Northern Ireland. The totals to which it is related are either locally raised or have been subject to previous votes in Parliament, most recently in the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
Instead, the Bill looks back to confirm spending totals for 2017-18 to ensure that the Northern Ireland Civil Service has a secure legal basis for its spending in the past year. As such, it formally allocates the £20 million of confidence and supply funding already committed for 2017-18; it is not concerned with any of the £410 million set out in the 2018-19 Budget Statement, which will be a matter for the UK estimates in the summer and for a Northern Ireland budget Bill thereafter.
I will turn briefly to the content of the Bill, as it largely rehearses what I set out to your Lordships in November when bringing forward the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017. In short, it authorises Northern Ireland departments and certain other bodies to incur expenditure and use resources for the financial year ending 31 March 2018.
Clause 1 of the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill authorises the issue of £16.1 billion out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. The allocation levels for each Northern Ireland department and the other bodies in receipt of these funds are set out in Schedule 1, which also states the purposes for which these funds are to be used.
Clause 2 authorises the use of resources amounting to £18 billion in the year ending 31 March 2018 by the Northern Ireland departments and other bodies listed in Clause 2(2).
Clause 3 sets revised limits on the accruing resources, including both operating and non-operating accruing resources in the current financial year. These are all largely as they appeared in the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017, and the revised totals for departments appear in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill.
Clause 4 does not have a parallel in that Act. It sets out the power for the Northern Ireland Civil Service to issue out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund some £7.35 billion in cash for the forthcoming financial year. This is the vote on account provision that I have already outlined. It is linked to Clause 6, which does the same in terms of resources. The value is set, as is standard, at around 45% of the sums available in both regards in the previous financial year. Schedules 3 and 4 operate on the same basis, with each departmental allocation simply set at 45% of the previous year.
Clause 5 permits some temporary borrowing powers for cash management purposes. As I have already noted, there is no new money contained within the Bill; there is simply the explicit authority to spend in full the moneys that have already been allocated and locally raised.
This Bill would ordinarily have been taken through the Assembly. As such, at Clause 7, there are a series of adaptations that ensure that, once approved by Parliament, the Bill will be treated as though it were an Assembly Budget Act, enabling Northern Ireland public finances to continue to function notwithstanding the absence of an Executive.
Noble Lords may already be aware from the Library that, alongside the Bill, a set of supplementary estimates for the departments and bodies covered by the budget Bill have also been laid as a Command Paper. These estimates, which have been prepared by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance, set out the breakdown of their resource allocation in greater detail. This is a different process from that which we might ordinarily see for estimates at Westminster, where the estimates document precedes the formal budget legislation and is separately approved. That would also be the case at the Assembly, but as was the case in November, the Bill provides that the laying of the Command Paper takes the place of an estimates document laid and approved before the Assembly, again to enable public finances to flow smoothly.
This Bill is very much a technical step as we approach the end of the financial year to provide a secure legal footing for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. It looks backwards rather than forward, although it avoids the use of emergency powers for the forthcoming financial year. It is on that platform that the Secretary of State’s 2018-19 Budget Statement of 8 March builds. It is worth making it clear that the 2018-19 Budget Statement will need to be the subject of formal legislation later in year. I am sure that noble Lords will share the hope that this will be taken forward by a restored Executive. However, I should highlight to your Lordships that this is something that the UK Government would be prepared to progress if required as we uphold our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland.
Before we reach such a point and in addition to the technical steps of this Bill there are some further pressing steps proposed in the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill that need to be taken now to build on the Government’s efforts to safeguard public services and finances in Northern Ireland. I ask the House also to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill.
Clause 1 of the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill 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, this 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. It would not be acceptable to allow uncertainty to linger in the absence of an Executive to set its own rates and begin collection from ratepayers. So while we are clear that this is a devolved matter, we are also clear that only the UK Government and Parliament can take this 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, this reflects a 1.5% inflationary increase. For domestic properties, the rate will be raised by inflation plus 3%, as set out in the Secretary of State’s 2018-19 Budget Statement on 8 March. In deciding on these levels we have reflected on conversations with the parties and stakeholders more broadly; considered the budget consultation launched by the Northern Ireland Civil Service in December, which discusses rises in regional rates of as much as 10% above inflation; considered the pressures on key services and the need to balance any increase to rates at the right level.
We have concluded that it is fair that we ask households to pay a little more—less than £1 per week for the average household—to help address pressures in health, education and elsewhere. In order to keep a focus on the growth that Northern Ireland needs to see, holding business rates in line with inflation is the right approach. This rates income, along with the flexibilities set out in the Secretary of State’s Statement, will represent an important contribution to delivering a sustainable budget picture for 2018-19, upholding the UK Government’s responsibilities to uphold good governance in Northern Ireland. Yet the Bill also makes clear that nothing we do cuts across the continuing right of a restored Executive to set a rate by order in the usual way.
The second element of the Bill concerns the administration of Northern Ireland’s renewable heat incentive scheme. The scheme was established in 2012 to support efforts to increase the uptake in the use of renewable energy. However, errors in the administration of the scheme 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. The administration of the scheme and the circumstances which led to the errors in its administration are subject to an ongoing public inquiry.
One of the last acts of the previous Executive was to make regulations in January 2017 that put robust cost controls in place. These made sure that the costs were sustainable, but they were put in place for one year only, to allow for a longer-term consideration of the scheme as a whole. They are now due to expire. If they are allowed to expire, there will be no legal basis not only for maintaining the current cost cap but also 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 will ensure that the present cost controls and the legal basis for payments can continue for the 2018-19 financial year. These are sunsetted for a year, as 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 the detailed analysis to enable a new Executive to consider the right course for the future.
I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a modest Bill, doing two very discrete but necessary things in the interests of safeguarding public finances: setting a regional rate and extending the cost controls of the RHI scheme.
The third and final Bill before the House today is the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill. Where the other Bills focus on increasing clarity and confidence in Northern Ireland’s finances, this Bill looks to increase public confidence in Northern Ireland’s political institutions. The continued payment of full salaries for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, when the Assembly has not met for over a year and there has been no Executive for 14 months, is a matter of considerable public concern in Northern Ireland and there is a broad desire for action. The Bill will grant the Secretary of State the power to vary pay and allowances for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the MLAs.
MLAs’ salaries and allowances are rightly a devolved matter. In 2011, the Assembly appointed an independent body, the Independent Financial Review Panel, to set MLA pay and allowances by means of determinations. Its last 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, however, there is presently nobody with the power to change MLA pay to reflect the current extraordinary circumstances. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to do that; that is, to vary the pay and allowances of MLAs by means of a determination. One important difference from the panel’s powers is that, while 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 pay under this Bill.
Under the panel’s most recent determination, an automatic £500 per year inflationary increase in MLAs’ salaries is due on 1 April. It is simply not appropriate for this increase to apply in the present circumstances, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends—if granted the power by this Bill—to stop that increase from being applied. Support for this action comes in the advice on MLA pay and allowances that Trevor Reaney, a former Clerk to the Northern Ireland Assembly, gave to the then Secretary of State in December 2017. It also comes from the Assembly Commission, whose chair, the Speaker of the Assembly, wrote to the Secretary of State earlier this month. There was also widespread support for it in the other place when this Bill was debated there last week. I hope that noble Lords across the House will agree that this is a suitable step to take in the current circumstances.
More broadly, Mr Reaney’s advice provided an independent assessment of what action should be taken on MLA pay and allowances in the current circumstances, taking account of all of the important work that many Members continue to do in the absence of an Assembly. These recommendations included a 27.5% reduction in MLAs’ salaries. The Secretary of State has been clear that she is minded to follow Mr Reaney’s recommendations, with the exception of the proposed cut to the staff costs allowance. As the Secretary of State has said,
“The position of”,
MLAs’ staff,
“should not be prejudiced by what is happening with their political masters”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/18; col. 339.]
Before making her final decision, however, she has asked for final representations from the political parties. This is a sensible approach that I hope noble Lords will support.
This Bill would not itself alter MLAs’ pay or allowances. It simply creates the power to make a determination during the current period without an Executive. Once an Executive is formed, the power to make a determination would return to being entirely a devolved matter. A future panel would, of course, be free to make a new determination as it sees fit, including to cover periods without an Executive. This determination would supersede any made by the Secretary of State under this Bill. To ensure that we do not again find ourselves in the situation where MLAs remain on full pay when there is no Executive and no panel determination covering the situation, the Bill allows a determination made by the Secretary of State in the current period to apply again should that situation arise. To be clear, it is the determination that would apply again: the power to make a new determination would in that situation remain devolved.
Overall, the focus of this Bill is narrow, and I consider that taking the power to set MLA pay is a necessary step to uphold public confidence in Northern Ireland in the absence of an Executive and sitting Assembly.
I recognise the extent of the ask of the House in considering all three Bills in one day. As I conclude, I would like to reaffirm that the Government have considered very carefully the necessity of and timing required for this legislation. We are doing this reluctantly in order to put Northern Ireland finances on a legal footing for the financial year 2017-18; to provide more certainty and a sustainable footing for the financial year 2018-19, in the interests of protecting public services; and to ensure good governance and uphold public confidence in Northern Ireland. I believe that these Bills reflect our approach of intervening only as necessary, and only at a point when it is critical that the measures are taken forward. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is important we now make progress to see the measures of each Bill passed into law. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I, along with other noble Lords, was proud to be a member of a Government who devoted so much time and effort over a decade to help Northern Ireland move from the horror of its violent past towards a better future. The devolved institutions set up in 2007, after a settlement that I helped negotiate, have not functioned for the past 15 months, and there appears to be little prospect of a change in that position. I have heard nothing from the Government to suggest that they have a clue what to do. Former serving Ministers in Northern Ireland such as myself and my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen, Lord Reid, Lord Mandelson, Lady Smith of Basildon, Lord Browne, Lord Rooker and Lord Dubs, feel passionately about the way that the enormous peace progress made has gone so badly into reverse.
It gives me absolutely no satisfaction to say that I really do not think this Government get Northern Ireland. I make no criticism of the Minister or the arguments he has made, or of the Secretary of State—they are both new Ministers and I wish them all the best. But I observe—as I have said before, as has my noble friend Lord Murphy—that the Prime Minister’s approach, which is a kind of fly-in, fly-out diplomacy of insufficient in-depth detailed negotiation and relationship-building with all the parties and their leaders in Northern Ireland, was never going to work. You cannot achieve success in an impasse such as the one we face with this kind of approach. I urge the Government—No. 10 in particular—to reconsider this.
The measures in these Bills should never have had to come to us in the first place. They represent direct rule in all but name. But I do not think we can simply nod them through as a matter of process without addressing some of the implications of the current political impasse. The people of Northern Ireland are left in limbo, facing, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has pointed out so graphically, a serious crisis in the National Health Service, probably worse than in any other part of the UK. Last week I had the privilege to meet a group of remarkable people for whom that limbo is particularly cruel. They were members of the WAVE Trauma Centre’s injured group, and I will briefly recount two of their stories.
Jennifer was 21 in 1972 when she and her sister, who was shopping for a wedding dress, went into a Belfast city centre cafe for a coffee. A no-warning IRA bomb tore both Jennifer’s legs off. Her sister lost both legs and an arm. Noble Lords from Northern Ireland will recall the horror of the Abercorn bomb. Peter was 26 when he was shot by a loyalist gang in 1979 in a case of mistaken identity. Because of the configuration of the flat where Peter lived, the ambulance crew could not manoeuvre a stretcher around the stairs. They brought Peter down in a body bag. His father Herbert arrived at the scene and thought that his son was dead. “Oh my poor Peter” were his last words. He had a heart attack and died as Peter was carried to the ambulance. Peter is paralysed and confined to a wheelchair.
There are many more similarly harrowing stories. It is estimated that around 500 people in Northern Ireland are classified as severely physically injured as a direct result of the Troubles, with injuries that are at the very top of the scale: bilateral amputees, paraplegic, those blinded. All the injuries are life-changing and permanent. Because of their injuries most have been unable to work to build up occupational pensions and today have to survive on benefits. The levels of compensation paid through the adversarial criminal injuries compensation scheme were wholly inadequate and there was no disability discrimination legislation in the early days to protect them. Frankly, these people were not expected to live beyond a few years. But they have and the passage of time has compounded their problems as many suffer increasing physical distress as a result of deteriorating health and chronic pain.
They are campaigning for a special pension of the type that is in place in most other countries that have suffered from conflicts similar to that in Northern Ireland. All they want is some semblance of financial security and independence as they grow into old age in the most difficult circumstances. I find their argument compelling. The pension has been costed by independent consultants at around only £3 million to £5 million per annum—a figure which will reduce year on year as the majority of the severely injured are moving into old age. I appeal to the Government to provide this money now. It is a small amount to rectify a big injustice.
All the Northern Ireland parties are on record as saying that they support the idea of a pension for severely injured people such as those who come to see them and argue their case. But saying they support it is about as far as it has gone because their support for the severely injured is not unconditional. Of the 500 severely injured, there are 10 or so who were injured by their own hand; for example, planting a bomb that exploded prematurely. Of the 10, six are loyalist and four republican. It is no surprise that the DUP and Sinn Féin are split. The DUP says there can be no pension for those injured by their own hand. Sinn Féin insists that they cannot support a pension that excludes them as this would be tantamount to accepting a hierarchy of victims.
The injured group, who are unfairly drawn into this toxic debate, argue that it is not for them to say who should or should not qualify. What they do insist is that it is unjust, unfair and immoral for politicians to say that because they cannot agree about 10 people the other 490 must get nothing. I totally agree with them, and I hope the Minister will respond positively. The injured group, all of whom have been injured through no fault of their own, regard their plight as being as much a part of the legacy of Northern Ireland’s violent past as anything else, and the legacy issues are not devolved entirely. But the Government refuse to accept that they are part of the legacy for which they have responsibility. If the devolved institutions are, for whatever reason, unable to deliver on this—and of course, suspended, they are unable to deliver on this; and tragically, we are unlikely to see those institutions in place for some considerable time—the Government at Westminster surely must step in now, because it would be shameful if the people who have suffered so much through no fault of their own were told that nothing can be done because of political buck-passing.
