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
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The health and social care systems are inextricably linked, which is why we need to improve access to the social care system, and we will be setting out plans to do so in a Green Paper.
Mike Gapes
Age UK says that 1.2 million older people have unmet social care needs. Is it not time that we thought about integration in a practical way, and where we have acute hospitals with land next to them, such as King George Hospital in my constituency, we start to build sheltered accommodation or intermediate care on those sites so that people can easily be transferred into and out of the beds, freeing them up for other people who need them?
Mr Hunt
That is a wise suggestion, and it is exactly the direction of our thinking in the social care Green Paper, which will have a significant chapter on housing. Integration is not just about integrating health and social care; it is also about other services offered by local authorities. I commend, too, the hon. Gentleman’s local authority of Redbridge: it is No. 1 in the country for user satisfaction with the social care system and No. 4 for carer satisfaction.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
One of the most pressing issues for those who depend on social care is resolution of the back-pay issue for sleep-in shifts. Will the Secretary of State update the House with his own estimate of the liability? The independent sector puts this liability collectively at around £400 million. Will he also update us on the progress being made, because he will know that many sectors are handing back their contracts and withdrawing?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue, and I can reassure her that a lot of work has been going on inside the Government to work out how to resolve the issue. A court case is due that may have a material impact on those numbers, but we are continuing to work very hard and fully understand the fragility of the current market situation.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
In December, the health survey for England revealed that older people in more deprived areas are twice as likely as average to have unmet social care needs. Is this not yet another example of Tory cuts reducing councils’ abilities to meet the requirements of people with care needs?
Mr Hunt
I welcome the question, but let me also gently tell the hon. Lady what the actual story is with respect to cuts. Yes, the social care budget was cut after the 2008 financial recession, but she may remember that a different party was in power when that happened. Under this Prime Minister, those cuts have been reversed and the social care budget is going up by £9.4 billion in this spending review period.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Inadequate social and primary care provision lies at the root of a great deal of pressure on hospital A&Es, so we need to plan much better for the demand for services at that level. Will the Secretary of State press the Treasury to ensure that receipts from NHS property transactions are retained by local healthcare trusts, so that they can build much larger primary care facilities than those currently planned?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point: unless we make it easier for trusts to retain the receipts of property transactions, they will be likely to sit on these properties and we will not get the positive ideas such as that suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so we do need to find a way to make sure that local areas benefit when they do these deals.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that at least 10,000 people with dementia have been stuck in hospital in the last year despite being ready to leave, and many of the delays were caused by a lack of care in the community for them. There can be no more disorientating thing for a person with dementia than being stuck in hospital when they do not need to be there. So with dementia awareness week approaching, is it not time for the Secretary of State to meet the social care needs of people with dementia fully by meeting the funding gap for social care in this Parliament?
Mr Hunt
Let me explain what is happening on that front. In the first five years after 2010, social care funding went down by 1.3% a year—we had a terrible financial crisis that we were trying to deal with—but since then, in the current spending review period, it is going up by 2.2% a year, which is an 8% real-terms increase over this spending review period. I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do a much better job. [Interruption.] Opposition Members talk from a sedentary position about priorities; our priority has been to get this economy on its feet so that we can put more money into the NHS and social care system, and that is what will continue to happen under a Conservative Government.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The Department is working with the NHS and across the Government to increase the support available for people with mental illness and on related issues. This includes investing £39 million to double the number of employment advisers in IAPT—increasing access to psychological therapy—as well as reviewing the practice of GPs charging for evidence of patients in debt crisis and the introduction of a duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 for the NHS to refer people at risk of homelessness to the local authority.
Dr Cameron
A quarter of people experiencing mental health problems are also in problem debt, and eight out of 10 mental health practitioners surveyed have said that they have less time to deliver clinical care because they are being asked to assist with the task of writing up debt management plans. Does the Minister agree that to ensure the best chance of recovery, commissioning groups require to integrate advice alongside mental health care, particularly for those in problem debt?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. Of course it is true that people’s personal circumstances are a symptom and a cause of mental ill health. We are doing more to enable those delivering mental health services to signpost people with problem debt to appropriate services. Clearly, that becomes easier where those services are co-located with citizens advice bureaux. In addition, the Breathing Space programme aims to provide a break for people with debt. I recognise, however, that this is a serious problem and that debt problems will cause mental illness.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister explain to the House how the Thriving at Work programme will play a role in improving public mental health as well as benefiting our working lives?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is very much this Government’s view that work is good for people’s health, and the more we can encourage people to live independently and feel in control of their lives, the better their health outcomes will be. We absolutely stand by the Thriving at Work programme.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Is the Minister aware of the growing incidence of mental illness associated with gambling addiction and of the rapid rise in suicides as a consequence? Will she try to ensure that there is adequate psychiatric capacity within the NHS, and will she liaise with her colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport on preventive action?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The right hon. Gentleman rightly identifies problem gambling as another important contributory factor to mental ill health. When it gets out of hand, it can lead to considerable stress. We will of course work with the Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport to ensure that we have the right regulatory processes in place, as well as ensuring that we are giving support to those who need it.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, when children and young people have mental health challenges, it is important wherever possible to engage with their families to help them to overcome them?
Jackie Doyle-Price
What my hon. Friend says is self-evidently true. We are putting in more help in schools through the Green Paper, but we also need to ensure that we are engaged with families much earlier than that. We have the health visitor programme, and those visits help to build relationships with parents. We have also taken action on specific issues, including the initiative relating to the children of alcoholics. We will continue to focus support where it is needed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very good to welcome back to the Chamber the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
People with long-term health conditions such as diabetes are at a higher risk of mental health disorders, and we are determined to improve co-ordination between services. That is why the national diabetes audit has started collecting information from GP practices on people who have both diabetes and severe mental ill health.
Keith Vaz
I should like to declare my interest. As the Minister knows, three out of five people with diabetes suffer from emotional and psychological problems, including depression and anxiety. A survey recently showed that 76% of diabetics were offered no emotional or mental health support. Will she look at the excellent work that is being done by the NHS in Grampian in Scotland, to see whether its programme could be rolled out for the rest of the country?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I would be delighted to look at the progress being made in Grampian, and we are always keen to learn from the experiences of other nations. The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point: people with long-term physical conditions are more likely to suffer from mental ill health. As for NHS spending, at least £1 in every eight that is spent on long-term conditions is linked to poor mental health and wellbeing spend. We have also produced a pathway for people with long-term physical health conditions to deliver more effective IAPT—increasing access to psychological therapy—services for them. However, we can always continue to learn about this subject.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Obese adults are seven times more likely to have type 2 diabetes and the associated mental health problems that go with it. Is my hon. Friend that 140,000 obese children would qualify for adult tier 4 bariatric surgery, but there is little available? Should the NHS be fortunate enough to get some well-deserved extra money for its 70th anniversary, may I put in a bid for that area to be considered?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend is right that once children become obese they are going to become obese adults, with all the health problems that come with that. I do not want to steal the thunder of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), but rest assured that we will examine what more we can do to tackle obesity in children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. Bearing in mind that three out of five people with diabetes have mental health issues, will the Minister outline what support services GPs should be able to offer at the first diagnosis of diabetes? Early diagnosis is key.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I could not agree more. We need GPs to understand that they must consider a patient’s needs as a whole, not just the condition that is presented at the time, and that message has been sitting behind the guidance that we have been issuing to GPs on how they manage patients with long-term health conditions.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay)
Nursing remains a strong career choice, with more than 22,500 students placed during the 2017 UCAS application cycle. Demand for nursing places continues to outstrip the available training places.
Gill Furniss
Figures from the Royal College of Nursing show that applications have fallen by 33% since the withdrawal of bursaries. At the same time, the Government’s Brexit shambles has led to a drastic decline in EU nursing applications. How many years of such decline do we have to see before the Secretary of State and the Minister will intervene?
Stephen Barclay
What matters is not the number of rejected applicants, but the increase in places—the number of people actually training to be a nurse. The reality is that 5,000 more nurses will be training each year up to 2020 as a result of the changes.
Stella Creasy
The NHS already has 34,000 nursing vacancies. Given that there has been a 97% drop in nursing applications from the EU and that studies show that nearly half of all hospital shifts include agency nurses, will the Minister at least admit that cutting the bursary scheme has been a false economy for our NHS?
Stephen Barclay
It is not a false economy to increase the supply of nurses, which is what the changes have done. Indeed, they form part of a wider package of measures, including “Agenda for Change”, pay rises and the return to practice scheme, which has seen 4,355 starters returning to the profession. More and more nurses are being trained, which is why we now have over 13,000 more nurses than in 2010.
Grahame Morris
I respectfully remind the Minister that this is about recruitment and retention. The RCN says that we can train a postgraduate nurse within 18 months, which is a significant untapped resource, so why are the Government planning to withdraw support from postgraduate nurses training, too?
Stephen Barclay
We have a debate involving postgraduate nursing tomorrow, but the intention is to increase the number of such nurses by removing the current cap, which means that many who want to apply for postgraduate courses cannot find the clinical places to do so. That is the nature of tomorrow’s debate, and I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend, on top of the degree nursing apprenticeships, rapidly increase the nursing apprenticeship programme so nurses can earn while they learn, have no debt and get a skill that they and our country need?
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to signpost this as one of a suite of ways to increase the number of nurses in the profession. As he alludes to, there will be 5,000 nursing apprenticeships this year, and we are expanding the programme, with 7,500 starting next year.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
This weekend, I had to take a poorly member of my family to Cheltenham General Hospital, and the skill, concern and good humour of the emergency nurse practitioners were fantastic. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Cheltenham’s emergency nurse practitioners? Does he agree that we should be doing everything possible, through their pay scales, to reward and retain them?
Stephen Barclay
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the nurses at Cheltenham, and elsewhere, for the work they do. As he says, that is exactly why this Government, with the support of the Treasury, have backed nurses with a big pay rise in the “Agenda for Change” programme.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
With every reputable independent body showing very clearly that we have a staffing crisis in the NHS nursing profession, can the Minister explain how cutting bursaries actually improves the situation?
Stephen Barclay
I am very happy to do so. We are removing the cap on the number of places covered by the bursaries and increasing the number of student places by 25%, which means that there will be 5,000 more nurses in training as a result of these changes.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s removal of the nursing bursary and introduction of tuition fees have resulted in a 33% drop in applications in England. In Scotland, we have kept the bursary, a carer’s allowance and free tuition, which means that student nurses are up to £18,000 a year better off, and indeed they also earn more once they graduate. Does the Minister recognise that that is why applications in Scotland have remained stable while in England they have dropped by a third?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on health matters, but, again, she misses the distinction between the number of applicants and the number of nurses in training. It is about how many places are available, and we are increasing by 25% the number of nurses in training. That is what will address the supply and address some of the vacancies in the profession.
Dr Whitford
Workforce is a challenge for all four national health services across the UK, but, according to NHS Improvement, there are 36,000 nursing vacancies in England, more than twice the rate in Scotland. The Minister claims that more nurse students are training, but in fact there were 700 fewer in training in England last year, compared with an 8% increase in Scotland. The key difference is that in Scotland we are supporting the finances of student nurses, so will the Government accept that removing the nursing bursary was a mistake and reintroduce it?
Stephen Barclay
The distinction the hon. Lady fails to make is that in England we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 25%; we are ensuring that nurses who have left the profession can return through the return-to-work programme; and we are introducing significant additional pay through “Agenda for Change”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we are also creating new routes so that those who come into the NHS through other routes, such as by joining as a healthcare assistant, are not trapped in those roles but are able to progress, because the Conservative party backs people who want to progress in their careers. Healthcare assistants who want to progress into nursing should have that opportunity.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
When defending the decision to scrap bursaries, the Secretary of State said that, if done right, it could provide up to 20,000 extra nursing posts by 2020. Well, that figure now looks wildly optimistic, with applications down two years in a row. Is it not time that Ministers admitted they have got this one wrong and joined the Opposition in the Lobby tomorrow to vote against any further extensions to this failed policy?
Stephen Barclay
If Members vote against the policy tomorrow, the reality is that they will be voting for a cap on the number of postgraduate nurses going into the system, and therefore they will be saying that more people should be rejected—more people should lose the opportunity to become nurses—because they want to have a cap that restricts the supply of teaching places.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We are committed to improving mental health support for expectant and new mothers, and GPs are crucial to that. We recognise that specialist services are also required, and I am proud to announce today that NHS England will be spending £23 million on rolling out the second wave of community perinatal services to underserved parts of the country and is on course to achieve full geographic coverage by 2020-21.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Given that 95% of mums surveyed by the NCT said that they had experienced mental health problems, that only 22% said they were even asked about this by their GP and that only 24% of the country has any specialist provision, what more does the Minister think she ought to be doing?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The second wave roll-out will cover the entire geographical spread of the country. This is a transformational programme, so, by definition, it will take time to roll out, but I agree with the hon. Lady that GPs do have a role to play in this. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends postnatal checks for mothers, and NHS England expects commissioners to undertake that those guidelines are being met. As for any further support by GPs, she will be aware that there is a renegotiation of the GP contract and it will be covered there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Some young people are mothers and do have mental health problems, upon which important matter the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has Question 19, which, sadly, will not be reached. If she wishes to give the House the benefit of her thoughts now, she is most welcome to do so, but it is not obligatory. [Interruption.] We will get her in later.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Given that children of mothers with perinatal health problems are at much higher risk of developing mental health problems themselves, why does the Government’s Green Paper on mental health not address prevention in respect of perinatal health?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As I have said before, the proposals in the Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health were very much focused on what we were going to be delivering through schools. Alongside that, we have a very ambitious programme on perinatal mental health, where we are spending an extra £365 million on delivering both acute care and more support in the community. Today, I have just announced the second wave of that funding.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Back in 2010, we had 19 mother and baby units across this country, but cuts to those beds resulted in our then having 15 mother and baby units. Back in November 2016, the Government said we were going to see more beds opened. I listened closely to the statement the Minister has just made, but we are still waiting for beds that were announced back in November 2016. What are her Government going to do to ensure that mothers and babies will be kept together and can access the beds they desperately need?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do not accept what the hon. Lady is saying. We are investing in new mother and baby units and making sure we have sufficiently good provision geographically so that mothers and babies can access them. We are also investing in more support in the community. I am pleased that the programme we are delivering, which is £365 million of additional support, will deliver early intervention for young mothers and babies.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The diverse health and social care needs of local communities are considered in this Government’s policy and implementation. We are actively supporting local areas, including through Public Health England’s joint work with the Local Government Association, providing evidence-based recommendations to tackle the different needs of rural communities.
Anne Marie Morris
Would the Minister find it helpful to ask the national centre for rural health and care, shortly to be launched, to identify the specific challenges facing the providers of health and care in rural areas?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The centre has already engaged with stakeholders to identify the issues and responses to the challenge of providing health and care in rural settings. The centre will focus on four areas—data; research; technology; and workforce and learning—and will work with partners to identify, scale up and promote the adoption of its activities across the public and private health sector to reduce health inequalities and improve the quality of life for all rural people.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
If the ministerial team want to learn about the comparison of health outcomes in urban and rural communities, they should come to Huddersfield, as we have both there. But what we want in Huddersfield is a great hospital, great GPs and a supportive community pharmacy network. When are we going to get them?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I will address the point the hon. Gentleman makes about urban and rural health, as my constituency has the same situation. Obviously, there are specific challenges with regard to sparsity of population, which have to be tackled through the funding formula. The new national centre for rural health and care will address that.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
For people in my rural constituency, the value of services at Boston’s paediatric unit could not be higher. Does the Minister agree with me—and with what the Prime Minister said last Wednesday—that we should leave no stone unturned when it comes to making sure that we can recruit the paediatricians we need and sustain the services at Pilgrim Hospital?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am happy to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend and those of the Prime Minister. We should leave no stone unturned in making sure that we recruit enough paediatricians to support the service. I reiterate that every effort will be made to ensure that that happens.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady will understand that the impact on the workforce is of as much interest to us south of the border as it is to her. We continue to engage in representations with colleagues to address such matters.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Northamptonshire has both rural and urban communities, but our biggest pressures are a rapid population increase because of house building and a big increase in the number of people who are, thank goodness, living to more than 80 years of age. Will the Minister ensure that those two issues are addressed in any future funding formula?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend is quite right that when we allocate funds we have to make sure that we keep pace with population growth among both the early years and the older years, which is where the demand comes from.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Karen Lee. No? The hon. Lady is a most confusing individual.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I wanted to ask a supplementary to the question about Boston.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Jackie Doyle-Price
I can add no more to what I have already said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). We will do everything we can to make sure that we can recruit sufficient paediatricians for that hospital.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
What plans does the Minister have to increase the role of community pharmacies in meeting the health needs of rural and urban communities? In 2016, the Government promised to develop an extended role for community pharmacies. In particular, they committed in the House that the national roll-out of a minor ailments scheme would be implemented by April 2018. Given that it is now May 2018 and that has not happened, and that there has been an overall reduction in services commissioned via community pharmacies in both rural and urban communities, will the Minister tell the House when exactly the Government intend to honour their commitment?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The provision of community pharmacies is an important part of integrated primary care. We will continue to make sure that we direct sufficient resource to address the particular challenges caused by rural sparsity. I remind the hon. Lady of what we have already done: we spent £175 million from the Prime Minister’s challenge fund to transform GP access, and that is increasing access in areas such as North Yorkshire, Devon and Cornwall. We will continue to look into the particular challenges that rural communities face and make resources available.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
The Department does not issue guidance specifically to NHS England on the redistribution of funding that is recouped from dental contracts. Of course, any decisions on the provision of healthcare are rightly a matter for the local NHS, because local commissioners are best placed to assess the dental needs and priorities among their local population, including the one that the hon. Gentleman represents in Bradford.
Imran Hussain
People in Bradford cannot get an NHS dentist, child tooth decay rates are soaring, and people are being admitted to hospital because they cannot get dental care. It was announced over the weekend that Bradford will receive an extra £332,000, which I of course welcome, but between 2014 and 2017, more than £300,000 was taken from dental care funding in the district. Is it not the case that the new funding is just a misleading announcement?
Steve Brine
I think that is what is known as a back-handed welcome. We have made great progress on improving access to dentistry in England, but we know that there are parts of the country, including the hon. Gentleman’s area, in which we can do more. That is why NHS England in Yorkshire and the Humber—with which I liaise on matters raised by a number of Opposition colleagues—is finalising plans to improve access to dentistry throughout the region, paying particular attention to 20 areas. Bradford East is one of those areas and, as the hon. Gentleman said, will shortly receive additional recouped funding to support his constituents.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Why are dentists, such as my constituent Peter Sharp in Thornaby in Stockton South, funded less per unit of dental activity than his colleagues who are working in more affluent areas? Surely, to reduce health inequalities, it should be the other way round?
Steve Brine
That goes to the heart of why we are reforming the dental contracts. Our 73 high street dental practices are continuing to test the preventive focused clinical approach to a new remuneration practice. [Interruption.] Someone on the Opposition Front Bench has just said “when” from a sedentary position. It will be when we have got it right.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) has beetled into the Chamber like a perspiring postman just in time. It is very good to see the fellow.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We want all NHS patients to be able to access appointments in the evenings and at weekends. Thanks to our programme, 40% of the population currently do so, and that will rise to 100% next October.
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me for rushing in; I was tied up with Committee matters.
My right hon. Friend has set out a great vision for the national health service over recent years, and I very much welcome it, but does he agree that, in local areas, some of the GP provision could do with a little more work? I am particularly thinking of West Malling in my own constituency where a large element of the community is finding it harder to get access, and there is a danger that the GP surgery may leave the high street.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that issue. He does have, I think, 28 more GPs in the west Kent clinical commissioning group area than in 2010, but there is a particular issue over premises. The need to invest in premises is deterring younger GPs from becoming partners, and sometimes making GP surgeries unviable. We are looking at that problem now.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
So many GP practices—no matter what salaries or what terms and conditions they offer—are reporting a reluctance by newly qualified GPs to go into GP practice. What will the Minister do about the hours of work—the time given to consult with constituents—to make it easier for people to see GP practice as a viable opportunity to serve their community?
Mr Hunt
I do very much agree with the hon. Lady, which is why we are working hard to recruit 5,000 extra GPs into general practice in England. I gently point out to her that the Royal College of General Practitioners says that, while we spend 9.2% of the NHS budget in England on general practice, it is only 7.3% in Wales.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the recent Professional Standards Authority report, “Untapped Resources”, of which the principal recommendation is that practitioners on PSA-accredited registers should have powers to make direct NHS referrals, which would reduce the burden on GP surgeries?
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows—because I keep telling him—that Warrington has fewer GPs than its population warrants. What concrete steps will he take to attract GPs to areas that are under-doctored?
Mr Hunt
Most parts of the country would say that they need more GPs, which is why we are trying to improve the capacity across the country. So, what have we done? Well, very recently we announced six new medical schools, which will have a specific focus on attracting new students into general practice. That is one of a number of measures.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
The Government remain committed to tackling all alcohol-related harms, which is why we are developing a new alcohol strategy. As part of that, I am commissioning Public Health England to undertake a review of the evidence for minimum unit pricing in England.
Neil Gray
That is welcome news. The Scottish National party Government have taken the lead in this matter by taking the bold step to set a minimum unit price for alcohol as part of wider interventions to help tackle excessive consumption. In particular, they want to end the days of strong white ciders being sold at pocket money prices. The British Medical Association has long called for that, so at what stage will we learn of further progress in the Government’s thinking?
Steve Brine
The previous consultation in 2013 found that the evidence, as it stood at the time, was not entirely conclusive. That is still the case, which is why the Government intend to keep the policy under review. Many times in this Chamber we are given the benefit of experience north of the border as to whether a policy has been a success, but it is not always strictly spot on. Given that the policy only came in last week, it is probably premature to say that it is a success, but we will welcome the opportunity to see the evidence emerge from Scotland’s implementation of minimum unit pricing, and we will be watching very closely.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is significant that major pub companies and brewers such as Greene King, Coors and Tennent’s now support minimum pricing, and that what is good for the nation’s health is good for the nation’s pubs and the promotion of sensible drinking?
Steve Brine
We want to get on and tackle all avoidable harms, including alcohol. The vast majority of our constituents enjoy a drink and have a healthy relationship with alcohol, but that is not the case for everybody. Some people can harm themselves, society and, as we have heard, their children. What is happening north of the border in Scotland is very welcome. I think that there will be an early evaluation there at the one-year point, and we will be watching that like a hawk.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Childhood obesity is one of the biggest public health challenges we face, which is why we are committed to reducing the sugar in products consumed by children by 20% over four years.
Victoria Prentis
I recently met my constituent, Professor John Wass, at an Obesity Health Alliance tea, where—the Secretary of State will be pleased to know—no cake was served. Professor Wass shares my concerns about the availability of hospital services for those with established obesity. Will my right hon. Friend set out what plans his Department has to treat those who are already obese?
Mr Hunt
We recognise the value of bariatric surgery, which is of course subject to the normal waiting time standards for those for whom it is appropriate. However, prevention is better than cure. That is why we are hoping to bring forward shortly further measures to tackle childhood obesity, which is one of our biggest concerns.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Obesity- related hospital admissions in York have more than doubled in the last three years. As part of NHS70, we in York are launching a city-wide public health initiative to ensure that we address issues around obesity, diet and exercise. Will the Secretary of State support such work and ensure that we get the funding that we need to run this initiative for the whole constituency and the city?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to give the project my wholehearted support. If we are going to tackle obesity, we need an approach that goes across all Departments of Government, including local government, and this initiative sounds excellent. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), will be looking into the funding.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Lambert Hospital in Thirsk was bequeathed to the town by Sara Lambert in 1890, and was closed via the back door by South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust last year. NHS Property Services is planning a sell-off to the highest bidder, despite the fair offer that is on the table from the local authority which could include provision for community use such as public health advice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are times when value to the public might outweigh the requirement to maximise a price?
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
This August marks two years since the world’s first childhood obesity plan was published, but the Government’s plan, at just 13 pages, left a lot to be desired. More than 5.5 million children in this country are now officially classed as overweight or obese, with 140,000 classed as morbidly obese, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned. This is now an epidemic. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government’s second childhood obesity plan—due this summer, we have heard—will include meaningful policies such as restricting junk food advertising and the sale of energy drinks to children?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do more, because this is a very serious issue. I think that she is being slightly unfair on our first initiative. The sugary drinks tax has been responsible for 45 million kg of sugar being removed from the market, which is enormously important for children. There is more to be done and I hope that we will be able to announce plans soon.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Daily Mile initiative in schools has huge potential in reducing childhood obesity, improving academic attainment, and improving the mental wellbeing of our young people. Will my right hon. Friend look closely at that and have conversations across Government about the benefits it could bring?
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
In tackling childhood obesity, will the Health Secretary declare his support for Jamie Oliver’s AdEnough campaign and get rid of pre-watershed television advertising of junk food to our children?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Evidence from cities such as Manchester and London is very clear that centralising stroke treatment in hyper-acute stroke units considerably improves outcomes, with patients having access to a specialist at all times and immediate access to imaging and investigative facilities, giving them the best chances in terms of outcome.
Kate Green
My 82-year-old constituent, Freda, is recovering well from a serious stroke, but she has been told that there is an 18-week wait for physiotherapy and that this is the NHS standard. Does the Minister think that that is good enough?
Steve Brine
I cannot comment on the individual case, but I can say that NHS England and we at the Department are working closely with the Stroke Association to develop a new national plan for stroke in England which we expect to publish this summer. The hon. Lady’s constituents and mine will benefit from the national policy narrative, but they will also benefit from some brilliant charities that work on the ground with constituents. Yesterday, I saw Chandlers Ford Stroke Support Group at the amazing Funtasia in my constituency. That group does a lot to support people in stroke as well.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
In Worcestershire, we are fortunate to have some excellent stroke services serving my constituents across the whole county. Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important aspect of any service is leadership? With that in mind, will he update the House on his progress in appointing a new chair for our trust to deliver stroke services and other services to Redditch?
Steve Brine
I am not close to that issue, but I am told that we have some excellent candidates, and I think that my hon. Friend will be pleased.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The most important service that stroke patients need is priority in getting to hospital for the treatment they need. A patient in my constituency recently had to wait five hours for an ambulance, with a GP sitting next to her begging the service to send one. East Midlands Ambulance Service has now had a review and will be getting an increase in its funding, but can that be made faster over the next two years?
Steve Brine
The new ambulance standards are designed to do exactly that. I note the hon. Lady’s welcome for that in her area. That is critical, but of course it is critical that people get to the right place and get the right treatment. That is why I said at the start of these exchanges that centralising stroke treatment is not always popular but is often the best thing for clinical outcomes.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Access to NHS dentistry remains consistently high. The most recent figures show that 22 million adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months from January ’16 to Christmas last year and 6.9 million children visited a dentist last year.
Alex Cunningham
Twelve thousand of those people in my constituency were left without a dentist when the Queensway practice in Billingham, in common with many dentists across the country, ditched NHS work. People are trying to build capacity there, but the funding system for dentists is a major impediment. What plans do the Government have to address the crisis in NHS dentistry, encourage dentists to stay with the NHS, and make dental health a priority?
Steve Brine
We have been in correspondence about the Queensway practice, as the hon. Gentleman knows. When a dental contract ends and patients need to find another dentist, NHS England has a legal duty, as he knows, to commission alternative services to meet local need. I understand that that is happening in his area and that he is being kept regularly updated on the situation. In answer to a previous question, I mentioned the dental contract, which is a key part of our reforms to keep people in, and attract people into, the dental profession.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is shameful that our older and vulnerable residents living in care homes do not have the access to dental treatment that they need. The Minister revealed in a written answer to me that older people living in care homes are less likely to have any natural teeth and are more likely to have serious tooth decay, but still no specific action has been taken. Will the Secretary of State meet me and commit to do everything he can to help prevent serious tooth decay for our older and most vulnerable residents?
Steve Brine
As I said, NHS England has a legal duty to commission dental services and primary care dental services for the hon. Lady’s constituents. If she wants to bring a specific example from her constituency to me, I will be happy to look at it.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We are worried about the effects of social media on children and young people, which is why we have asked the chief medical officer to undertake a systematic review of all the international literature, to help us understand what further steps to take.