On 20 February, in the other place, the Secretary of State said that she recognised the Government’s responsibilities to,
“provide better outcomes for victims and survivors—the people who suffered most during the troubles”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/18; col. 33.]
I agree, and I appeal to her and to the Minister to act now. They have the power to do so. It is a very small amount; it would not be noticed on the overall allocation for Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Whitehall budget. It would not be noticed at all. I have met men and women in the WAVE trauma group who by any definition have “suffered most”, in the Secretary of State’s phrase. Unless both this Parliament and the Government accept that responsibility and act immediately to provide pensions for these 490 people, it will be to our eternal shame.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I shall be fairly brief as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has very eloquently and, if I may say so, movingly made many of the key political points.
There is general consensus that these three Bills are necessary in the continued absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland. The fact that these Bills continue to be necessary is deeply to be regretted, and it is all the more tragic as this is precisely a time where clear strategic direction and forward planning are needed to plan ahead for the economy in Northern Ireland, given the ongoing uncertainties and additional pressures as a result of Brexit and the lack of clarity about the progress in the negotiations relating to the island of Ireland. The Bills before us today are little more than sticking plaster Bills that do little to provide clarity on the priorities for the months or years ahead, but we shall support them from these Benches as another necessary measure to ensure the continuation of budgetary certainty in Northern Ireland.
I shall concentrate my remarks this afternoon on issues surrounding legacy and legacy institutions, especially following the decision of a High Court judge on Friday to compel authorities in Belfast and London to reconsider providing funds for legacy inquests in Northern Ireland, and I will make a few comments on issues surrounding scrutiny and oversight, most particularly during the critical months ahead to ensure that a Northern Ireland voice is heard during the Brexit negotiations. The Minister will be aware that during the debate in the other place, Owen Smith MP, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, today, raised many valid points regarding legacy issues and stressed the continued very great need for reconciliation between communities in Northern Ireland.
There is now a very large backlog of legacy inquests. In February 2016, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan, concluded a review into the remaining legacy inquests in Northern Ireland and said that they could be dealt with in five years if he received the necessary funding from the Stormont Executive. That was costed at £35 million over those five years. He proposed setting up a specialist unit with its own staffing and resources to complete 54 inquests into 94 deaths.
The Lord Chief Justice’s proposals were blocked in the Executive by the then First Minister, Arlene Foster. That decision was recently declared unlawful by the High Court in Belfast. There is an overwhelming case to proceed with this funding immediately. While the issues surrounding legacy inquests have become heavily contested in terms of narratives surrounding the past, there is a very real danger of these matters becoming even more polarised if they are further delayed. It is critical to maintain a shared and cohesive approach.
The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry conducted by Sir Anthony Hart was the largest inquiry into child abuse in children’s homes in the UK. Its recommendations have political agreement, yet because the Executive collapsed at virtually the same time as the report’s publication, there has been no action. Some victims have now been waiting since the 1970s for compensation, and we are sadly seeing these generations passing away before receiving the compensation they are due. In the continued absence of an Executive, will the Minister confirm that the Government will at some stage before the summer introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Hart inquiry?
It is welcome that on several occasions in recent debates the Minister has made a point of stressing that nothing is being ruled out in the current circumstances, with the talks having collapsed once again. However, the time is surely coming when we have to look at alternative and creative solutions to ensure that there is at least some degree of democratic accountability in the absence of an Executive.
On 23 January this year, at a meeting of the EU Select Committee, I asked Karen Bradley—in her first public exchange of views after becoming Secretary of State—whether she would consider alternative mechanisms to allow MLAs or other democratically elected representatives in Northern Ireland to have their voices heard during the Brexit negotiations, in the continued absence of a power-sharing Executive. At the time she said, perhaps understandably, that she did not want any alternative solutions to stand in the way of the obvious preferred option of continuing with the talks to re-establish the Executive. However, more than two months has passed since that exchange and there is still no Executive; there are currently no talks taking place; and there is no voice for Northern Ireland on Brexit, other than through the Government’s confidence and supply arrangements with the DUP, which does not speak for the majority in Northern Ireland on matters relating to Brexit.
The Minister may be aware that the Alliance Party has published a set of proposals on the next steps forward. One proposal that is particularly interesting is that a cross-party Brexit Committee be established to allow Northern Ireland’s voice to be heard during the Brexit negotiations. It also suggests reconstituting the Assembly’s departmental scrutiny committees to allow policy development, and some level of scrutiny and reform, to proceed.
In his concluding remarks, it would be very helpful to hear from the Minister not just that nothing is being ruled out but when alternative models could be ruled in. Could he also say what concrete measures the Government are currently taking to restart the talks—and, to repeat an earlier question I have posed now several times to the Minister, are the Government actively considering the involvement of an external mediator?
In relation to the Bill on MLA pay, I am extremely pleased to hear from the Minister this afternoon that he has confirmed that it is not the Government’s intention to cut staffing budgets or office costs for constituency offices. As he said, members of the public are continuing to contact MLAs and to look for their assistance with problems. There is no reason why staff should be penalised because there is currently no political agreement on the formation of an Executive.
Finally, in relation to the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill, there was no consultation before the 2017 regulations were implemented because of the urgency of the matter at that time. Indeed, paragraph 4.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the original Northern Ireland legislation on the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations states:
“There has been no opportunity to consult on the introduction of these first stage measures. As part of the next stage, the Department will give consideration to consultation”.
In the continued absence of an Executive, can the Minister say whether it is the intention of the UK Government to carry out this consultation now?
It is deeply to be regretted that we need to be passing these Bills at all today—but, in the interests of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, for the continued provision of public services and with a heavy heart, we give them our support.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, what the Minister has brought before your Lordships’ House today in these three Bills should of course be going to the Northern Ireland Assembly—but, regrettably, due to the intransigence in particular of Sinn Féin, which brought the Assembly and Executive crashing down, this cannot happen. Indeed, had the Executive Minister of Finance Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, a Sinn Féin Member, carried out his responsibilities, we would not be in the position that we are today. When the Finance Minister was being pressed by the finance committee in the Assembly to bring forward measures in the budget, he refused to do so. He would not even bring issues to the Executive. He of course always had the full knowledge that Sinn Féin was planning to crash the Assembly and the Executive. Sinn Féin has demonstrated that it does not like making hard decisions—but, due to the way that the Assembly is set up, its support is required because of the veto principle.
The Assembly was allegedly stalled because of the RHI scheme. This was undoubtedly a flawed project, but did it merit pulling apart the whole edifice of the Assembly and Executive? I certainly do not think so. It is well known that Sinn Féin was under pressure to bring down the Assembly and the Executive, as the message was beginning to filter out slowly but surely that Northern Ireland was beginning to prosper and was a good place to do business. This of course was something that Sinn Féin and its support base did not want to hear. So a device had to be found to paralyse the governing of Northern Ireland, and the excuse or cunning plan was the RHI scheme that is presently being investigated. The pressing need, of course, was the setting of a budget to direct money to the different departments for the running of Northern Ireland.
I must stress that my party, the DUP, is ready to return to the Assembly tomorrow and get round the table to discuss any issues that other parties feel should be discussed. These can be time-limited. I emphasise that the DUP has no red lines in getting an Executive and Assembly up and running. Unlike Sinn Féin, we certainly have no unreasonable demands to make.
However, with devolution not operating, it is the responsibility of this House and the other place to govern and ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind. I suspect that this will not be the only occasion on which the Minister and other Ministers will be bringing to this House matters relating to Northern Ireland. I am of the firm opinion that other issues relating to our schools and health service, to name but two, will become even more pressing in the very near future. Indeed, I feel that the decision cannot be far away when direct-rule Ministers should be put in place to run all the departments in Northern Ireland in the continued absence of an Executive.
Much has been said, particularly in media circles, about MLAs being paid for a job that they are not doing. It merits saying that those who say these things conveniently ignore the fact that Sinn Féin has been paid almost £1 million in expenses, despite the fact that its MPs do not take their seats in the other place. These expenses of £1 million relate to the period of 2008-09 to 2016-17.Surely it is time that the Government applied themselves to tackling this glaring and indefensible farce, which has been allowed to carry on for far too long. It also has to be said that MLAs in my party, and I suspect in others, are getting on with their constituency work, so I am pleased that the legislation before the House does not propose to reduce MLAs’ staffing and other related expenses. Permanent Secretaries need to be given more power in the absence of the Assembly or Ministers taking responsibility for spending money that is allocated.
I take some comfort from what is happening today. I hope that it is the commencement of decision-making, and perhaps from here on the drift will end. I support these three Bills.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I wish to speak primarily on the budget Bill and the regional rates and energy Bill. The third Bill on Assembly Members’ pay requires little debate and its provisions are inevitable in the current circumstances. The sad thing is that we are, as usual, punishing the innocent along with the guilty, but the Bill will pass.
Dealing with the budget Bill first, apart from the totally avoidable circumstances which have brought us to the present impasse, I want to focus on one issue which is causing many people in Northern Ireland great concern and anxiety. It has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
In January 2017, Sir Anthony Hart submitted his report on his findings following the historical institutional abuse inquiry over which he presided. Among his recommendations was that compensation should be paid to survivors of abuse, including in homes and institutions not covered by his inquiry, and that relatives of the deceased should also be taken into account. In the Bill, for both 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the allocations for the Executive Office, provision is made for,
“actions associated with the preparation and implementation of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry Report and Findings”.
This gives the Executive Office authority to make expenditure to implement the findings of the HIA inquiry.
To put this in context for your Lordships, the inquiry covered the period beginning in 1922, and I think it went up to 1996. Some of the evidence of the abuse was shocking. It ranged from vulnerable children being scrubbed with Jeyes Fluid by nuns to the notorious sexual abuse committed in the Kincora Boys’ Home: years and years of all sorts of physical, psychological and sexual abuse conducted by those who were supposed to help children and vulnerable young people at difficult times in their lives.
In excess of 500 people came forward to Sir Anthony’s inquiry—and more have since indicated that they wish they had. However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, many have also died during the period and more continue to do so. Having fought for years to get this inquiry, the victims are now being subjected to a second—if different—form of abuse. As my party colleague at Stormont Mike Nesbitt MLA said:
“They have no Executive in place in Belfast to ratify the inquiry report and nobody is planning to implement its findings. This is totally unacceptable”.
Does the Minister agree with me that the Bill gives the Executive Office power to spend money to implement the findings of the report? Secondly, do he or his ministerial colleagues have any plans to persuade the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to get on and implement the findings of Sir Anthony Hart’s report? Thirdly, does he believe that this matter should be above politics and other political and constitutional concerns and be treated as a humanitarian measure which has unanimous political support in Belfast?
I turn now to the regional rates and energy Bill. The proposal for rates, as it affects ordinary householders, imposes a 4.5% increase on ratepayers, well above inflation. For the benefit of your Lordships, I say that local government finance in Northern Ireland is vastly different from that in Great Britain. A domestic householder still pays rates levied on capital values. Part of the rates is levied by local councils— approximately half—and the balance by Stormont. All major services are delivered by central government—that includes social services, welfare, housing, roads and education. No local council in Northern Ireland has delivered such a high increase this year, confining their increases to from nil to just over 3%. While councillors have tried to ease the burden on people, central government has not. This is another example of Stormont letting people down.
However, the main item in this Bill that I want to address is the RHI scandal that has left a trail of destruction in its wake. We know that the inquiry into the RHI is ongoing with Judge Patrick Coghlin presiding. The Bill proposes to continue the tariff regime that was introduced last year by the Assembly as its dying gasp, in an attempt to staunch the flow of money out of the system due to a botched scheme. The Assembly decided to impose a cap for one year, and this expires on 1 April next, unless it is renewed.
Members need to know, however, that this was a blunt and badly prepared instrument. That it was time limited for a scheme that will be ongoing for years illustrates the fact that the intervening period was to be used to consult stakeholders and reflect on the best way ahead. This has not happened. No business case was presented to the Assembly to justify the new tariffs, and the relevant Assembly committee twice refused to endorse the new cap, due to lack of information. The Minister, Mr Hamilton, confirmed to the Assembly on 23 January 2017:
“I have not yet received approval for the business case that underpins the regulations before us, and that is deeply troubling”.
The former First Minister who introduced the scheme described it as a “debacle”, and so it has proved to be.
Some Members will have received heartfelt emails from a range of participants in the scheme. These are people who, quite legitimately, took up the offer to convert from fossil fuels to renewable fuel, as the scheme intended. But they have been betrayed. I wish to quote from a letter to the banks in Northern Ireland from the then Minister, Arlene Foster. On 7 January 2013, Mrs Foster wrote:
“The tariffs have been calculated to cover the cost difference between traditional fossil fuel heating systems and a renewable heat alternative. The tariffs account for the variances in both capital and operating costs, as well as seeking to address non-financial ‘hassle’ costs. In addition, a rate of return is also included on the net capital expenditure to ensure the renewable energy technology is attractive to investors. The rate of return has been set at 12% for all technologies incentivised under the NI RHI”.
This is an interesting bit. She continues:
“Tariffs are ‘grandfathered’ providing certainty for investors by setting a guaranteed support level for projects for their lifetime in a scheme, regardless of future reviews”.
It goes on:
“I am therefore writing to encourage you”—
the banks—
“to look favourably on approaches from businesses that are seeking finance to install renewable technologies. The government support, on offer through the incentive schemes, is reliable, long term and offers a good return on investment”.
It goes on to offer the opportunity for officials to arrange seminars to promote the scheme to the banks’ customers.
The language and undertakings in that letter could not be clearer. People have been badly let down, and many are facing financial ruin. They have been conned. Be under no doubt about the consequences of the measures in this Bill. They will confine some businesses to ruin and their owners to a further year of worry and torment. While a focus has naturally been on the potential for some people to profit from RHI by abusing it, and it is right that such cases are investigated, we must remember that the vast majority of applicants are bona fide businesspeople who responded to a government initiative that has left them in financial peril.