James Morris
I recently met a group of headteachers in Halesowen, who expressed real concern about the effects of social media on the health of their pupils. Does the Secretary of State agree that peer-to-peer support among young people in the classroom and in our communities is a vital way of benefiting young people through the positive aspects of social media and combating the negative effects on their mental health?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Durham police tell me that when there is a problem on social media, particularly Facebook, it can take six months between their asking for action and the social media company tackling it. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Home Office to get the system changed and speed it up?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that some of this is about ensuring that parents use appropriate techniques—for example, having specific screen times and engaging with their children about what they see on social media—and giving them the tools to do so?
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Speak to any young person about what is causing child mental health issues, and the No. 1 issue is not social media, but exam and test pressure in schools, as we have found in the joint inquiry by the Health and Education Committees. Will the Secretary of State be as harsh on his colleagues in the Department for Education as he is on the social media companies when it comes to child mental health?
Mr Hunt
What we actually now have is a record number of children in good or outstanding schools—nearly 2 million more children. That is something we all want for our children, but when it comes to mental health, the NHS has very specific responsibilities, and we of course look into every possible cause.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The Government are looking at existing pre and post-conception health advice, including the use of folic acid supplements, which are recommended to help reduce the risks of neural tube defects in unborn children. We are carefully considering the recommendations in the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition report on folic acid, and the Government will set out their position in due course.
Anna Turley
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the UK female diet leaves blood folate levels below World Health Organisation targets, and it was recommended back in 1991 that folic acid should be put into supplements and that flour should be fortified. There are 80 countries around the world where that is happening, and it is reducing cases of spina bifida and other serious illnesses by up to 50%. Will the Minister work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look once again at the opportunities for fortifying flour with folic acid?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I can confirm that we will continue to look at that. The hon. Lady is right that a large number of countries fortify flour with folic acid, but the UK and other EU countries do not. We have advice that if the intake of folic acid exceeds given levels, that can also bring health problems, but we will continue to look at it.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I would like to give an update on the breast cancer screening failure. I met the Public Health England chief executive this afternoon, and I am informed that 65,000 letters were sent out last week, and the helpline has taken nearly 14,000 calls to date. Further letters are going out this week, and the first invitations to catch-up screenings will go out next week. Due to the lack of clinical consensus about the effectiveness of screening for older women, we will provide advice and support for all who missed scans and support them in making their own decision as to whether to proceed. We will also publish the terms of reference for the independent inquiry shortly, and I can assure the House that no stone will be left unturned in uncovering the truth.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that update, but I would like to ask him about the Brexit transition agreement, which cuts the UK out of the European Medicines Agency. Can he give this House a cast-iron guarantee that that will not stop the regulation of new drugs in the UK to help patients, and will not prevent our world-class pharmaceutical companies from basing themselves here to do world-class research and development?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay)
We recognise that the Princess Alexandra Hospital estate is in a poor condition. NHS Improvement is working with the trust to develop an estate and capital strategy by summer 2018 to be assessed, with other schemes put forward, for the next capital announcement for sustainability and transformation partnerships. I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend to have further discussions about it.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update on breast cancer screening. I welcome his letter this morning with respect to patient safety in the private sector, but is not the truth that the best quality of care is provided by a public national health service? Is it not time to legislate to ensure that private hospitals improve their patient safety standards, and if he accepts that levels of safety are not acceptable in the private sector, why is the NHS still referring patients to the unsafe private sector? Should there not be a moratorium on those referrals until these issues are sorted out?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman should be very careful in making generalisations about the independent sector, just as he is about the NHS sector, because the truth is that there is too much poor care in both sectors, but both sectors also have outstanding care. I have always said that there will be no special favours for the independent sector, which we will hold to the same high standard of care, through the Care Quality Commission regime, as we do with NHS hospitals. Let me just say to him that if we stopped referring people to the independent sector, 140,000 people would wait longer for their operations, and that is not good care.
Jonathan Ashworth
We have seen the private sector fail—the NHS is sued by Virgin Care, patient transport contracts have to come back in-house, and Carillion collapses and cleaning contracts have to come back in-house—and now we learn that the hotline for women affected by the breast cancer screening failures is provided by Serco and staffed by call handlers who, far from having medical or counselling training, have had one hour’s training. Do not the women affected deserve better than that? Will the Secretary of State provide the resources for that phone line to be brought back in-house and staffed by medical professionals?
Mr Hunt
I normally have so much respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I think those women deserve a lot better than that posturing. The helpline was set up at very short notice because, obviously, the call handlers could not do all their training until I had made a statement to Parliament, which I judged was the most important thing to do first. It is not the only help that the women affected will be getting—on the basis of the advice received, they will be referred back for help at their local hospital, with Macmillan Cancer Support or through specialist clinicians at Public Health England—but we thought it was right that that number was made available as quickly as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I very much welcome the contribution made by the charity to support teenagers in his constituency with psychological therapies and to help to address their mental health conditions. I join him in extending my congratulations to the mayor for choosing this very important cause and for endeavouring to raise so much money for it.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to look at his local issue.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the Green Paper on mental health in schools, which was published earlier this year, but it does prompt a question about the mental health of students in further and higher education. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to look into that issue? If he does not, may I urge him to do so?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her continued industry on these matters. As she mentioned, the Green Paper outlined plans to set up a new national strategic partnership focused on improving the mental health of 16 to 25-year-olds. That partnership is likely to support and build on sector-led initiatives in higher education, such as Universities UK’s #stepchange project, whose launch I attended in September. The strategy calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority, to take a whole-university approach to mental health and to embed it across policies, courses and practices. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) need not worry; her Zebedee-like qualities will always make her visible. I am saving her for later. We will hear from her shortly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Steve Brine
Obesity has rightly had a strong outing today. We know that it is a leading cause of type 2 diabetes; supporting people to live healthier lifestyles can only reduce the incidence of the disease. So far, more than 170,000 people have been referred to the national diabetes prevention programme. Those who are referred receive tailored, personalised help, including education on healthy eating and lifestyle choices, and bespoke physical exercise programmes.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that following his decision to make the capital allocation to Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust before Easter, that trust has had sufficient confidence to successfully appoint five additional consultants in 10 days in April, thereby improving resilience in acute healthcare in Shropshire?
Stephen Barclay
I very much welcome the progress that my hon. Friend has shared with the House. Many of us will also want to pay tribute to his leadership during his time at the Department in recognising the opportunity for reconfiguration that the capital would unlock and is now delivering.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Hunt
I can absolutely commit that we are very conscious of the failings of PFI when we have any discussion about NHS capital funding, including the previous question. We are very conscious of the need not to make the mistakes that saddled the NHS with £71 billion of PFI debt.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Dispensing practices are a lifeline in rural constituencies such as Sleaford and North Hykeham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that patients who live far from a pharmacy and attend their local dispensing practice should all have access to that dispensing service?
Steve Brine
Yes, I do: dispensing practices are an important part of the widening primary care mix. That is important for constituents in rural areas such as my hon. Friend’s. Community pharmacy and dispensing practices, which she refers to, are increasingly important when they are part of an integrated primary care pathway. That has got to be the future.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Steve Brine
This issue has received a lot of publicity in recent weeks. My noble Friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and I wrote to Vertex following that debate and asked it to be reasonable and continue, with vigour, its negotiations with NHS England. That letter was made public, as was the company’s actually quite positive response last week. I urge the company again to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Healthcare delivered by app and other new technologies is increasingly popular with patients. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the NHS fully explores the possibilities of new technologies when delivering front-line services?
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
My constituent Susan is desperately waiting for the Government to bring forward the remedial order for single parent surrogates. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published its response to the original draft in March. Is there any update on when we will get the next version?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are giving careful consideration to the implications of the JCHR’s recommendations and what changes may be necessary to address them. It is our current intention that a revised order be laid for JCHR scrutiny before the summer recess.
Several hon. Members rose—
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that eating a nutritionally balanced meal can reduce snacking between meals and therefore help to reduce childhood obesity? If so, will he speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and ask them to ensure that the 6,400 children in Kirklees who are set to lose out on a well balance nutritious free school meal do not?
Steve Brine
I talk to colleagues across Government all the time. The first round of the child obesity plan—it was maligned earlier—contained many good things, such as the sugary drinks tax. A couple of months ago we launched, with Public Health England, changes in relation to the nutrient profiling of foods marketed to children. That is positive for the hon. Lady’s constituents and for mine.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Five years on from the Francis report, how does my right hon. Friend assess patient safety in the NHS?
Mr Hunt
There are still many things to tackle when it comes to patient safety, but I think the NHS has risen magnificently to the challenges in the report. There are nearly 45,000 more doctors and nurses across the system. Although there is more to be done, much credit should go to the NHS.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
This week marks two and a half months since the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that compensation be paid urgently to children sent abroad by their Government and subjected to the most appalling child abuse. In that time, the Secretary of State’s Department, despite repeated requests for action, has made not a single statement. Many former child migrants have died and others are dying. How many more will have to wait, and die waiting, for justice before this Government get their act together and pay them the compensation that is owed?
Jackie Doyle-Price
We have been quite frank about the fact that the child migration policy should never have happened and this Government have apologised repeatedly for it. I can assure the hon. Lady that I am currently working with officials to come up with a formal response to the committee of inquiry.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
Will the Minister update me on the FIT—faecal immunochemical test—for bowel cancer? It has long been promised and we know it saves lives. When will it materialise?
Steve Brine
I updated Members on this last week in a Westminster Hall debate. Bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and the second leading cause of cancer deaths. My hon. Friend is right that the FIT has long been promised. There have been a lot of challenges—making sure we get it right and referrals into the secondary sector—but the FIT will be rolled out from autumn.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The European health insurance card enables British citizens to get medical treatment in the EU, including kidney patients who need dialysis. Without it, many of them simply could not go on holiday at all. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it remains the Government’s objective to keep the EHIC in place after we have left the EU, and, if so, what progress is being made to ensure that that happens?
Mr Hunt
It is absolutely our intention. We think it is beneficial for Brits and beneficial for Europeans. We are very confident that we will be able to negotiate reciprocal healthcare arrangements to protect those benefits, but our first preference would be a continuation of the current scheme.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how and when the community pharmacy sector will gain access to the pharmacy integration fund? Millions have been promised. When will it be delivered?
Steve Brine
The pharmacy integration fund is a great success. It needed to be ramped up and it is being ramped up. Pharmacists, working within general practice, are making a great difference to the multidisciplinary team within primary care.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and I set up an all-party group on the impact of social media on the mental health of children. With all the work the Secretary of State has done to date on that, I wonder whether he and his ministerial team will agree to engage with the all-party group’s inquiry and look at how we find solutions to these problems, including mental health.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Several of my constituents have contacted me to welcome the Government’s recent announcement of additional investment for prostate cancer funding. Will the Minister update the House on what the money is and what it will be spent on?
Steve Brine
Gladly. Prostate cancer survival rates are at a record high, but we want to do even better, so last month the Prime Minister announced £75 million to support new research into the early diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. The National Institute for Health Research will recruit 40,000 more patients, which is a lot, for more than 60 studies into prostate cancer over the next five years.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I welcome the recent news that NHS England has committed to redirecting extra funding for dental services to Bradford as an area of need—it comes after a high-profile campaign in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus—but I urge the Minister to recognise the need for long-term reform of the dental contract and for a sustainable funding settlement for all. Will he meet me and others campaigning on this issue to discuss what progress has been made?
Steve Brine
Yes. The dental contract has had a good outing this afternoon. I am always happy to see the hon. Lady and I can tick the Telegraph and Argus off my bucket list if they come along as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I have been enjoying listening to my colleagues so much that I inadvertently lost track of time, but it seems only right that the final question should go to the Chair of the Health Committee—I call Dr Sarah Wollaston.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the progress report on sugar reduction and the next steps strategy on the reformulation programme, so that the Health Committee can examine that when Public Health England appears before us on 22 May?
Petition
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I rise to present this petition from the residents of the North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, which attracted 564 signatures, gathered by myself, dedicated Saltcoats Scottish National party activists and our SNP councillors, to express our concern at the proposed closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Saltcoats.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of North Ayrshire & Arran,
Declares that proposed closure of the 3 branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Kilbirnie, Kilwinning & Saltcoats will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002137]
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the learning disabilities mortality review. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a certain amount of chuntering from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State has been with us, but Minister Caroline Dinenage will answer the urgent question, and we look forward to her answer.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities whose deaths may have been preventable and have pledged to do so with different health and care interventions. The learning disabilities mortality review programme was established in June 2015; it was commissioned by NHS England to support local areas in England to review the deaths of people with a learning disability. Its aims were to identify common themes and learning points, and to provide support to local areas in their development of action plans to take forward the lessons learned.
On 4 May, the University of Bristol published its first annual report of the LeDeR programme, covering the period from July 2016 to November 2017. The report included 1,311 deaths that were notified to the programme and set out nine recommendations based on the 103 reviews completed in this period. The Government welcome the report’s recommendations and support NHS England’s funding of the programme for a further year at £1.4 million. We are already taking steps to address the concerns raised, but the early lessons from the programme will continue to feed into our work, and that of our partners, to reduce premature mortality and improve the quality of services for people with learning disabilities.
Barbara Keeley
Mr Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that the Secretary of State has just run out of the Chamber, rather than answering this question himself—it is disgraceful.
Seven years after Winterbourne View and five years since the avoidable death of Connor Sparrowhawk, the findings of the review show a much worse picture than previous reports about the early deaths of people with learning disabilities. One in eight of the deaths reviewed showed that there had been abuse, neglect, delays in treatment or gaps in care. Women with a learning disability are dying 29 years younger than the general population, and men with a learning disability are dying 23 years younger. Some 28% of the deaths reviewed had occurred before the age of 50, compared with just 5% of the general population who had died by that age.
The Secretary of State announced to the House in December 2016 that he would ask the review for annual reports on its findings, so why was a review of this importance published during the recess, before a bank holiday weekend in the middle of local election results, giving Members little chance to scrutinise its findings? When asked about the report on the “Today” programme on Radio 4, Connor Sparrowhawk’s mother, Dr Sara Ryan, said that she was
“absolutely disgusted by the report”
and that the way it had been published at the beginning of a bank holiday weekend
“shows the disrespect and disregard”
there is for the scandalous position of people with learning disabilities shown in the report.
Only 103 of 1,300 cases passed for review between July 2016 and November 2017 have been reviewed. That is a paltry number. The report cites a lack of local capacity, inadequate training for people completing mortality reviews and staff not having enough time away from their duties to complete a review.
If there are issues around capacity and training, what is NHS England doing to rectify this? Sir Stephen Bubb, who wrote the review into abuse at Winterbourne View, said this in response to the report:
“there can be no community more abused and neglected than people with learning disabilities and their families. How many more deaths before we tackle this injustice?”
Dr Sara Ryan said:
“things have actually got worse than they were 10 years ago”.
What action will the Government take to show the families of people with learning disabilities that their relatives’ lives do count?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue; the report makes for very troubling reading.
On the date of publication, the hon. Lady will be aware that this was an independent report prepared by the University of Bristol and commissioned by NHS England, which wanted to look into this really important issue, and because it was an independent report, it did not actually alert us to publication, so we had no more notice than she did. We are investigating through NHS England and others why that happened.[Official Report, 9 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 8MC.]
As the report clearly identifies, there is still more work to do, and we will work with partners to see how the recommendations may be implemented. We are committed to learning from every avoidable death to ensure that such terrible tragedies are avoided in the future. She mentions Dr Sara Ryan, whose son, Connor Sparrowhawk, died in such tragic circumstances in my own Southern Health Trust area. She and other parents like her are testimony to the incredible dedication of people who have worked so hard to get justice for their loved ones at a time when they feel least able to do so.
We have done several things already. We have introduced a new legal requirement so that from June every NHS trust will have to publish data on avoidable deaths, including for people with a learning disability, and provide evidence of learning and improvements. We are the first healthcare system in the world to publish estimates of how many people have died as a result of problems in their care. Learning from the review is also informing the development of the pathways of care published by NHS England and the RightCare programme, which is tailored to the needs of people with learning disabilities. Pathways on epilepsy, sepsis and respiratory conditions will be published later this year.
We have introduced the learning disability annual health checks scheme to help ensure that undiagnosed health conditions can be identified early. The uptake of preventive care has been promoted and improved, while the establishing of trust between doctors and patients is providing better continuity of care. We have also supported workforce development by commissioning the development of learning disabilities core skills education and training framework, which sets out the essential skills and knowledge for all staff involved in learning disability care.
As I said, the report makes for troubling reading, but we asked NHS England to commission it so that we might learn from these deaths and make sure that trusts up and down the country are better equipped to prevent them from happening in the future.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Every preventable death brings personal tragedy, as was highlighted in a 2016 report by Autistica, the autism charity, entitled “Personal tragedies, public crisis”. Autistic adults with a learning disability are 40 times more likely to die prematurely. That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement in March that reducing the gap in life expectancy for autistic people was one of the top autism priorities in the “Think Autism” strategy governance refresh under provisions in the Autism Act 2009. How will the Minister implement those provisions?
Caroline Dinenage
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, whose incredible work over many years campaigning on behalf of autistic people up and down the country has made a magnificent difference. She is right to raise this issue. It is of course unacceptable that people with autism have poorer health outcomes, and we are determined to address this. I meet regularly with representative groups and we take on board all their comments about how they would like to see the situation improved.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The report makes tragic reading. Some of our most vulnerable citizens are four times more likely to die prematurely than the general population, and there have been many avoidable deaths because of systemic failures. The situation cannot continue.
Let me ask the Minister three questions. First, will she look at the Scottish patient safety programme, a national programme that has been running since 2008 and is achieving good outcomes? Secondly, given that the Health and Social Care Committee has heard that learning disability nurses are very scarce, will she redouble the efforts to ensure that training for and recruitment to those roles are prioritised? Picking up symptoms early may be crucial to the prevention of morbidity. Thirdly, staff turnaround in social care is a real issue. Social care staff who know a client well, and can notice early changes such as signs of illness and report them timeously to ensure prevention, are crucial, and consistency in care is therefore critical. How will that be addressed?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right to raise those points. The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities whose deaths might have been preventable had there been different health and care interventions. That is why we set up the learning from deaths programme, and have commissioned an investigation of the issue. We are determined not only to learn from every single one of these tragic and avoidable deaths, but to share that learning with those in trusts up and down the country so that they can take a clear look at what is going on under their noses, and ensure that the terrible incidents that we have seen in the past do not happen again.
The hon. Lady was wise to raise the issue of training. It is important to have specialist practitioners, but it is also important to ensure that all healthcare staff, throughout the country, have the training that they need in order to recognise and support the needs of people with learning disabilities. That is something that we have done very successfully with dementia: we record the number of staff in the country who have received tier 1 and tier 2 training, and we are looking into how we can extend that to address the issues of people with learning disabilities.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In learning lessons from these truly horrific cases, will the Minister commit herself to working closely with the charities that do such incredible work to support people with learning disabilities and their families?
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Charities and voluntary organisations all over the country do remarkable work, supporting not only people with learning disabilities but their families and their carers, for whom instances involving their health and wellbeing can be incredibly distressing.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister’s statement quite properly focused on hospitals, but does she acknowledge that charities dealing with people with learning disabilities will be among the worst affected by the £400 million back-pay charge? Will she try to ensure that the Government absorb that cost, so that the improvements in hospitals are not upset by a deterioration outside, in communities?
Caroline Dinenage
We are looking very carefully at the issue of sleep-ins, and are communicating with social care providers and others. It is important to recognise that we need to support not only the sector as a whole, but the many low-paid workers within it. We will present more proposals on sleep-ins shortly.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The biggest challenge that many learning-disabled people have is simply making their voices heard. Their legal entitlement to advocacy is not always upheld by health professionals, who often misunderstand that entitlement. Will the Minister look into the commissioning of advocacy services, and, indeed, the understanding of the Equality Act 2010 among NHS staff, to ensure that more learning-disabled people have access to organisations such as Speakeasy Advocacy in Basingstoke, which supports more than 600 people with learning disabilities in north Hampshire, helping to give them the voice that they so badly need?
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for equality issues in her role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I take on board everything that she has said, and I will certainly look more closely at the issue that she has raised.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The true disgrace is that none of this is new and we have been here before. Five years ago the Government set out their promises to tackle this appalling death by indifference, yet we have seen no progress. Can the Minister tell me how many hospitals regularly ask the four questions on treatment of people with learning disabilities set out by Sir Mike Richards, how many clinical commissioning groups check and monitor how many health checks and health plans people have in place, and what Health Education England has done to put the training in place to try to start turning the tide on this appalling situation?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right that this issue was identified a few years ago. The report was commissioned in 2015 and has been in the making since then. There was a Care Quality Commission report in 2016 which concluded that bereaved families do not often experience openness and transparency. Everything we have done up until this point—the mortality review, the learning from deaths programme and all the other things we have put in place with regard to the transforming care programme and annual health checks—is geared towards addressing this very issue.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The learning disabilities mortality review programme sets out the stark and unacceptable health inequalities faced by those with learning disability, and I welcome the steps the Minister has set out today. May I press her further, however, on the point about workforce shortfall? What is she going to do not only about recruitment, but about retention of the vital workforce in both health and social care?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the workforce in our health and social care system is absolutely fundamental to the way we look after people in our country. We must be able to attract, recruit, retain and bring back into the system people who have left it. We are currently compiling a workforce strategy jointly between Skills for Care and Health Education England, and it will be reporting later in the year.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Parents come to me all the time expressing their grave concerns about what will happen to their children with learning difficulties and disabilities if they are not around to support them. In my constituency I have had reports of instances of bullying from other people in the community, of targeting by drug dealers and of exploitation by private companies such as mobile phone providers and utility companies, and that there are difficulties accessing mental health support. If the Minister is truly keen to show the Government’s desire to improve on the current appalling state of affairs, do not early support and state responsibilities need to be looked at more closely as well?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right to make the point more broadly, rather than just about the healthcare outcomes for people with learning disabilities. We need to look at how we protect people more broadly, and this issue must particularly be a terrible worry for the ageing parents. I take on board what the hon. Lady said, and we will definitely feed it into the system to see what more we can do in support.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What should the CQC be doing that it is not doing already?
Caroline Dinenage
The CQC conducted an inquiry into this issue in 2016 and has a responsibility to check local healthcare provision to ensure it is up to speed. When local trusts start publishing their learning from deaths data from June, the CQC will be able to inspect them on how they bring the data forward and to judge them on that information.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
Societies and Governments should be judged by how they treat the most vulnerable. As well as avoidable deaths of people with learning disability, we have savage cuts to services across the country, so they have no constructive positive activities to participate in, and we have a complete dearth of employment opportunities now for people with learning disabilities. I started my working life 36 years ago working with people with learning disabilities, and we made tremendous progress over a 20-year period. It is a source of tremendous sadness that we have gone backwards in the last 10 years in the support that such people and their families are receiving. It is shameful. We need a cross-Government approach and we need action, not strategies.
Caroline Dinenage
It is sad that the hon. Gentleman has sought to politicise this issue. It is nothing to do with funding cuts or cost-saving measures. We have actually invested more money into this programme. We are the first Government in the world to publish a learning from deaths programme so that healthcare trusts are held accountable and have to publish their data on people who die unnecessarily in their care. Making short-sighted party political points is therefore very unfair and does not get to the heart of the issue, which is about supporting people with learning disabilities and making sure that their health outcomes are the same as those of the population as a whole.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The all-party parliamentary group on learning disability, which I have the honour to chair, will be looking at this area of policy later this year. Mencap, which provides the group’s secretariat, has a Treat Me Well campaign, which is about improving the position, and I know it is keen to work with the NHS. Drawing on some of the other questions, may I ask the Minister what she can do to get the NHS and all the providers to act with a real sense of urgency in making improvements in this regard with the speed that we would like?
Caroline Dinenage
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the Mencap report, because in many cases it reflects the recommendations that have been put forward in this particular report. The mandate to NHS England requires a reduction in the health gap between people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism and the population as a whole, and requests support for them to live full, healthy and independent lives. That is something that NHS England has a mandate to deliver, and we of course support it in doing that.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
If it is a crime to politicise the vulnerability of some people and the Government’s cuts, I stand guilty as charged. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), what we have seen since 2013 is the complete decimation of services working together on the ground. This is a local government and health issue locally, so may I press the Minister to tell us what action will be taken to make this happen at local level?
Caroline Dinenage
It is not about that. This is about inquiring into the deaths of people who have died in our care. Despite all the really difficult decisions we have had to make to deal with the financial challenges this country faced, which the hon. Lady’s party will be well aware of, we have made progress on this issue in terms of transforming care and the healthcare checks on people with learning disabilities, and this very report on the learning from deaths programme proves how absolutely committed we are to ensuring that not one single one of those deaths goes unrecognised or uninvestigated.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Surely the quicker integration of the NHS with social care across the board will help to solve some of these problems. Does the Minister agree with that?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The integration of health and social care services is absolutely vital, and that is why we are so delighted that we have renamed the Department as the Department of Health and Social Care. That has to be more than just a title; it has to be a statement of intent.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last October, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on supporting and safeguarding adults with learning disabilities, following the horrendous murder of my constituent, Lee Irving. Following that debate, what reassurance can the Minister give me that one of the major lessons coming out of that case—that families must be involved in the decision making about a person’s care—has been learned?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. It was a truly horrible case. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is all about making sure that we have care that is centred around the individual, and that parents’, families’ and carers’ thoughts are taken into consideration when making decisions about how we care for people.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
We can be confident that the right legal framework is now in place, with the Equality Act 2010 and the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but what further steps can the Minister take to ensure that those who work in NHS organisations are aware of them?
Caroline Dinenage
Of course it is the responsibility of individual employers to ensure that their staff are appropriately trained and competent to fulfil the responsibilities that we ask of them, but we have commissioned Health Education England, Skills for Health and Skills for Care to develop a learning disabilities core skills education and training framework, which sets out a tiered approach to that kind of training and how it needs to be improved.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
This review should shame us all. If we reflect on Sir Stephen Bubb’s final reports from two years ago in 2016, following a report he wrote in 2014 when there had been no progress, we can see that he put forward 10 recommendations. We have seen little or no progress on any of those recommendations. One of them recommended the introduction of the commissioner for learning disabilities, and we need that to happen if we are to see real progress and change. Will the Minister now take that important recommendation forward?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right to raise that, but I will point out that we commissioned the review to examine the situation. We are not running away from our responsibilities; we are standing up and facing them. We are allowing them to be entirely transparent and out there in the public domain for people to judge. The deaths that the report covered come from the period starting July 2016, so they are historical, but it is important that they are examined. The hon. Lady is right to mention the issue of the commissioner, and I will look at that.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
While the review’s conclusions make difficult reading in some ways, it is welcome that it happened, given that it is a world first and that it gives us the chance to have this discussion. What work will be done with councils and other third sector partners on taking away some of the lessons that can be learned from the review?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is the first time in the world that such a review has been done. We are the first to have a learning from deaths programme and a Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, so we take such things incredibly seriously. The whole point of the learning disabilities mortality reviews is that the information will be disseminated to local trusts so that they can make plans to avoid such disastrous, tragic incidents happening in the future.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The gap in life expectancy for people with learning disabilities is deeply troubling. Last week, and at Health questions earlier, the House discussed cancer screening and the need to improve screening opportunities. The Minister will know that screening participation rates among people with learning disabilities are far below those for the general population. What specific actions is she taking to address that gap?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is right to raise the inequalities of diagnosis of conditions and illnesses for which catching them early can mean the difference between life and death. That is why we have introduced annual health checks for people with learning disabilities. They mark a huge step forward and will help to reduce recognised health inequalities and ensure that reasonably adjusted care needs are much better communicated to other NHS partners.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
As a Bristol-area MP, I thank the University of Bristol for its rigorous review, which marks a milestone in increased transparency and in setting out appalling healthcare inequalities. I note with interest that the review recommends efforts to improve awareness of the signs of sepsis and pneumonia in patients with learning disabilities in the NHS. Will the Minister reassure the House that the NHS will take up that recommendation urgently?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes. Specific work on early detection of the symptoms of sepsis, pneumonia, constipation and epilepsy and on the effective use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in urgent care settings is already under way.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The front page of the report is clearly dated December 2017, so will the Minister clarify and explain why, as she has stated today, her Department did not have sight of it prior to its publication?
Caroline Dinenage
I completely hold my hands up. I am not trying to mislead the House in any way. It is an independent document and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday without permission from or any kind of communication with the Department of Health and Social Care. I do not know what communication the university had with NHS England, but no information was passed to us. The beauty of having an independent document is that it can be published when the organisation sees fit and the Government will have to respond to it.[Official Report, 9 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 8MC.]
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
During my career as a paediatrician, I have seen huge improvements in the care of children and young people with severe and moderate learning disability, many of whom have survived into adulthood when that would not have been the case years ago. Owing to the association between severe and moderate learning disability and other medical problems that may limit someone’s lifespan, it is unlikely to ever be equal to that of the general population, but we should always ensure that the care of the most vulnerable in society is as good as it can be, and I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that it is. Such people are cared for jointly in hospitals and in the community, so will she confirm that hospitals and community care will work together following such reviews?
Caroline Dinenage
This is something that my hon. Friend, as a healthcare professional, obviously knows an awful lot about. She is right that a person having the ability to communicate, understand and identify when they do not feel well is important. These annual health checks, which are available to children from the age of 14 and into adulthood, are important because they enable any healthcare issues to be disseminated and communicated much more effectively between different healthcare and other providers.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Can the Minister guarantee that future publications of such sensitive reports will be done in a timely manner and given proper parliamentary scrutiny?
Caroline Dinenage
I will certainly put that request to NHS England. It was not in our interest for the report to be published on Friday. This is an independent review, but it would have been much better for us to have had foreknowledge of its publication. We would then have brought a statement to the House. We will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to NHS England.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Sepsis has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). Is the Minister aware that the mortality rate for sepsis in the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust has experienced a remarkable turnaround from 49% above the national average to 26% below the national average? Will she look at some of the best practice that is down to the hard work of the doctors and nurses, the awareness-raising campaign and all the other education work happening in that hospital, and disseminate it more widely to benefit such patients?
Caroline Dinenage
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Sepsis is a silent killer. If not identified early, it can lead to life-changing implications or death. She is right that we have made great steps in addressing sepsis. Only a couple of weeks ago, we launched a new e-learning tool to help healthcare professionals better identify the symptoms of sepsis, particularly in children, so they can tackle it early.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has spoken a lot about being committed to improvements in this area. Does she think it is acceptable that she did not know a report in this important area was to be published on Friday? Why did she not come to make a statement today, rather than waiting to be summoned to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)?
Caroline Dinenage
What is unacceptable is that people with learning disabilities have poorer health outcomes than the rest of the population, which is why NHS England commissioned this piece of work and why we are determined to address it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that people with learning disabilities can confidently access good quality sexual health services? What work is she doing with her counterparts in the Department for Education to ensure that young people with learning disabilities receive excellent sex and relationships education?
Caroline Dinenage
This is an important aspect, and I will get in touch with the hon. Lady with a more detailed answer to her question.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
This is a shocking report, and its conclusions demean us all. A lot of people on both sides of the Chamber have asked the Minister and her Department to come up with some actions. Rather than just talking about it, will she commit today to coming back to the House with a specific action plan to prevent and change what has been an absolutely shocking situation for many decades?
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this has been a shocking situation for many decades, which is exactly why this report was commissioned so that we can learn from past errors and identify how to stop them ever happening again. There are nine recommendations in this report, and we will work with NHS England on how to adopt every single one of them.
G4S: Immigration Removal Centres
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the renewal of G4S’s contract to run the Brook House and Tinsley House immigration removal centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The Government have agreed a short-term continuation of G4S’s contract to run the Gatwick immigration removal centres while further work is carried out to identify a long-term manager. The Home Office will launch a further, full competition later this year, after the outcome of two independent reviews. The contract for the management of Brook House and Tinsley House, which was due to expire this month, was put out for tender in November 2016. However, after careful consideration of the bids, it was decided that G4S would continue with the contract for a further two years. This will provide sufficient time to reflect on the two independent reviews’ conclusions, conduct a new procurement exercise, and mobilise the successful provider. As with any procurement process, the Home Office has undertaken a robust evaluation of all bids, supported by a comprehensive due diligence process.
I recognise that the Government have taken this decision against the backdrop of the BBC “Panorama” programme on Brook House, which was broadcast in autumn last year. The previous Home Secretary made it clear at the time that the behaviour on display from some G4S staff was utterly unacceptable and set out our expectation that G4S would take urgent action to address the serious issues the programme uncovered. G4S has put in place a comprehensive action plan and this has quickly delivered improvements at Brook House. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has met G4S to review progress, and visited the two Gatwick centres on 18 January.
Detaining those who are here illegally and who refuse to leave voluntarily is key to maintaining an effective immigration system. But regardless of status, all immigration detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. Please be assured that we will always demand the highest standards from those we entrust with the safety and welfare of those in detention.
Ms Abbott
Is the Minister aware of the concern that the Government put out news of the renewal of the G4S contract on the Friday between local elections and a bank holiday? There must be a suspicion that the Government were hoping to escape scrutiny—the fact that the contract was renewed at all is an even greater scandal.
The Minister mentioned the “Panorama” programme, but is she aware of a whole list of scandals in which G4S has been involved? In 2016, the BBC’s “Panorama” programme also uncovered alleged abuse and mistreatment of youngsters at a G4S youth detention centre; in November 2017, an independent report found surging levels of violence were “unsafe”; another G4S facility, HMP Birmingham, was hit by riots in December 2016; and G4S was fined at least 100 times for breaching its contract to run prisons between 2010 and 2016. There is also the very well-known case of father of five Jimmy Mubenga, who died under restraint on a British Airways plane while being deported. Several witnesses said he was held down in his seat for more than half an hour by G4S guards. His cries that he could not breathe were ignored until he actually stopped breathing. A 2011 inquest ruled his death unlawful. We have seen with the Windrush scandal that the public want an immigration system that is fair and efficient, and that bears down on illegal immigration, but they also want an immigration system that is humane. Many will feel that, given what people know about G4S’s record, renewing this contract, even for two years, is not commensurate with a humane system of dealing with migrants.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the right hon. Lady for the urgent question. Let me reassure her that the decision to re-award the contract was taken during purdah and so we announced this on the first available opportunity after polling day on Thursday—the announcement was made on Friday. I hope that assuages her concerns as to why this has not happened more timeously. I am very conscious that I am being scrutinised here in the House, so I do not think the Government can be accused of escaping scrutiny.
As for the re-procurement process, it is precisely because we want to ensure that the long-term contract for these centres is dealt with in the way we expect that we have put in place this short-term continuation, for a period of two years. That will enable us to consider carefully the results of the independent reviews conducted by Stephen Shaw and Kate Lampard, and then build the procurement process. At the risk of striking a tone that is unusual to hear in the Chamber, we can agree across the House that we wish to have an immigration system that respects those who abide by the rules and that treats people fairly and with dignity and respect.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are serious challenges in both the immigration and the prison custodial sectors, whether run publicly or privately? I wish to go immediately from here to listen to a discussion on substance misuse in prisons that is being held by the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group. If, like me, my hon. Friend has read the annual report of Brook House IRC’s independent monitoring board, she will have seen that the board in no way at all came to the same conclusions about the merits of G4S as the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Victoria Atkins
I note that the independent monitoring board report noted the commitment of staff to the provision of a safe environment and included recommendations to improve the safeguarding of vulnerable detainees. Shortly, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will write to the chairman of the independent monitoring board, because that board plays such an important part. It is made up of members of the public who independently review these institutions, as similar boards review institutions across other parts of the immigration and prison system. Their role is so important in ensuring that the rules and standards that we expect are maintained by those who are entrusted with such responsibility.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The independent monitoring board also found that the use of force against people in Brook House increased by more than 160% in the two years between 2015 and 2017. Was the Home Secretary aware of that finding in the independent monitoring board’s report before he announced the renewal of G4S’s contract? If so, why did he renew it? These immigration detainees are not criminals, and there is growing anger at the Government’s policy of detaining them in detention centres without any fixed time limit. Will the Minister commit now to allowing Parliament a vote on this inhumane and unjust policy?
Victoria Atkins
The new Home Secretary has reviewed the evidence put before him and agreed with the short-term extension of the contract. We are clear that, following the two reviews that we hope will report over the next few months, we will be able to ensure that the procurement process meets the expectations of the House and of those outside it.
On G4S, as soon as the “Panorama” programme was aired, the Government set out clear expectations in our action plan. We have carried out a range of actions to meet the expectations set in that action plan, including improved training for staff and enhanced staffing levels, with recruitment and training plans in place.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I commend the Minister for the Government’s having taken swift action following the appalling “Panorama” programme. These immigration centres contain many vulnerable people. Feltham young offenders institution became the first autism accredited penal establishment in the world, and it found that that helped greatly. Will the Minister look into the possibility of rolling out that programme, particularly across the immigration estate, so that we can develop and implement standards by which we can protect vulnerable people in a custodial environment?
Victoria Atkins
Of course, my right hon. Friend has campaigned effectively for a long time on the importance of recognising autism and how we should treat it. Stephen Shaw set out in his 2015 report his concerns about adults who were vulnerable or at risk in the custodial environment. Indeed, that is why he has been commissioned to write a second report—a follow-up review—on the welfare of vulnerable detainees. I very much look forward to reading that report and its conclusions in due course.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
How much did the abortive tender process cost the taxpayer, and were there any bidders, other than G4S, for the initial contract when it was offered up for renewal?
Victoria Atkins
With regard to the original procurement process, due diligence was conducted, as would be expected, after the bids were received. In the light of the “Panorama” programme, further due diligence was conducted, and, as a result of further due diligence into the process, the Government have decided that the procurement process should be reopened so that all the actors in this field can take into account the two reviews that we are awaiting this year.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Where there is bad practice, it is important that staff are empowered to speak out. Will my hon. Friend tell me what G4S is doing to ensure that secure whistleblowing procedures are in place?
Victoria Atkins
That is one of the requirements in the action plan that the Government set G4S after the programme. We are very clear that whistleblowers are essential to ensuring that problems are brought to light effectively and quickly. As part of the action plan, G4S has reinforced its whistleblowing policy. All staff have been issued with cards featuring telephone numbers to enable them to raise concerns confidentially, and following work with the Jill Dando Institute, G4S has trained staff to become “speak out” champions, promoting and embedding the message that whistleblowing is not just desirable, but a clear expectation when unacceptable behaviour is witnessed. In addition, there is also the introduction of body-worn cameras, which serve, I hope, to reassure the House and others that there is transparency and that, if there are allegations, we can very quickly get to the truth of them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome the fact that this is a time-limited renewal. The Minister will know that many of those who are detained in these centres are there following the refusal of their applications for asylum. She will have seen the report on the BBC website today where one Home Office caseworker describes that system as being “arbitrary” in its outcomes. When it comes to the point that we renew this contract, or whatever follows it after the reviews, will the Minister give us some guarantee that we will look at not just the detention but the whole system that leads people to that point?
Victoria Atkins
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, last week, the Home Secretary set out in two statements before the House his vision for immigration policy and the principles that he expects to be applied to immigration policy. Taking into account the reviews that are being conducted, I am sure that those principles will be very much at the forefront of his mind.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is the mode, the mean and the median time spent by the existing cohort of detainees at the Gatwick detention centres?
Victoria Atkins
I think that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. Let me just put the matter into context: 95% of individuals liable to removal from the UK at any one time are not detained and are therefore managed in the community. With regard to the time that people spend in detention, 63% of detainees left detention in under 29 days in 2017 and 92% left within four months.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Following the Brook House scandal, I asked the Cabinet Office whether G4S had been considered for designation as a high-risk supplier, but I was stonewalled with the answer that such information is not published. Given that what we saw at Brook House was an appalling, comprehensive and systemic management failure, will the Minister explain what constitutes high risk?
Victoria Atkins
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not privy to that set of correspondence between him and the relevant Minister. The action plan put in place with G4S was demanding. Indeed, out of that plan, a new manager was appointed, nine members of staff were dismissed and a range of measures were put in place with regards to staffing levels, body-worn cameras, training and whistleblowing procedures. The company’s drug strategy was also improved as part of the action plan to try to get to the nub of what was shown in “Panorama”, but I want to be absolutely clear that the actions shown in that programme were simply unacceptable.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
In the Windrush debate, I think that there is now a growing recognition on all sides that our immigration policy needs to show that it balances humanity with a robust ability to deal with those who are here illegally. The contract with G4S was a short-term award, but does my hon. Friend agree that, when the contract is awarded on a long-term basis, those bidding must demonstrate that they understand that and can deliver it?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. The competition will be a free and fair one, in that bidders will be expected to show that they can meet the expectations of the Government and others when it comes to quality, financial stability and price.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Incidents of serious violence and cover-ups in G4S-run institutions such as Medway secure training centre go back at least 15 years. Indeed, G4S sold what it called its children’s services business, which seemed like an admission of failure on its part. Why, then, would the Government give the company an extra two-year contract? What other ideas did they consider? Did they think about taking the service back in-house, as they have done in previous cases of failure by private providers?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman talks about simply taking matters back in-house, but we have to acknowledge the complexity of providing services to people who often have vulnerabilities. When these people are in the centres, they may well be pursuing live claims on their immigration status themselves. Given the need to continue to provide these services at the standards that we expect, the view was taken that we would extend the current contract by two years, thus enabling a proper procurement process to occur in the light of the two reviews and allowing a decision on the next contract to be taken in good time and with care.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Where there is bad practice, it is of course important that staff who witness it feel empowered to speak out. How has the Minister satisfied herself that G4S has appropriate whistleblowing procedures in place to allow that to happen?
Victoria Atkins
The need for G4S drastically to improve its whistleblowing procedures was part of the action plan. As I have set out already, G4S has taken various steps, including embedding the culture of making available telephone numbers that enable people to raise their concerns confidentially and training staff to be “speak out” champions—promoting and embedding the expectation that staff will speak out. In addition, body-worn cameras help to take the burden from people who may be worried about reporting. Of course, the independent monitoring board has an important role in ensuring that there are people who inspect and are monitoring the behaviour of the staff and organisations in this world.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
There was a criminal investigation following the scandal highlighted by “Panorama”. Will the Minister tell us what happened following that investigation? Have people been punished? May I also press her on the question of this House having a vote, so that this country can be brought in line with other European nations where there is a 28-day statutory limit on the time for which people can be held in such facilities? Far too many people detained in such facilities should be in the community, not in detention centres.
Victoria Atkins
On the hon. Lady’s query about police investigations, allegations were passed to the police. I understand that there is one case where an investigation is ongoing. I cannot assist the House further on that, I am afraid. Indeed, given that that is the case, perhaps I should not be commenting on it anyway.
On the wider point about time limits, this is a matter that the Home Office reviews and looks into very carefully. The vast majority of people who challenge the requirement to remove them under their right to remain status are in the community already. The fact that most detainees left detention in under 29 days should, I hope, offer her some comfort, but of course we must always look at how we can improve that figure further.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Minister will have heard from all parts of the House the shock at these revelations. Bearing that in mind, will she confirm that there have been substantial changes to the practices at Brook House since these revelations have come to light and set out what oversight the Government will have over G4S during the contract extension period?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his interest. An action plan was put in place that included appointing a new manager and dismissing nine staff, enhancing staffing levels with recruitment and training plans, introducing body-worn cameras for staff to provide more transparency and assurance, refreshing and promoting whistleblowing procedures, putting in place an improved drugs strategy, and commissioning an independent review led by Kate Lampard to look at the root causes of the issues highlighted that is expected to report this summer. In addition, the Home Office monitors this continuously. Indeed, the Home Office has strengthened its staff numbers at the centres to try to help on a casework basis people who may wish to return voluntarily.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
G4S’s performance in how it delivers public contracts is woefully inadequate, and not only in the Prison Service. G4S runs the transport service for my local hospital. Last week, I had to go to rescue a 94-year-old relative from a discharge area full of patients who had been waiting over five hours for G4S to turn up, and this is a regular occurrence. I am a governor of a school where G4S consistently fails to deliver on the school maintenance contract. When are the Government going to get a grip and deal with G4S, because there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of this company?
Victoria Atkins
G4S is held to account not just by the Home Office but centrally through Cabinet Office reporting requirements. The new procurement process will provide a basis for further progress on all these issues, and the progress of G4S will continue to be monitored very closely.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Morton Hall in my constituency is an immigration removal centre facing significant challenges and issues. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to improve immigration removal centres including not just Brook House but Morton Hall?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend will know of the issues in her own constituency. Morton Hall is in a slightly different category because it is run by the Prison Service and not by G4S. That reflects the fact that these are people who are being detained in a prison environment awaiting their removal. The Government take very seriously the treatment of people whose immigration status is not to their liking and who have appeals and so on in the process. The fact that the vast majority of people who are liable to removal from the UK are in the community being dealt with through alternatives to detention should, I hope, give comfort to the House.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
If “Panorama” shocked the nation with its depiction of racial abuse and choking of detainees at Brook House, the collapse of Carillion like a pack of cards has exposed that the outsourcing model is failing our public services. Why are the Government persisting with this course of action, or on a sunny pre-bank holiday filled with local election results, did they think no one would notice?
Victoria Atkins
I can only assume that the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber when the shadow Home Secretary asked me that question. The answer is that the decision was taken during the purdah period, so the announcement was made on the first available day after purdah. Again, I reflect on the fact that I am standing here at the Dispatch Box being scrutinised.
The fact is that there is a role for private sector involvement in the delivery of services, as long as we ensure that it is about delivering the best public services at the best value for money. I remind the House that this is not a new thing; it did not come about in 2015 or 2017. Private companies have been helping the Government to deliver various services since the 1990s, including under a Labour Government.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I say to the Minister that this is an urgent question, not a statement that she has come to the House to make? She has been brought here to answer questions. G4S seems to be able to fail in a variety of contracts, without any consequences at all. There have been failures in prisons, electronic tagging, secure units and now immigration detention centres. When are the Government going to get a grip and sort this out?
Victoria Atkins
As I have said, the Government are awaiting the two reviews that are being conducted, and we will consider those results very carefully. The re-procurement process will be started afresh, and from that, expectations will be set and standards will have to be met.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I say not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is correct: this is indeed an urgent question, and on the principle that the House and perhaps those attending to our proceedings like to have a bit of extra information, I can vouchsafe to all present that this is the 465th urgent question that I have been pleased to grant.
Kate Green
I have to say to the Minister that a two-year extension—what she calls a “short” extension—to the contract will seem to many like a reward to G4S for its failure. If she is now reopening and rerunning the tendering process, will she take the opportunity to do that in tandem with a review of the tendering and provision of healthcare services in immigration detention centres, which seem to be woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the very vulnerable detainees who have been mentioned this afternoon?
Victoria Atkins
May I explain the reason why two years has been settled upon? The Home Office has taken the view that that is the minimum period required realistically to revisit the specification, to run a full and legally compliant procurement process, to complete all the relevant governance processes and to mobilise the new services. That timetable is not unusual for a procurement of this sort of value. I will ask the Immigration Minister to write to her on the question about healthcare.
Point of Order
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could help me with a situation that has arisen in Buckinghamshire and therefore may be of concern to you.
We were all delighted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was promoted to the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) took over at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, that has coincided with the potential reorganisation of local government in Buckinghamshire. Because it is quite hotly contested between having one unitary authority or two local authorities, notices have gone out to ask constituents to feed into the Secretary of State their feelings about the “minded to” decision that he announced.
Unfortunately, the email address given out by the Ministry and printed in all the leaflets that have been distributed throughout the county was based on the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. We were assured that the address would remain open until 25 May, when the decision is due, but despite the assurances from the Ministry, it appears that constituents trying to put in their representations are now getting a bounce-back message saying that the email has address has been closed. There are no instructions as to who they should now contact and no information given as to why the address has closed. That means that constituents’ views are not getting through to the Ministry on this matter, which, as I know you appreciate, is very important.
What can we do about that? Is there any way we can ask a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that the email address will be reopened, or can we ensure that we get an extended period, so that we can put to rights this aberration whereby people have been asked for their opinions, but the wherewithal of giving that opinion to the Ministry has been unilaterally withdrawn without any notice?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, and for her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. This certainly sounds rum, and it is indeed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am very familiar with the issue because, as she suggests, it is of course a matter of concern to my constituents and to hers, as well as to those in other Buckinghamshire constituencies.
I think the effect of the right hon. Lady raising this matter on the Floor of the House is that the gravamen of her concern will be speedily communicated to the new Secretary of State, and an appropriate change must be made. Technology can be very helpful, but if it is dysfunctional or inflexible, it does not aid but obstruct, which cannot be allowed to happen. If people have been told that they have a certain period in which to get across their views by a convenient means, such a means must be available, and if it ceases to be available, it must be restored.
I do not want to tease the right hon. Lady. I have known her a very long time, so I can probably get away with a bit, although she looks a bit doubtful on that score. I just want to say to the right hon. Lady, whom I have known for a very long time—she has been my county colleague for over two decades—that even though she is now a dame, and therefore even more illustrious than she used to be, she is very much in touch, grounded in her constituency and well aware of these matters. That is in stark contrast, I must admit, to one of my great historical parliamentary heroes, Edmund Burke. I remember that I used to rhapsodise about Burke, until Tony Benn said to me, “John, I wouldn’t overdo it if I were you. Burke may have been a great man, but his visits to his constituency were by way of being an annual pilgrimage.” By contrast, the right hon. Lady seems to know what is being said on her watch. I do not know whether she is happy with my answer to her point of order, but that is the answer she is getting.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most grateful, and I am glad to have given you the opportunity to wax lyrical about one of your heroes. I hope that this will lead to the reopening of the email address, and that the Department will take note so that our constituents can get their message through. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady’s hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is gesticulating from a sedentary position to the effect that he is communicating the thrust of this exchange to the Department now. What a whizz kid the hon. Gentleman is. I am most impressed. [Interruption.] They both look frightfully happy with the product of their endeavours this afternoon.
If there are no further points of order, we now come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) has been so patiently waiting.
Protection of Pollinators
Tuesday 8th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Protection of Pollinators Bill 2017-19 View all Protection of Pollinators 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
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the protection of pollinators; and for connected purposes.
This Bill would place a duty on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in consultation with local authorities, to bring forward a mechanism for and plan to deliver a national network of pollinator corridors containing spaces rich in wildflower habitat. It would also encourage public authorities to seek opportunities to contribute to the development and implementation of pollinator corridors. There has certainly been a bit of a buzz about bees and insects in recent years. That was a nice one to start with, and I may reach something of a crescendo with the puns later.
Wild pollinators include bees, butterflies, moths, flies and various other insects such as beetles and wasps. More than two thirds of Britain’s pollinators are in decline, including many species of bumblebee, butterfly and moth. Indeed, 35 of the UK’s bee species are currently under threat of extinction. Although they make the headlines most often, it is not just bees that are struggling: 76% of UK butterfly species and 66% of UK moth species are also in decline. The public are very concerned about that decline—indeed, as many colleagues will attest, they often write to their MPs about this issue. In terms of the volume of emails on a specific campaign, this issue and other animal welfare concerns are always among the most popular. I am sure we have all experienced the enthusiastic campaigns of groups such as Buglife and the Wildlife Trusts at our respective party conferences.
Pollinators are facing unprecedented challenges, including climate change, intensive farming, pests and diseases, pesticide use and urban growth. They need food, water, shelter and nesting areas as well as the ability to roam far and wide—as they would naturally, without the barriers placed in their way as a result of urban sprawl. As the concrete jungle grows, their natural habitat inevitably shrinks.
Dramatic losses of wildflower-rich habitat and the fragmentation of the remaining protected spaces are some of the main threats to the survival of many pollinators. A significant further decline in their population would be a disaster for the UK: devastating for our farmers and our food sustainability. It would also have a huge impact on a wide range of businesses that rely on these insect-pollinated crops; our cider producers and food manufacturers, for example, would be hit hard.
Insect pollinators benefit both the yield and the quality of many crops. Studies suggest that their activity is worth nearly £700 million to UK food production annually—equivalent to 13% of the value of our agricultural produce. There is no overall assessment of the current impact of the decline on crop production, but we know that a lack of pollinators is already costing apple growers, for example, millions of pounds each year. A further decline would also devastate our wildflower population and change our biodiversity forever. It is important to note that creating wildlife sanctuaries and protecting our green spaces will not only support our bees and insects; it will also have other positive outcomes for everything else. It will have a beneficial impact on our local communities, and on our individual mental health and wellbeing. That is as significant—if not more so—in deprived areas as in our leafy suburbs. Green spaces are places of tranquillity and provide a space away from the hustle, bustle and stresses of modern life—the more the merrier, in my view.
I met my hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently to discuss the protection of pollinators, which, I was pleased to hear, is a priority for the Government. I was pleased to hear about the positive work under way on the national pollinator strategy—an approach setting out how the Government, beekeepers, conservation groups, farmers and researchers can work towards common goals together.
A 2016 report on the implementation of the strategy highlighted positive progress across its actions, including on habitat creation, public engagement, protecting honey bee health and improving our understanding of this issue. Given the importance and value of pollinators, it is right that we should discuss whether there is a need for further legislation to work alongside the strategy and the powers currently in place. The national pollinator strategy is a 10-year plan, which was published in November 2014. It sets out the Government’s commitment to playing a leading role in improving the status of the 1,500 or so pollinating insects in England. The strategy is an important step in protecting bees and other insects.
It is also important to recognise that current legislation includes the provision to regulate the use of pesticides and provide protection for bees and our most threatened species. Those are all positive steps, but I still believe that more could be done. The strategy covers key issues such as supporting pollinators on farmland and supporting bees and insects across towns, cities and the countryside, but it does not emphasise or plan to support pollinator pathways and corridors. Government support so far has focused on temporary habitats and patches of protected countryside. Although those provide some benefits to pollinators, they do not provide the variety of flora or the nesting habitats required for them to thrive.
The best habitats are fragmented throughout the UK, and insects are still confined to small areas—pollinators are not free to fly as they naturally would, but are often stuck in small pockets without the freedom to roam far and wide. That is especially problematic when we develop on land that does not have the connections and pathways to allow insects and wildlife to move to new areas. Almost a fifth of these habitats have been lost. Independent scientific reviews have identified the loss of wildflower-rich habitats as the likely primary cause of the recorded decline in the diversity of wild bees and other pollinating insects. When we develop on green space, too often we lose the local wildlife. This is where the Bill and pollinator corridors come in.
Charities such as Buglife have been working on solutions to our pollinator problems. One option is something it has called “B-Lines”. B-Lines are a series of insect pathways running through our countryside and towns. Along them stretch a series of wildflower-rich habitat stepping stones, providing support for these species and others. They are effectively a road network for insects. B-Lines provide a framework in which to target large-scale habitat restoration, as well as small-scale pollinator resources. The framework helps to encourage landowners, businesses and the public to get involved locally. Going forward, the B-Lines network would ideally be identified within local plan frameworks to ensure a more joined-up approach, so that local authorities, developers, landowners and managers, and other partners, can work together to support pollinator corridors. Co-ordinated habitat restoration will help to ensure that we develop pollinator-friendly landscapes more efficiently and quickly.
The fragmentation of habitats presents a significant threat to species, as they find it increasingly difficult to colonise new areas, particularly as our climate changes. Where there is more continuous habitat, species can spread faster.
Modelling has demonstrated that targeting support at grassland habitat restoration and creation, and creating a channelled pattern of habitats is the most effective way of promoting species dispersal. The Bill will encourage local authorities to reference and support pollinators within their local plans and local environmental strategies. It will help to ensure the increased delivery of the national pollinator strategy locally and importantly it will promote the B-Lines network as a priority for action.
There are some positive case studies which show that this approach can be successful. On the banks of the River Derwent, east of York, a landowner was inspired by the B-Lines idea and proposed the creation of a new wildflower-rich floodplain meadow. The landowner worked with Buglife to turn a six hectare arable field, where flooding was an issue, into a large wildflower-rich habitat, which acted as a new stepping stone for pollinators on the B-Lines network. In addition, it helps to reduce sediment leaching into the river system. It shows that increasing our wildflower networks can have multiple environmental benefits.
In Kent, commercial orchards within the B-Lines network near Maidstone have been increasing pollinator habitat by changing mowing regimes to promote wildflowers between fruit trees. This is a win-win situation: a simple change that results in increasing habitat for wild pollinators and also helps to increase crop yields.
In the north-west of England one of the B-Line partners, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, is working with Highways England to focus on key stretches of the A66 and A595, aiming to use parts of the highways estate and other land to support pollinators and create B-Lines, increasing wildflower-rich habitat and helping to reduce the fragmentation of existing wildflower-rich areas.