I hope that the RHI inquiry looks into the suspicious cases. I suggest it looks at those who subsequently made alterations to what legitimate installers did. In the few cases that look questionable, were workmen asked to run pipes from commercial buildings containing these boilers to other private property? Does that appear on invoices or have workmen perhaps been asked to modify invoices to conceal such actions? I suspect at the end of the day such cases will be few and far between.
I propose that the Minister asks the NI Civil Service to begin work on a strategy for alleviating the hardship being suffered by many, as was the original intention. Such a hardship scheme was suggested by an academic last year in a submission to MLAs. I urge the Government to respond positively to this request.
The real problem with the RHI scheme was that the former Executive set a target to achieve electricity generation from renewables but no adequate budget was provided. Today, legitimate businesses are paying the price for that blunder and it is unfair and unjust. I hope the Government have considered the implications of introducing retrospective tariffs for other schemes in the UK’s energy generation market. This is dangerous territory.
To those who seek a return to direct rule in Northern Ireland, I point out that we are being asked to pass all stages of three Bills in one afternoon, with no ability to delve into the detail. I ask those people: is this the way ahead? I think not.
Will the Minister, together with his NIO colleagues in the other place, also investigate with urgency the statement from the head of the Civil Service on 14 March 2018 to the effect that minutes of meetings in Stormont departments were not taken, to frustrate freedom of information requests? Mr Sterling said:
“Ministers liked to have a safe space where they could think the unthinkable and not necessarily have it all recorded”.
He went on to say that the DUP and Sinn Fein were sensitive to criticism and, in that context, senior civil servants had “got into the habit” of not recording all meetings. He said this was done on the basis that it was sometimes “safer” not to have a record which might be released under FOI.
Does the Minister agree that Mr Sterling’s comments must leave the former Administration at Stormont teetering on the brink of illegality? Was he admitting to a conspiracy to thwart the law? These are serious matters and I look forward to the Government’s reply.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I offer my support to the Government for the broad thrust of the legislation this afternoon. I want to address two aspects. On the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill, the Government have been very careful and have calibrated not to take action that would precipitately destroy the Northern Irish political class. On one level it looks vaguely absurd to pay people not to do their jobs, but we have a genuinely difficult situation in Northern Ireland and it is not the individual responsibility of a very large number of the Assembly Members that no accommodation has been reached between Sinn Féin and the DUP to allow the Assembly to be reinstated. The Government have taken a careful and wise approach to this. In particular, the point already made about research staff is a good one.
Having said that, I listened carefully to the Minister’s words and I understand completely why the Government do not want to do anything that smells of fully fledged, all-singing, all-dancing direct rule. On the other hand, he said that the Government will not ignore or walk away from their responsibility to govern Northern Ireland. A number of legacy issues have been discussed in this House this afternoon on which there is cross-party support in Westminster and Northern Ireland. There is also a smaller issue, of interest to quite a few of us, which is simply a decision on whether the Commonwealth Youth Games can take place in Belfast in 2021. It again has cross-party support in the other place. I should like to hear from the Minister whether, for example, on an issue such as that, the Government acknowledge that they may well have to take the decision themselves, although we all hope that they will not have to.
My most important point this afternoon concerns the transparency of this legislation. The Government have little choice but to move ahead on the budget in this way, but the Minister may be aware that there has been comment in the local press about the terseness of information. John Simpson, the distinguished economist, formerly of Queen’s University Belfast, made the point that it is difficult to assess some of these meanings without five-year tables and to work out exactly what we are talking about in real-terms expenditure. Indeed, he poses the question: seven of the nine departments are suffering real-terms cuts, so what does that actually mean?
The Government are entirely right not to want to move towards anything that looks like all-singing, all-dancing direct rule. On the other hand, to provide information about the public finances of Northern Ireland to the people of Northern Ireland is a positive thing, and more could be done here. The blog “Research Matters”, produced by the Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service, again makes the point that the latest government statement makes proper full comparisons very difficult. In this interim period, it may be helpful to debate some of those issues to spell out exactly what is going on in the public finances of Northern Ireland.
By the way, there are difficult questions for the people of Northern Ireland. Why is our health service expenditure rising? We all know that health service expenditure rises in the rest of the UK largely on the grounds of the ageing population. We have a younger population, but still our health service expenditure rises. Why, when our unemployment is now so relatively low, are we spending 20% more on social security than the rest of the United Kingdom? Those are real issues—and, in the interim, the transparency debate and the production of more figures showing what the budget really means are not stopping the return of Stormont. Those are all things that will mean, when the new Ministers come back, as I firmly believe and devoutly hope they will, that they are better informed than they currently are. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is right: one of the essential points about the RHI scandal is an unusual degree of illiteracy about the public finances that seems to affect the administrative and political class of Northern Ireland. This period should be used at least to address and challenge it more than we are doing. Certainly, the figures that are now being released are just too terse and do not perform the service that the public need. I have already raised with the Minister the question of knowing the education figures but not the balance between higher education and the rest of the sector. I look for some help from the Minister on this matter.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in strongly supporting the three Bills before us today. I fully appreciate that their fast-tracking is unavoidable in the present circumstances, as there has been 15 months of absence from the Northern Ireland Assembly Chamber.
As regards the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, the Government’s timely intervention has provided much-needed certainty for the Northern Ireland departments. The Secretary of State has already set the departmental spending limits and provided us with a budget statement. Last year’s expenditure will now be authorised in this technical Bill and the departments will be granted the legal authority to spend, since 45% of the budget is allocated in this Bill.
Your Lordships’ House recently agreed the Northern Ireland budget, which provided a significant boost to future resource spending on frontline health and education as well as an increase in infrastructure spending across Northern Ireland. A significant part of this spending, which will benefit both communities in Northern Ireland, was made possible by the confidence and supply arrangements agreed with the Democratic Unionist Party. I am certain that noble Lords will agree that this will provide welcome relief from pressures on the front line.
On the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill, although the increase in the regional rate is slightly above the rate of consumer price inflation, it is considerably less than the figure of 10% above inflation recommended in the options paper drawn up by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. As regards the business rate, the increase has been kept in line with inflation, and the small business rates relief scheme has been retained for the time being. Can the Minister indicate whether this scheme will be continued after the present scheme comes to an end later in the year? On the subject of the renewable heat incentive scheme, I welcome the retention of the cap on costs, which should prevent any future overspend.
Moving on to the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill, I support the Secretary of State’s decision to take the power to vary MLAs’ pay and allowances. The Government are also correct to say that they will take the appropriate steps to stop the £500 MLA salary increase due in April. Again, this must be welcomed as a sensible move. I believe that the court of public opinion will be on the Government’s side here. I also welcome the decision to seek representations on this subject and to take full account of the independent report published recently.
Given the unfortunate continued absence of decision-makers at a local level, I am pleased that the Government have now acted to provide some much-needed clarity. Nevertheless, the restoration of a sustainable and fully functioning local Government for all the people of Northern Ireland must remain our focus. To the vast majority, it would be much more desirable for work to be able to continue across government with locally elected Ministers, who know what decisions will work and what decisions will not work in a local context. I would prefer that Bills such as those we are discussing today were laid before the Stormont Assembly in Belfast by a locally accountable Minister. Regrettably, instead of a sensible and balanced approach and a coherent way forward, the party that collapsed the devolved institutions 15 months ago set out a list of absolute preconditions, thereby prioritising the fulfilment of certain demands over governing in the interests of all the people.
However, the people of Northern Ireland still need key decisions to be made on education, health and public services. Although the legislation discussed today is welcome, it is vital to remember that during the past 15 months many key decisions have had to be postponed. In the absence of a functioning Assembly, will the Government be prepared to give permanent secretaries the power, or, in the last resort, to have Ministers provide guidance, direction and authority, and to make specific decisions on how the money allocated is to be spent? The current situation is not sustainable in the long term. There are examples—such as a number of decisions that will be made within the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy—that will require ministerial direction. These decisions are about allocation and prioritisation.
Since the breakdown of the Stormont talks there have been too many negative statements about the possibility of restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland. It is important that all parties return to the negotiating table as soon as possible, preferably without setting any preconditions. I am sure that the Secretary of State will spare no effort in trying to achieve this outcome, and that all noble Lords in this House will give her every possible encouragement and support in this difficult task.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)
My Lords, I have to admit that when I first looked at these Bills, I did not find myself being particularly enthusiastic. I thank our Front-Bench spokesmen and the new Secretary of State for at least endeavouring to meet to discuss the problems that I encounter. First and foremost, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in hoping that the Assembly will be back in place.
It has become very clear that Taoiseach Varadkar has actually encouraged Sinn Féin not to complete the talks, conditional on what happens in terms of Brexit. I supplied evidence of that to the Front-Bench Northern Ireland Office spokesman. For us then to find that the case is argued on the basis that one day everything in the garden will be rosy is a bit ridiculous and does not help us to sort out some of the problems.
Another area where I have to be blunt—some noble Lords have touched on this already—concerns civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office who have advised consecutive Secretaries of State. Many of these civil servants are not qualified to do that job. They quite literally do not know what they are talking about. To think that the head of the Civil Service permitted and encouraged no minute-taking, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is the height of ridiculousness. Other people who have been employed are not qualified to deal with RHI. Some of them have literally no qualifications whatever. One has been described as not knowing his right hand from his left. I will not name Mr Hughes. Oh dear, I have. Anyhow, the reality is that the RHI scheme has been flawed from the outset. There is a similar scheme in Great Britain where the returns on lower consumption are about 150% of what they are in Northern Ireland. The returns on higher consumption are almost three times less in Northern Ireland than they are in Great Britain. Again, I have furnished the Minister with those figures. He has them in front of him. However we move forward, I want to see those matters addressed. The DfE originally projected a £490 million overspend on RHI over 20 years. Then that figure jumped to £700 million, but there has been no sign of the calculations that brought those figures about. An independent economist from Scotland has said that the overspend will be £100 million, and that figure has been supplied with evidence. How can the Government move us forward against all the hindrances that we face in Northern Ireland?
I digress for a moment. I hear more people claiming to be experts on border control in terms of the forthcoming Brexit negotiations than I believe know where Northern Ireland is. The reality is that it is frightening.
I come back to RHI. The amended tasks were set solely to bring the scheme back within budget with no regard to the tariffs required to pay debt and running costs. No business impact assessment was carried out before the 2017 regulations were passed. Nevertheless, we are about to run into the irreparable damage of taking that scheme and turning it into primary legislation. I have been reassured that, when the Assembly gets up and going, that can all be reversed—but when? In a year, two years, three years, four years? How are our farmers, who have borrowed money, expected to keep going if we have this open-ended threat to their livelihoods?
The whole basis on which Northern Ireland is being governed now is probably as good as we can get. I was encouraged to hear what the Secretary of State said this morning. But while we have so many new-found experts on Northern Ireland and on border controls, those who brought about the Belfast agreement—even those who disapproved of it initially but who made it work, and work well while it worked—and are now sitting in this House are seldom consulted. I hope that, with the new Secretary of State, that is going to change. Consider this: if we are to have direct rule in all but name, there are people here—I will not name them all—such as the noble Lords, Lord Bew, Lord Alderdice and Lord Kilclooney, and many others—who know exactly what is happening, who have loyalty to Northern Ireland and to the efficient running of Northern Ireland and who will, at no cost, be able to reinforce a direct rule, whether we call it that or not.
There are other aspects in relation to which I find a degree of almost-hypocrisy. One relates to elections in Northern Ireland, a matter which I have raised again and again through Questions in this House and on which I have not had a satisfactory answer. It astonishes me to hear Ministers lamenting that we do not have nationalists in Parliament. We did have Mark Durkan, Margaret Ritchie and Alasdair McDonnell, but they lost their seats because of cheating by Sinn Féin. I have never said that publicly before; I have hinted at it. That the number of proxy votes in Durkan’s constituency increased by 800% between 2010 and 2017 is almost unbelievable. When I asked what was being done, what did the chief electoral officer do? She said that we would eventually get a report. We all know that when the election took place in 2017, we got a one-and-a-half page report to the Secretary of State that was placed in the Library. It tells us absolutely nothing: it does not indicate how many times the PSNI has been asked to investigate this illegal voting. Are we afraid? Have successive Governments been afraid to face up to the reality that Sinn Féin abused the system, and did so to the extent that it does not matter whether you are a unionist or a nationalist? I worked in local government for many years, and I worked in peace and harmony with my nationalist colleagues. But Sinn Féin does not approve of that.
I will leave those thoughts with noble Lords today, specifically on RHI and the abuse of our 1,100 or so farmers, who are being impoverished because we have a scheme that is less efficient and has lower returns for them than the scheme throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, I return to what I started with—the abuse of the border issue by Taoiseach Varadkar and by those here who try to tell us things that we know. I was born 80 years ago and grew up within a mile of the border. I know the border. It was no major problem until the IRA started shooting and importing arms and so on, and we can get that back. As I said before, there are good negotiators here who could sort that out if somebody had the courage and the common sense to come to speak to us about how matters could be addressed.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the three Bills coming to the House today. Obviously, you can talk about almost anything on those Bills.
I will touch on an issue raised by several Members: Judge Hart’s inquiry into institutional abuse in Northern Ireland. We all sympathise with the need to find a way to resolve this issue. However, I have a question not only for the Minister but for Members of this House. Do they agree that the institutions that carried out the abuse should also be held to account and should have to look at providing some funding to resolve this issue? It is unfair that wholly taxpayers’ money is going to resolve this issue for victims. I sympathise with what Members have said, but the issue needs to be raised with the institutions that first created the abuse of the many victims out there today. Ministers, the Government and Members who raised this need to think about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised the border in Northern Ireland, which was discussed recently in this House. I never thought there were so many experts in this House on how we might resolve the border issue. I also said that the border issue has been used in some aspect as a political stick to beat the Prime Minister with. I think I am right in saying that; we have not come into some debates in this Chamber because of the way some Members of this House have abused this whole issue of the border. We can get a resolution to the border: it is not about hard border or soft border but about getting a reasonable settlement on the border. I probably live closer to the border than any other Member of this House. I know its importance and know about the goods traffic and the pedestrians that come across that border on a daily basis. All that is important, and certainly none of us on the island of Ireland want a hard border.