B-Lines also provide an opportunity for Government Departments and agencies to prioritise work for pollinators. Buglife is working with both the Ministry of Justice and the Environment Agency to identify key sites, including prisons, seawalls and floodplains, where wildflower habitat creation could be taken forward. I hope that the Bill will place renewed emphasis on that work. The Bill asks the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to bring forward a mechanism to deliver B-Lines, including a national map of pollinator corridors, which will in turn encourage local authorities to act to support pollinators. Local authorities are of course best placed to know their local environment, understand specific local challenges and the needs of the local population.
Protecting pollinators involves action by many different groups, including large-scale and small-scale farmers. Farmers have played an important role so far. They are the custodians of much of our natural environment and have generally worked hard to support bees and insects. I want to recognise the work that farmers have played in supporting our pollinators and their crucial role in the success of pollinator corridors, as well as the importance of protecting wildlife for our agriculture and food supply too. Protecting pollinators does not need to be an onerous commitment for farmers, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or local authorities. It is an example of an evidence based approach with all-round benefits that need not consume huge resources to deliver an impact.
Local authorities already have a duty to conserve biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The national planning policy framework states that plans should include a strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment and support for nature improvement areas. The Bill is another step towards encouraging local authorities to explicitly reference pollinators within local plans. I am pleased to confirm that it will also involve minimal expenditure for local authorities.
Helping bees and other insects can be easy, as the case studies I mentioned have demonstrated. Whether it is changing the patterns of cutting local verges, decreasing grass cutting in remote areas or working with local charities and housing developers to encourage pollinators in our urban spaces, the Bill does not seek to place a financial commitment on local authorities. Buglife and Friends of the Earth have published a paper that looks at developing local pollinator action plans. The Bill is another way to advance those plans.
You will like this bit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to end on a high. We have an opportunity to make a beeline for the protection and growth of our pollinator population, which I am sure colleagues will flock to support like moths to a flame. DEFRA has been a hive of activity and positive announcements in recent months, and this could add further to their success. There has been a lot of talk and some positive steps. I do not believe that we have been just bumbling along. We must ensure that there is a sting in the tail. Further action must be taken. I had a joke about calling somebody “Honey”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will take it out as Mr Speaker has left the Chamber.
Having spoken to colleagues, I know that there is widespread support across the House for the protection of pollinators and for the idea of pollinator corridors. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Roger Gale, Sir Oliver Letwin, Dr Matthew Offord, Andrew Selous, Neil Parish and Ben Bradley present the Bill.
Ben Bradley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 206).
The Speaker's Absence
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill
Tuesday 8th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 View all Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 May 2018 - (8 May 2018)
18:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, 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”.
Amendment 2, 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).”
Amendment 3, 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.”
Melanie Onn
We are here to discuss a short but important Bill. It has been introduced by the Government to plug the gaps left by ministerial incompetence in the progression of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Despite the Opposition’s warnings, the Government failed to listen, so we are here today to remedy the situation as fully as possible for victims of domestic violence.
In Committee, we tabled an amendment to try to secure additional guidance and training for local authority staff who are expected to make decisions about domestic violence cases. In response, the Minister talked about the high quality of Southwark Council’s homelessness team as an example of the Government already providing enough support. I am convinced that Southwark Council is doing an excellent job, but it has taken part in a number of pilot schemes, so surely the Minister recognises that it will not be representative of the whole country, particularly as it has been allocated well over £1 million to deal with the new burdens that have been introduced under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. Although there are good reasons for the extra funding, it allows the council to employ specialised officers who are responsible for specific areas of homelessness and to provide an holistic approach to those presenting as homeless.
However, if we look at another city elsewhere in the country—York—we find that it has been allocated just over one twentieth of the resources provided to Southwark and it does not have enough money even to hire one experienced housing officer, never mind a specified officer to deal with domestic abuse cases. The truth is that the quality of domestic abuse homelessness provision varies massively from authority to authority, and getting the proper care is far too much of a postcode lottery.
Although I am not introducing an amendment on this issue today, I hope that the Government consider the reports from charities such as Women’s Aid about the difficulty that some women face when trying to explain their situation to local councils. There are cases of women being told to go back to the perpetrator or to come back when the situation got worse. I think we can all agree that that is completely unacceptable. The Minister should look into those reports and take steps to improve the quality of advice in boroughs and districts where problems have been identified with the treatment of domestic abuse victims.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but does she not welcome the fact that the Government are introducing an extra £17 million to help more than 40 local authorities to provide better services? The Government really have made this a priority; does she not welcome that?
Melanie Onn
As I made clear, we are not tabling an amendment on this, but I urge the Minister to consider the reports from Women’s Aid to make sure that across the country there is parity of service for all victims of domestic violence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There is obviously consensus that the Bill is a step in the right direction, and we welcome it, but are there not other barriers to secure tenancies—for example, if debt was incurred in the previous tenancy? Will social landlords have to accept these women? A lot of advice needs to be given, and that is why it is important that the extra services and help are provided.
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I agree: sufficient support should be available across the whole country. Very often, individuals will present with unique circumstances, and legislation cannot provide for each and every eventuality, but making sure that the appropriate training is in place across the country will go some way towards assisting those individuals.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend is saying about the postcode lottery. When I raised that on Second Reading, the Minister said that I was complaining about an issue that did not exist, but it has become clear from subsequent meetings with Women’s Aid that different local authorities are applying very different interpretations of the rights in terms of housing allocations and local connections, so I support her efforts to ensure more consistency across the piece.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and concur with his remarks. Other issues raised by hon. Members have prompted assurances during the Bill’s progress, and I take the Minister at her word and hope the Government live up to her words.
New clause 1 would ensure that cross-border travel does not negatively affect the rights in the Bill. People who flee domestic abuse end up in all parts of the country, but an unevenness in legislation means that domestic abuse victims in the devolved nations are subject to different rights and protections. The new clause seeks to protect the rights of domestic abuse victims countrywide and ensure that travelling from one council area in one country to another in another country does not impede the rights of a domestic abuse victim.
Domestic abuse victims often have little time to plan when fleeing an abusive partner and are unlikely to think that a move to their nearest large town or city might change their circumstances as a victim of domestic abuse, yet that is the reality in places such as Chester and Wrexham. It should be unequivocal that the rights in the Bill travel with the victims. In Committee, the Minister informed me that this matter would be brought up at the devolved Administration roundtable last month in the hope of agreeing a memorandum of understanding between the Administrations.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to do, but I do not think her new clause does it, because it says that the Government should “review” the situation. What powers would she want the Government to take to override devolved Governments?
Melanie Onn
The purpose of the new clause is not to override the devolved Administrations, which is why it calls for a review. If the right hon. Gentleman listens to the remainder of my speech, perhaps it will clarify things for him.
I am pleased to see action to improve cross-border collaboration, but I have not seen any such memorandum. In any event, domestic abuse victims need more than a memorandum of understanding, and we have the opportunity to give them just that right now. I am aware of the sensitivities surrounding devolution, so the new clause does not seek to impose Parliament’s desires on the devolved Administrations, but would instead commit the Government to publishing a review of the domestic abuse policies of each Administration and to working towards ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are treated equally when they move from one nation to another.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Has the hon. Lady written to the Scottish Parliament or Administration, or indeed to the Welsh Government, to ask whether they approve of her new clause?
Melanie Onn
I have relied on the good offices of the Minister, who is in government, to undertake the duties of consultation with the devolved Administrations, which was due to take place, I believe, on 19 April, and we await the distribution of a note on the outcome of those meetings, which was requested but which I have not had sight of as yet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
It was emailed to the hon. Lady and all Committee members this morning.
Melanie Onn
That is an opportune time for materials to be sent, as we found out during the urgent questions this morning. I am sorry I have not seen the note. I am grateful that the Minister has provided it, but it is incredibly unfortunate it was not provided sooner, because the information might well have informed the debate. [Interruption.] The Minister may well wish to provide it to me right now, but I am in the middle of my speech and it would be difficult for me to speak and read at the same time—as good as I am at multi-tasking!
Amendment 1 adds a requirement for a secure tenancy to be offered when domestic abuse victims apply for rehousing in a local authority area different from the one in which they previously had their secure tenancy. In Committee, the Minister said that the amendment was ineffective because the requirement was already provided for in the Bill, but there remains some unease about the current wording. The amendment would provide peace of mind, as prescribed by the Government back in 2016. We must not forget that the sector has been waiting for two years, having been assured by the Government that the requirement would be covered by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that we do not end up in the same position again if it turns out that the Bill does not guarantee domestic abuse victims secure tenancies if they end up crossing local authority boundaries.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, welcomes the fact that tenants who have suffered domestic abuse will be offered secure tenancies, but does she share my concern about evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee that when local authorities apply to the Department for Work and Pensions for benefits to support a victim of domestic abuse, they are frequently told that it will be several weeks before a decision can be made, and victims are returning to perpetrators because they cannot be guaranteed the funds that would secure their secure housing?
Melanie Onn
That is an important point, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. The issue needs to be dealt with on a cross-Government basis. The Minister has given repeated assurances that she is engaged in conversation with representatives of other Departments, but there certainly should not be any Government policies that discourage victims of domestic violence from leaving the perpetrators of that violence.
Two thirds of all domestic abuse victims who present themselves at refuges come from outside the local area. We know that housing insecurity is a major reason for the fact that too many victims stay with their partners. The amendment is important, because this issue affects far too many of the domestic abuse victims whom we are trying to help today for us to leave things to chance. For the sake of absolute clarity, I ask the Minister again to accept it. I assure Conservative Members that this is not a matter of policy or politics, but a matter of good practice.
Amendment 2 would ensure that victims of domestic abuse do not have to pay extra charges as a result of the bedroom tax if they are provided with a secure tenancy that incorporates a spare room. There are particularly good reasons why the Government must see sense when considering whether to apply the tax to victims of domestic violence. Victims face all sorts of barriers to leaving abusive partners, and the sad impact is that one in five spends more than 10 years living with an abusive partner. That statistic applies only to women who are able to leave: as we all know, countless women never manage to leave their abusive partners, and every week two women are killed by a partner or ex-partner. That is why we need to knock down as many of the barriers as possible.
The amendment would help to remove some of the financial pressure on people fleeing domestic violence, and will ensure that no one who is considering leaving an abusive relationship has to worry about the extra burden that the bedroom tax could add to their costs. It is a vital amendment, because domestic violence victims often have limited means, and may not be able to take jobs that would enable them to provide for themselves and their families. Many domestic violence victims have been subject to financial abuse, being forced to quit their jobs and give their money to their abusive partners, and having little control over their own finances. Domestic abuse victims need help, not a cruel and unnecessary tax over which they have no control. I plead with the Government to make an exception to their bedroom tax, and provide the help and support that domestic abuse victims desperately need.
Amendment 3 would ensure that those in housing association properties are given the same rights to secure tenancies as those in council housing. In Committee, I was concerned about the Minister’s seeming lack of appreciation of the variety of council housing available. While I accept that some housing associations fulfil different functions in society from councils providing housing, a number of them represent the sole social housing provision in a local authority. In Committee, the Minister said that
“local authorities and housing associations are very different entities, which are subject to different drivers and challenges.”––[Official Report, Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2018; c. 30.]
If someone is a resident of Wakefield, their social housing is managed by the Wakefield and District housing association, which exists to manage the local authority’s housing needs and assets, whereas my own local authority underwent a full stock transfer, with tenancies transferring as per council tenancies. Many housing associations in this country have extremely similar drivers and challenges to council-managed housing, and many people in areas such as Wakefield still think of their housing association house as a council house. This amendment seeks to ensure that such victims of domestic abuse in areas such as Wakefield and North East Lincolnshire are given the same rights and protections as those in council housing.
Mrs Wheeler
Before responding to the specific amendments, I would like to say a few words about a number of the issues that arose in Committee. Also, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) did not get that original letter; I will pass it over to her in a second.
The issue of doctors charging fees for letters of evidence of domestic abuse was first raised in the other place and was raised again on Second Reading and in Committee in the House. In my response, I said that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, had written to the Department of Health and Social Care to raise peers’ concerns about this issue, and following our discussions I can now inform hon. Members that the Department has agreed to include in the remit for the negotiation on changes to the GP contract for 2019-20 stopping GPs charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of letters or notes of evidence of abuse. This is a negotiation process, so the Department cannot guarantee that the General Practitioners Committee will agree to waive the fee for these services; however, I am sure Members will agree that this is a positive step forward.
I am also aware that concerns have been raised in this House and the other place about a lack of consistency in training for local authority staff to support victims of domestic abuse. I spoke at length in Committee about the new homelessness code of guidance and the emphasis it places on local authorities ensuring that local specialist training on domestic abuse is made available to frontline staff and managers. I also spoke about the funding the Department has provided to the National Homelessness Advice Service and the National Practitioner Support Service over recent years to ensure that such training is put in place. I do not want to repeat myself, but I am very pleased that I can update hon. Members about a new initiative that the Department is funding: the London training academy is being delivered by Southwark Council and will provide training for frontline housing options staff and apprentices; people can apply to go there from any council.
As part of the training, Solace Women’s Aid is providing domestic abuse champions training to 440 housing staff, and that is the figure across London alone. The focus of the training will be on ensuring housing teams understand the impact of domestic abuse, are clear about their roles in supporting victims and survivors, and are able to refer them to the specialist support they need. Again, I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is a very positive development, and that it demonstrates our commitment to ensure that local authority staff are properly equipped to support victims of domestic abuse and to respond appropriately and sensitively to their needs. I am sure, too, that hon. Members will agree that this is really good news and that the London training academy will provide a model, working with Solace, for frontline staff for how such difficult and sensitive cases should be handled. We would like to see that model filter through to all local authorities.
Wera Hobhouse
Women’s refuge places across my constituency, and those other places where women go in the first place, are still very difficult to find. Does the Minister accept that if funding is not provided throughout the whole supported housing sector, the Bill will be doomed to fail?
Mrs Wheeler
Sadly, I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood what the Bill is about. Funding for refuges and other supported housing will be dealt with by 2020 in a different vehicle.
New clause 1 calls for a review into the potential for co-operation between local authorities in England and local authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to include consideration of the scope to extend the provisions of the Bill to apply across the UK. I entirely understand that there will be situations in which someone wishes to escape from one part of the UK to another to get away from an abusive relationship, perhaps to put a safe distance between themselves and their abusive partner, or to move back to where their family and support networks are. I sympathise with the broad intention behind this proposal to increase co-operation between England and the devolved Administrations, and I appreciate that there will be strong support for it. This issue was raised in Committee and also during the passage of the Bill through the Lords. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve that co-operation.
Nor would it be appropriate or necessary to seek to examine the possibility of extending the Bill to make changes to the legislation covering social tenancies in the devolved nations. I do not need to remind hon. Members that housing is a devolved matter. That means that it is for local authorities—or the Housing Executive in the case of Northern Ireland—and social landlords in each part of the UK to decide whether to allow access to social housing and what type of tenancy to grant, in accordance with the law that operates in that country.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It sounds as though the Minister has set her face against amendment 1. Would she consider issuing guidance to local authorities on this issue?
Mrs Wheeler
That will certainly be part of the package, yes. I will read out the letter as well, because that is the killer punch.
It is likely that most victims who flee from one part of the UK to another to escape domestic abuse and who are in need of housing would apply to a local authority for assistance on the basis that they were homeless. Homelessness legislation will provide a safety net for victims fleeing domestic abuse, even when they flee across national borders, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own homelessness legislation. That means that there may be differences of approach in accordance with the requirements of each devolved area. For example, local authorities in Wales, as in England, may discharge their duty to rehouse using the private rented sector.
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 Act applies only to England. A victim of abuse in another part of the UK will not face the same impediment to fleeing their situation for fear of losing their lifetime tenancy. For example, if someone in Scotland were to flee to another council district within Scotland, the second local authority would grant them a lifetime tenancy if and when they were rehoused.
John Redwood
When I asked the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) whether there was a way of overriding the devolved Administrations, she did not seem to understand the question properly, so I am glad that the Minister is explaining that that cannot be done. It is interesting that the Opposition’s amendment 3 expressly states that it applies only to England; whoever drafted their amendments probably did understand the point that the Minister is making.
Mrs Wheeler
Parliamentary drafting is not an easy task, which is why people with greyer hair than mine do the job and I do not. I thank my right hon. Friend for making the situation quite clear.
The commencement of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 does not change the situation. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to include a duty in the Bill—which applies in England only—to consider the potential for amending legislation in other parts of the UK. Parliament has already decided that this area of law should be devolved, so it does not seem right to have an amendment that appears to assume that the Secretary of State has some responsibility for it in relation to the devolved Administrations. Clearly, victims of domestic abuse seeking to move from one part of the UK to another is a common issue in which all parts of the UK have an interest. However, owing to the differences in housing legislation across England and the devolved Administrations, a UK-wide provision in a Bill that is based on an Act that applies to England only is not the correct approach—I am getting to the nub of things now.
During the passage of the Bill in the other place, my hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to raise with colleagues in the devolved Administrations the concerns that have been expressed. I can confirm that Lord Bourne met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on 19 April, and I am pleased to inform Members that he has since written to me to let me know that the devolved Administrations were supportive of the Bill. They have committed to reviewing the impact of the Bill once it comes into force and to let us know about any issues or concerns for victims of domestic abuse should they arise. The letter states:
“I am pleased to be able to inform you that the devolved administrations were supportive of the Bill and could find nothing in it to concern them. This is because they took the view that the Bill had no impact on the ability of social landlords to continue to grant tenancies in their own countries, and they will review the impact of the Bill, together with officials.”
I think that that says it all.
On a more technical note, new clause 1 would not work as currently drafted, because social housing is provided not through local authorities in Northern Ireland but through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. For that and all the other reasons I have given, I do not consider the new clause to be appropriate or necessary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Amendment 1 aims to ensure that the requirement to grant a lifetime tenancy—should a new tenancy be offered—would still apply where the victim of domestic abuse applies to another local authority district to be re-housed. I sympathise entirely with the motivation behind the amendment, and I well understand that victims of domestic abuse may wish or indeed need to put a considerable distance between themselves and their abuser. The Bill is intended to protect all lifetime tenants who are victims of domestic abuse, not only those who need to move from their current home to escape abuse, but those who have already fled from their home. I entirely agree that it is vital that the Bill protects victims who have applied for housing assistance in another local authority district. That is partly why we amended the Bill in the other place to extend it to apply to those who, having fled their homes, may have lost their tenancy or their security of tenure.
We recognise that that may be particularly problematic for those who seek assistance in another local authority area, and I assure the shadow Minister that the Bill has been drafted with that issue in mind. Where the Bill refers to “a local housing authority”, it means that it applies to any and to every local authority in England, just as in the same way it applies to any tenant who has a lifetime local-authority or housing-association tenancy of a dwelling house anywhere in England and who needs to move from that house to escape domestic abuse. That is standard in legislative drafting practice, so local authorities should have no difficulty in understanding what it means. Any amendment to spell that out in the Bill would therefore be unnecessary and redundant.
Toby Perkins
I welcome the reassurance that the Minister has just given us, but the fact is that different local authorities understand the current legislation and their responsibilities to people fleeing domestic violence in different ways, so what possible harm would it do to include amendment 1 so that there would be no cause for any misunderstanding in future?
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman is trying to entice me down a road that I will not go down. This is parliamentary legislative drafting, and there should be no reason whatsoever for local authorities to misunderstand the situation, which will obviously also be made clear in guidance. However, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say it again. We will be issuing guidance to assist local authorities to implement the fixed-term tenancy provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. To manage concerns, we can certainly look to ensure that it explains the provisions in this Bill as well, including making it absolutely clear that it applies where the victim is seeking to be re-housed in a different local authority district from the one in which her existing tenancy is situated.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Under the 2016 Act, housing associations can choose whether to offer a flexible tenancy. What advice will the Government give to housing associations that will not have the same obligation to give a lifetime tenancy if a tenancy moves to another housing association property?
Mrs Wheeler
That is a slightly different clause, which I will come to in a moment. With that in mind, and taking into account the fact that amendment 1 is unnecessary for the reasons I have given, I therefore ask for it not to be pressed.
On amendment 2, I appreciate the concern of hon. Members to prevent further stress and anxiety. Survivors of domestic abuse have already suffered experiences that most of us here can only imagine. However, I do not think the amendment is necessary. The number of households likely to be granted a tenancy under this Bill that would lead them to under-occupy a property, and as a result become subject to removal of the spare room subsidy, is likely to be very small indeed.
Allocating a property that is too big for a tenant’s needs would not be in the interests of the tenant or the landlord. The tenant, if eligible for housing benefit, would see their eligible rent reduced, which would not be in the tenant’s or the landlord’s interest. It would also not be the best use of scarce social housing.
Ruth George
Does the Minister recognise that children who have been through situations of domestic abuse are often severely traumatised and need new secure housing to be able to find their own way again? That might lead them to have problems sleeping at night, and it may therefore be more helpful for the family’s recovery if the younger children have separate bedrooms, not as prescribed in the under-occupancy legislation.
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Lady brings up an interesting fact that was not discussed in Committee. I will address the discretionary powers that local authorities have, which might help her with an answer.
Allocating a property that is too big is not necessarily in the tenant’s interest or the landlord’s interest, and it certainly is not the best use of scarce social housing. Our 2012 allocations guidance clearly recognises that local authorities, when framing the rules that determine the size of property to allocate to different households and in different circumstances, will want to take account of 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 expect that in most cases it would not result in an under-occupation charge—domestic abuse normally occurs between partners who share a bedroom, so removing the perpetrator would not normally result in under-occupation. Furthermore, if there is any risk it could lead to a victim becoming subject to the under-occupation charge, it will be open to the authority to offer a new tenancy in another, smaller property, or to offer a similar one and take into account the next matter.
In the small number of cases in which, for whatever reason, a local authority grants a tenancy under the Bill in a property that has more bedrooms than the tenant needs, it is open to the tenant to apply for a discretionary housing payment to cover any rental shortfall. Some £900 million of funding for discretionary housing payments has been provided to local authorities since 2011 to support vulnerable claimants, including victims of domestic abuse.
Ruth George
Is the Minister aware that many local authorities put a limit on the amount of time for which discretionary housing payments can be made? Sometimes it is 18 weeks, and sometimes it is as low as 12 weeks, depending on the authority’s budget. Discretionary housing payments would therefore not help families in this situation.
Mrs Wheeler
Indeed. Funding for the years 2018 to 2021 was set out in the summer Budget 2015. Next year, 2018-19, there will be £153 million in the discretionary fund for England and Wales, albeit this is an England- only Bill.
The removal of the spare room subsidy was introduced to ensure that tenants in the social and private-rented sectors are treated on the same basis, to encourage mobility, to strengthen work incentives and to make better use of available social housing. The Government’s policy is not to deal with personal circumstances unrelated to the size of a property by the inclusion of general exemptions to the rules, but rather to take account of a person’s individual circumstances separately, through the process of the discretionary housing payment.
In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld this policy and dismissed a challenge to 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. The rules on the removal of the spare room subsidy already include an exception for victims of domestic abuse in refuges. We are not minded to provide for any further exceptions.
When 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 the reasons I have given, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and therefore ask that it is not pressed to a vote.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Minister confirm that in areas where rental accommodation is extremely expensive, there is help for those who need discretionary payments in order to make the weekly rental payments? Is this something she is able to do?
Mrs Wheeler
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is specifically referring to Northern Ireland or anywhere else—
Jim Shannon
In Northern Ireland, we have a discretionary payment that sometimes enables provision to be made where rents are higher. Is the system similar on the UK mainland?
Mrs Wheeler
Again, I stress that this Bill is England-only, but there are such opportunities. There is a local housing rate and then there are discretionary housing payments that can be made above that.
I come to amendment 3, the final amendment. I fully understand the motivation behind this amendment, which would extend the Bill to housing association landlords—this was the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I believe. However, as I said in Committee, we have some fundamental concerns about this amendment. First and foremost, local authorities and housing associations are very different entities. Housing associations are private, not-for-profit organisations which make a significant contribution to affordable housing supply. I am sure Members will agree that we all want to see more affordable homes built. It is therefore vital that housing associations remain in the private sector, so that they can borrow funding free of public sector spending guidelines, to build the affordable housing we so greatly need. For that reason, we must avoid imposing any unnecessary control that might risk reversing—
Toby Perkins
I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. It very much stands at odds with the Conservative party policy announced in the run-up to the general election, when it was going to impose right to buy on housing associations. How is it that the Conservative party is so happy to remove thousands of houses from the social rental sector when it comes to right to buy, but when it comes to legislation to protect domestic violence victims, suddenly the Conservatives feel that the private sector should not be touched?
Mrs Wheeler
Clearly, what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is outside the scope of this Bill, but we are talking about a voluntary pilot that is starting in the west midlands and we will see where that takes us.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
On election manifestos, does the Minister not agree that this Bill is fulfilling a Conservative manifesto promise and that that should be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention, with which I can only agree.
As I was saying, for this reason we must avoid imposing any unnecessary control that might risk reversing the Office for National Statistics classification of housing associations as private sector organisations. Housing associations grant assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988, including assured lifetime tenancies, and will continue to have the flexibility to grant lifetime tenancies as they see fit.
This amendment would bring housing associations back into the public sector regime, which they have not properly been part of since 1989, by requiring housing associations to grant secure tenancies under the Housing Act 1985. That goes beyond the very limited circumstances in which they are still obliged to give a secure tenancy—this is limited to those tenants who already have one predating 1989 and want to move, so this is known and in the books of the commercial housing association. Assured and secure tenancies have different rights. For example, secure tenants have a statutory right to improve their property, and be compensated for those improvements, in certain circumstances. To require housing associations to grant secure tenancies for this group of tenants would mean housing association landlords having 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, and would introduce unnecessary additional costs and liabilities. As I have already said, that could risk the re-classification of housing associations.
The amendment is also completely unnecessary: housing associations will continue to have the freedom, which they have now, to offer lifetime tenancies wherever they consider it appropriate. When schedule 7 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force, local authorities will generally be required to offer fixed-term tenancies, and will be able to grant lifetime tenancies only in the limited circumstances specified in legislation or regulations. That is why the Bill is so important. The purpose of housing associations is to provide and manage homes for people in housing need. The vast majority are charities, and their charitable objectives require them to put tenants at the heart of everything they do. We expect housing associations to take very seriously their responsibilities for people fleeing domestic violence and abuse.
In previous debates on the Bill, I have mentioned the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance, which was set up by two leading housing associations, Peabody and Gentoo, along with Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, a UK charity that brings 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 understand that the National Housing Federation, the body that represents housing associations, is actively taking forward work with its membership to tackle domestic abuse, and has recently set up a national domestic abuse group for its membership. The group was set up specifically to raise awareness among housing associations of the steps that they can take to minimise the impact of domestic abuse, as well as of how to spot the signs early and how best to support victims. My officials have been in touch with the NHF, and I am really pleased to say that it has expressed an interest in considering the tenancy issue as part of that work. That is a really positive development, and it adds to the information that I was able to give in Committee. With that in mind, and for the reasons that I have given, I invite Members to withdraw the new clause and amendments. I look forward to more debate.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Minister’s comments and the Bill itself. It is a good and necessary Bill, and some of the questions that we asked in Committee have been answered, for the most part.
Now, let me shed a bit of light on the reality of what actually happens to a domestic violence victim when they walk into a housing office, and on the very idea that we could not be doing as much as we possibly could with every single fibre of our beings to try to better serve victims of domestic abuse. Mostly, a woman will get up and walk into her local neighbourhood office. I say “walk”, but where I live she has to get four buses because her local neighbourhood office is now shut, so she has gone into the centre of town, in the second-biggest city in the country. Even just five years ago, she would have found something different. In all the local neighbourhood centres in Birmingham—there used to be eight, then there were four in the Quadrants—there would have been a Women’s Aid worker. This was a specialist adviser in a private room where that woman could have gone to speak about her issues and would have been found the most appropriate housing. That scheme won national awards and reduced homelessness in Birmingham by 50%. The biggest reason for homelessness in most cities will be domestic abuse. That scheme massively reduced it, but it is gone now. There is no local authority funding for the Women’s Aid workers in those centres, and there is only one centre where women can go.
The woman will walk into a busy centre where there will be absolutely loads going on. There will be people with their children and people who are homeless— 86 people are declared homeless every single day in the city where I live—and she will wait. She will then go to a small cubicle, with sides at shoulder height. The people next to her will be able to hear every single word that she says.
When I was a Birmingham City councillor, I requested that every single person who came through had to be asked whether they had ever been a victim of domestic abuse or sexual violence. I regretted it instantly. I went to a housing office—when they still existed—with one of my constituents. Next to me, in a tiny unsealed-off cubicle, a woman was sitting at her computer. “Have you got any arrears, love?” she asked. “No.” “Have you ever been a victim of sexual violence?” “Yes, I was raped.” “Have you ever been a victim of domestic violence?” “Yes, my husband has assaulted me a number of times. He has been to prison.” “Okay.” Move on.
Melanie Onn
The minimisation of the issue around the bedroom tax seems to be due to the fact that the Bill is predicated on an example of someone with a stable and consistent life. But at the point that these people present at a housing office, their life will not be consistent or stable at all, which is why we need to amend the Bill.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. If we could get our housing and welfare systems, which have become fragmented—and were never perfect, don’t get me wrong —to work better together, at least people would have a fighting chance of understanding what the hell they were meant to be doing, because it is a bit confusing at the moment. My hon. Friend is completely right that we are talking about people in chaos.
A tiny fraction of victims of domestic violence present as homeless. The vast majority either stay or end up in refuge, and they will likely have help in those circumstances to get them through the process. But we have to do better for those who turn up the housing office. We have to ensure that local authority staff have a much clearer understanding of this cross-border issue, because the triumph of hope over experience has left many people unhoused.
Mrs Miller
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my fellow member of the Women and Equalities Committee. Of course she speaks with great power on these issues, given her experience. We also heard a great deal from the Minister to give us reassurance about how much work the Government have done to ensure that this Bill is the best that it can be and that it further supports victims of domestic violence—something that this Government have made a huge priority. I congratulate the Minister on all that she is doing to ensure that the situation improves ever further.
I will make some short comments about the amendments, because I think that the Bill generally has cross-party support. A lot of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said was, frankly, about training among local authority employees, and whether we should be drafting legislation because of the imperfections in local authorities. It is always a balancing act, but we need to ensure that the legislation is as strong as it can be.
I am concerned that new clause 1 could have a clear unintended consequence of undermining the existing devolved powers by taking new powers in the way set out in the new clause. Parliament is clear, as was the Minister in the other place, that there was not and is not a need for primary legislation in this area regarding cross-border movements. In fact, we could unintentionally erode devolution by acting on new clause 1 in the way in which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) has outlined. Ministers clarified that individuals will have the support that they need and that we do not need to legislate in this way. It is good to hear that these devolved matters are being discussed across the nations, and that there is nothing that concerns the devolved nations in this respect.
I turn to amendment 1. The Minister set out that there is already protection in the Bill for all lifetime tenants, including those who have fled their homes and lost security of tenure. The Bill is specifically drafted to protect individuals facing that situation. In my experience as a Minister, I remember feeling on a number of occasions, “Perhaps we need a belt-and-braces approach here. We really need to spell it out in the Bill.” And what always came through to me in those circumstance was the fact that, in trying to do the very best we can to be as clear as possible, we can actually create confusion by not following the usual protocols. I urge the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to consider that for a moment. As the Minister said, local authorities should have no problem understanding their duties. Indeed, adding to the Bill in the way that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is suggesting could, because of the redundancy of her new clause, create the opposite of the clarity that she wants.
I have a brief point on amendment 2. As the Minister said, allocating a house that is too big would not be in the best interests of the victim, but specific circumstances might require flexibility. I remember looking particularly at the role of discretionary housing payments when I was a Minister. Such cases fall squarely into the list of examples of why we have these payments. One of the reasons for having such an immense amount of money in this fund—£150 million or so a year—is to be able to give local authorities the flexibility that they need to be able to deal with local circumstances as they see fit. I think that it is better to trust local authorities to get that right than to create specific exceptions that might run the risk of not being used in the way in which the primary legislation requires.
I understand the reason behind this set of amendments. I particularly understand why the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has spoken with a great deal of passion. One question that I would really like the Minister to answer is: how do we work even harder to ensure that local authorities provide the same support for victims of domestic violence, whether they are in Basingstoke, Birmingham, Yardley or anywhere else?
Mrs Wheeler
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that this summer, for the first time ever, the Government are undertaking an audit of all domestic abuse support services right the way across England. We have done a deep dive in Essex, just as a trial. In the county of Essex alone there are over 1,000 different ways of finding help for domestic violence. That is incredible. We need to find out where the domestic violence support services are across the whole country. This is the first time that the Government have ever done this.
Mrs Miller
I thank the Minister for those comments. These interventions are driven by that inconsistency in provision of services and by Members of Parliament wanting to get the best for the people they represent. The Minister is entirely right. By knowing how we can better provide a more equal service across the country, I hope that we will provide reassurance to those who support these amendments.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) have made powerful points about family break-up and the role that the legislation could play in all that? Is not this a case where discretionary payments are very important because if the family can be kept together or brought together again, that would surely be where we would want discretion exercised?
Mrs Miller
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That discretion at local level is so important. I have had one or two cases where the local authorities have not necessarily been on the front foot in the use of local discretionary housing payments. Perhaps the Minister could urge local authorities to understand their duties, particularly to families that have broken up and that are at risk of domestic violence, and to really understand the importance of delivering services using these payments.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it gives me the opportunity to say that there is no limit to the length of time over which discretionary housing payment can be made; it could be one-off time-limited or it could be indefinite.
Mrs Miller
Again in her inimitable style, the Minister has answered another of the points that was raised earlier. I recognise that there are potentially time limits attached, and she is right to put on the record that that is entirely outwith any rules or regulations coming from this place.
This Bill helps to improve the lives of victims of domestic violence. That is a priority for this Government and a priority for this Prime Minister. I really applaud the Government’s work in trying to make the lives of victims of domestic abuse better. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is absolutely right that we should use every sinew in our body to make their lives better, and the Minister is doing a good job in that respect.
Toby Perkins
I would like to start where the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) finished. I agree entirely about the importance of this Bill, which the Minister herself described as being so important. It behoves all of us to consider why somebody who has been through the appalling domestic violence that many of our constituents have experienced would then be willing potentially to stay in that relationship if their security of housing tenure was in danger of being lost. What does it say to all other housing tenants that something so crucial should be glibly given away by Government in their case? The fact that this Bill is so important makes a really vital point about the need for secure tenancy much more broadly.
The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) said that this was a Tory party manifesto commitment. I did not realise there were any Tory party manifesto commitments still standing, so if it was indeed that, I welcome it. I do not remember the part of the general election campaign where the Tories told us that they were going to take away secure tenancies for all other council housing tenants, so I do not entirely understand how they committed to ensure for domestic violence victims something that they had not told everyone else they were going to take away from them.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). On amendment 1, recognising local connections within the Bill is incredibly important. There is real inconsistency not just in the way that different local authorities view their responsibilities towards domestic violence victims but in the provision of refuges. I was shocked to hear from Women’s Aid that Devon County Council not only has no provision for refuges but gives no money towards refuges that Women’s Aid provides. In Chesterfield, we are so well served by the refuges provided by the Elm Foundation that we often provide for domestic violence victims who are coming from other areas. Many of the people who are going to use these services will not be local people. It therefore behoves all local authorities everywhere to make provision on behalf of domestic violence victims.
Where there is that inconsistency of provision, the areas with the greatest provision of refuges end up taking more people on to their council house waiting list and then providing that housing, and so those who are best at providing refuges also see the greatest pressure on their housing services. That is a real disincentive to local authorities in making this provision.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but he will have heard the Minister say that she will be undertaking the first ever audit of local authority provision. Does he not wonder, as I do, why that has not happened before?
Toby Perkins
I welcome the audit, but the question is what happens afterwards. I would like this to be a statutory service with a responsibility on local authorities to provide it. Will there be any move by the Government towards that? Having the information is one thing, but the next thing is what the Government do with it.
On amendment 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made an incredibly powerful point about the bedroom tax, describing the circumstances where domestic violence victims might lose their children and then find that they are moving into a small flat and are told by the family courts that they do not have appropriate accommodation to get their children back. I was not at all convinced by what the Minister said about why the amendment was not relevant. I urge my hon. Friend to press it to a vote, because we cannot talk about straining every sinew and still have a barrier of that kind in the way of domestic violence victims.
There is a broader need for us to recognise the threat to refuges that exists not only because of local authority funding cuts but because of proposed changes to housing benefit. We must look at the impact that that could have on refuge provision. I urge the Government, if they are serious about supporting domestic violence victims, to make every possible representation to the Department for Work and Pensions with regard to implementing those housing benefit changes. I support the Government on this important Bill. However, I urge Members to support all the amendments, particularly amendment 2, because they will add further powers to the Bill.
Sir Robert Syms
This is an important Bill. I think that we all heard the passion with which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke about this subject, which really underlined how important it is.
I have sat in this Parliament for a long time, and it has always struck me that short Bills, specifically to the point, are far more powerful in supporting people’s rights than the Bills that we sometimes see, with clause after clause. We know how complex housing issues are, and that is why guidance is the key. We put the right into primary legislation, and then we have the guidance to deal with the problems. Victims of domestic violence are often in a chaotic situation because of the nature of what is happening in the home. The best way of dealing with that is through guidance.
The Department consults very widely on guidance. A vast raft of housing charities and women’s rights charities can give their views, and then we have a Committee upstairs. I must admit that having Committees upstairs that simply note what has been discussed always seems slightly odd, but the consultation gives Members an opportunity to raise a lot of points. Indeed, if the Opposition want to pray against something, it sometimes comes to the Floor of the House for a vote. There are mechanisms for ensuring that the guidance is comprehensive and right and it was probably written by the same experts in the Department who were trying to deal with this difficult and complex problem under the Labour Government.
I have seen the passion that many Members have expressed on this subject, and I understand that because this is about people’s lives, but I also listened very carefully to the Minister. She talked about training; that is good. She talked about audit; that is good. She talked about various money pots; that is good. She talked about pilots, which means that the Department is open-minded about how we should go about solving some of these very important problems. Providing that the pilots and the audit are done properly, we can get a better service to those who face the real and great tragedy of domestic violence and the consequences that has for them, their children and the family.
I think that the Government are on the right track. I understand the passion that people feel about this. However, it is not about what is in the Bill; it is about what is in the guidance. There is a big debate to be had on that, but today we need to get on with supporting the Bill and getting it on to the statute book. I therefore support the Minister in resisting the amendments. Let us consult on the guidance, listen to what the experts want us to do, and have a listening Government who will try to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose policy that will deal with people who are facing great misery at home because of this problem.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Before coming to this place, I served on my city council, where for a number of years I had responsibility for Nottingham’s efforts to tackle domestic abuse and to support survivors. I learned many things during that period, but one thing has particularly stuck with me ever since: when a survivor—usually a woman—makes the decision to leave their abuser, the state must be there to wrap around that person. There can be no grey areas and no “I’ll call you back on Monday”. It must be immediate and comprehensive. Whether it is housing, support for children or fostering for pets, it has to be there. It is with that in mind that I rise to speak.
The Bill enjoys support on both sides of the House, as we have heard, and from the charities that work tirelessly to protect women and children fleeing abuse. The intentions behind the Bill are decent, and while we in this place may not directly see the impact of the decisions we take today, those decisions will change the lives of very vulnerable people and allow them to escape their abusers and start to live their life free from fear. Nevertheless, there are some grey areas of outstanding concern that I want to focus on briefly.
The first is reciprocal arrangements, which are covered in new clause 1. The nature of the abuse that a survivor is fleeing means that they might need to leave Nottingham and go to Birmingham or even Cardiff or Glasgow, and it is vital that they are not disadvantaged. I am grateful for the assurance we were offered—not this morning, as the Minister said, but this afternoon, in letter form—that the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations are relaxed about their abilities to ensure such arrangements. Nevertheless, people change and circumstances change, and that letter will not be of much significance if co-operation is not properly monitored. That is all the new clause asks for, and whether it is accepted or not, I hope that the Government will continue to commit to that.
The Government have stated that the legislation will protect victims who need to move their secure tenancy across local authority boundaries and that amendment 1 is unnecessary because the courts and Government guidance state that the local connection test does not apply in domestic abuse cases. However, those who work on the ground know that that is not quite how it works. The organisations that work most closely with those fleeing abuse have made it clear that, as is so often the case, there is a difference between the best-intentioned Government guidance and the reality of the situation on the ground.
Women often have to flee across local authority boundaries to find safety, and we know that local authorities are at best inconsistent. In 2016-17, local housing teams prevented nearly a fifth of the women supported by Women’s Aid’s “No Woman Turned Away” project from making a valid homelessness application on the grounds of domestic abuse, for reasons including that they had no local connection. It is said in this place that the local connection test does not apply in domestic abuse cases, but it is not always filtering down. That is a good argument for putting that explicitly in the Bill, so that there is no doubt and no grey areas, and on the night or day when an individual leaves, whether they have a local connection or not, the expectation on the local authority is entirely clear.
Finally, on amendment 2 and the bedroom tax, I was really interested to hear from the Minister. She made it clear that this would happen in a very small number of cases, but I would be interested to hear what the evidence base was for that and what those numbers were. I am certain that none of us in this place would want finances to come into play when an individual is making the very difficult decision to leave their abuser. None of us would want that individual to be punished because the house they were moving into was deemed to have a spare room, because they were waiting to be reunited with their children or because of the way the housing stock we are talking about was structured. In Nottingham, there is not a suite of choices waiting for an individual, with the option of saying, “You’d be suitable for a one-bedroom place,” or, “You might be suitable for a three-bedroom place.” The fact of the matter is that we will be putting them wherever we can. I know that none of us would want them to be financially punished for that, which is an excellent reason for accepting amendment 2, so that we are very clear, because it is in the grey areas that we will struggle.
I am conscious that other Members are waiting to speak, so I will leave it there. I believe that the new clause and the amendments would strengthen the Bill. I do not think that much of their substance has been disagreed with; it is just about whether or not to write them down. I will make this clear argument: let us not leave it to guidance. Let us be explicitly, painfully, to-the-letter clear about the system that we are designing today. The consequences of it are life and death, so it is well worth our putting those words on the face of the Bill.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who made insightful remarks. Today’s debate has been incredibly valuable and informative. I am so grateful to all Members who have come here to share their experience, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). Often we talk about her passion, for which she is renowned, but she brings to this place the very lucid voice of the women she has worked with and the chaos she has seen, and so often the work we do misses that voice. It is not just her passion for which we should be grateful, but her great experience and her capacity to bring it to us in this place in a way that we can all understand.
I would also like to comment on the hon. Lady’s remarks about children being taken into care as a result of domestic violence. She is absolutely right; the failure to protect so often causes women to lose their children to the care system, and anything we can do in this place to reduce that eventuality has to lessen some of the agony and pain that families go through in these circumstances.
Bim Afolami
I am aware that many others wish to speak, so I will be brief. Those who are still left in the Public Gallery have seen today the best of Parliament. This is the complete opposite of yah-boo politics. There has been cross-party discussion about a Bill that generally appears to have cross-party support. We should welcome that and welcome the exchange of ideas and views. That does not always happen in this Chamber, but it has happened today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, this is a short Bill. It is clear and to the point, and it deals with a specific problem. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reads Hansard tomorrow morning, she will see many references to her speech, but let me add one more. The disagreement from Conservative Members with certain points she made was not on the substance of the issue, but on the appropriateness of those points in relation to the Bill. However, I am sure that she, the Minister and others will continue to work on this issue, and I think that Members across all parties appreciate her expertise in this area.
One point in particular is worth making. Labour Members have spoken about the spare room subsidy, which is not really the subject of the Bill, but I want to make the point that it is critical to get more social housing built. For the Bill to be effective, we really need as much social housing as possible to be built. If they take a look at the record, as I have, they will see that roughly 2,900 local authority homes a year were built from 1997 to 2010, while under this Government—about half of that time—over 10,000 local authority homes a year were built from 2010 to 2017. Labour Members must look at their own record on social housing, and realise that a lot of the problems we now face are partly down to the fact that they did not build enough homes when they were in office. I know that the Minister and the Government are working on that.
I finish by agreeing with the Minister and other Conservative Members that I do not believe the new clause and amendments are appropriate in this context, and I shall vote against them for that reason.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which would have a specific impact on local authorities in Scotland, including in my constituency. I would say at the outset, in relation to the thrust of what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), that I agree about the need for more co-operation across the United Kingdom, and I will come on to that shortly. The difficulty, as shown by the fact that I am the only Scottish MP in the Chamber, is that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle to do so, because it cuts across some devolved areas, and I want to go into that in a little more detail.
The Government have a strong record on domestic abuse, and the Bill is a further example of that. We have criminalised coercive and bullying behaviour, and we have made sure that we have domestic violence orders. We currently have an open consultation, which provides the potential for more powers and a greater understanding of other types of crimes, such as economic abuse, that are often unseen. That is certainly the experience of many of my constituents, as many people in public authority have seen.
My knowledge of this matter has largely come from my constituents, as well as from some of my own family experience. Many of my constituents have relationships that span the United Kingdom. Men and women who have had such relationships may have some children in England and some in Scotland, so there is a real need for co-ordination and for a UK minimum standard. I have seen at first hand, in refuges and in my constituency office, the bravery of these women as well as the hardship that they have endured. I know how much of an impact there can be on individual lives, and how much need there is for them to move from one local authority to another, which may not be an adjacent one but a local authority far up the country in Scotland or somewhere in England.
Members have talked a lot about the terrible abuse that women have endured, and we know that domestic abuse has a disproportionate impact on women. It is also important to say, however, that 700,000 men were victims of domestic abuse in 2015-16, and that young people are also victims. When we talk about giving people opportunities in secure tenancies in other local authorities around the country, we need to ensure that we capture everyone, because domestic abuse affects many different types of individual at many different ages.
As I have said, and I will keep my remarks brief, a national minimum is desirable. I very much feel that there are times when we are four nations and many regions, but there are also times when we are one country. On this issue, I believe that having a national minimum would be incredibly desirable. I am very keen to work with Opposition Members, certainly as we examine other pieces of legislation in this place, on having UK-wide frameworks, especially in new policy areas, to make sure that there are UK-wide minimums, even if the services are delivered through devolved Administrations, local authorities or other devolved agencies. I am very willing to help in such a way. Unfortunately, however, as the Bill is targeted at England, making an amendment to loop in what is a devolved area in Scotland—it would have an impact in my local authority and others—this is not the best place to do so. I hope to work with Opposition Members in future to try to develop policies on such minimums.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue in the spirit of consultation that she always shows in relation to the devolved Administrations, and perhaps she will consider extending her audit of services elsewhere in the United Kingdom—beyond England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Melanie Onn
I want to assure the Minister that at every stage of the Bill, since I have been involved, I have sought to be constructive in my approach. Having heard the arguments and the Minister’s response, let me say that I do not intend to push new clause 1 or amendments 1 and 3 to a vote. We have made our points as fully as we can—sadly, to no avail—but I do not want to cause any unnecessary delay to the Bill.
On the bedroom tax, however, the Minister’s response was not wholly sufficient to ease the Opposition’s concern about the potential for a damaging loophole to be created, which would be to the detriment of domestic abuse victims. As the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said, we want a fit-for-purpose policy, and that is what we are all aiming for. I therefore request that the House be permitted to divide on amendment 2, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Duty to grant old-style secure tenancies: victims of domestic abuse
Amendment proposed: 2, 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).”—(Melanie Onn.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind the House that before Second Reading, as required by the Standing Order, the Speaker certified the entire Bill as relating exclusively to England and within legislative competence. The Bill has not been amended since then. Copies of the certificate are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are now available. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Penny Mordaunt)
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote.
I call the Minister to move the consent motion.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Programme Order, 19 March, and Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [Lords].—(Mrs Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Mrs Wheeler
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will be very brief, because I believe the Bill has cross-party support. This short and targeted Bill is an important part of the Government’s wider aims of supporting victims of domestic abuse to leave their abusive situation, and ensuring that they and their families are provided with the stability and security they need and deserve. I am sure all Members agree that domestic abuse is a particularly horrible crime. Its effects are insidious and its impacts are wide-reaching. It has serious and lasting impacts on victims, their families and society as a whole.
The Bill will protect lifetime tenants who have to flee their home, whether they apply for rehousing by their own local authority or to any other local authority in England. It will also protect those who have lost their lifetime tenancy if they have fled their home, and it will protect those who want to return to their home after the perpetrator has left or been removed. It will ensure that in every case, where they are granted a new tenancy by the local authority, they will know that they are able to retain their lifetime tenancy in their new social home.
Lord Bourne was personally very committed to taking the Bill through the other place and I am proud to have been able to do so in this place. He was very grateful for the cross-party support he received from his noble colleagues and I would like to echo my thanks to hon. Members for their support. I know that we have had our differences regarding the detail, but I am sure we are all in agreement on the main aims of the Bill. We can all take credit for ensuring that this small but vital piece of proposed legislation is put on the statute book, but I would like, if I may, to pay particular tribute to Baroness Lister of Burtersett. She has been the mainspring behind the Bill and it is through her persistence during its passage in the other place that it is in such good shape.
I am heartened to know that the Bill has been widely welcomed by the organisations that support victims of domestic abuse, in particular Women’s Aid. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work so hard to support victims of domestic abuse everywhere, not just Women’s Aid but Refuge, IMKAAN and many more.
Before I finish I would also like to thank the members of the Bill team for their hard work and support in taking the Bill through: Frances Walker, Jane Worthington, Jane Everton, Lizzie Clifford, the parliamentary draftsman Anthony Brown, and finally, from my own team, Emma Andrews.
Melanie Onn
I would like to start by thanking my colleagues in this House, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), and, for her contributions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). I also thank Members in the other place for scrutinising this proposed legislation and ensuring that it leaves in a marginally better state than when it arrived. I would particularly like to pay tribute to my colleague Baroness Lister, as her amendment to the original Housing and Planning Act 2016 is the reason the Bill is before us today.
I am disappointed that the Minister has been so reluctant to support any of our amendments, as they would have strengthened the Bill by helping to equalise the quality of care across the country and guaranteeing that domestic abuse victims who move authorities still have a secure tenancy in their new authority. I had hoped that, given that mistakes had been made in this area in the past and such provision had not been included in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Government might have listened to some of the concerns from the sector about the ambiguity of the Bill. However, given that we have just divided on the matter, we will support the Bill as drafted.
Despite that, the Bill leaves the House today and it will do a large amount of good for many domestic abuse victims across the country. By guaranteeing a secure tenancy to victims of domestic abuse moving from a secure tenancy, the Bill will remove a key barrier that prevents domestic abuse victims from leaving their perpetrator. There is a clear need for a new radical and credible approach to housing and refuges, but the Bill will provide more security to many domestic abuse victims who are in secure tenancies. We therefore support the Bill.
Ruth George
I welcome the Bill before us today. I also welcome the Minister stating the Government’s wider aim of enabling victims of domestic violence to be able to leave the perpetrator so that abuse can end.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), I was very disappointed that the Government were not prepared to listen, in particular to amendment 2. I urge the Minister to go back to housing benefit and discretionary housing payment practice in local authorities, because even the national housing executive guidance on the gov.uk website states that a discretionary payment will last for a set period of time. That is what happens in practice.
In the last period for which we have information on discretionary housing payment, 121 councils ran out of discretionary housing payment budget. That means time-limited grants that people are able to reapply for, but, in a domestic violence situation, that is another burden and payment cannot be guaranteed. That leads to further insecurity for victims and for their children, in particular in the very distressing circumstances, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), where children have been taken away due to failure to protect. We would all wish to see those circumstances come to an end as soon as possible for such families.
I turn to the wider implications of the Government’s policy on domestic violence, particularly around universal credit, which I have been looking at as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee. I very much hope that the Minister will take her experience of issues relating to domestic violence and to women who seek to flee from their abuser and speak to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the single payment system under universal credit. The Financial Times highlights this issue today, saying that women will not even be able to access the money for a bus, train or taxi fare to leave their abuser. As I mentioned in an intervention, even when victims manage to leave, they need a benefits system that will respond immediately to their needs and guarantee them benefit and support. Some victims are not even able to access a place in a refuge without that support and end up going back to the perpetrator of their abuse. One cannot imagine the additional abuse that they will receive having attempted to leave, and then having to go back again.
Although the Bill is welcome, a lot of social housing providers are very concerned about universal credit in cases when there is a joint tenancy, because when a perpetrator of domestic violence leaves, the payment is split between the perpetrator and the victim of domestic abuse. This means that the victim receives only half the housing element of universal credit and therefore immediately falls into arrears. Evidence that we took on the all-party group on universal credit showed that some victims of domestic violence were already being evicted, because the system meant that their arrears had built up to thousands of pounds.
Although I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s wider intentions, I hope that the Minister will use the experience that she has gathered on the Bill to talk to other Departments and to look at the overall experience of victims of domestic violence and the support that they get from Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 October 2017 (Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Programme)).
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 1, 2 and 4 to 7.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kelly Tolhurst.)
Question agreed to.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Tuesday 8th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 May 2018 - (8 May 2018)
20:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3.
Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4 to 7.
Richard Harrington
Before I say a few words about the amendments, I want to reflect on the passage of the Bill. It has passed through this House in an orderly manner, with a great many thoughtful points made by Members on both sides of the House who are here today and by many who are not. I particularly pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench team, led by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—I will never forget his constituency after this Bill. Although we have had our moments of disagreement, I have been encouraged by the strong consensus and have done my best to listen carefully to his amendments. I hope he would accept that I have given a lot of thought to them and that I have tried to accept those that I can. Lord Henley and I have made considerable efforts to listen to concerns in the other place as well, as has been seen in the amendments we have made to the Bill.
Outside the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to making regular progress updates to Parliament. The first report was published on 27 March and the next will follow next month. We also provided draft regulations to support the House’s deliberations on the Bill, and I confirm today that I am placing in the Library the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order No. 83O, in respect of any motion relating to a Lords amendment, for Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage.
The Government opposed amendment 3 on Report in the House of Lords. I have listened carefully to the views of Members, including the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. The amendment would require that in a situation where particular agreements relating to nuclear safeguards are not in place, the Government would have to request that the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom be suspended until they are.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that in the last few hours, I have had a conversation with the head of Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, who says that the Government are moving in the right direction on this, and have already agreed to pay for an association and are moving in the right direction on that. If the Minister is going to oppose the amendment, he has my full support and that of the head of Culham.
Richard Harrington
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which I believe reflects the progress that we have made. He works very hard for Culham; it is an extremely impressive place and I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House supports what they do.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on the co-operation agreement that we have signed with the United States of America? This is a very good sign. There was some concern in Committee about the progress that we had made, and I believe that the Minister is doing his utmost to make sure that we have a fit-for-purpose regime in future.
Richard Harrington
I thank my hon. Friend. I would like to say that it was because of the personal influence that I have with President Trump, but no one in this House, and particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would hear that. However, it shows that we have made a lot of progress and things are going according to plan. I am grateful to the United States for that assistance it has given us, as well as that of the other countries we are dealing with and the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose initials some of us repeatedly had difficulty pronouncing—I will come to the IAEA in a moment.
As currently formulated, amendment 3 will not work. Subsection (3)(c) currently contains a broad reference to international agreements made by Euratom to which the UK is a party. First, the UK is not a party to Euratom’s nuclear co-operation agreements; Euratom concludes them on behalf of member states, and Euratom, rather than the member states, is a party to those agreements. Secondly, subsection 3(c) covers a number of international agreements that are not in fact required to ensure the continuity of nuclear trade after withdrawal from Euratom. For these reasons, the other agreements that are covered by Lords amendment 3 should be restricted to the priority nuclear co-operation agreements with Australia, Canada, Japan and the US. Although I cannot agree to Lords amendment 3 in its present form, I am tabling an amendment in lieu, which I believe will address parliamentarians’ concerns. I particularly hope that it will address the issues raised by the shadow Front-Bench team and Members on both sides of the House.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
With respect, the Minister is doing what every single Minister will always do when faced with Opposition amendments—that is, nit-pick over the precise wording. If he is going to table his own amendment, will it clearly state that the UK will not withdraw from Euratom until the required agreements are in place so that we have a similar, commensurate level of security?
Richard Harrington
I have always listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows a lot about nuclear and deserves attention particularly on this Bill and every other nuclear subject that comes up. He accuses me of nit-picking—politely, as always—and then nit-picks about the language in my amendment, which I do hope he has read and which I will explain more about now. We do nit-pick in Parliament, though, because everyone is trying their best to get it right, and I accept that language can mean everything. I am sure that “nit-picking” is a parliamentary word, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is not, I still fully accept it from him.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has talked about the implementation period and our ongoing relations with Euratom. What discussions has he had with the European Commission to determine whether our membership of Euratom will continue during the transition period?