As I said, I welcome the three Bills; certainly, with no Executive in place, they are required to give much-needed certainty for the Northern Ireland Civil Service in safeguarding public services for the people of Northern Ireland. The Bills provide a secure legal footing for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. This debate is really about how departments spent their money last year. By looking at the Bills, we can see that some spent more than was allocated to them and some spent significantly less. The debate looks back at the past—at what was allocated, what has been spent and what additional money has been given to some departments. For example, the Department of Health got more. Where did that money come from? It came from the underspend of other departments. The debate also looks forward because a budget for Northern Ireland was set by the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago. Now, each department in Northern Ireland knows its expenditure and the limit it has for next year. Departments can spend with confidence, knowing that the money is available to them and the limits within which they must spend it.
My noble friend Lord Browne touched on the Secretary of State’s announcement in the budget a few weeks ago of the first tranche of £410 million of our confidence and supply arrangements with the Government, which I welcome. I know that some people in the media and elsewhere said that this money would never come to Northern Ireland. It has now been delivered. Others said it would not come if there was no Executive in place. Of course, that has been proven wrong as well. As my noble friend Lord Browne rightly said, this money will be spent right across the community in Northern Ireland. I remember the announcement on our agreement with the Government quite well. Some Members of this House almost believed that this money would go to only one side of the community. In fact, some Members said that this money was actually coming to the DUP. This money will now be spent right across Northern Ireland, in every community—on schools, on hospitals, on roads, on mental health and in deprived communities. This money is over and above what we normally get in the Northern Ireland block grant.
I want to touch briefly on an issue that I met the Minister about recently. The Belfast city deal was announced by the Chancellor in last year’s Budget. I very much welcome and support it. It is an opportunity for Belfast to grow for the future. I also want to thank the Minister, who met a consortium from Londonderry —an area I have lived in for many years and represent in the Northern Ireland Assembly—led by the local authority and the mayor. It was seeking a city deal for Londonderry and the wider north-west community. I know that more work needs to be done on that issue, in getting buy-in from other local authorities in the north-west, but I believe that work is progressing. As others will know, city deals have worked extremely well across the United Kingdom, where they have been implemented and managed with expertise. They have been a huge success for inward investment, job creation and economic development. So, we welcome the Belfast city deal announced by the Government but I am now batting for a city deal for my region and my city, to build on job creation and economic development there for the future.
I want to say something quickly on the political process at the moment and where we are. My noble friend Lord Morrow and other Members touched on the fact that we are very keen to restore the Assembly sooner rather than later. We have no preconditions. We have no red lines. As the former First Minister Peter Robinson said recently, we cannot squander the years that have got us to where we are now in Northern Ireland. Those are years to which people committed themselves. The only way these issues will be resolved is by people getting around the table. We are keen to get around that table, but we also need to remind Sinn Féin, especially, that whatever agreement we reach needs to be balanced and one that both communities can buy into and take ownership of. If it is not that type of agreement, it will not work. Sinn Féin has been told this over and over again. It cannot be an agreement where one side takes all and says, “Thank you very much, but we’ll be back for more in maybe six months or a year’s time”. We are at a point in Northern Ireland—we see it here today with the Government having to introduce these Bills to the House—where we need a settlement that all the people of Northern Ireland can buy into. I think we can get there by being reasonable about all this and trying to reach an accommodation. That is where we are coming from as a party. We have no preconditions; we have no red lines. We want to get around the table and resolve the remaining issues that are a stumbling block to getting the Executive and the Assembly up and running.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, as we all know, these Bills are the inevitable consequence of the deeply unfortunate circumstances in which our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland find themselves as a result of the failure of their political parties to agree on the means by which devolved government can be restored. Sinn Féin, buoyed up by electoral advance, has over recent months raised its terms for returning to government, prompting a widespread suspicion that it does not really want to return at all, while seeking to foist the blame for continuing deadlock on the Democratic Unionist Party. Political stability in Ulster is never likely to be a high priority for an organisation dedicated ultimately to removing Northern Ireland from our country. When power-sharing was first conceived, the possibility of Sinn Féin entering the seats of power did not feature in anyone’s worst nightmares.
Fortunately, in today’s very different conditions, we have a United Kingdom Government to whom the union is precious, as Mrs May has repeatedly made clear. It is the duty of Parliament, and of the Government accountable to it, to provide directly for the Province’s good governance if it cannot be secured in any other way. Exactly the same duty would arise if devolved government in Scotland or Wales ran into serious difficulties.
When the Northern Ireland Assembly is absent, Ulster lacks not only democratically accountable devolved government but an upper tier of local government answerable to elected representatives. Shortly before their suspension in 1972, the last Ulster Unionist Government passed legislation as part of their ambitious reform programme—now generally forgotten—which transferred all the principal local government services from county and county borough councils to Stormont, leaving only minor powers with a new set of district councils, now 11 in number. No other part of our country is in a similar position.
The logic of the reform was impeccable, not least because of the controversy that had raged since the partition of Ireland about the tendency of both unionist and non-unionist councils to show undue favour towards their own supporters. It was agreed that an all-Ulster institution would be better placed to discharge responsibility fairly, particularly since, in a very modest way, power-sharing was now beginning to be considered by the Ulster Unionist Party under Brian Faulkner, a man whom I greatly admired and who was all too briefly a Member of this House before his sudden death in a riding accident in 1977.
However, that important reform more than 40 years ago means that, today, Ulster has a very large democratic deficit. The fact that a Bill is before us to set a regional rate in the Province, which still retains the old system of local government finance—as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, reminded us—is a stark reminder of Ulster’s double democratic misfortune. Officials in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, highly regarded for the most part but now unanswerable to elected representatives in Ulster or to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, are in charge of all services above the district council level. Nothing quite like this has been seen in our country since the 19th century.
Plainly, Northern Ireland as it finds itself today needs these three measures. The pay of Members of the Assembly must of course be docked to an appropriate extent, as an independent review has advised, since they cannot perform their legislative role and are limited to providing an advisory service to their constituents and to acting as a conduit between them and civil servants in the Northern Ireland departments. Above all, Northern Ireland needs the elegantly phrased Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. It provides full legal approval, as we have heard, for public spending in the financial year that is drawing to a close and will keep the money flowing into vital public services in the first part of the financial year that will begin shortly.
There is widespread agreement about the central question which now arises. As several Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies asked in the other place last week—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised the matter again today—who is to decide the allocation of money to ensure that sustained progress can be made in improving services: above all, education and health, where major reforms are so badly required? Acute controversy always and naturally arises in such circumstances. Are civil servants to be left to face it as best they can, or will serious reform once again be delayed in the continued absence of an Assembly, damaging vital services still further?
It was deeply disturbing to listen recently to a delegation of mental health experts from the Province who addressed a group of Members of both Houses. Issues that need to be settled so that an adequate service can be delivered to those suffering acute mental health problems are constantly deferred. Meanwhile, the suicide rate remains shockingly high. We have heard other serious instances from the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Empey, of important decisions delayed. The Government provide us with no assessment of the likelihood of restoring devolution and the upper tier of local government that is bound up with it. For 15 months they have kept on saying that they are working tirelessly to secure agreement among the Northern Ireland parties, and that they are focused entirely on that task, but nowhere is success keenly anticipated, to put it mildly. It is hard not to conclude that the impasse will continue unless Sinn Féin scales back its heightened demands, and of that there is, sadly, no sign.
Instead of waiting interminably for circumstances to change, is it not time to shift the focus so that it rests on the best means of securing the good governance of our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland in the circumstances that actually face them and us today? Indeed, after 15 long months, is that not our duty?
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. In the brief time I feel I ought to spend I want to speak about the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. What we have had in Northern Ireland is Stormont rule, direct rule and now, civil servant rule. I am sure that when there was Stormont rule the Stormont Assembly would have had something akin to a public accounts committee, and therefore there would be some scrutiny of expenditures. I recall well during my 18 years in this place, when there was direct rule I spent many hours scrutinising the Northern Ireland budget—only scratching the surface, quite frankly; nevertheless, some work was done on that. My concern is that under this civil servant rule there is no scrutiny at all. This document tells us of many billions that have been spent in the 361 days of the current year and the four days that are left, and more billions for the beginning of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned early in the debate his concern about money being available to assist people who were hurt and damaged in the early days of the Troubles. Surely, any form of scrutiny could have looked at that and insisted that money be put into the budget. Similarly, we do not know whether there is money in the forthcoming budget that will not be required—that wonderful phrase that I learnt in local government, “virement”, can be used here.
This Bill talks about anticipation. What does the Minister anticipate can possibly be done? Can there be a new way of thinking about scrutiny—the creation somehow of a scrutiny body, whether it is made up of Members of this House, the other place or, indeed, Members of the Assembly, who are not being used fully at present? Surely, it is right that there should be some scrutiny of civil servant rule.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating if short debate. It has been a timely one, too, because this is the last occasion we will debate this issue in either House of Parliament before we celebrate or commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement in two or three weeks’ time. Looking around the Chamber, I see Members of your Lordships’ House who played a huge part in that agreement. The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis, Lord Trimble, Lord Empey and Lord Bew, and others brought that enormous triumph to fruition just two decades ago. Of course, these three Bills are the result of the institutions which the Good Friday agreement set up collapsing. That is the tragedy and reality of today’s proceedings. We should not have these Bills because there should be a functioning Assembly and a functioning Executive.
With regard to the Bill on the budget, my friend in the other place, who until recently was the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Smith—I deeply regret his departure from that job because he knew a great deal about Northern Ireland and had a lot of experience—as well as my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the pensions of victims of the Troubles. The opportunity for the Government to deal with this matter is before us. I know there is controversy on this point, but if controversy surrounds just 10 victims as opposed to 490 who are not subject to controversy, I see no reason why we cannot park the argument about the 10 and carry on giving compensation to the nearly 500 remaining victims. After all, as my noble friend Lord Hain said in his very moving speech, that number will inevitably reduce as the months and years go by.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the inquiry under Sir Anthony Hart, and the compensation for victims of historical abuse in Northern Ireland. There seems to be no reason at all why the Government cannot under these powers ensure that compensation is paid to those people who have suffered abuse in the decades gone by.
With regard to the rates, obviously we have to agree with the increase—I put them up myself when I was the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland a long time ago. It is not a very nice thing to do to the people of Northern Ireland but it is essential to ensure that services are maintained. I agree that we should support the Government on that Bill and, indeed, on the RHI issue. I hope that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, with regard to that matter will be taken up by the Minister in his reply.
With regard to the pay for MLAs, obviously we agree with the Government’s intentions and with the indication in Trevor Reaney’s report that there should be a 27% reduction in their pay. It should not affect their constituency offices or their staff but of course it will be welcomed by public opinion in Northern Ireland. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that we have to take great care that we do not dismiss an entire political class that has arisen over the past 20 years. If we took away their pay completely we might have to start all over again, and I do not think that is a very good idea. In a sense, it is an admission of failure to have to reduce the pay of MLAs. Indeed, when I was Secretary of State for some years, although I reduced the pay of MLAs, I never stopped it. I was criticised for not stopping it but it was important to ensure that the political class that had grown up in Northern Ireland was maintained.
Of course, the answer to all this is the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive. The noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Hay, both talked of the importance of that. I do not underestimate the difficulties in bringing the Assembly and the Executive back. After all, it has to do with trust and confidence on both sides. That is not always easy. Obviously, the sticking point is the Irish language but there are other issues as well. Members of your Lordships’ House who were involved in those negotiations over 20 years ago will remember the issues that we were discussing then—police, the release of prisoners, the issue of consent, the Assembly, the Executive, human rights, equality, criminal justice, the change of the Irish constitution, and so on—but we managed it. It took us a long time to do it but we managed it, so it does not seem a huge issue to be overcome.
I remind your Lordships’ House that in a way these three Bills are drifting towards real direct rule. I do not believe the Government want that. I do not believe that anybody in this Chamber actually wants direct rule. It certainly is not the answer. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the importance of having local people taking local decisions. Certainly, when I was a direct rule Minister for five years, I did not think I was the right person to be taking decisions on hospitals, schools and roads when I represented a Welsh constituency in the House of Commons. It was not right that I should be doing all those things; nor is it right now that civil servants, for all their effectiveness and knowledge, are taking decisions about the lives of people in Northern Ireland; nor should British Ministers be doing it.
The other problem is that when we have direct rule, politicians become supplicants. They do not take decisions, they ask for things. Sometimes it is easy to have direct rule—not to take the difficult and nasty decisions on closing a hospital or building a school somewhere or whatever it might be. Those are harsh, difficult decisions and sometimes it is easier to be the supplicant rather than the decision-maker.
It will be disastrous in the long term if there is direct rule. I just want to repeat some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lord Hain said about trying to ensure that none of this happens. The involvement of the Prime Minister is vital. As we look back on how we achieved the Good Friday agreement 20 years ago, it was because two Prime Ministers were negotiating these issues day by day and through the night, over a period not of months but of years. Perhaps we need an independent referee. In two weeks’ time Senator Mitchell will be in Belfast commemorating that anniversary—perhaps we need another Senator Mitchell.
It is important that all the parties in Northern Ireland should be involved in transparent talks, not just the two big parties—they are the most important ones, of course, but there are other parties in Northern Ireland and often issues can be raised and challenged in all-party meetings. You would have to involve the Irish Government as far as you could, constitutionally. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, touched on, we should not let Brexit distract us from the importance of ensuring that we restore our institutions in Northern Ireland.
The problem is that over two decades people have become a little complacent. They have taken things for granted. They forget what it was like 25 or 30 years ago in Northern Ireland. A whole generation has grown up not knowing the Troubles. You would have to be in your 40s in Northern Ireland to understand what it was like before we signed the Good Friday agreement, and then you were only a child.
I return finally to the fact that we are commemorating that agreement signed 20 years ago, which should be the spur to local politicians, the Government, the Irish Government and all of us in Parliament to ensure that we restore those institutions as quickly as we possibly can.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging discussion, as it always is when we confront the serious issues we encounter in Northern Ireland. I am struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, who spoke of the Belfast city deal and the Derry/Longdonderry city deal. Would it not be great if that was all we were talking about today: the UK Government’s contribution to a deal determined by an Executive in Northern Ireland which was about jobs, growth, employment and prospects? Would that not be something that we could celebrate?