Richard Harrington
My officials have had a lot of discussions with the EU on Euratom, as the hon. Gentleman might imagine, and I am very satisfied with the stage we have reached. If he will excuse me, I will try to cover that in the rest of my contribution.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
During the Select Committee hearings on this matter, David Wagstaff, the head of the Euratom exit negotiations at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, indicated that progress in establishing new nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia was well advanced and that these would be completed in time for our departure. Did he mean next March or the end of the implementation period?
Richard Harrington
I can assure my hon. Friend that he meant March 2019. In answer also to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), I would like to assure the House that the UK and the EU have reached agreement on the terms of an implementation period that will run from 30 March 2019 until the end of 2020. The existing Euratom treaty arrangements will continue during this period and businesses will be able to continue to trade on the same terms as now. As part of this, the UK and the EU agreed that for the duration of the implementation period the EU’s international agreements will continue to apply to the UK. This will include Euratom’s existing nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.
Sir Robert Syms
I presume that the objective is to sign agreements with all the countries mentioned before March 2019, but there is also a process of ratification. Is it the Government’s objective to get those ratified before the leaving date, or will some of them be ratified during the transition period?
Richard Harrington
The best example I can give is the ratification of the agreement with the US—and this will also explain the difference between signing and ratification. Now that it has been signed, it needs to be approved in accordance with the relevant constitutional requirements of the UK and the US, just as will be the case with the other bilateral agreements, but we have built into our timetable sufficient time to allow for the necessary processes in both the UK Parliament—it will come before Parliament this year—and the US Congress, which has a slightly different arrangement involving several days of congressional business. I am very confident, however, that the process will be completed. In both cases, it is unprecedented for this to be anything other than a formality. Both countries will then exchange notes to bring the agreement into force when required, which we fully expect to be at the end of the implementation period, but we have built plenty of time into the process.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
This all sounds like very good progress. Is it true that the other four agreements the Minister says are necessary will be similarly available and ready by March 2019?
Richard Harrington
I have every confidence that those agreements will be ready, signed and ratified. I have no reason to believe anything other than that.
If the relevant agreements or arrangements are not in place 28 days before exit day, the amendment in lieu would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to make a request to the European Council to continue to be covered by the corresponding Euratom agreements—the trilateral agreements between the IAEA, Euratom and the UK and the bilateral agreements between the countries I have mentioned. That request would cover only those areas for which the UK had not signed a relevant agreement or made arrangements for the corresponding Euratom agreement to continue to apply to the UK after exit. I think that answers the questions about process.
I have not mentioned the IAEA itself. We have made very good progress in negotiating with the IAEA, having held several productive rounds of discussions, and it has shared with us the draft voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol. Negotiations on these documents have made good progress, and we expect to conclude a final draft in time for them to be put to the June meeting of the board of governors. The UK has a very strong relationship with the IAEA and continues to support it across a range of nuclear non-proliferation issues—something I was able to reinforce in my meeting last week with the director general, Mr Amano.
Lords amendments 1, 2 and 7 were Government amendments placing the definition of “civil activities” in the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that a definition of “civil activities” be placed in the Bill, so far as is possible, supplemented by a power to develop, where necessary, its meaning in regulations. The definition we inserted takes into account the continuing work on the draft regulations that will underpin the Bill, on which we are intending to consult in July. Although the Committee accepted that it might still be necessary to supplement this definition with a power to embellish its meaning in regulations, I have not found that to be necessary, so the amendments remove the existing power to specify in regulations activities that are or are not to be treated as “civil activities” and replace it with a definition in the Bill without creating another power. They therefore reduce the number of powers created by the Bill.
The sunset clause discussed by the Opposition Front-Bench team places a time limit—colloquially known as a “sunset”—on the use of the power in clause 2. Hon. Members may recall that clause 2 contains the power to amend three pieces of legislation in consequence of a relevant safeguards agreement—an agreement relating to nuclear safeguards to which the UK and the agency are parties. That legislation makes detailed references to specific provisions of international safeguards agreements. Those references, including references to specific articles, are likely to change as a result of any amendment of, or change in, the agreements. We therefore believe that the power in the Bill is necessary to make the changes in the relevant legislation to update the references when the new agreements are in place. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended preventing the use of the power after a period of two years had expired. The amendment addresses the principle of the Committee’s recommendation, but provides for a “sunset” period of five years to ensure that the provision can function effectively in all scenarios, including that of an implementation period with the EU.
Lords amendments 5 and 6 deal with statutory reporting. As I have said, I took very seriously the cross-party requests from parliamentarians for regular detailed updates about nuclear safeguards arrangements in this country. The amendments, as amended by the Opposition, would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide quarterly reports on nuclear safeguards, covering both domestic and international matters, for the first year after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
This is a general point, but I should like the Minister to be mindful of it. I do not pretend to understand the morass of amendments and timings, but the nuclear site at Dounreay, in my constituency, is being decommissioned, and, thanks to the involvement of Euratom and other agencies in the past, we have achieved a standard of excellence that is second to none in the world. I am anxious to ensure that the skills that we have there are developed and exported to other countries, and to ensure that, whatever Her Majesty’s Government puts in place of Euratom—whatever systems are introduced, and whatever clauses are included in the various bits of legislation—the importance of that is remembered and the quality is retained where it should be for the future, because otherwise we will lose an opportunity.
Richard Harrington
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: Dounreay has one of the finest reputations. I have not yet had the pleasure and honour of visiting it—although if I were able to visit it, I should be pleased to do so—but I have visited Sellafield, and have discussed matters extensively with all the nuclear decommissioning authorities there. Dounreay is thought of very highly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will be done to denude it of its reputation or lower the current non-proliferation standard. I was delighted to hear that the skills to which he has referred are being exported all over the world. The last thing that this or, I hope, any Government would want to do is bring about a reduction from the gold standard that is led by his constituency. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am nit-picking again. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is very alert to nit-picking, and I shall try not to do so.
I hope Members will agree that the Government have proceeded with the Bill on a consensual basis. As I have said, we have made several important concessions in both Houses. Although we have not been able to agree to Lords amendment 3, I have listened to the arguments advanced today, and I believe that the compromise amendment goes a long way to achieving what the Opposition want. It preserves the key features of their amendment by requiring the Government to write to the EU seeking support if certain agreements or alternative arrangements are not in place. I therefore hope that Members will join me in agreeing to amendments that provide important reassurance for Members of both Houses.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
This is, I trust, the last occasion on which we will deal with the Bill in the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for the careful, courteous and inclusive way in which he has handled it, which I have found very helpful. We all want the Bill to be enacted, and I think that our discussions about how it should proceed have benefited from the way in which he has conducted himself and presented his side of the argument.
Stephen Kerr
Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the progress that the Government are evidently making towards the conclusion of these agreements? That is good news, is it not?
Dr Whitehead
I think the hon. Gentleman has slightly anticipated what I was about to say. It is indeed good news that progress is being made in that regard, but there is not much time left between now and March 2019, and there are still a number of treaties to go.
Lords amendment 3 addresses what is perhaps the most central point of the whole exercise. If those treaties are not securely in place before the date of withdrawal, we must have mechanisms for extending the period of coverage of Euratom, as it were—which means not just an extension during the implementation period, but an extension in its own right—until they are in place. We were told earlier in the Bill’s passage that all this was unnecessary, because everything would be put in hand before March 2019, and we have discussed the progress that has been made, but we have heard nothing about a plan B to be deployed in the event of its not being concluded. It may be that all the treaties will be in place, and we heard today that one of the bilaterals had been signed with the United States, but there are three more to be signed with major civil nuclear countries, and there is also the voluntary arrangement to be established with the IAEA. The Lords amendment gives us that fall-back protection, and a clear route towards obtaining it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while some of the safeguards the Minister mentions might well work, it would be easier to stay in Euratom until such time as everything is concluded so that there is absolutely no way we would fall off any cliff edges? Does he agree that “may” is not good enough in this scenario?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Lady makes the important point that to have the full protection of staying in Euratom would be the best thing to do, not just on nuclear safeguarding but on a range of other civil nuclear activities, until we are absolutely certain that we have ticked every box and ensured that we have alternatives that are as good as what we have under Euratom. That, very largely, is what Lords amendment 3 seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that there is recourse to the full covering arrangements of Euratom if those boxes have not been ticked.
After waiting until the very last moment to tell us that Lords amendment 3 is not needed and will be opposed, the Government have finally come up with an amendment in lieu of their own that suggests that perhaps a fall-back plan is needed after all. Its wording is, in many respects, very similar to Lords amendment 3. It places the signing of these treaties as the essential element in securing the transition to a full nuclear safeguarding role without Euratom, and specifies, as amendment 3 does, what they are. That in itself is a considerable victory for those who counselled for this over a period of time, and is a substantial turnaround from the Government’s previous position. But, at the last, the amendment falls short. It places the option to decide not on whether principal agreements have been signed—for that will be evident, or not, at the time of departure—but on what one might call an interim stage on a fall-back which provides for circumstances where, at the beginning of a period of 28 days prior to exit, agreements may not have been signed and completed, but will in the Secretary of State’s opinion have been so signed before that 28-day period is up. In other words, there is a very abbreviated, but nevertheless significant, period during which the Secretary of State will decide whether treaties are going to be signed. That will, in effect, be putting off the relevant request to the European Council for an extension of the time during which Euratom provisions hold, because the Secretary of State thinks it is, after all, going to be all right. That is a far shorter period than under the original general provisions that the Secretary of State said he would try to organise and get right in time for exit from the EU, but we are still back to that assumption that it will be “all right on the night” with no complete plan B in place. I accept that the amendment in lieu proposed by the Government comes a very long way, and that it has taken a considerable amount of U-turning, if we want to call it that, to put in place these arrangements, but in reality it is not quite far enough.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on the Bill Committee. Does he agree that the Government’s new approach offering more flexibility and the ability to take a common-sense approach based on the circumstances at the time is a better approach than an inflexible decision taken now which might not fit the circumstances next year?
Dr Whitehead
I am not sure that the term “inflexible decision” can be accurately addressed to this set of circumstances, because we have a very inflexible date by which these decisions will have to be made. If we have a provision that is based on the Secretary of State deciding whether things are going better or worse, and if the House then does not have time to apply to the European Commission for an extension, an objective judgment will be made about whether to make an application to the European Commission for an extension of Euratom’s overview, particularly in relation to nuclear safeguarding activities.
That is another reason why we seek to preserve the original clause and ensure that it goes into the final Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned nit-picking in respect of some of the wording of the amendment. It would have been possible, I think, to fix that wording without diluting the effect of the clause in the way the Government have done through their amendment in lieu. It still has the flaw in it that there is a period when the Secretary of State has the option to decide whether he thinks something is going to be done, as opposed to the absolute guarantee that it will have been done at the point of departure. For that reason, we seek to preserve the original clause, if necessary by means of a vote. Depending on the result of that vote, we might then offer the amendment in lieu back to the other place for it to decide whether it thinks it comes close enough to its intention not to be sent back to this House once more.
Stephen Kerr
I do not intend to detain the House with a long speech, but I want to commend the Minister on the way in which he has guided the Bill to this point and to assure him of my support for the amendment that he has tabled. He has been, and is being, attentive and responsive to the concerns he has heard; he has listened and responded, and I believe that that is what makes for good legislation. I also wish to add to his compliments to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), whose positive contribution to the progress of this Bill has been greatly appreciated by us all.
To be clear, we need this Bill. Leaving the European Union creates the necessary, even if unwanted, step of leaving Euratom. The Government’s stated preference is for Euratom to continue to provide safeguarding functions in the UK. That is a laudable example of the pragmatic approach that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, are taking to issues surrounding our departure from the European Union. I like to think that my conservatism is based not on ideology but on pragmatism, and it is pragmatism that is going to see us through the process by which we leave the European Union. This Bill is a vital contingency plan, because if it transpires that we cannot agree with Euratom to continue with the civil nuclear safeguarding, we will need to have the regulatory framework, the infrastructure and the capabilities in place to maintain our international obligations and responsibilities as an independent and responsible nuclear state.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was under the impression that we cannot remain in Euratom unless we are a member of the EU—we may want to, but we cannot, according to the rules.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend has the power of mind-reading because the next thing I wish to say is that given that it will not be possible for us to maintain Euratom membership, the Government have taken the realistic approach of declaring through the process of the current round of negotiations that we would like to achieve an “as close as possible” relationship with Euratom, however that might ultimately be described. Although there is no such thing today as an associate membership, perhaps it is possible to become an associate of some form or another to the end of achieving that “as close as possible” relationship that we desire.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
My understanding is that we as a country want to leave Euratom. Does my hon. Friend agree that opening up a suggestion that we could have associate membership muddies the waters slightly in terms of the clarity of the debate?
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not think it does. The Minister has made it clear during the passage of the Bill that although we are leaving the European Union and our membership of Euratom will therefore end, we still want as close a relationship as possible with Euratom. The Government have been absolutely clear in their determination on this. They stated in a written statement published last September that
“it is vitally important that the new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, to be run by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, is as comprehensive and robust as that currently provided by Euratom. The government has therefore decided that it will be establishing a domestic regime which will deliver to existing Euratom standards and exceeds the standard that the international community would require from the UK as a member of the IAEA.”
I hope that the Minister will reconfirm tonight that it is still the Government’s intention to reach and maintain existing Euratom standards in respect to safeguarding. I recognise that it will take time to get to that point, but it would be useful if he indicated when he expects we will able to assume that we have everything in place to maintain the Euratom safeguarding standards, and if possible, how much that will cost.
I also commend my hon. Friend on his success in progressing towards his objective of putting in place what his amendment in lieu describes as “principal international agreements” and “corresponding Euratom arrangements”. These principal international agreements refer to and include the nuclear co-operation agreements that we will need to maintain because it is on the basis of these agreements that nuclear goods, including intellectual property, software and skills, can be moved between the UK and other countries. The Select Committee report summarised the evidence we heard and concluded that nuclear co-operation agreements were
“expected to depend on the existence of a mutually acceptable UK safeguards regime. Witnesses were concerned about any potential gap between leaving Euratom and setting up new arrangements, which would cause considerable disruption to nuclear supply chains”.
We also heard that
“nuclear cooperation agreements with the US, Canada, Japan and Australia will be crucial for maintaining existing operations and should be prioritised.”
I welcome the news that the Minister has brought to the House tonight about the IAEA, the draft voluntary offer agreement and the additional protocol. I also welcome the US-UK nuclear co-operation agreement. Perhaps he will give us more detail on how long it will take for the agreement to be ratified. I referred earlier to the optimistic note that David Wagstaff, the head of Euratom exit negotiations at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, brought to our Committee, where he indicated that the co-operation agreements were
“well advanced and…would be completed in time for our departure.”
I have heard again tonight that that means March 2019.
With reference to the principal international agreements, perhaps the Minister will update the House on our negotiations with Canada, Japan and Australia. Will all Euratom’s existing nuclear co-operation agreements continue to apply to the United Kingdom until such time as new agreements can be established? It is vital that our civil nuclear industry can continue to operate with certainty and that there should be minimum to no disruption to the sector as we leave the European Union. Britain must be in a position to continue to honour its international obligations—
Layla Moran
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what “minimum” would be acceptable? I do not feel that any minimum disruption would be acceptable; for me, no disruption is the only possible scenario. What would his minimum be?
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Lady is right to pick me up on those words, and I am grateful for her intervention. Because the Prime Minister has successfully concluded the implementation agreement with the European Union, the minimum that we should settle for is no disruption, especially in this sector.
I was about to say that we as a country must be in a position to continue to honour our international obligations, and to be the responsible nuclear state that we are. The importance of this Bill, with this amendment, is that in the event of there being no agreement with Euratom, which is not what we want, it will enable the United Kingdom to be in a position to act as an independent and responsible nuclear state. That is why the amendment should command support on both sides of the House.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I should like to begin by echoing the remarks of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about the Minister’s participation in the Bill so far. He has indeed been helpful, inclusive and relentlessly courteous as we have gone through the process. I welcome the progress that has been made, but that must be set against the background of what we believe to be the folly of leaving Euratom in the first instance. The last time the Bill came before us, I said that despite the Government’s ideological intention to abandon Euratom—it is ideological; there has been no attempt to challenge whether there might be a possibility to stay in it—their proposals fell short of answering vital questions on the UK’s nuclear future. Those answers have been asked for by the nuclear industry, the medical profession, our research sector and virtually everyone associated with nuclear power. Simply put, we should not be leaving Euratom.
Even with some sensible amendments from the Lords that have been accepted by the Commons, the Bill still fails to answer many critical concerns. As I have stated before, we in the Scottish National party believe that the safest nuclear power is no nuclear power. In Scotland, we have demonstrated what can be achieved by alternative renewable energy sources, and there is still a vast potential to be tapped, especially offshore, for an abundance of low-cost clean energy. In contrast, the UK Government continue to chase the folly of new nuclear, including the white elephant that is Hinckley C. That means higher costs for consumers, and technologies whose capital costs continue to skyrocket.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that “no nuclear” can be squared with full participation in Euratom? If he had to choose one or the other, what would he decide?
Drew Hendry
I find the hon. Gentleman’s question rather odd. I shall come to the reasons that we support Euratom in a moment, but a no-nuclear future means that we still have to navigate the nuclear that we have at the moment, and the wider public need to understand the existing nuclear technology.
Drew Hendry
I want to make progress, because I am aware that Members wish to move ahead and I wish to accommodate that as much as I can.
On safeguards, at Dounreay in the highlands we have lived with the consequences of the UK’s previous regulatory regime. Decades on, we are still finding nuclear material that has simply been dumped or buried. For these reasons, and many more, while we work for a nuclear-free future, we recognise the vital need for the continuing protections and benefits that we have enjoyed through Euratom. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Turning to the Lords amendments, and the Government amendment in lieu, I should like some clarification from the Minister. On Lords amendments 1 and 2, I have said that providing clarification on the definition of “civil activities” is a sensible move, but is he in a position to enlighten us on the question put by Lord Hutton as to why the phrase, “for peaceful purposes”, has been defined in regard to electricity generation? I understand that Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was to write to Lord Hutton with a response to that question. However, I am not aware that there is anything on the public record on that issue, so I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us.
Lords amendment 4 proposes a sunset clause, but I still do not think that the Government have fully answered the question as to why the sunset provision needed to be extended to five years from two years, so I would welcome clarification from the Minister. That being said, this is a sensible clause to add to the Bill.
I also agree with Lords amendment 5, which will mean that we receive a report for each three-month period in the years after the Bill is enacted. I note that the reports could include information on the development of the domestic operational arrangements required for the new domestic safeguards regime. Will the Minister outline what level of information he expects to provide? What information does he intend to include in the reports? For example, will they include information on the profile of ongoing costs, including any increases, on skills, on the recruitment and skills opportunities for girls and women and on gender pay? Reports should also include a rolling risk register.
I also note that we are to expect, or “may” have, a report that includes information on future arrangements with Euratom, including on nuclear research and development and on the import and export of qualifying nuclear material. I listened carefully when the Minister said that he had “every confidence” about the situation. It is good that he does, but we should have a guarantee. As was said earlier, there should be no diminution of the current protection that we enjoy under Euratom. I remain concerned about radioactive isotopes, but I do not intend to go through the rationale that I presented in the previous debate for why they are vital—although if I did, I would make no apology for doing so. The medical profession is concerned about their future availability, and even if there are agreements about access to such isotopes, the question remains unanswered about how we are supposed to obtain them in a Brexit future that means no customs union. How are they going to get across the border in time, before their limited half-life has expired? I could say much more on that, but perhaps the Minister can tell us how he intends to overcome the customs barriers and get that material here.
The Scottish National party supports Labour’s position on Lords amendment 3, and if it comes to a vote, we will vote to disagree with the disagreement that the UK Government have brought forward. If the Minister was serious about giving Parliament assurances, he would accept Lords amendment 3, which was moved by a Cross-Bench peer. The amendment quite literally does what it says on the tin: no exit from Euratom if relevant and necessary agreements are not in place. Instead, in presenting their own amendment (a), the UK Government are again asking us to take things on trust and believe that everything will be all right on the night. That is not good enough when it comes to nuclear safeguards.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about taking things on trust, but does he not agree that we have just heard hard evidence from the Minister of other parties coming to the table and negotiating with us to put safeguards in place?
Drew Hendry
I am delighted that the hon. Lady intervened at that point, because I was just about mention that condition 2 in amendment (a) states that
“(a) one or more of the principal international agreements have not been signed, but
(b) in respect of each agreement that has not been signed, arrangements for the corresponding Euratom arrangements to have effect in relation to the United Kingdom after exit day—
(i) have been made”—
which would be fine—
“or (ii) will, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, have been made before exit day.”
That is simply not good enough. Given that we are already seeing a lack of transparency around Hinkley Point C and rising costs, and around what is happening in Anglesey at the Hitachi plant, we cannot take such things on trust. It is vital that the Government are transparent on this issue now, because so much is at stake for people.
In conclusion, we have been advised that a deal has been struck with the USA, but will the Minister provide an update on the other agreements that need to be in place before the UK exits Euratom? After all, he expects us to take him at his word, so it should follow that we will be regularly updated on progress. In the interests of transparency, will he place the draft withdrawal agreement with Euratom in the Library? Although this is a reserved matter for the UK Government, the Scottish Government have regulatory powers on nuclear waste and emissions, so what discussions has he had with the Scottish Government to date on this issue? If he has had none, as I expect, what discussions does he intend to have?
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister’s opening statement. Of the 87,000 people working in the UK’s nuclear sector today, some 27,500 people—nearly 40% of the workforce—are based in Cumbria. That is why, in Copeland and in Cumbria, we proudly call ourselves the centre of nuclear excellence, and I am so pleased to hear from the Minister that swift progress is being made.
I have said before that not to have arrangements in place would be catastrophic for my community and devastating for the nuclear sector nationally and internationally and for all who rely upon the sector for energy: low-carbon electricity, fuel, research and development, science and industry, clean-up operations, defueling, decommissioning, reprocessing, waste processing —the list goes on. There would also be wider supply-chain implications from advance manufacturing to apprenticeships and implications for ensuring that we continue the legacy of world-class skills and for the enormous number of businesses employing people right across the country in component factories and on our high streets. In my community, that means hairdressers and hardware stores, taxi firms and teashops; the nuclear industry in west Cumbria puts food on so many of our tables. Britain’s nuclear industry equals our automotive industry in terms of value to the economy. It is a vital to our economy, our environmental obligations and our society. It is therefore absolutely right that the Bill is being given the kind of priority that the ministerial team are affording it.
I thank all those who have been working so hard and so collaboratively on this important issue. The priority for me and my community is the UK being able to operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state when the Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the UK. There is a strong consensus across Parliament on the importance of ensuring that the necessary measures are in place so that the UK nuclear industry can operate with certainty while meeting all international commitments. That is clear from speaking with people working in the 70-something nuclear businesses in my constituency, including my husband, who is in the Gallery tonight and celebrating his birthday by watching this debate.
Rachel Maclean
Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I take this opportunity to wish her husband a happy birthday?
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend.
The importance of having measures in place is clear from speaking to those working in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It is also clear from reading the Minister’s report, published on 27 March—and no doubt will be from reading the next report, to be published in June—that the ministerial team is making considerable effort to address all concerns. I am grateful for the time that the Minister for Nuclear has spent with me and in my Copeland constituency. He has met many businesses in Copeland, including on his visit to Sellafield, visits to the Copeland Borough Council “Open for Business” event and to a Britain’s Energy Coast Business Cluster meeting. I know that he understands both our concerns and our capabilities.
To ensure that we will operate without interruption after the implementation period ends on 31 December 2020, the amendments introduced by the Minister will improve the transparency of negotiations and improve our understanding of the procedures being carried out. The progress being made will result in better, stronger industry confidence, and I welcome that. The definitions that will be included in the Bill are also welcome.
Amendment (a), in lieu of Lords amendment 3, will address the concerns raised in the other place. As I understand it, 28 days before exit day on 1 March 2019, if any relevant agreements are not signed and if no other equivalent arrangements have been made, the Secretary of State would have to ask the EU for corresponding Euratom arrangements to continue to have effect, providing vital secondary reassurance in the unlikely event that all measures are not fully in place.
I am pleased that the UK has now signed a bilateral nuclear co-operation agreement with the United States of America, as the agreement will allow the UK and the US to continue their mutually beneficial co-operation after the point at which Euratom arrangements cease to apply to the UK. The UK-US nuclear co-operation agreement will enter force at the end of 2020, following the conclusion of the implementation period of 21 months after the end of March 2019.
It is vital we have certainty and confidence that there will be no interruption to existing relationships that are underpinned by international agreements. I also welcome the fact that the nuclear co-operation agreement has been drafted and signed on the same principles as the current Euratom-US nuclear co-operation agreement, with the same robust assurances on safeguards, security, transfers, storage, enrichment and reprocessing in relation to the transfer of nuclear material and related items between the United Kingdom and the United States.
All that is relevant to my Copeland businesses and constituents, who rely on the nuclear industry for their livelihoods, and vital so that the country can continue to generate electricity, carry on reprocessing operations and continue with the decommissioning and legacy clean-up operations in Britain and abroad.
I urge Government officials to ensure that the same swift, smooth, effective transaction agreements are prioritised with Australia, Canada and, especially, Japan, with which my constituency businesses are working very closely. World-leading and innovative clean-up, defueling and decommissioning work must continue. Skills and products are being invented and deployed to support the Fukushima clean-up.
Companies such as React Engineering, based in Cleator Moor, have worked with Sellafield to develop brand new technologies and techniques to deal with incredibly complex situations. It is in everyone’s interest that this essential work is carried out, without interruption, as we leave the EU and Euratom. The last nuclear reactor to be constructed in Britain was Sizewell B, completed in 1995 using imported pressurised water reactor technology. Since then, no nuclear power plants have been completed. The UK’s capability to design and build a nuclear power plant has been dissipated, and the renewal of the nuclear programme has been dependent on overseas technology and nuclear systems suppliers, so it is all the more important that we ensure that the international nuclear co-operation agreements are fit for purpose and in place.
This is surely a depressing situation for a country that led the way in nuclear development. I share the widely expressed concerns about the energy trilemma: the need to keep costs down, to ensure the security of supply and to reduce carbon. There must be a concerted cost-reduction emphasis, supported financially and in policy terms, and I urge the Government to consider becoming much more directly engaged in the nuclear fleet deployment to revitalise the UK nuclear industry.
Diversification of the industry is already happening in Copeland, as companies such as Shepley Engineers, for which my husband works as a welder and which was started at Sellafield in the late 1940s, are now winning contracts across the country. Such companies are deploying their highly skilled workers, who are very experienced and competent at working safely, in highly regulated environments and in extreme conditions. As I speak, the Shepley Engineers workforce are above us fixing the roof and deploying their reverse-engineering techniques to complex and ancient systems. They are replacing the cast-iron tiles and giving the stonework a new lease of life, and they are also working at considerable height on the Elizabeth Tower, always with safety as their principal concern.
It is brilliant that those skills, that expertise and that precision working are in demand across Britain and beyond, but what I really want, and what the industry is crying out for, is for our globally envied skills in nuclear to be valued, employed and deployed, grown and exported as we develop, once again, a UK fleet of nuclear reactors of small scale, advanced breed and large scale to power the country and to export across the world—leading the way and making the most of our established and highly regarded reputation for excellence, innovation and British-built, safe reliability.
The Government’s industrial strategy speaks of grand challenges, pledging to
“put the United Kingdom at the forefront of the industries of the future”.
I agree with the statement that a truly strategic Government must do more than just fix the foundations, important as they are, and must plan for a rapidly changing future. The industrial strategy reports:
“Nuclear is a vital part of our energy mix, providing low carbon power now and into the future. The safe and efficient decommissioning of our nuclear legacy is an area of world-leading expertise.”
Let us not forget that this is our responsibility. This is not the kind of job that we should be leaving for our children and grandchildren to deal with.
We have enjoyed the power generated by nuclear, we have benefited from more than 70 years of highly skilled employment and we have learned many lessons along the way. Now, we are doing the responsible thing and cleaning up our legacy waste. Old and deteriorating storage facilities are nearing the end of their useful life at Sellafield, and it is our generation’s task to deal with this, both by prioritising safe storage and disposal and by investing in research and development to realise the full potential of the highest grade fissile material.
The research and development carried out at the national nuclear laboratory and at the Dalton nuclear institute, in partnership with universities and academia, and with the small and medium-sized enterprises in Copeland, is world leading. It is truly ground-breaking innovation that will transform the way we power our homes and businesses, our vehicles on this planet and travelling to others, and how we live our lives.
This Bill is an essential element of that work, and nothing should detract from its delivery. Today is a positive step in the right direction for our nuclear industry. I am so proud to be part of the journey, serving my community in this House. I commend this Nuclear Safeguards Bill, Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3.
John Woodcock
I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 3.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). She spoke powerfully about the contribution of civil nuclear power to our local economy. As she knows full well, every day several hundred people from my constituency go up that basket-case road and on that awful coastal rail line to Sellafield. I hope the Minister was not taken the long way around, and so avoided that awful bit of the A595 and that dreadful bit of the Cumbria coastline. Those routes are truly appalling, and we need his and his Department’s help in trying to unlock our dreadful logjam with the Department for Transport.
Before I reach the substance of my brief remarks, I would like to say how nice it is to hear that the husband of the hon. Member for Copeland is in the Gallery and that she has brought him to hear her speak on Lords amendment 3 to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill for his birthday. That shows, despite all the rumours to the contrary, that people from Millom really know how to have a good time. [Laughter.] I really should not say that, given that the boundaries may expand and I might end up asking for the votes of the people of Millom at the next election.
In this place and elsewhere, we often end up getting cross with the wrong people. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister because, as has been talked about at length in the Chamber today, he has listened. If we were to tally the people who are broadly on the right side of this debate, he would be one of them. The people we should be cross with—those who made the wrongheaded, deeply Europhobic decision to exit Euratom at the time of our leaving the European Union—are not here. We still do not accept the legal advice that he quotes. To my knowledge—he could set us straight either way—even when the Government are talking about associate Euratom status, or whatever is put in place, they will still not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court in those decisions, although I believe they have already conceded this in other areas, such as civil aviation.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight as I spoke in this important debate at an earlier stage—on Second Reading. I was pleased to hear the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who gave a good, comprehensive analysis of why civil nuclear power and the nuclear industry are so important, not only to her constituency but to the country as a whole. In this debate, we tend to get forgetful about the immense contribution Britain has made to the nuclear industry and nuclear science. At the beginning of the 20th century, we had people such as Thomson and Rutherford, and others in the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge and at other universities. They pioneered nuclear technology and advances in the nuclear industry. It is sad to hear speeches in this House that yet again undermine, frustrate or seek to question our capacity to get this right and to institute safeguards.
In that regard, the Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It is sensible and it tries to construct a framework that will allow us to leave Euratom and go our own way. After all, we are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency—it has a structure and about 169 countries as members—and we should celebrate that. To hear people in this Chamber, one would think that without Euratom we were absolutely nothing and there would be no safeguards and no industry. We have heard the doom-mongering prophecy of thousands of job losses, to which the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) alluded in his mildly entertaining speech. We have had all these bugbears and goblins, and all this terror, held before us, but we are taking a simple step: we are going to leave Euratom and institute our own Bill, as we are doing, that will provide for safeguards in the industry. We also have the IAEA as a backstop. All this fear-mongering and these doom-laden prophecies of job losses are grossly exaggerated.
The other thing to say on the amendments is that in eight years in this House I cannot remember a Government who have been so accommodating and open to amendments as we have been on this Bill. In general, we see Governments, including the one of which I am a member, rejecting amendments; sometimes the amendments make sense and often they do not. In this instance, I have been surprised and impressed by the fact that our Front Benchers and the Government as a whole have adopted many of the amendments proposed in the Lords.
I want to talk a little about the House of Lords amendments and the processes they are going through. The job of scrutiny that the Lords are doing is good, but in the context of Euratom and debates about the EU there is a suspicion—I am not saying that all the people in the other place are influenced in this way—that a lot of these debates and institutions are being set up as straw men with which to block Brexit. When people say we should stay in this or that institution, there is always the suspicion of it being a rearguard fight to reverse the decision of the referendum of June 2016 and somehow to stay in the EU by other means. I am not suggesting the majority of their lordships are influenced by that, but in these debates there is always the suspicion that people are trying to use proxies and excuses to prolong our membership, unnecessarily, of these European institutions.
Euratom is a creature not of the EU but very much of the philosophy that was underpinning countries of western Europe coming together. I believe Euratom was established in 1957, roughly at the same time as the treaty of Rome, but we did not actually join it until 1973. To hear some of these speeches, one would think that we had no nuclear industry and no nuclear expertise before we joined Euratom. As I was trying to suggest, that is, of course, completely false.
Layla Moran
Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps concede that he has misunderstood the amendment? It says that its provisions would be invoked only if everything had not been agreed. It does not say that we would stay in Euratom in perpetuity; it simply says that we would stay in until the point at which every single i had been dotted and every single t had been crossed.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I accept that it is a clever amendment. I accept that on the face of it, it says that it is just a backstop, there purely to ensure that if we do not have the right treaties in place we get to stay in Euratom forever and ever, but the hon. Lady and I know that the people who composed the amendment do not expect all the relevant treaties to have been signed in the short timeframe available. I suggest, perhaps cynically—perhaps the hon. Lady will challenge me on this—that the clever amendment is simply a ruse to prolong our membership of Euratom. Call me an over-cynical man of superstition, but a lot of my constituents, if they pay any attention to this issue, would come to the same conclusion.
Layla Moran
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me a second go. In a sense, we are all rooting for the Minister, in the hope that he will come to a complete set of agreements in time. We all want that, and as soon as he does that, the amendment’s provisions will no longer apply. There is no issue, because if it all happens, it is fine, and even if it does not happen, the amendment will no longer apply as soon as it does happen. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument; it does not make logical sense.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s interventions. All I am suggesting is that what we have seen in the other House and heard in speeches there over several weeks is a consistent and concerted attempt to reverse the verdict of June 2016. I feel that this Euratom debate—I spoke on Second Reading—has been very much a proxy debate about the merits of the EU, which it should not have been. I have every confidence that the Government have the right safeguards in the Bill. I do not feel that the British civil nuclear industry is under any threat whatsoever. With the IAEA, we have in place the right structures. The scaremongering and doom-laden prophesies should be set aside, we should encourage the Government and we should reject the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the urgent question on the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review earlier on, which had been published at 8 am on Friday 4 May with no press releases or advance copies in the middle of the local election results, the Minister of State for Care said:
“It is an independent document and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday without permission from or any kind of communication with the Department of Health and Social Care.”
However, the Secretary of State had told the House in December 2016:
“As the programme develops, all learnings will be transferred to the national avoidable mortality programme. I have today asked the LeDeR programme to provide annual reports to the Department of Health on its findings”—[Official Report, 13 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 622.]
What the Minister of State said today cuts directly across what the Secretary of State told the House, which was that he intended annual reports to be made to the Department of Health. Since our urgent question, the programme itself has clarified this on social media. It said that following claims made by the Care Minister in Parliament,
“we would like to clarify that @NHSEngland chose when to publish the #Leder report and directed all communications.”
Given that clarification from the programme itself, has the Minister of State or the Secretary of State asked to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady wishes to put her point on the record and, by raising a point of order, she has done so. I am quite certain that the Treasury Bench will have taken note of what she has said. She, like all Members of this House, will know that it is not a matter for the Chair what an individual Minister says at the Dispatch Box. Therefore, I cannot give her any ruling on the matter, but she has sought to put her point on the record, and she has succeeded in doing so.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to Criminal Legal Aid Remuneration may continue, though opposed, for 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Criminal Legal Aid
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:41 - divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 220), dated 20 February 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be revoked.
The gravest consequences for anyone accused of a serious crime in our criminal justice system is that their liberty is taken away from them. When that is at stake, no one should be left unrepresented in a court. When that is at stake, we have a duty, as a society, to guarantee the future of effective legal representation. Failing to do so creates the real risk of injustices. This motion today is about the threats posed to our justice system and specifically to criminal defence by the Government’s changes to the payments for the criminal legal aid system. These changes are why around 100 chambers are now, in effect, striking, taking co-ordinated industrial action, and refusing more publicly funded work. The serious consequences of this action are clear for all to see. As the BBC reported on 4 April:
“A murder case at the Old Bailey has become one of the first to be affected by a strike by barristers.”
On 9 April WalesOnline explained:
“A woman accused of murdering Swansea pensioner John Williams has appeared in Crown Court without legal representation because of a barristers’ strike.”
There are many other examples.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Bar was strongly in favour when this was consulted on, with statements such as
“the bar council and the young barristers committee welcome new proposals published today”,
and
“as circuit leaders over the period of the negotiations it is our shared view that we should support the implementation of the scheme”.
The Criminal Bar Association was in favour. So what exactly is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
Richard Burgon
Well, this is not the CBA’s scheme and it does have serious concerns about aspects of this provision. Tonight is an opportunity for the Government to think again and make some sensible concessions on the most controversial aspects. If everyone was happy with the measures, the criminal barristers would not have voted by 90% to take strike action.
We have a responsibility to contribute to resolving this situation by encouraging negotiation and facilitating a solution before there is further escalation. That means that the Government should withdraw these controversial changes, go back to the drawing board and come up with a scheme that attracts widespread support, rather than provoking a backlash.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given the importance of what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks about the right of representation in court—a very serious procedure indeed—does he not agree that barristers withdrawing their services in strike protest is not serving justice at all, and that there should be another way for them to seek redress? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the strike?
Richard Burgon
I will not be taking this opportunity to condemn our barristers because I do not condemn our barristers. The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask whether we support the action. Yes, we support it. We deeply regret the fact that the Government have pushed the barristers into this position. We want the Government to take this opportunity to think again and listen to people who have been backed into a corner.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this action is the cumulative effect of years and years of assault on honest, hard-working lawyers who represent clients? These people are not at the top of the profession in terms of their income or their futures; they are people who are committed to individuals in very difficult situations, and it is the Government who have let them down.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend makes an important point eloquently. For many of the barristers I have spoken to, this really is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Before I touch on the precise concerns that have been raised about the new scheme, I will briefly look at the wider context that has caused this issue to be so controversial. As I have said, in many ways this issue is the straw that broke the camel’s back in the justice sector. Our justice system is at tipping point. The deep crisis unleashed by drastic cuts could soon become an emergency. In some areas, it already has.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about cuts. Does he accept that, had Labour won the 2010 general election, it too would have made substantial cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget based on its own manifesto promises?
Richard Burgon
Things have moved on since the 2010 general election.
Since 2010, the budget of the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 40% in the deepest cuts of any Department. A further £600 million—around 10% of the MOJ’s budget—is to be cut in the next two years. It is a system that has already been cut to the bone. The crisis in our prisons is driven by staff and budget cuts, as has been well documented. It has been less well documented that 100 or so courts have been sold off for little more than the price of the average UK house, having negative impacts on victims and witnesses. What has also not been discussed as much as it should have been is the fact that youth offending team budgets have been decimated, with central Government funding halved over the past few years, or the fact that probation privatisation is failing despite hundreds of millions of pounds more recently going into bailing out these failing private companies. But it does not stop there, because on top of this, there are big reductions in police numbers and big reductions in the Crown Prosecution Service budgets. In 2016, the Public Accounts Committee told Members of Parliament that the criminal justice system was at breaking point. After years of cuts, the system is clearly now broken. Let us be clear: an underfunded system risks yet more victims being denied justice and risks yet more miscarriages of justice.
Today we are discussing cuts related to legal aid. Our democracy and the rule of law, despite the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) advocating people being banned from not going to work, depends on people being able to defend their rights. Our welfare state, created in the aftermath of the second world war, was about defending people’s basic human rights. It was about guaranteeing every citizen access to the human rights of education and healthcare but also of access to justice. In civil cases, when people cannot access justice, the consequences are grave.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the basic fundamentals of our society is equality before the law, and that without access to legal aid, very many people are being denied equality before the law?
Richard Burgon
If people do not have access to justice—access to legal representation—and are not equal before the law, then basically some of our hard-won rights are not worth the paper they are written on. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
As I said, in civil cases, when people cannot access legal aid, the consequences are grave. To illustrate that idea, let us look at what has happened in recent days and recent weeks. A migrant, or perhaps someone who was thought to look like a migrant, is not able to get legal advice after the Government slashed access. Without legal help, as I said, the rights that we have—often rights hard won by social justice campaigners across the decades—are simply not worth the paper they are written on.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. My constituent Caitriona McLaughlin works in the particular area of migrants and justice. With the Bar refusing to take new work at the new rates, she says that more and more people will suffer miscarriages of justice because of this statutory instrument. Does he agree with her?
Richard Burgon
I do agree. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point from his constituent’s experience. That is why I have been forced to bring this motion before the House to revoke the statutory instrument.
Richard Burgon
I will make some progress if that is okay.
The crisis in legal aid goes much wider than the civil sector, with criminal cases affected too. As I said, that has the gravest of consequences. We now have more people representing themselves, even in the most serious of criminal cases—those tried at the Crown court. I want to draw the House’s attention to Ministry of Justice research published last week. The summary paper —only a summary—was published only after dogged pressure from journalists like Emily Dugan. It highlights judges’ concerns about people representing themselves, referring to
“unrepresented defendants not understanding how to present evidence about their case at hearings, how to prepare defence statements, or how to ask questions in court.”
The obvious result of this is that some judges and prosecutors felt that those who appeared in court without a lawyer were more likely to be found guilty. The legal system should not be skewed towards wealthier people. Everybody who wants it should have access to proper legal representation if charged with a criminal offence. Justice should be blind. It should also not be based on the depth of people’s pockets. We now have criminal barristers forced to take co-ordinated action in refusing to take up legal aid work because of changes to the Government’s funding scheme.
Labour Members are proud to have submitted this motion to annul the legislation changing the scheme through which criminal defence advocates are paid for carrying out publicly funded work in the Crown court—the so-called advocates graduated fee scheme. The motion has now won the backing of over 130 Members of Parliament. We welcome the fact that, albeit belatedly, time was given for a parliamentary vote to annul this legislation.
I hope that Conservative Members who understand and respect our legal system and the importance to justice of proper access to criminal defence will not vote along party lines tonight. I hope they will help to forge a consensus that helps the Government to rethink this flawed scheme.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
When these negotiations were in process, Bar circuit leaders said:
“As the Circuit Leaders over the period of the negotiations, it is our shared view that we should support the implementation of this proposed scheme.”
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it is important to listen to those who are working in our criminal courts day after day?
Richard Burgon
It is not the Criminal Bar Association’s scheme. The CBA has serious concerns about the controversial aspects of the scheme. If the scheme were fine, 90% of criminal barristers would not have voted to take this action. It is clear that something has gone wrong and that the Government have backed these barristers into a corner rather than forging the consensus we need.
The Government’s scheme fundamentally changes the way in which criminal defence advocates are paid for carrying out publicly funded work in the Crown court. The new fee system means that the vast majority of cases will now receive a flat fee for a case, so that a case with 250 pages pays the same as a case with 5,000 pages. A rape case with a single complainant and defendant will have the same fee as a rape case involving multiple victims and multiple defendants. That disincentivises lawyers from undertaking complex cases, which often require weeks of preparation.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The main losers in this are senior-level junior practitioners, who prepare and research complex cases. There is no fee for looking at prosecution disclosure, which means there is a greater chance of miscarriages of justice. Is this not completely misconceived in the way it has been put together? As he says, it will simply lead to cases either not being taken or not being prepared to the standard that they should be.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We cannot tolerate a situation where either the guilty walk free or the innocent go to prison.
The scheme fails to recognise the growing work required to deal with the increasing amount of evidential and unused material. Advocates are expected to consider that material without specific payments, however much additional material is served. That is especially worrying, given the fact that a series of trials, including rape trials, have recently collapsed because of failings in the disclosure of evidence.
Despite Government promises of cost neutrality, the CBA says that the scheme amounts to a £2 million cut, and no future-proofing is built into it, resulting in a year-on-year inflationary cut. The new scheme does not address the damage caused to the system by substantial real-terms cuts to legal aid rates over recent years of 40%. As a result of these reductions, there are pressing concerns about the ability to retain younger barristers and recruit the next generation into criminal defence work. After two decades without any sort of basic cost-of-living pay rise, criminal law is no longer an attractive career option for young solicitors or young barristers entering the system saddled with debt, and others are leaving because of the increasingly unreasonable demands made on them to do more and more for less and less.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the issue of recruitment, is he not particularly concerned that if the Bar is to reflect the whole of society and is to draw more widely on people from less privileged backgrounds, black and minority ethnic backgrounds and so forth, it is essential that a career at the Bar is seen to provide a reasonable income?
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are running the risk, with the path we have been taking in recent years in the justice sector, of the death knell being sounded on social mobility in the legal professions.
These changes also threaten the insufficient but none the less hard-won progress made on diversity and, as my hon. Friend says, social mobility. That has profound consequences, not just for people hoping for a career in the law but for public trust, as the judicial professions and institutions cease to reflect the communities they are there to serve. As Lady Justice Hallett has explained,
“cuts to legal aid and the publicly-funded criminal justice system will set back the cause of improving diversity on the bench.”
Criminal solicitors face similar problems with their fee scheme—the litigators graduated fee scheme. They have not received any fee increase since 1998, and the number of firms in England and Wales registered for criminal defence work has recently fallen from 1,600 to 1,200. The profession is in crisis, with an ageing demographic profile. In fact, new Law Society data paint a very bleak picture indeed of “advice deserts”, where the remaining criminal solicitors will retire and no younger solicitors are coming in to take their place. That is hardly surprising when Young Legal Aid Lawyers figures show that 53% of survey respondents earn less than £25,000 per year, and those figures relate to people qualified for up to 10 years.
Ian C. Lucas
Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of the closure of courts and the reduction in the number of solicitors firms in market towns across the country is having a massive impact on these towns, and Conservative Members just do not seem to believe in a Britain that supports its local towns?
Richard Burgon
That is a very important point. The whole swathe of court closures that have occurred have really done damage to the principle of justice accessible to all and delivered locally, so that point is very important.
The Law Society has issued judicial review proceedings against the Government in relation to further cuts to solicitors’ fees for Crown court work, and that crisis is not one that will go away. The issue for barristers will not be settled if the Government vote against our motion and carry on regardless. I understand that there is a presumption that barristers are all highly paid and some will want to paint this as being about more money going to the wealthy, but the CBA briefing points out that average pre-tax pay is about £28,000. Barristers are self-employed and the headline figures often exclude expenses, including the costs of office space, travel, staff, insurance, pension and sick pay, which the CBA estimates account for about half of a barrister’s turnover.
To draw my remarks to a conclusion, I want to cite an anecdote published by one criminal defence lawyer:
“Today I helped a colleague out by prosecuting the sentencing hearing in one of his cases, in a court 94 miles away from my home. The fee for that hearing is £60. £10 of that goes straight to my chambers as rent. I spent £33 on petrol and £6.30 on parking. The CPS do pay some travel—I think I’ll get £23.50 for this. Therefore, I come out with £34. The offence, by the way, was an assault on a baby. It was a 2pm hearing, so I left home at 10 and got home at 5. During those 7 hours, apart from the 10 mins I spent eating my packed lunch, I was either driving, getting ready for the hearing, in court, or explaining the outcome (a prison sentence) to the baby’s family. I don’t wish to sound ungrateful for my £34. I just can’t help but feel a little undervalued. I’ve been at the criminal Bar for 9 years. The government decides how much to pay me, and I think they take advantage of me, my skills, and my sense of public duty. #TheLawIsBroken”.
I hope you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if, when the hon. Member for North Dorset, who has left the Chamber, invites me to condemn people such as that barrister, I do not do so. I hope you will forgive me if, when the hon. Gentleman who has left says that this person should be forced to go to work, I say that I do not agree with such a cruel and detached analysis.
The Government will say that they sought consensus on these issues, and that the Ministry of Justice has worked with the CBA and the Bar Council, although there are different accounts of those talks. The truth of the matter is that the Government have failed, as hundreds of barristers are now taking direct action. They have failed, as there is press speculation of further barrister action if they press on with this scheme tonight, with walkouts and returns not being done, which would send our courts into chaos. The Government have failed, as people in our justice system are being affected. Whatever one makes of it, the Government’s approach has not created consensus; it has created a backlash. When they are in a hole, the Government should stop digging.
The Criminal Bar Association has made a formal request for the Ministry of Justice to delay, withdraw, amend or reconsider the implementation of this statutory instrument. The Government should listen to the CBA, not deny that there is a problem. They should put the new scheme on hold and set about fixing it. To do that, they should do the right thing in tonight’s vote. I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate, which relates to the value of the independent Bar. It is therefore important for me, as a former barrister: I understand very clearly the role that advocates play in justice. The work done by the criminal Bar, day in, day out, up and down the country, is a fundamental part of our justice system. It is criminal barristers, criminal advocates, who ensure that people, often at the most desperate time of their lives, get the opportunity to have their points put coherently and effectively, when their futures are on the line, ensuring justice. I start by acknowledging and thanking criminal barristers for the hard work that they do.
The Lord Chancellor and I have heard many concerns about the wider justice system in the short four months since we took office. We take those concerns very seriously and we are committed to ensuring that there is an efficient and effective support for those who go through our court system. We want people to have every confidence in every part of their justice system. We want a system that supports victims and ensures a smooth and efficient process for litigants, and a legal profession that is enticing at every level for those who want to work within it.
Those are all important points, but the hon. Member for Leeds East has prayed against a statutory instrument. In the interests of advocates affected by that instrument, we should now focus on the issues that it raises. It is appropriate to start with four clear facts. First, this scheme was put together in close co-operation with the Bar leadership. Secondly, the scheme does not bring in a cut; at the very least, it is cost neutral, but it is more likely to give rise to an increase in expenditure, given that built into the calculations is a £9 million risk of such an increase. Thirdly, the scheme is more advantageous to the Bar overall than the one it replaces, particularly for those at the junior end. Fourthly, a clear commitment was given at the time the scheme came in that the Government would review it in 18 to 24 months. If, in the course of that review, legitimate concerns are raised about the system and a good case is made for investment, we will look at those proposals.
Sandy Martin
I thank the Minister. If she believes that her Government’s changes to legal aid have not been damaging to the profession, will she explain why there is not one single criminal law solicitor aged under 35 in Suffolk—or indeed in Norfolk, Cornwall or Worcestershire?
Lucy Frazer
Like the hon. Member for Leeds East, the hon. Gentleman raises a broad point about the justice system which I will come on to. On his specific point, it is of course important to have duty solicitors across the country doing legal aid. The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews the geographical spread of the profession.
This is a debate about a statutory instrument and it is very important, for the advocates affected by it, that we focus on it. I would now like to expand on the four points I made.
Sir Oliver Heald
I think everyone would acknowledge that to go out and do the job of a criminal barrister is incredibly demanding, and that the profession faces challenges of various sorts. On the negotiations on the advocates’ graduated fee scheme, great efforts were made to involve the Bar at every stage. The Legal Aid Agency put a huge amount of work into the talks, as did the Ministry of Justice. The intention was to find a better way of paying barristers, not to do anyone down. Does the Minister agree that the response to the consultation document, which was so positive, seems to have evaporated for some reason?
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. and learned Friend, who was a Minister at an early stage in this process, makes a very important point. The scheme we are debating today came about because both the Bar and the Government accepted that the old scheme was outdated. Advocates told us that it did not reflect the amount of time and effort they put into their cases. For example, under the old scheme there were no separate fees for the second day of a trial and there were no fees for a sentence hearing. The new scheme is the result of a two-year exercise involving the leadership of the Bar—the Bar Council—the Criminal Bar Association and the circuit leaders. When the scheme was put forward in a consultation in 2017 it was widely welcomed by those organisations.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I am not a lawyer, so it may be that I am looking at this issue in a very simplistic way. It seems that my hon. and learned Friend is saying that the professionals said that the old regime was broken, yet the Opposition seem to be arguing that they want to go back to that old regime. Can my hon. and learned Friend enlighten me on why the Opposition are opposing modernising the system?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which is at the very heart of this debate. The old system is not supported by the Bar. It did not want that system. The new scheme is an improvement, so the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that the Labour party is simply playing politics with an honourable and important profession.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
As the Minister knows, there is a continuing funding crisis at the Bar. The reality is that at some point the Government are going to have to face up to the very great difficulties facing the justice system. That is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor; it is the situation he inherited. I have to say that I am in complete sympathy with the stance that my hon. and learned Friend is taking this evening. The scheme was wanted by the Bar and it is clearly an improvement on the previous system. Granted there are very great difficulties with funds, but it seems entirely reasonable for the Government to proceed with it.
Lucy Frazer
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention and recognition that this scheme was wanted. I hope I have conveyed that the Lord Chancellor and I recognise that where there are difficulties in the criminal justice system we will seek to ensure that we have the best possible criminal justice system and legal system. The scheme, which we are voting on today, is the right scheme going forward. The proposal that it should be revoked and annulled is disadvantageous to the Bar and is simply politics.
Ian C. Lucas
Why then does the Minister think the barristers are taking action?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the barristers why they are taking action, because the new scheme is more favourable.
The consultation was broadly welcomed by the organisations I mentioned earlier. I would like to provide just one quote among many. When the consultation was put forward in 2017, the then chair of the Bar Council said:
“The suggested scheme is a fairer way of rewarding advocates for their work”,
and that it is a
“a positive example of the Ministry of Justice participating in constructive dialogue with the profession”.
As with any consultation, suggestions were made to improve the scheme. It was said, for example, that it was not right that the initial scheme proposed was to be cost-neutral as against 2014-15. Concerns were also raised that it may have an adverse impact on junior advocates. The Ministry of Justice listened to those concerns and increased the amount in the scheme in line with the costs at the time, which increased the funding by £9 million. This allowed it to improve the scheme for junior advocates. The MOJ also assesses that the scheme will cost significantly more—approximately £9 million more—than anticipated.
The new scheme in this statutory instrument is better than the one it replaces. With this motion, which calls for the new scheme to be revoked, the hon. Member for Leeds East is disadvantaging those he professes to support. He says that it is a threat to our justice system, but the motion is playing politics. It puts party politics above supporting the right outcome. With the motion, the Labour party and those who intend to join them today are using the Bar and justice as a political tool for their own ends.
Andy Slaughter
Minister, that is a silly thing to say, because the motion reflects the disquiet that has been expressed by the Bar. The hon. and learned Lady does not have the curiosity to ask barristers why they are unhappy; perhaps one reason is that the scheme was an alternative to a further 8.5% cut, which would have caused mayhem in the criminal courts. It is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does she not go back and ask the Bar who the losers are now, what the problems are and how they could be reformed, and why does she not take this away and look at it again?
Lucy Frazer
I am sorry if I misrepresented the position earlier. I have spoken regularly to a number of organisations that represent the leadership of the Bar. Over the last week, my Department has gone to chambers up and down this country. We have talked to them to understand their concerns about the scheme and to try to understand what position they prefer. We are extremely engaged in talking. The point I am making is that the new scheme is a better one. It was supported by the circuit leaders, the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Young Barristers’ Committee, and about 15 press releases all support that position.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am very pleased to see my hon. and learned Friend in her place, with her knowledge and background. I will, of course, support the Government tonight, because I agree that this motion is playing politics with an issue, but I have a concern, which I have raised with her before. Following on from the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), I hope that after this the Government will address one of the problems that they face with the junior Bar, particularly here in London. I know, because my son is one of them, and he would tell us that those we want to encourage to come to the Bar, who would diversify the Bar, cannot afford to do so. This is a big crisis for us, otherwise we will end up yet again with a narrow Bar. I wonder whether the Minister might urge her colleagues and hon. Friends to think about that, because it is those who will come through to be the judges of the future.
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point about recruitment at the Bar. The Ministry of Justice is of course concerned about this issue, but it is not just a problem for the MOJ. When I went to the Bar, Bar fees for the course were £5,000, and they are now £15,000. Asking people to pay that sort of money is a barrier to access when the chances of their getting a pupillage and a tenancy are limited.
I will highlight three points to show why asking to revoke the scheme, as the shadow Secretary of State is asking, disadvantages the Bar. First, he is saying by doing so that he does not want the additional funds that the new scheme is likely to produce, as against the old scheme. Secondly, he is asking junior barristers to go to sentence and other hearings for no fees. Thirdly, he is asking to retain a scheme that calculates fees on the basis of page count, which is wholly outdated.