However, we are not doing that, and more is the pity. I do not detect any dispute among noble Lords today that we must take forward these three Bills. I recognise that we are doing so in an expedited manner, and for that I apologise on behalf of the Government, but that is what we must do today. I am conscious that a number of the issues that have been raised today are about future spend, and it is important to stress that the Bills before us here today are, in effect, about regularising the 2017-18 spend, the spend that we are currently engaged in delivering. A separate Bill will be brought before another place and this House with regard to specific provisions of future spend inside Northern Ireland. That will be an opportunity again to touch upon a number of these issues as we go forward.
Before I delve into the budget itself, it is important to talk a little about future talks and the future status as a number of noble Lords have raised those matters—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for doing so. We are in a period of reflection. That is sometimes used euphemistically, but it means to look inside and ask yourself what is going on and what should be going on. This period will be short, I hope. It is also important to stress that during the talks progress was made. We did not get to the other side of the chasm, but we made substantial progress, and it is on that basis that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to emphasise that she is of the view that we will find the means of bringing about an agreement upon which we can build and which will, I hope, supersede all that we do here today.
As we consider the various elements that might help us move forward—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, has raised a number of these points—we welcome Senator George Mitchell to our shores. We pay tribute to the service he rendered our country in helping bring about that agreement in the past. As I have said on more than one occasion, we are not ruling out an independent referee, to use that term. If I may be frank, I would welcome noble Lords’ thoughts in that regard. Nothing can be ruled out. We need to be conscious of that.
It is important for me to emphasise that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been very active in this regard, and I do not doubt that she will continue to be active. Indeed, as we mark and celebrate the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—the Prime Minister will be in Belfast taking part in those celebrations, marking that important moment and meeting participants at that time.
The core point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, was the notion of what model we can look at to see this afresh. Part of the challenge for anyone who listened to or read of the outcomes of the two recent conferences of the two principal parties in Northern Ireland is that it is clear that there is no alternative model ready to be pulled off the shelf. I am sad to say that, but it is a simple statement of fact. If there was, I believe we would have done so already. That does not mean that it cannot be found, but it certainly means that we have not yet found it. It is sad, but I must reflect upon that point.
If I may touch upon the Bills themselves, I am struck again by some of the very useful remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey—they always are useful. I will not go into the details of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry, which I suspect are well known in our House, but it remains our overriding priority to see devolution restored—I cannot, frankly, say that often enough—so that a new Executive can take decisions on a range of strategic issues and respond directly to Sir Anthony’s report. For anyone who has read it and recognised what it contains, it makes challenging reading. Of that there is no doubt. The courage and dignity of those who have taken part in that particular inquiry are to be commended. I acknowledge the frustration so many feel about the lack of progress, particularly in the absence of an Executive to consider that particular report. But I welcome the preparatory work being taken forward by the Executive office to enable action to be taken swiftly once an Executive is restored.
As to the matter of the wider question of legacy, we do have a very clear duty to survivors and victims to bring forward proposals to address the legacy of the past. There is broad agreement among victims and survivors that the legacy institutions, as they are currently set up, are not working. That is a sad admission in itself. We continue to seek the implementation of the legacy institutions in the Stormont House agreement as the best way to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors. We believe that the institutions have the potential to provide better outcomes. We believe that very strongly. The proposed Stormont House legacy institutions would be under legal obligation to be balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable. The next phase is to consult publicly on the details of how the new institutions will work in practice. A public consultation will provide everyone with an interest the opportunity to see the proposed way forward and contribute to the discussion on the issues. The Government want to begin that consultation soon with the aim of building support and confidence in the new legacy institutions from across the community. We are obliged to move forward so that the victims and survivors are able to see progress—not just hope that it will occur in due course. We continue to support reforms of the legacy inquest system to provide the best way to address this. We are also committed to provide £150 million—
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
Could the Minister give us some indication about how long the consultation process will be?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That was a question I did not anticipate. I thought you might ask when it would begin, but not how long it would be. On that basis, I will write to the noble Baroness with the specific duration, as I do not have that information to hand.
If I may turn my attention to the harrowing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who opened the debate today. There are complex issues. A number of noble Lords have touched upon this. I have in front of me a very clear statement of the Government’s position, which I will read out. We will work to seek an acceptable way forward on the proposal for a pension for severely physically injured victims for a restored Executive to take forward. I hope a new Executive might bring forward a pension proposal that has the support of and meets the need of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. I know that does not respond adequately to the points he raised in his remarks. If he will forgive me, might I suggest we meet after this point to discuss this further? That would be useful and important.
Lord Hain
I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response. May I ask him to reflect before we meet—and I am grateful for that invitation—on the fact that we do not know how long it will take to restore the Executive? This Government and this Parliament have responsibility ultimately for legacy matters. There is no reason why the small cost could not be proceeded to at least rectify one injustice while the wider question of the legacy issues is addressed.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for that point. Yes, I will reflect before we meet, and I hope we can meet soon.
If I may touch upon some of the wider issues raised, a number of noble Lords made the point about the question of particular meetings taking place without minutes being taken and so on. I thought I had better seek guidance from the wise people in the Box. They have come back simply saying it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the actions of the Northern Ireland Civil Service nor the ongoing public inquiry. What I can say in my own personal capacity is that minutes matter and should be taken.
I am conscious that a number of points were raised about the RHI question. There is an inquiry exploring how the scheme itself was constructed and put together, and I invite all noble Lords who contributed today to take the opportunity to make their points very clearly to that inquiry. I am aware, however, that the Bill before us today has a very specific purpose, which is to allow an extension of one year only to the current arrangements with a sunset clause. I am conscious that a number of individuals will be concerned about this initiative, and we need to find a way to bring some comfort to them as they contemplate what that will mean. I hope there will be a welcome outcome. I have specific notes here saying that there will be a 12-week consultation period—helpfully, this time I have the exact duration—between April and June, when these views can be put. We are working against the deadline of 31 March for the longer-term solution. There is a recognition that there needs to be a longer-term solution to address these aspects.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, described himself as blunt. I think we can all endorse that view. The points that he made are none the less important. Specifically, he questioned how the Northern Ireland scheme compares to the scheme in the rest of the UK. If he will forgive me, I will write to him on that point so that we can set out in greater detail how the two schemes measure against each other. There are a number of technical aspects that I hope will be able to be addressed in that letter.
I emphasise again that the purpose of moving this forward for one year is not to enshrine this approach for ever but rather to provide an opportunity for the incoming Executive to focus quickly and carefully on what I believe are a number of the well-established flaws in this approach and to address them head-on. We have, I hope, time in which we can do that, and the notion that we are creating primary legislation in this instance should be no impediment to that because of the manner in which the Bills themselves are drafted. I hope that will help the noble Lord to address this.
I am aware that on more than one occasion the noble Lord has raised the point about the wisdom that is contained within this House. I too am grateful for that, even during today’s debate. I believe that, as the talks and discussions are ongoing, that wisdom should be drawn upon. I welcome again the meeting that took place between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and some of your Lordships earlier today. I would like to see that happen with greater frequency so that we can ensure that, as the ideas begin to coalesce and crystallise, the views in this House are taken forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised the issue of how we can understand the breakdown of the data. After the last time when we spoke on this matter, I am aware that I promised to give him that breakdown of the data but I fear that I may not have done so as yet. The noble Lord is right: it is important that we not only understand what we are doing at the moment but see it as part of a longer trend so that we understand exactly what is happening in Northern Ireland and interrogate the data where there appear to be things that on the surface do not look as if they are comparable with anywhere else. I would much rather see the five-year rolling cycle of data that can be fully interrogated. I commit again to breaking down the data with regard to the educational question, and I hope to be able to give some greater clarification in that regard.
As to the notion of the Commonwealth games, I am happy to give a personal commitment on that matter. I would like to think that the Government would join me in that commitment; that is an initiative that would be well worth taking forward.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, raised an interesting point regarding the continuity of the business rate support scheme. Helpfully, the little note that I got back from the Box simply contained the word “Yes”, so I believe that that particular scheme will indeed be continuing. If the noble Lord requires further details, I can provide them as well.
I shall touch on some of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I am aware that we have squeezed this debate into a very short time, and for that I apologise. I would much prefer a Northern Ireland Executive to take as long as they felt they needed to interrogate all this. I would much prefer that Executive to be dealing with it because they are living it, rather than sitting on burgundy Benches, but we are not quite there yet. I hope I have addressed the issues about the minutes to the noble Lord’s satisfaction—or as best I can. I am aware of the concern he raised about the heating initiative and I hope we can make some progress to give certainty there.
As for the wider questions of legacy, support for victims and so on, the noble Lord is absolutely correct: this needs to be above politics. It is humanitarian; it is not and should not be a matter for partisan division, and I hope we can take it forward on that basis. Progress will need to be made on that sooner rather than later.
My noble friend Lord Lexden raised an important issue about mental health. I can confirm that there will be £10 million in the budgetary cycle of 2018-19 to address those specific and serious issues, which I believe will be necessary.
Commenting on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, we too, on this side, regret the departure of Owen Smith. He was an asset to the ongoing discussion and leaves behind a void. I am sorry to see that.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out that he was not the right person to take forward direct rule in Northern Ireland. Nor am I. I am no better equipped—frankly, far less equipped—than he is.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
Before the Minister sits down, I draw his attention to one thing that he and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said: perhaps it would be a good idea to have a second-generation George Mitchell. We do not want another George Mitchell. Much as we loved him, much as we worked under him and much as we sought to achieve an agreement, that agreement was voted on north and south. I have nothing more to concede as an Ulster Unionist, and I hope noble Lords will remember that.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who makes his point clear, as always. I understand exactly what he is saying.
On that basis, I hope your Lordships will accept that this is not what we want to do, it is not how we want to do it and it is not when we want to do it, but it is what we must do.
Lord Empey
Before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him to reflect on the Judge Hart inquiry. If I picked up him correctly, he indicated that this would await the return of an Executive. I point out to him that every solitary MLA I am aware of supports the implementation of that inquiry. Other parties represented here can say no if they disagree. Every party supports it. Some of the material in the report is very harrowing. One lady started off in the system at four years old. She is now 87. How much more do we have to put these people through? I therefore ask the Minister to discuss with his colleagues and reflect on that.
Secondly, on the RHI scheme, although I appreciate that this is a renewal, it was originally based on no substantive information. I suggest that the Minister again consult his colleagues and ensure that a proper working party is established to alleviate this, because people are losing their livelihoods as a result of this botched scheme.
Lord Hay of Ballyore
Just before the Minister gets to his feet, I should like to say that I broadly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. There is no doubt that all the political parties in Northern Ireland want this issue resolved. The issue I raised earlier was that the institutions that carried out the abuse should be made to pay for some of that abuse and repent for all of it. I do not think there is an issue in resolving this, but it would be totally wrong if only taxpayers’ money was used to resolve it.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions, and I will reflect on them.
As to the RHI scheme, there will be an opportunity to feed in about past failings. The key thing now is to ensure that its future workability is also examined in some detail. These are matters on which I hope we can move forward on that basis. Therefore, I beg to move.
Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Act 2018 View all Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Tuesday 27th March 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2018 View all Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
GKN/Melrose Takeover: Update
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the current takeover bid by Melrose plc for GKN plc.
Following the announcement of the bid, I spoke to the chief executives of GKN and Melrose to understand their plans, and I have done so again as the bid time- table draws to a close and changes have been made from the original terms proposed. My quasi-judicial role requires me to treat all parties fairly, so I should disclose that I have also had a briefing with the chief executive of Dana Incorporated, which has been proposed as a partner in a transaction with GKN.
As honourable Members know, the longstanding British manufacturing and engineering company GKN is subject to a current takeover bid from the British company Melrose plc. One of the most important features of the British economy is that we have a vigorous market for corporate control. Businesses are kept competitive and efficient by the possibility of the current management being replaced by another set of managers if, in the view of their shareholders, they are underperforming and the company could be better run.
However uncomfortable that constant threat may be for incumbent managements, it is an important one and acts against complacency and inefficiency and so is in the interests of employees, customers, suppliers and taxpayers as well as shareholders. It is worth reminding ourselves that shareholders include the pension funds on which millions of working men and women rely for a comfortable retirement.
There are strict and limited grounds for ministerial intervention in proposed mergers. The limited exceptions apply where one or more of the three public interest grounds are engaged. These are those of national security, media plurality and financial stability. The Enterprise Act 2002 gave powers focusing narrowly on those grounds to refer a bid to the Competition and Markets Authority. Such a reference is possible until four months after the completion of a transaction.
I will make such an assessment following receipt of advice from the Ministry of Defence and other agencies on the final terms of a bid, were it to be successful, and I will inform the House immediately if an intervention is launched. However, beyond that formal statutory role, I am concerned to ensure that significant takeover bids shall not act against the interests of our economy, employees or the broader set of stakeholders.
It has long been recognised that companies and their directors have duties which extend beyond current shareholders alone. Section 172 of the Companies Act sets out a requirement for directors to have regard to, among other things, the interests of the company employees, its business relationships with suppliers, customers and others; and the impact on the community and the environment. In my view, this establishes the principle that we expect interests broader than pure shareholder value to be taken into account by directors and in the attitude of the Government.
In the past, some takeovers have had consequences for these groups that were not only deleterious but were at odds with indications given during takeover bids. For this reason, a new regime was established whereby bidding companies can now make legally binding commitments as to their intended conduct in the event of the bid succeeding. Having established this regime, I believe it should be used in takeover bids where the interest of these stakeholders is engaged, as is clearly the case here.
GKN is a valued employer, directly and through its supply chain, and plays an important role in Britain’s automotive and aerospace sectors. Through its research and development it has a vital role to play in our industrial strategy. It also benefits from government-sponsored contracts and participates in sectors which enjoy active engagement from government-sponsored R&D programmes. It also carries responsibility for a large number of pensions that depend on GKN’s prosperity to fund the pension scheme, which is currently in deficit.
Melrose’s business model is based on acquiring, improving and selling businesses to new owners after a small number of years. While this approach can have advantages in terms of efficiencies, tensions can arise between it and the need for long-term investment and stability for important relationships.
With the deadline for the offer period closing on Thursday, and without prejudice to my use of the Enterprise Act powers, which operate according to a longer timetable, I believe that Melrose should set out more clearly its intentions towards wider stakeholders, and specifically to make commitments concerning them in a legally binding form before the opportunity is lost with the closure of the offer period. Accordingly, I wrote to Melrose yesterday asking it to set out clearly its proposed commitments, including on maintaining the business headquartered and listed in the UK; maintaining a United Kingdom workforce and respecting its employment rights, as well as engaging closely with representatives; continuing to pay tax as a UK taxpayer; continuing to invest in R&D programmes, which are crucial to our industrial strategy; investing in the training and development of the workforce, including in apprenticeships; treating suppliers well, including the prompt payment of suppliers; and making arrangements for current and future pensioners which are to the satisfaction of both trustees and the independent Pensions Regulator.
In addition, stable ownership and financing is an important part of underpinning the trusted relationships which particularly characterise the defence sector. That stability is also important for research and development partnerships which, by their nature, endure over many years, whereas Melrose’s model has been built on short-term ownership. I have therefore sought a legally binding commitment from Melrose to greater continuity of ownership specific to the defence-related businesses, and to exclude the option of a short-term sale of this business without the prior consent of the Government. I have also made it clear that, in the event of a successful bid, the Ministry of Defence would look to require a legally binding commitment relating to the management of any defence contracts. It is important to emphasise that these would be voluntary commitments by the company, over and above questions of the use of Enterprise Act powers, but it is right that these wider issues of public concern should be addressed by Melrose before the bid closes formally. Melrose has, earlier today, given a response to my letter, which I will place in the Libraries of both Houses, alongside my letter to Melrose.
Subject to the powers that I have described, it is for shareholders of GKN to decide which management team they wish to run their company. But my strong belief is that when broader interests are at stake, and having established a new regime in which legally binding commitments about the future can be given, they should be used before the opportunity to do so expires. I will continue to keep the House up to date at every phase of these proceedings, and the House can be assured that I will carry out my responsibilities seriously, meticulously and fairly in representing the public interest in the future of such an important company. I commend the Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I think that many Members of your Lordships’ House will think that it is rather troubling and a bit confused towards the end. I shall ask a number of questions in hoping to elucidate that.
GKN is a UK engineering firm, founded in south Wales in 1759, which is now a global engineering business which designs, manufactures and services systems and components for most of the world’s leading aircraft, vehicle and machinery manufacturers. GKN has various defence contracts in Luton, the Isle of Wight and in King’s Norton, including making components for the F35, A400MM, P8, Typhoon, V22, C130, and F22 vehicles. Approximately 58,000 people work in GKN companies and joint ventures in more than 30 countries, including 6,000 here in the UK. It has global sales of £9.4 billion and spends £85 million on R&D in the UK alone. As a percentage of sales, GKN spends about 4% on training, and we are hoping that that will continue.
The motto of the bidder, Melrose, is, “Buy, improve and sell”—in other words, to dismantle a business and then quickly sell each part off. On 8 January, the board of GKN received an unsolicited proposal from Melrose to purchase it; the board of GKN unanimously rejected it, on the grounds that the bid was,
“entirely opportunistic and that the terms fundamentally undervalue the company and its prospects”.
A formal offer from Melrose and various defence documents have been issued since then, and the deal closes this Thursday, 29 March. But despite growing concern it was not until yesterday, Monday 26 March, that the Secretary of State wrote to Melrose to seek the commitments referred to in the Statement and relevant undertakings on a number of key areas. So my first question is: why on earth did it take the Government so long to get involved, and why on earth leave it all so late?
I accept that there are currently strict and limited grounds for ministerial intervention in proposed mergers, in essence where one or more of national security, media plurality and financial stability are engaged. However, the Enterprise Act 2002 powers allow reference on those grounds to the Competition and Markets Authority for four months after the completion of a transaction. Better late than never, perhaps.
In the Statement the Secretary of State said that he would make such an assessment,
“following receipt of advice from the Ministry of Defence and other agencies on the final terms of a bid were it to be successful”.
So my second question is: can the Minister set out the likely timescale for this process, and how it will operate in practice? Will he guarantee to keep the House informed?
The Statement seems to suggest that the reason why the Secretary of State kept a low profile was that he did not want to jeopardise his quasi-judicial role in this takeover battle. If that really is the case, does it not prompt another question? If the Secretary of State for Business is debarred from taking an active interest—and we have to wonder whether that is a sensible position for him to adopt—who in government has the responsibility for looking after our industrial assets, including strategic and defence interests, in this and similar takeovers? I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that subject.
The Secretary of State rightly pointed out in the Statement that in the past some takeovers have had “deleterious” consequences. Presumably that is a reference to the Kraft/Cadbury debacle. He went on to say:
“In my view, this establishes the principle that we expect interests broader than pure shareholder value to be taken into account by directors and”—
this is quite important—
“in the attitude of the Government”.
He lists these as:
“a requirement for directors to have regard to … the interests of the company employees, its business relationship with suppliers, customers and others; and the impact on the community and the environment”.
That is quite wide-ranging, and all very sensible.
All those issues are directly engaged in this proposed takeover. So my fourth question to the Minster is: can he point out how and where these new principles will actually bite? How will they impact in Luton, the Isle of Wight and Norfolk? Will they ensure that the R&D spend continues, that the pensions are secure, and that the training opportunities GKN currently offers will be continued?
Finally, the Statement contains the view of the Secretary of State, as expressed in his letter yesterday to Melrose, that Melrose should set out more clearly its intentions towards wider stakeholders. He specifically requests it to make commitments in a legally binding form. I have to say that if the commitments specified by the Secretary of State were put in legally binding form, that would go a long way towards allowing us to support the Government in this matter. So my fifth question to the Minister is to ask him to confirm that the Government will refer the proposed takeover to the CMA if they have not received, by close of play on Thursday 29 March when the deal closes, legally enforceable commitments from Melrose on the issues that he has adumbrated already.
I repeat that those issues are: maintaining the business headquartered and listed in the UK; maintaining a UK workforce and respecting its employment rights as well as engaging closely with its representatives; continuing to pay tax as a UK taxpayer; continuing to invest in R&D programmes at current levels; investing in the training; treating suppliers well, including prompt payment of suppliers; making arrangements for current and future pensioners that are satisfactory both to trustees and to the Pensions Regulator; greater continuity of ownership of the defence-related businesses; and a commitment relating to the management of any defence contracts. At present only two of these “asks” will be covered by the legally enforceable commitments offered by Melrose to the Takeover Panel, and one of those only partially. The rest are not. I would be grateful if the Minister would reflect on that.
In conclusion, I have to say to the Minister that there cannot be many people in this country who think that the Government have got a grip on this issue. Voluntary agreements will not work, as we know from recent experience. Today’s weak, late and unenforceable assurances from Melrose are insufficient. There should be statutory provisions, not voluntary aspirations. In truth, without them, there is nothing there to assure the workers, the pensioners or the local communities. Nor will voluntary agreements assuage the concerns about the devastating impact that this opportunistic dawn raid will have on our industrial strategy and our national security. Both in this case and in future cases, we surely deserve better.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I want to press the Government a little more on one or two of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. One of those is the timing of the letter. The Minister will be very much aware that, presumably, it was meant to elicit information and to express some government concerns to be taken into consideration by the shareholders of GKN before they exercise their votes. However, as he will know, many of the shareholders have already declared —and I think he will confirm that a declaration once made cannot be retracted. In addition, the remaining shareholders have largely had all their internal meetings to come to their final decisions, and cannot pull those meetings back together to reconsider in the very brief timeframe of the next 48 hours. Therefore, if this is something other than public relations, will he explain to me how it is meant to inform shareholders, because I do not understand that? Will he especially, in that case, confirm that he still takes the view that the Secretary of State can call in this transaction, in whatever form it goes through, if concerns remain following the vote?
I scanned through the Melrose response very quickly but there seems to be no mention of the 6,000 workers. There are various assurances on other points but I saw no mention of them. Will the Minister comment on that? I am also concerned that all the various declarations seem to have a timeframe of five years. Considering the length of time needed to plan measures such as the industrial strategy and the sustainable relationships that need to be developed in the aerospace, defence and other fields, five years seems an infinitesimal period. Will the Minister explain why that short timeframe apparently reassures him, because I am not sure that it does me?
Does the public interest definition need to be looked at again as it does not mention workers’ rights or pensioners and does not refer to the industrial strategy, which is supposed to have a much more important role now? Airbus, for example, has expressed concerns about a potential new owner, which could undermine the direction in which the Government are trying to take industry in this country.
My last point concerns an issue I do not fully understand. However, the Minister may be able to help me. I understand that many of the shares are held by arbitration houses, and that rather than buying them and paying stamp duty they have them on loan and are exercising them in that format. Is that really appropriate and is it something else we should look at?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall make a fist at answering some of the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. However, I apologise in advance if I fail to do so on some points as this issue is highly technical. I want to be very careful about precisely what I say, bearing in mind that my right honourable friend will possibly have to make quasi-judicial decisions following advice from the Ministry of Defence. I am not party to that but the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will understand what I mean: I have to take care over what I say.
The noble Lord’s first criticism was that we were slow off the mark on this issue. I can assure him that right from the start, from the moment we knew there was a bid—it goes back only to January—the Government have monitored this and paid attention to it. As the noble Lord will know, as things have hotted up, we have taken a more active line; hence the letter from my right honourable friend yesterday, to which he and the noble Baroness referred. I will say a little more about that, and about the response today from Melrose.
The noble Lord also asked about the timescale and what we will do to keep the House informed. I can assure him that we will keep the House informed as things happen, as my right honourable friend made clear. The Secretary of State set out the statutory timeframe under the 2002 Act. He will inform the House if an intervention is ordered, again in line with his quasi-judicial powers. As I made clear, there are limits to what my right honourable friend can and cannot do. He set out in his Statement just when he could intervene under the terms of the Act. In the third paragraph of the letter to Melrose, he again makes it clear that the Act gives powers to the Secretary of State to act in a quasi-judicial manner.
He goes on to say, when talking about broader stakeholder interests, that in addition to his statutory role, he, as Business Secretary, had a wider concern that,
“where important businesses are involved, takeovers should not act against the interests of our economy, employees or the broader set of stakeholders”.
He adds that Section 172 of the Companies Act, to which he referred in his Statement, sets out that statutory requirement for directors,
“to have regard to, amongst other things, the interests of the company’s employees; the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others; and the impact on the community and the environment”.
A response to that letter came through from Melrose. It is now available in the Library, and I hope the noble Lord, the noble Baroness and others have seen copies of that letter. In the letter, Melrose again set out what it felt it could do, particularly where it agreed with the takeover panel on the form of the legally enforceable undertakings:
“For a period of five years, Melrose will: maintain its UK listing; maintain its UK headquarters; ensure a majority of its directors are resident in the UK …”,
and so it goes on. There are commitments about the amount of research and development it will invest in. That is all set out in what it refers to as its takeover panel-enforceable undertakings. The letter goes on to make further long-term commitments that we hope that it, as an honourable company, will adhere to should it be successful. That is obviously, as my right honourable friend made clear, a matter for the shareholders.
Going back to those initial undertakings about legally enforceable commitments in the letter, the Secretary of State indicated in his letter his wish to see Melrose making those other commitments, to which I referred in the main letter, in good faith. I hope the company will stick to that. Since the noble Lord asked particularly about R&D and training, the commitments about R&D are listed in its letter in the paragraphs about enforceable undertakings, which state:
“Melrose will at least maintain GKN’s current level of expensed research and development investment equal to 2.2% of sales over the financial years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023”.
This is a legally enforceable commitment.
As I said, I am limited in what I can say, and I want to be very careful about what I do say and how far I go because the Secretary of State has to look at this thereafter. I will leave it there and take up that rather technical point that the noble Baroness made about arbitration houses—
Lord Henley
Yes, arbitrage houses. I will write to her in due course, because I would not want to give a response that was in any way misleading. I hope that deals with most of noble Lords’ concerns.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, the House will recognise that this is a very serious announcement about a major British company that is obviously facing some difficulties in its present operation and is now the subject of this takeover bid. It is extremely worrying that this has occurred at a time when, obviously, the future prospects for our economy are far from certain in the present Brexit developments. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to ask for the clearest undertakings, although, as the noble Lord from the Front Bench said, it has come rather late. I do not understand at all the idea that the Secretary of State has up to four months in which to intervene in something that may have already taken place. However, he does recognise that it is not just a matter of national security: the Secretary of State says he has a wider concern that the takeover should not act against the interests of the economy. He asked for undertakings from Melrose Industries plc, but I find them extremely inadequate. The company says that it is prepared to give an undertaking to maintain its UK listing and UK headquarters for five years, and to,
“ensure that the Aerospace and Driveline divisions retain the rights to the GKN name”.
However, it goes on later to say that if a strategic purchaser comes forward with an investment proposal prior to 2023, it hopes that it would be allowed to consider that. It goes on to add:
“Unfortunately, as a result of the nature of the transaction, we have not had access to the information we would expect in order to make detailed commitments”.
By the end of that, I wonder just what commitments are being given. This is a very serious matter and the Government need to think very carefully indeed. I pay tribute to Melrose, which is obviously an extremely successful company, whose business will be to acquire it and to sell it on. No doubt it will make a great success of that, and full marks to it for its approach. Whether or not it is appropriate in this situation, a heavy burden is on the Government to get far clearer and far more binding undertakings that will give some form of security to an essential part of the UK industrial economy.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I note exactly what my noble friend has said. As he said, my right honourable friend has up to four months to consider these matters, depending on the advice he receives from colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I am also grateful to my noble friend for referring to the response from Melrose. It is not for me to say whether that is a good or bad response; I just note that, ultimately, it has to be a matter for shareholders and others. But parts of that, as I made clear—the letter is now in the public domain—will be enforceable commitments, albeit some of them for only five years, and another part will be undertakings of a less enforceable nature. It is not for me to defend or attack that letter. I have simply set it out as the response that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received from Melrose following his letter, in which he set out, first, his legal obligations under the 2002 Act—which gave him a relatively limited power to intervene, which is quite appropriate. Secondly, however, he stressed—I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining this—the wider interests he has as Business Secretary and the wider interests that the directors have under Section 172 of the Companies Act as regards what they must look at. In the end, the shareholders will have to take a view on that matter. As I said, it is possible that my right honourable friend will have to make a decision in a quasi-judicial manner. He must await advice on that, and at that stage, if appropriate, he will intervene.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, I share the view that this takeover proposal is important for the UK economy. My noble friend the Minister refers to legally binding contracts. There have been cases in the past where contracts have not been fulfilled by those taking companies over. What will be the consequences if these legally binding contracts are broken? In particular, since it seems unlikely that the takeover company in this case will retain indefinitely the company it has taken over—the expectation is quite the contrary—how will the legally binding commitment be carried forward as regards any future owner of the company?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I would need to take advice on that. I was quoting the letter from Melrose back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In that letter—in the paragraph headed, “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings”—Melrose states:
“We have been able to agree with the Takeover Panel”—
I imagine this is a matter for it—
“the form of the following legally enforceable undertakings”.
I am not aware of how and in what way those would be legally enforceable, but that is the assertion it made.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, surely one of the most worrying aspects of this matter is the suggestion that a company whose business is very much concerned with national security could be bought and held for only five years by a company whose business seems to be a quick turnover on selling and buying businesses. In five years’ time, as I understand it, the business could then be passed on to China or almost anybody, which has severe implications for the five-year term. I notice that the five-year issue was not in the Minister’s Statement. It seems a crucial, central aspect of the issue. Can we know why the Government were not frank enough to put it in the Statement?
Lord Henley
Again, I am not sure that I can take my noble friend much further than I did earlier when I talked about the advice that my right honourable friend needs to receive from the Ministry of Defence. Under the 2002 Act, there are limited grounds on which the Secretary of State can intervene in matters of this sort, one of which is on grounds of national security. He needs to take advice on that and, if appropriate, he can then act; but as I said earlier, he needs to act in a quasi-judicial manner. If the other two reasons for intervening do not come into play, my right honourable friend would not have the ability to intervene because national security would not be affected. It would be for my right honourable friend to take that advice and come to a decision, but these matters have to be decided in a quasi-judicial manner and I therefore do not want to say anything that might damage his ability to do that in any way.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister in advance if I should know the answer to this question. Can he tell your Lordships’ House if any such legally enforceable undertakings have, in the past, ever been enforced by the Takeover Panel? What have been the consequences of such enforcement action? That seems to be at the heart of the concern of your Lordships’ House. In what sense are these undertakings enforceable?
Lord Henley
I am always filled with dread when experienced colleagues such as the noble Lord get to their feet and say that they should know the answer to a question. I do not know the answer to that question, but I will commit to write to him about occasions when, and if, such legally enforceable commitments have been enforced, and I will make sure that it is copied to other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend and other colleagues have brought forward the term of five years as though it was reassuring, but surely all the issues that are alive now will be equally alive in five years’ time. Merely pushing a cataclysm back does not solve the problem. Can we have some assurance that the Secretary of State will look to the longer term and not merely to the contractual niceties that he has set out so far? Can the Minister answer the question—a question to which I too should know the answer—of what the extent of his power to intervene is if he decides to do so?
Lord Henley
I do not think that our national security is limited to five years, and I do not think that the 2002 Act says that. These commitments have been made by Melrose. I am sure that it will be for my right honourable friend to consider national security on a long-term basis. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot pre-empt how my right honourable friend might consider that.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument seeks to amend regulations concerning the contracts for difference, or CfD, scheme and the capacity market. CfDs provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, incentivising investment by lowering the costs of capital and thus reducing the costs to consumers. The capacity market is the Government’s main policy to ensure a healthy margin of electricity capacity. Regular payments are made to different forms of generation or demand-side response in return for such capacity being available when needed.
In both schemes, support to participants is assigned through competitive auctions, minimising costs to consumers. The 2017 CfD auction secured 3.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity, enough to power an estimated 3.6 million homes. It also saw the clearing price of offshore wind halve compared to the first auction back in 2015. The next competitive auction for less established renewable technologies is planned for spring 2019.
Following four successful four-year-ahead auctions, the capacity market is already securing the capacity we need through to 2021-22. The latest auction secured 50.4 gigawatts of capacity at a price of £8.40 per kilowatt per year. The main auctions have all cleared at between £8.40 and £22.50 per kilowatt per year, below most industry estimates and indicating that the process is highly competitive and delivers value for money for consumers.
The Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company, two operationally independent government-owned companies, work with government to operate the capacity market and CfDs, playing a crucial role in their successful delivery. The Low Carbon Contracts Company was set up to be the counterparty to the contracts for difference. It manages the contracts for their duration, as well as collecting and making CfD payments. The Electricity Settlements Company was established as the capacity market settlement body to oversee all financial transactions relating to the capacity market. Both companies recover their operational costs through levies on electricity suppliers. This is the subject of the regulations that we are considering today.
The regulations will set revised operational cost levies for each of the companies for financial years 2018, 2019 and 2020. Previously, the levies have been set annually. These regulations, however, will set levies for each of the next three financial years, allowing the companies to recover their expected operational costs over this period. Additionally, the regulations make a minor grammatical amendment to the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014, removing the words “is responsible”, which are not required.
Both companies are essential to the Government’s decarbonisation and security-of-supply objectives and must be sufficiently funded to perform effectively while keeping costs to consumers minimised. The budget-setting process aims to strike the right balance. The budgets are scrutinised by government to ensure they reflect operational requirements and deliver value for money. The budgets have also been exposed to external scrutiny through consultation. The three consultation responses were broadly supportive of the proposed budgets. We also asked stakeholders for their views on setting levies for the next three years instead of one year ahead. They agreed that this was a sensible approach, as it provides them with greater visibility of the estimated costs. Furthermore, parliamentary time is saved over what is likely to be a very busy period.
The operational cost budgets over the three-year period have been set to cover the expected activity required to manage the CfD scheme and the capacity market. The Low Carbon Contracts Company’s budget will be £16.5 million in 2018-19, increasing by about £0.5 million for each of the next two years. The Electricity Settlements Company’s budget will be £7.6 million in 2018-19 and decrease slightly to £7.5 million in 2020-21. The Low Carbon Contracts Company’s net core operating cost for 2018-19 is slightly down on last year. The increase in total cost reflects the inclusion of a contingency provision for managing potential contract disputes. The increase in the final two years takes account of potential additional contracts awarded through future allocation rounds. Importantly, however, management costs per contract are projected to fall by 30% over the budget period.
The Electricity Settlements Company is managing a significant increase in the amount of capacity and the number and type of capacity providers. Moreover, there will be an ongoing need to refine the operation of the capacity market. To manage this activity effectively and ensure that it continues to successfully deliver all the financial transactions for the capacity market, the Electricity Settlements Company requires investment. The budget increase reflects the investment needed.
The regulations revise the levies currently in place to reflect the expected operational cost requirements in financial years 2018, 2019 and 2020. Subject to the will of Parliament, the levy to fund the Electricity Settlements Company’s operational costs is due to come into force on the day after the regulations are made; the operational costs levy for the Low Carbon Contracts Company on 1 April. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to the order before your Lordships’ House today. He has set out the details very well, in that the order amends the rates for the operational costs levy for the next three financial years in the contract for difference regime and the rates for the settlement costs levy also for the next three financial years in the capacity market. These costs are borne by electricity suppliers who pass them on to their customers through their bills. These costs are levied to cover the operational and administrative charges borne by the CfD counterparty, the Low Carbon Contracts Company that operates the ESO regulations, and the Electricity Settlements Company that is responsible for the operation of the capacity market.
As the Minister said, these costs have previously been calculated on an annual basis. As both these operations have been successfully running for a few years and have become predictably regular, it makes sense to convert these from annual to three-year periods. The Minister is also correct to point out that both the capacity market and the CfDs have been a success in bringing forward reduced bids at the various auctions, resulting in lower costs to consumers. Against this, it must be acknowledged that both companies are now managing increased market complexity with a greatly increased number of participants that is reflected in the increased rates in the order today.
Discussions on the order in the other place focused on these costs, the not insignificant amount that is translated on to consumer bills and the enormous cost inflation—an increase of some 700% in the operational budgets of the ESC since 2014. Mercifully, we need not rehearse those discussions today. The Minister in the other place was able to clarify that, in the case of the ESC, the number of participants increased from 46 to 447, providing initially from 0.6 gigawatts of capacity to 55 gigawatts. It was interesting that, while operational costs as part of the whole scheme should reduce from 1.6% last year to 0.6% in 2020, this is against a forecast of a fall in gross electricity demand of some 2% over the same period, meaning levy rates increase. I hope that all that makes sense to the uninitiated.
What was not discussed in the other place was that, in relation to the LCCC in the CfD market, the budgetary increase was principally due to the inclusion of a provision set aside for disputes. Paragraph 8.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that the Government will keep this contingency under review but that the LCCC must have sufficient funds to defend a dispute.
My questions to the Minister revolve around disputes. What do these disputes tend to be about; what have been the past costs in the operation of the CfDs; and has any dispute resulted in a court case and, where appropriate, involved the recovery of losses, with costs being borne by the loser? These points have not been explained—perhaps the Minister could explain them now. I phoned the department this morning and I am very grateful to Fiona Reynolds for discussing the issue with me; I trust she has been able to advise the Minister. Finally, are these disputes to be categorised more as queries, challenges or appeals against decisions, and what has been the experience from past years, such that a regularity can now be transposed into a budgetary contingency? While the order can be approved today, this would be interesting to understand.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, capacity markets and contracts for difference have been a roaring success and came in during the coalition years when Ed Davey was Secretary of State—we would expect no less. The regulations will pass today, but it is absolutely right to question any rise in cost, particularly when a small proportion of it is passed on to the consumer. It is always important to keep an eye on costs and particularly when renewing a contract with an entity that is effectively the sole supplier in the field, thus making competition on pricing an impossibility—there is no one competing, so they get more.
Having read the debate in the other place, the rationale given for the steep rise in costs to the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company since commencement, is basically the expansion of the number of providers, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned, from 46 to 447—which, of course, is a good thing—as well as the need to cover disputes. I too am very interested in the information on exactly what those disputes are and look forward to reading that in due course. We need to remain vigilant that all costs are properly scrutinised.
I could not help but note that the Minister in another place, Claire Perry, in order to assuage any concerns over the creeping inflation of costs beyond what they should be, said:
“I am always keen to run the calculator over these companies’ calculations. As the Minister ultimately responsible, I will continue to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 19/3/18; col. 8.]
I am impressed with the Minister’s personal intervention in this mission and trust that her background in banking and finance mean that her use of a calculator is unimpeachable—but I hope there are some accountants keeping an eye on this too. I simply wish to reiterate that companies in receipt of large sums of public money need strict monitoring. On the basis that this will happen, I am content that the regulations should pass.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that my right honourable friend Claire Perry will continue, as the noble Baroness quoted, to run a calculator over these issues—I am sure she will use a calculator, an abacus or any other instrument that is necessary but, just as important, she will also make use of accountants, and the department will keep a very close eye on these matters.
I think the only matter that I need to deal with for both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—who very helpfully let the department know what his concerns were—is how the budget, including the provision to deal with potential disputes in relations to managing CfDs, has been calculated. As the Low Carbon Contracts Company is the counterparty for CfDs, it is important that it has sufficient funds to defend a dispute if necessary. The provision included in the budget is largely based on previous experience and assumptions about potential disputes. Previous disputes have largely related to contract matters, though the nature of those will be confidential—that is the nature of such things. I emphasise that if the provision is not utilised for disputes and the surplus levy income is not required for other operational activity—we are only talking about matters relating to such activity—it will be repaid to suppliers in accordance with the regulations.
I hope that satisfies both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and that, with their agreement, I can commend these draft regulations to the House.
Motion agreed.
Northamptonshire County Council
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a Statement about the independent inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council. Everyone in this House, regardless of party, appreciates the crucial role that local government plays as the front line of our democracy—delivering vital services on which we all depend, helping to create great places to live and, in doing so, making the most of every penny it receives from hard-pressed taxpayers to secure better outcomes—all of which builds confidence and trust between local authorities and those they serve, which is why the situation in Northamptonshire is of such concern.
Prior to my instigation of the report, there were signs that Northamptonshire’s situation was deteriorating. External auditors at Northamptonshire had lodged adverse value-for-money opinions in audit reports, suggesting that the council was not managing its finances appropriately. The resignation of the former leader in May 2016 also signalled the need for change. As late as last year, the Local Government Association conducted a financial peer review which concluded that there were issues with delivering the ‘Next Generation’ reforms and, again, with mismanagement of its finances. The then chief executive, Paul Blantern, resigned in October 2017.
These reports, along with the concerns raised by district councils in Northamptonshire and by honourable Members of this House with local constituencies, prompted me to act, as I was concerned that there were potentially fundamental issues within the authority. On 9 January, I informed the House that I had concerns regarding the financial management and governance of the council. I therefore decided to exercise my powers under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to initiate a best-value inspection of the council, and appointed Max Caller, an experienced former chief executive and commissioner, to conduct this and report on whether or not the council was complying with its best value duty.
Mr Caller submitted his report on 15 March, and I placed a copy in the Library of this House so that everyone could see what he had found, and his recommendations. Before I go any further, I thank Mr Caller and his assistant inspector, Julie Parker, for their dedication and focus in conducting such a thorough and prompt review.
When I commissioned the best value inspection, I asked the inspector to consider four things in particular: first, whether the council had the right culture, governance and processes to make robust decisions on resource allocation and to manage its finances effectively; secondly, whether the council allowed adequate scrutiny by councillors; thirdly, whether there were strong processes and the right information available to managers and councillors to underpin service management and spending decisions; and, fourthly, whether the council was organised and structured appropriately to deliver value for money.
I have reflected on the contents of the Caller report. It is balanced, rooted in evidence and very compelling. The inspector has identified multiple apparent failures by Northamptonshire County Council in complying with its best value duty—failures on all counts. While I recognise that councils across the country have faced many challenges in recent years, the inspector is clear that Northamptonshire’s failures are not down to a lack of funding or because it is being treated unfairly or is uniquely disadvantaged compared with other councils.
Mr Caller says in his report:
‘For a number of years, NCC has failed to manage its budget and has not taken effective steps to introduce and maintain budgetary control’.
Furthermore, the complex structure of financial support meant that oversight was difficult and accountability blurred. The report says that Northamptonshire’s ‘Next Generation’ approach, which envisaged outsourcing many of the council’s functions, had no,
‘hard edged business plan or justification to support these proposals … which made it difficult to ensure a line of sight over costs and operational activity’,
and,
‘made it impossible for the council, as a whole, to have any clarity or understanding as to what was going on’.
Similarly, the inspector found that Northamptonshire County Council used capital receipts to support revenue spend without documentary evidence demonstrating compliance with the statutory guidance and direction. Furthermore, until this February, there was no report to full council on the proposed projects and their benefits. He says:
‘Savings targets were imposed without understanding of demand, need or deliverability and it is clear that some Chief Officers did not consider that they were in any way accountable for the delivery of savings that they had promoted’.
On the question of scrutiny, the report says:
‘The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism. Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the executive would allow’.
I want to emphasise that the report also indicates that the hardworking staff of Northamptonshire County Council are not at fault and have worked hard to provide quality services. With all this mind, it is clear that I must consider whether further action is necessary to secure compliance with the best value duty. In doing so, I want to reassure the residents of Northamptonshire that essential services will continue to be delivered.
The inspector is clear that:
‘The problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale’.
He recommends that:
‘A way forward, with a clean sheet, leaving all the history behind, is required’.
I am therefore minded to appoint commissioners to oversee the authority using my powers under Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999. From day one, I propose that they take direct control over the council’s financial management and overall governance. Getting these basics right must be the first step in stabilising this authority. I also propose giving them reserved powers to act as they see fit across the entirety of the authority’s functions if they consider that they must step in. My officials are writing to the council and district councils today to this effect, and they can make representations on this proposal. I will consider any representations carefully before reaching a final decision.
The Caller report makes a clear recommendation on restructuring, and notes there are a number of options available. So, in addition, I am inviting Northamptonshire County Council and the district and borough councils in the area to submit proposals on restructuring local government. I would like those councils to think about what is right for their community and the people they serve, and to come forward with proposals. This invitation and the letter to Northamptonshire that I mentioned earlier have been published today, and copies placed in the Library of this House.
It is clear to me that any proposals from the councils should seek to meet the criteria for local government restructuring that I have previously shared with the House: that they should improve local government, be based on a credible geography and command a good deal of local support. I will be particularly interested in hearing how the councils have consulted with their communities to ensure that Northamptonshire’s future is truly locally-led.
The findings of Mr Caller’s inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council are extremely serious, which is why this Government are prepared to take decisive action to ensure that local people receive the high-quality services they need and deserve, and to restore faith in local government in Northamptonshire. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first I draw to the attention of the House my relevant interests as set out in the register—namely, that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement delivered by his right honourable friend in the other place earlier today. I welcome much in the Statement. The best value inspection report on 15 March makes tragic reading and highlights the total mismanagement of the affairs of the authority by the council. I pay particular tribute to Max Caller for the work he has done in submitting the report. I have known him for many years, and he is a very experienced former chief executive. I had the privilege to serve on the Electoral Commission with him for many years. I have huge regard and respect for him. It was a very wise choice to appoint him to undertake this review.
The problems with this authority have been building up for many years. The council has outsourced virtually every single service possible. I think in the end it employed only about 150 people directly. The peer review conducted last September warned of the difficult position the authority was in, yet soon afterwards the authority opened its brand new £53 million headquarters. It was actually opened by the Secretary of State who delivered this Statement in the other place earlier today. Soon after that we had the council effectively declaring itself bankrupt as an authority.
I know Northamptonshire and Northampton very well. I worked there for many years. I have been in Northamptonshire County Council many times, and I could not see much wrong with the old headquarters.
Then we had the revelation of the former chief executive being paid £1,000 a day as a consultant. This is not good. It is time we sent the commissioners in. Can the noble Lord give the House the timetable for making the final decision in this respect? If it is decided that commissioners are to be appointed, how long after that decision do we expect them to go into the authority? Would he expect the remit of the commissioners to be as extensive as recommended by the report? The finances of the authority will remain precarious for a number of years, so can the noble Lord tell the House what level of budget monitoring will be undertaken by officials in his department? What will their relationship be with the commissioners, if they are appointed and go into the authority?
On the reorganisation proposals, I am happy to welcome them in principle, but they need to be looked at very carefully. For any unitary authority to succeed, it first has to be adequately financed. Drawing lines on a map will not in itself solve the problems in Northamptonshire. There has to be a sense of credibility in what is being proposed. We have the county council suggesting a unitary council to cover the whole county. There are other proposals, including the suggestion of two unitary councils: north Northamptonshire and west Northamptonshire.
All this has to be looked at very carefully to see what the best arrangement is with no predetermination of what the structure should be. Northampton borough, which is a very historic borough, may well want to make the case for becoming a unitary authority in its own right. I know it was granted its charter by King Richard I in 1189, and was permitted its own mayor by King John in 1215. It is also the most populous urban district in England not to be administered as a unitary authority. I have no view at this stage on what is right, but all ideas must be looked at properly and heard fairly.
People in Northamptonshire deserve a proper, accountable local government delivering for them. The time has come for the Government to take the decisive action needed to deliver that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the borough of Kirklees in West Yorkshire.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I share his comments that the failures in the governance of Northamptonshire in no way reflect on the many staff who clearly continue to provide services to the public to the best of their ability. Nor do they reflect on the majority of councillors, who, according to the evidence in the best value inspection report, were denied information and were thus not able to undertake their responsibilities as might have been expected.
As a consequence of the inspection, the Government have decided that commissioners should be appointed to take direct control of the council's financial management. This will undoubtedly result in the commissioners proposing that some of the very difficult cuts to services that many other councils have already made will now be made without proper democratic involvement. That is a terrible indictment of the senior officers and senior members of the council who failed to grasp that, like it or not, cuts in income of the scale experienced by local government inevitably lead to significant cuts in services.
Northamptonshire County Council’s response to cuts in funding was to adopt a full outsourcing and commissioning model. For all the reasons expounded in the inspection report—it makes tragic reading—this failed abysmally. The residents of Northamptonshire have been ill served by some of the senior directors of the council, but it is the residents who will suffer the consequences of the failure to get a grip on constantly reducing budgets and to deal with difficult decisions in a timely manner.
That leads me to comment on the financial pressures that local government is facing. As has been said many times in this House and the other place, local government budgets have been reduced by about 40% across the board, and will have decreased by 50%—by half, in other words—by 2020, in two years’ time. This is at the same time as demand for services for vulnerable older people and vulnerable children is increasing at a significant rate. The Local Government Association estimates a shortfall of billions of pounds by 2020 for local government to deliver the statutory services that it is required to.
However, I want to point out that failure to deal with challenging financial budgets is not confined to local government. Carillion is a good example of what happens in the private sector when budgetary situations are not grasped. Many councils are just about managing, and it seems that some will just about manage for only another 18 months or so. There are statutory services to be provided, and for some this will soon not be possible. This brings me to some questions for the Minister. Does his department really appreciate the difficult financial situation that many councils face? For instance, is there an analysis in his department of those councils that may be on the brink of being unable to fulfil statutory functions? I assume that there is such an analysis; maybe he will be able to tell us what planning has been done to meet that eventuality. I ask this so that other councils are not allowed to fall into the same difficulties that Northamptonshire has done, though for very different reasons.
In the case of Northamptonshire, the Government determined that there would be a reorganisation of the county council and district council model into a unitary model. I hope whichever model is chosen succeeds, because residents in that county deserve it to succeed. However, I doubt that will sort out the problem; as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has said, if the financial situation is not resolved, simply moving geographical pieces for governance around the county will not solve it. Perhaps the Government will be able to spell out in the fair funding review which services they expect local authorities to deliver and which are not to be a priority. Until that is clarified, councils will continue to find their responsibilities and funding availability stretched beyond their ability to fulfil their duties.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions. I will try to deal with the issues that they raise. Both of them used the word “tragic” and I absolutely agree that this is a tragic situation that has arisen in Northamptonshire. I remind them both, particularly the noble Baroness, that it is clear from the Caller report and other investigations that this is not a failure because of finance; it is a failure because of governance. It is clear in the report that that is the case.
In response to questions from the noble Lord, I say that the timetable for the district councils and county councils to respond in relation to the appointment of the commissioner is 12 April. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider any representations or points made. The Secretary of State would anticipate responding by the end of April and then, if appropriate, appointing commissioners to take on the role, which is clearly the direction that Max Caller and Julie Parker, in their excellent report, would anticipate.
On the timescale for the restructuring, I remind both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that Max Caller says that restructuring is necessary. It is a recommendation of the report. This is not the Government’s view: it is a recommendation to the Government. We ask the relevant seven district councils and the county council to respond by the end of July. We are open-minded on the different options. It is important that we look at what the councils say, bearing in mind the considerations that apply to any restructuring, as my right honourable friend set out: the proposals should,
“improve local government; be based on a credible geography; and command a good deal of local support”.
My right honourable friend went on to say that the councils should state how they,
“have consulted with their communities”.
That is all absolutely right.
I echo what the noble Baroness said about the people working for Northamptonshire, who have clearly worked incredibly hard to deliver services and continue to do so, and what she said about many councillors finding themselves excluded from decision-making, questioning decisions or having the ability to critique, which is not how the local government service should operate and not how the vast majority of local government behaves.
The noble Baroness referred to financial pressures. Quite separately from this, we recognise that there are challenges, but I am keen to keep impressing the basic principle that this is not a failure because of finance. There is no unique feature of Northamptonshire—that it has been discriminated against or has not had the necessary finance. This is a failure of governance, as the Caller report readily recognises. In saying that, I acknowledge that we are looking at fair funding by 2021. That is an important principle and we will be considering the fair funding formula, but that is separate from this issue. Otherwise, I accept the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and declare my interest as a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. I have listened to this very troubling and sad case, which is probably harming the vulnerable children and elderly most of all by its failings. Can he assure me that there are robust mechanisms in place to support councils which are struggling early on, so that we do not get into these situations? In the education system, there was the Greater Manchester Challenge and the London Challenge, where schools got together and poorer functioning schools were supported by experienced heads to get better outcomes for the struggling schools. Is there such a system in the local government framework, particularly for councillors, who have huge responsibilities but may have no experience of social care or finance before arriving in post? Are there robust systems to ensure that they get the right support at the beginning to be able to give the best?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Earl for those points. First, interventions can and do happen. This is not the first intervention in local government services: there have been others for other reasons—Rotherham, Doncaster, Hull and so on. Naturally, any Government would be loath—that might not be too strong a word, but certainly wary—to intervene because of the importance of local government being just that. Of course, there are checks and balances within the local government system operating properly. There is proper scrutiny and there are proper balances. As I think I said on a previous Statement on Northamptonshire, we have looked carefully to see whether any other local authority is remotely in the same position and satisfied ourselves that there is not, but that is something that we obviously keep under careful scrutiny and review.
I also say—and should have said earlier in response to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in particular—that there will be regular reporting to the Secretary of State by any commissioners who are appointed to ensure that the correct procedures are instituted and proper progress made by those commissioners.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
I declare my interest as chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of South Holland District Council. It is obviously regrettable when central government feels the need to dip its toes beyond just splashing about into local government, and it is a shame that there is not a way to avoid external commissioners going in, leaving the sector to be able to regulate this part of the world for ourselves—but clearly, under current legislation, it is not. It is with regret that I support my noble friend’s statement that it is time for the commissioners to go in.
I do not think that we should be leaving all the blame purely with Northamptonshire. Clearly local government in general is facing a very tight financial situation, although Northamptonshire cannot claim to be the worst funded. If it were, it probably would have had a case in saying that it was purely down to central government. But it is not the worst funded, and those that are considerably worse funded than Northamptonshire have not got into that state, so we have to accept that Max Caller’s report to a large extent is correct about the financial mismanagement by senior officers and the lack of political oversight while that was happening.
That said, the solution of sending in commissioners is fine but, on the reorganisation, I struggle to see how a change in structure will assist the financial situation because a restructure costs money in the initial years anyway. I would want some reassurance that the Government were prepared to underwrite any potential restructure costs. My real question is that there appears to be an inconsistency in the letter that has gone out today to council chief executives. It clearly says that a proposal from type B authorities—basically the districts—for some sort of reorganisation within Northamptonshire to at least two unitaries is the model that is being looked at, or would be preferred from the Government’s perspective. But that does not preclude a bid that includes a district council neighbouring Northamptonshire being part of the bid. That is largely because of the current structural arrangements of two councils—one in Northamptonshire and one in, I think, Oxfordshire.
The letter also says specifically that a single county model is ruled out. Does that mean a single county model with one district from a neighbouring borough is not ruled out? It is inconclusive, in the opinions I have had on that letter. If we are expected to advise the sector, it would be handy to have an answer to that question.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Porter very much for a balanced and temperate observation. I absolutely agree that it is clear from the Caller review that commissioner intervention is appropriate. Central government, under various political parties, has always been wary about interventions, but here it is undoubtedly the right approach and certainly the recommendation. Once again, I remind noble Lords that this is not a matter of finance; it is a matter of management and governance, as was made very clear by the Caller report: silo thinking; lack of team working; lack of challenge; and so on. No doubt, inappropriate financial decisions were made but they were based on an essential failure of governance according to the Caller review.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Porter in relation to possible restructuring, the department and the Secretary of State are very keen to hear the views of the districts and of the county on that. That is important. It is made very clear in the letter that we want the determined views of the local councils before responding by the end of July. I would encourage councils to regard the fact that they can make recommendations about restructuring, which will be looked at by the department and the Government. Obviously there is time to consider this—if not at leisure, then certainly with some reflection, because I quite agree that it is a very important step to be taken.