As I suggested, it was right to focus on the statutory instrument, but it would be wrong not to correct some of the many inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which focused on broader issues. He made several comments about disclosure without even mentioning either that the Attorney General’s review is due to report this summer or the national disclosure improvement announced by the CPS and the National Police Chiefs Council on 26 January. He talked about recruitment and failed to mention my points about fees. He said that recruitment was falling—there is anecdotal evidence for that—but failed to mention that the number of pupillages at the Bar went up in 2016-17 to its highest level since 2013. Very importantly, it is good to note that there were more women than men in 2016-17. In fact, the total number of barristers at the Bar now in practice stands at 16,435 and is incrementally increasing year on year.
The hon. Gentleman sought very quickly to broaden out the debate by talking about cuts, but he failed to identify why the coalition Government had to make the cuts they did across the board after 2010. It was because the Labour Government overspent and increased our debt and deficit. A few weeks ago, I went to a school in my constituency to explain how Governments spend their money. I identified the different Departments of State, and we looked at the proportion of spending for each. If interest was a Department of State, it would be our fourth-biggest in terms of expenditure, and that is because of the unreasonable and irresponsible decisions taken when Labour was in office.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about court closures. When 41% of courts and tribunals used less than half their available hearing capacity in 2016-17, it would be wrong not to look at our court estate. All the money from the sales is reinvested into the court estate, into our court buildings and court structure, and into technology, and that is alongside our billion-pound reform of the court process. I know that he is in favour of strikes of any kind, whether they are legal or illegal and whether or not they disadvantage ordinary members of society. I know that he favours disruption, demonstration and discontent over careful, constructive and collaborative processes, but the Conservative party believes in justice and that those who need representation should be entitled to it. We will continue to work with the profession to help them to protect the rule of law and the vulnerable people who come through our courts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. With so many Members wanting to speak, I suggest that each Member aims to speak for about six minutes.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The fundamental principles of justice and the right to a fair trial have been enshrined in the English law since as far back as Magna Carta, and despite all the many different threats to the right to a fair trial since its signing in 1215, the biggest threat facing our country’s legal system is right here, right now, today. The constant chipping away at, and the catastrophic underfunding of, criminal legal aid has led to a broken justice system perilously close to collapse. Two years ago, the Public Accounts Committee stated that the criminal justice system was at breaking point. The Government have failed to heed those warnings, and we now have a situation whereby it is only through the extraordinary good will and willingness to go the extra mile of prosecutors and defence barristers that justice can be done.
I had an email on Sunday from one of my constituents who is a pupil barrister specialising in criminal law in her second six months of training. She told me that she had already been prosecuting cases, had had experience of being handed papers to prosecute a case at court on the day, had seen cases adjourned because of disclosure failures, and that this was not uncommon. She went on:
“I’m afraid that I won’t be able to earn enough to support myself, let alone enough to buy a home, start a family, retire with a decent pension. I hope I’ll be able to justify staying in this profession, which is so hard but which I already love so much, and which I’ve invested so much work and money in joining. I don’t need riches, but I need to be able to live, and my future clients will need me to be able to dedicate the time their cases require and deserve. I need to know I will be paid for my work, or I just won’t be able to do it. And where will we be if a thousand people in my position come to that conclusion, and there is no one to replace us?”
That is the point. Where will we be if we stop being able to attract people to practise criminal law? How many miscarriages of justice can we expect for defendants and victims as disclosures are made late, documents are not properly read, and defendants cease to be properly represented? With more cuts planned in the Ministry of Justice, it is clear that this is a targeted assault on the criminal justice system, and that the Government have a flagrant disregard for the future of criminal justice.
The advocates’ graduated fee scheme is the means by which the Government hope to reap some of those cuts. AGFS spending has fallen by 40% since 2010, and given that the new scheme proposed in the regulations is meant to be cost-neutral, this is surely just a case of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The fact that the views of the Criminal Bar Association have not been listened to also leads me to conclude that the scheme is a sham, and exists purely to deliver cuts for the Government.
There are so many absurdities in the current AGFS system that one would think it had been devised in an “Alice in Wonderland” environment. Why—this question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—is an advocate who deals with a case involving 250 pages of evidence paid the same as an advocate who deals with one involving 5,000 pages? Why is someone handling a rape case with one defendant and one complainant paid the same as someone else handling a case involving multiple victims and multiple complainants? Why is there no recognition of the additional work involved in dealing with vulnerable witnesses, children or people with mental health conditions? Is a standard appearance fee of £90 really acceptable when the cost of catching a train to the court is significantly more? Is a fee of £125 for a sentencing acceptable? Why have fees not gone up since 2007? The Minister and others have claimed that this scheme is an improvement on the previous one, but an improvement on a terrible, failing scheme which makes it into a bad one is, for criminal barristers, no improvement at all.
The impact of the cuts in criminal legal aid will be felt for many years to come, as barristers and solicitors leave criminal justice in their droves. Why would anyone stay in a profession that is incredibly stressful when the pay is barely enough to survive on? Research conducted by Young Legal Aid Lawyers—lawyers with up to 10 years’ experience—revealed that 30% of respondents earned less than £20,000 and 83% earned less than £35,000. Throw into the mix tuition fees for undergraduates and the Bar Professional Training Course, which could leave them with debts of £50,000 or more, and we have a very unappealing set of factors that will repel applicants rather than attract them.
We are approaching a tipping point which, if not addressed, could have disastrous effects on the number of practitioners working in criminal law, and could also have an effect on the quality of the legal advice that people receive. We can forget any diversity or social mobility targets, because unless criminal legal aid is properly funded, only those who are able to afford to support themselves will enter the profession. That threatens the very right to a fair trial, which takes me back to where I started. Unless criminal legal aid is properly funded, which means tearing up the AGFS and starting again, this will sound the death knell for those practising criminal law. I say to the Minister, “You cannot do justice on the cheap.”
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my Justice Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).
It is important that we are having this debate. I refer Members to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I have the honour to chair the Justice Committee. During the last Parliament and the one before it, the Committee considered a number of issues affecting remuneration of the Bar and the way in which we operate our criminal justice system, as well as broader issues, and we heard a great deal of evidence. There is no doubt that the debate touches on very serious issues to which there are no easy answers, but it is also a specific debate about a specific statutory instrument. I will therefore do my best, in the time available, to confine myself to its specifics, but I think it right to give a little of the context.
I speak as someone who practised for 25 years at the criminal Bar, who regards it as one of the finest things someone can do, who has friends still in practice at the Bar, and who is conscious of the hours that are worked and the things that are thrown at people at the last minute, that it is a demanding profession and is not well rewarded—and, arguably, is not rewarded as well as it should be in the circumstances. But we should take a step back from that, because some of the things we are talking about have, I regret to say, always been there. The last minute brief was a feature of my very early days in practice and continued all the way through it, and the large quantities of unused material that people were never paid for reading have also always been a feature of the scheme.
I do think, however, that we should perhaps look at future designs of the scheme now, because of the issues we have found around disclosure, which is ever more important and has grown with the use of digital and online material. We need to look again at whether it is reasonable not to fund people for reviewing the disclosure in these cases. I am conscious of that because I prosecuted a case which we rightly abandoned upon its second appeal when disclosure that should have been made was finally—some years too late, I am afraid, for the person serving the sentence—made to us. So we do need to take that seriously, but, again, it is not a part of the debate on this statutory instrument. That system has always been there, and revoking this statutory instrument will not solve the issue of payment for people dealing properly with disclosure, nor will it solve the issues of the late return or the late nights that we have always been used to. Those are broader matters.
It is also worth observing that the pressure on incomes at the criminal Bar, which I accept has been real and not made easy by extraneous factors such as the cost of training, has not occurred only under this Government or the coalition. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to there being no increase in fees since 2007, but, going back further, the squeeze at the Bar started under the Blair Government, from 1997 onwards, so the idea that this has been placed upon the Bar by the current Government is not fair and is not based on the evidence.
It is clear that the Bar now has issues with the scheme. I am deeply saddened that colleagues and friends feel unable to accept work under the scheme. Is it perfect? No, I am sure it is not. Would it be better if more money could be found? Yes, I am sure that it would be. Is revoking the instrument going to solve that? No, I do not think it will. We need a much broader and maturely based debate about that.
I particularly take note of the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who was the Minister at the time and whom I have known since my earliest days at the Bar. I know he is an honest and trustworthy man and when he says that there was a real and genuine attempt to engage the professions in this, I know he is telling the truth. It is also worth bearing in mind that the best evidence is sometimes what is said at the time, and we have a number of quotations from that time that show very clearly that all the representative bodies at the Bar gave a broadly favourable welcome, on the basis that it was not perfect—they did not pretend it was—but it was an improvement on what was there.
The chairs and membership of the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and other representative bodies change annually. They cannot bind their successors and attitudes change, and I am not going to speculate on that. However, it is unfair to say that this was brought in by the Government against a backdrop of universal hostility, because that is not the case; broadly, a fair wind was given to it at the time. Issues have perhaps blown up subsequently, however, and many of us who keep in touch and follow this matter closely might suggest that the real problems are not purely around this statutory instrument, but that broader issues need to be addressed.
The most important things we need to do now do not include talking about the revocation of a scheme that could be improved. Instead, we must make the case for more funding for the criminal Bar. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) talks powerfully about his own experience, and friends and children of mine suffer exactly the same difficulty. It is a lot harder to start at the junior criminal Bar now than it was in my day, and that is not a healthy situation. We need a stream of bright, talented and dedicated young people coming through, and this issue deserves a longer and broader debate, in terms of both time and context, than the narrow one we are having now.
Victoria Prentis
Does my hon. Friend agree that the justice system stands or falls together, and that far from being broken, it is one of the finest justice systems in the world? It is worth £25 billion a year, and we need to ensure that all levels of the Bar, and our solicitor advocates, are supported in the work that they do.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are pressures and difficulties, and some areas of the system creak, but talking it down does no justice to anyone. At the end of the day, it is an immensely better system than anything else we have on offer. If we want to look at really badly funded systems, we can look across the Atlantic and to other places, which would horrify all of us. We are not in that situation, and I do not want to get into that situation, but we will only ever go forward if we can make a measured case for why, for example, it is cost-effective to have representation because litigants in person actually burn up more time and cost than if they were properly represented, and the trials take longer. Let us make the business case around that. That will not be done, however, by revoking this instrument or by people not accepting instructions—however great the temptation—and people going unrepresented. I hope that the Bar and the solicitors will feel able to get back round the table with the Ministry of Justice.
I was concerned to hear the powerful evidence given to the Justice Committee recently by the Criminal Law Solicitors Association. It was suggested that a duty solicitor was probably less well remunerated than a teacher with comparable experience. In a competitive world, that does not seem entirely fair. They are both demanding jobs, and we need to find a constructive way forward rather than walking away from these matters.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have had contact with five junior criminal law barristers, and not one of them earns more than £21,000 a year. That means that after they have paid tax and expenses, they have to live on about 10 grand a year, in London.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an important point; it was in fact the last point I was going to make. If we are to win this debate on fairer funding, we need to get back to a more honest awareness of the realities of remuneration. The press have something to answer for in that regard. It is all too easy to talk about fat-cat barristers and the occasional £1 million-plus fee, which usually relates to a case that lasted about 18 months and was of a highly complex nature. Those sorts of cases are not around any more, for a raft of reasons, and those reports wholly misrepresent the position of the vast majority of barristers, who are working on really modest take-home incomes. Above all, we forget the level of deductions that have to be taken out. My hon. Friend’s point is an entirely fair one. I want to see more money in the system, but that will only come from having a strong and well-managed economy. I want to see more money in the system, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it.
Andy Slaughter
The Chairman of the Select Committee is making a very good case, but he does not seem to be persuaded by his own advocacy. If this scheme corrects some of the anomalies of the previous scheme, it does so only by reducing the brief fees overall to below a level that was already extremely low. The purpose of annulling the statutory instrument is to make the Government go back and renegotiate on that basis. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the logic of that?
Robert Neill
I do not accept that logic, persuasive though it might be, because annulling the SI would simply put us back on to the old scheme. I would prefer to bank what we have—imperfect though it is—and move on, pressing the Government to move more swiftly than Ministers currently intend to do on the review of the scheme, and starting to talk urgently, at the earliest possible date, with the Bar Council and the Law Society about what could be changed. I want improvements as much as Opposition Members do, but I happen to think that taking an unduly partisan approach does not serve the overall purpose of the matter.
An independent Bar, and an independent and robust solicitors profession, are a critical part of the rule of law. That is what it comes down to, and I do not accept that this is necessarily a welfare state issue, although I understand the point that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made. Ultimately, this is about ensuring the rule of law. That is the most important thing, and the system does have to be properly funded. I say with some regret to Opposition Members that, although I have sympathy with many of the points made by the Bar and the solicitors in their evidence to us, annulling this SI is not the right route to go down. I would prefer a more consensual, evidence-based approach, and a calmer one. I hope that once this debate has passed, we will all be able to get down to that.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I declare any interests that I may have as a non-practising solicitor. The criminal justice system in England and Wales faces many significant and structural problems, but placing all the blame on the regulations and tacking the Criminal Bar’s reaction to them at face value will not solve the underlying problems with which we need to contend. Having said that, my initial reaction to the current SI proposals was that, given the barristers’ strike and Opposition party protest in relation to alleged criminal legal aid cuts, I was somewhat surprised to read the impact assessment, which suggests no cuts and an increase spend on legal aid. That aside, the plans are, in themselves, positive and rational. The Minister has given a strong defence of them today, and they shall have my support.
We are tweaking a scheme that was put in place by Labour in 2007. Since then, effective case management has become rightly more of a priority. I can understand the desirability of unbundling the tasks in fee assessment and the key need to address huge increases in the amount of data now available through discovery. The Opposition and the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) are protesting too much. Labour in government repeatedly proposed reform of criminal legal aid and then repeatedly pulled back, instead resorting to fee cuts.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party does not come to this matter with clean hands? In 2007, at a time of rising budgets for health and education, there was never more money for the Bar, even though it needed it. The Opposition’s remarks do not hold up.
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend is quite right. In fact, many, if not most, of the post-2010 coalition criminal legal aid cuts had been put in place by the losing Labour Administration. Furthermore, during debates on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, I recall the Labour spokesman saying that we should make required cuts to criminal legal aid, rather than to civil legal aid. Having engaged in the blame game, we could all just leave it at that, but that would be to once again avoid the harsh reality that we all now need to face up to, namely that this country’s criminal legal aid system is not fit for purpose and needs to be totally restructured.
While consultation with legal practitioners is important, we legislators need to be reminded that no significant reform to the legal professions has ever come about from the practitioners themselves. Someone in government, or indeed in opposition, is going to have to make a move on this. I will admit that the previous Labour Government made some useful justice reforms, much of which I had the honour to oppose from the Front Bench and on which we often worked co-operatively. Why are the Opposition not doing the same on criminal legal aid? Rather than just complain about it, why can they not offer an alternative? The hon. Member for Leeds East told us what the Criminal Bar Association wants, but he did not say what he wants or what he believes, and I think he should.
The fundamental problem is that the legal market generally, and criminal law in particular, is totally fragmented, under-capitalised, technologically semi-illiterate and structurally redundant. Criminal practice is characterised by large numbers of barely profitable firms that are all too often unable to properly serve clients through lack of manpower, inability to invest in training of staff and trainees, and a lamentable lack of technology. I recall trying to persuade criminal defence solicitors to take prosecution evidence online rather than in paper bundles, but the resistance was ferocious. Why? Because large numbers of solicitors were running their small practices from their homes and could not afford to invest in the required technology. That type of inefficiency also goes to the Bar, with advocates often getting court papers late, which may have worked for the single lever arch file deposited in times gone by, but with not the online data dump that can now be sent. As has been said this evening, young barristers will often effectively work for nothing, which itself is a barrier to diversity and to poorer people entering the profession. I could go on with such examples at length, but hon. Members will get the picture.
The answer to this situation, without any doubt, will involve consolidation of this fractured nineteenth-century legal services marketplace. Although the number of small firms has slowly reduced in recent times, the most practical way to aid the process would be a larger-scale system of contracting for legal aid work. That would involve fewer but larger practices operating over a larger area, resulting in fewer firms receiving a larger slice of the remaining pie on a single-fee basis. In turn, it would create firms that have the money to invest in training and technology, and with the size and depth required properly to cover the contract areas.
Yes, we have more data than ever before, but charging to read it on a per page basis is simply outdated. Most of the extra data is useless guff from, say, social media. The answer is to have firms of lawyers that are able to invest in the technology now available to sort the wheat from the chaff. That will only come from market consolidation, and a vital aspect of that will be to treat barristers and solicitor equally. If teams of barristers wish to compete for legal aid contracts, they should be free to do so, in the same way as sole-practitioner solicitors band together with other solicitors, or indeed with barristers, to bid for contracts.
The Legal Services Act 2007, brought in by the last Labour Government with Conservative support, provides the necessary mechanism—the alternative business structures—for that to happen. Solicitors and barristers could work together, and the alternative business structures could raise capital and employ non-legal executive managers to run an effective business. We would then start to see a sustainable market taking shape.
I have some sympathy with those who complain that the criminal justice system is creaking at the seams, but rather less sympathy with those who say that the answer is more of the same. We need to face up to the need to change the rules of the game and of the marketplace. The tools and answers are certainly out there if we are prepared to take the required steps.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
As a non-lawyer, I will start by looking at the justice system as a whole. In doing so, I see that the courts need to become online courts—I have discussed that with Lord Briggs and have seen how it is developing. I see the Ministry of Justice bringing forward online divorces, which is an interesting proposal. I also see £1 billion being put into court reform and modernisation, which will improve working conditions for those in court and speed up many paper-based activities. Finally, I see modernising reforms in other areas, such as the Crown court digital case system, to encourage electronic evidence.
Those reforms create a simpler, fairer and more modern payment scheme for all advocates. As has been described, it replaces an archaic system, under which barristers billed by pages of evidence, regardless of the level of complexity or the work involved. This is not a cut to barristers’ fees. In fact, the Ministry of Justice estimates that around two thirds of advocates would have benefited from the new schemes had they been in place in 2016-17.
The Minister has said that she has listened carefully to the views of respondents, particularly the concerns raised in relation to junior advocates in the solicitor and barrister professions alike, and that the rebalancing she has done has been to everyone’s advantage. I do not think this statutory instrument should be revoked, and I am happy to support the Government on this.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
When it comes to the opposition to the changes to the graduated fee scheme, the Government are entitled to feel a little perplexed because the changes were discussed with the leadership of the Bar. Francis Fitzgibbon, QC, then chair of the CBA, said that
“the CBA believes that the new scheme is a great improvement on what has gone before, and we should at least give it a cautious welcome as a step in the right direction.”
Secondly, the aim of the changes, to rebalance public funding so it rewards the junior Bar more fairly, is unassailable. On that point, I will support the Government tonight.
It would be a great mistake to misread the message coming from the Bar, because my clear sense is that its protest is not really about the intricacies of these specific provisions. Instead, it reflects years of pent-up anguish and frustration about the state of the criminal defence profession and, indeed, a profound sense of foreboding for its future.
The Bar is in a fragile state and needs decisive support, but it does not lie in the mouth of the Labour Opposition to make criticisms about on that, because I know full well from having been a practitioner at the time that, at a time of rising budgets across the piece in health and education during the late 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century, Labour failed time after time to put more money into the Bar. In 2003, Tony Blair spoke of the “gravy train” of legal aid. In 2006, Lord Falconer referred to the legal aid bill as being “unsustainable”, and there were further plans to cut it in 2010. One has to consider those remarks with great care.
I wish to make some brief observations in the time available; I wanted to say a lot more but I shall confine myself to this. When considering the amount we spend on justice and legal aid, we should put it in context. Treasury Red Book figures show that total public sector spending for 2018-19 is expected to be £809 billion. The total Ministry of Justice budget is less than £7 billion. To put that in context, more is spent on welfare and pensions in two weeks than is spent on justice, and the amount spent on international aid—about £14 billion—is approximately double the entire justice budget. To put it another way, we spend more on the aid effort in Syria alone than we do on the entire legal aid budget in our country.
There are concerns about where this all heads. There will be difficulties with recruitment and retention, and we cannot have a situation where this is a just a job for posh kids with a private income. There is also a risk of injustice. If people are not available to do the work we require them to do, it will not just be a case of people being convicted when they should not be; there is a danger of people not being convicted if juries take matters into their own hands and decide that they want to deliver their own brand of justice.
I am not suggesting this is easy at all, but I want to make three simple points. First, if the criminal Bar falls over, the cost to the state will increase dramatically. The overheads involved in employing hundreds of barristers in a fully fledged public defender service will be extortionate and unaffordable. Secondly, the culture will change, and people will be far less likely to work after-hours and at the weekend. Thirdly, the sums of money required to secure the criminal Bar are modest. Barristers are not seeking wealth; they are seeking viability.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that last point about the motivation of barristers. Does he agree that one of the important qualities that the independent Bar brings, as indeed does an objective solicitor, is precisely that word—objectivity? The objectivity brought by a barrister has been seen in many cases, for example, those where disclosure failures have occurred, and in the willingness to root out what is absolutely necessary, fearlessly, on behalf of a client. That cannot be replicated.
Alex Chalk
That objectivity is vital. In the United States, they have dyed-in-the-wool prosecutors. I remember the case of Michael Jackson, with Tom “Mad Dog” Sneddon; all these people do is prosecute. One great value we have in this country is that people prosecute and defend. That level of objectivity is fantastic. It also means that people are incentivised to go the extra mile, because you are only as good as your last brief.
The criminal Bar is precious. This is not about sentiment. This is a flinty-eyed assessment of a real and pressing need. Once this matter is over tonight—I will vote with the Government, because the Opposition’s proposal is, with respect, misconceived—I urge the Government to look again at how the criminal Bar can be supported, as there is a pressing need.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We cannot have those with the ability and will to try to enter the criminal law profession impoverished by debt and a lack of basic resources to live, especially those who come from perhaps a more humble background. The new scheme seems to distribute some money from middle or senior junior barristers to the more junior barristers, but I gather the effect on senior junior barristers could be a fall in income of as much as 35%, but the impact on the most junior criminal barristers is simply not very much. The truth is that the system does need more money, which cannot be found simply by switching around payments within it. Criminal barristers are self-employed and they must also meet the unavoidable overheads of practising, which normally range from about 25% to 35% of their income. There is no entitlement to pensions, holiday pay, sick pay or, indeed, maternity or paternity pay. Assuming a junior criminal barrister earned a total of, say, £60,000 annually, after they paid overheads and pension contributions and compensated for holidays, he or she would probably present an income of only around £30,000 to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
A career at the Bar is insecure and financially uncertain: trials can be moved by judges without consultation; witnesses can be taken ill; defendants may accept advice to plead guilty; and charges may be dropped. All can have a significant impact on barristers’ income, without warning. In such an uncertain climate, reasonable fees are necessary. The level of debt with which new criminal law barristers must deal, insufficient fees and increased demands make a social and family life almost impossible. I understand that right now morale is low and dismay universal among junior criminal barrister and, indeed, among some senior junior barristers, too. I very much hope that the Minister can tell me honestly that junior criminal law barristers will have a much better deal than they had in the past.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Sergeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order. No. 118(6)),
Local Government
That the draft West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.
That the draft West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.
Competition
That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris)
Question agreed to.
Transport Committee
Ordered,
That Martin Vickers be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jack Brereton be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Royal Bank of Scotland closure in Saltcoats
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I rise to present this petition from the residents of the North Ayrshire and Arran constituency, which attracted 564 signatures, gathered by myself, dedicated Saltcoats Scottish National party activists and our SNP councillors, to express our concern at the proposed closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Saltcoats.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of North Ayrshire & Arran,
Declares that proposed closure of the 3 branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Kilbirnie, Kilwinning & Saltcoats will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002137]
Homeopathy: Veterinary Medicine
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
This debate is very timely because of the recent changes that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has made to its guidelines, which have angered the public and homeopathic vets alike and triggered two marches to the headquarters of the RCVS and a rally in Parliament Square, at which I had the honour of speaking. I am happy to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place, not least because my family come from Redruth and were mining engineers—I am attempting to engender a little sympathy from him before I proceed.
The key issue is a new requirement in the guidelines that homeopathy should only be used in conjunction with conventional medicine. The second issue is the highly contentious assertions made by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons about a lack of evidence and safety and animal welfare, which are apparently related in this instance. The third issue is a lack of consultation.
The RCVS did not consult at all the people who know the subject—the Faculty of Homeopathy, the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy, the European Committee for Homeopathy and the Homeopathy Research Institute. None of those organisations was consulted prior to the issuing of these guidelines. After the second march, the RCVS graciously agreed to meet a delegation, but sadly the delegation wrote to me afterwards saying:
“It became apparent that there was a total lack of understanding of the principles of homeopathy.”
It invited the RCVS to visit a practice, but I am not sure that that offer has been accepted.
I wrote to the RCVS, and it replied to my letter with, I regret to say, three glaring errors. First, it cited the 2010 report of the Science and Technology Committee, which it said
“concluded that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious”.
It never did anything of the sort. I attended that Committee, and it was an evidence check. It only found that there was no evidence; it did not make any findings about effectiveness.
Secondly, the RCVS claims:
“we have not sought to remove choice as this remains”.
It does not. Choice has been removed, because before these guidelines came out, homeopaths could practise without using homeopathy and conventional medicine together.
Thirdly, the RCVS made claims about animal welfare issues. This is very important, and I asked a parliamentary question, to which my hon. Friend the Minister graciously replied:
“The Department does not have any evidence that shows that homeopathic vets are a risk to animal welfare by using homeopathy as an alternative treatment to conventional medicine options.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene, and I thank him for letting me do so. Does he not agree that with the rise in antibiotic use in animals—it is very pertinent at this time—anything that can prevent the introduction of antibiotics can only be a good thing and must be given full consideration? Perhaps the Minister could tell us in his response what he is doing through his Department to reduce antibiotic use in animals.
David Tredinnick
The hon. Gentleman speaks with wisdom and experience. No doubt, he too has looked at the European position, which is completely the opposite of the one taken by the RCVS. There is a European directive on organic products, which states in article 24(2) of Commission regulation (EC) No. 889/2008, that
“Phytotherapeutic”—
that is, herbal—
“and homeopathic products, trace elements…shall be used in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics”.
That was because the European Union as a whole was so worried about the abuse of antibiotics, and I started speaking about the use of antibiotics in animals in the 1987 Parliament.
Let me give my hon. Friend the Minister the view of a farmer, who wrote to me, saying
“did you know that farmers often like using homeopathy for cows with mastitis because if they do so, they can sell the milk. If they use antibiotics, the milk must be thrown out.”
Safety is very important, and I hope the Minister will dispose of that point later as some homeopathic vets have simply stopped practising because they perceive themselves to be under a legal threat.
This is at a time when, according to the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, there is an explosion of interest in homeopathy, largely I would suggest because of the antibiotics problem. It says that
“there is an explosion of interest in CAM”—
complementary and alternative medicine—
“including Homeopathy”, in the agricultural sector where the drive is to reduce and replace dependence on antibiotics in light of Antibiotic Resistance…concerns”.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this threatens biodynamic agriculture, which is a particularly interesting and growing part of the agricultural sector?
David Tredinnick
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. The most successful methods for coping with this antibiotic problem are actually complementary and alternative medicines, of which homeopathy is proving one of the most successful modalities.
The placebo argument—that this is all in the imagination—is often used against homeopathy, but Buttercup and Daisy do not understand double blind placebo-controlled trials. Farmers do understand them, and when I sat on the Science and Technology Committee during the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, Roger Williams, the then Member for Brecon and Radnorshire from the Liberal Democrats, told me, “As a livestock farmer, I of course use carbo veg”—Carbo vegetabilis, which is known colloquially as the corpse reviver—“when I can’t do anything else with an animal that I think is going to die.” It is very often the medicine of last resort both for animals and, of course, for humans. Farmers will not waste money on something that does not work, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
As I mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, the World Health Organisation says that homeopathy is the second largest medical system in the world, with 300,000 doctors treating 200 million patients annually. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is pretty powerful evidence—they would not otherwise be training and practising—and we should look at that. There are actually 700 vets in 36 countries who are members of the International Association for Veterinary Homeopathy. The German Ministry of Food and Agriculture backs homeopathy. In January 2018, it said that it
“supports the use of homeopathic remedies and the free choice of therapy for veterinarians.”
Why are we getting all these attacks? It actually has nothing to do with healthcare—it is to do with protecting vested interests, and a sense of defensiveness against the perceived threat to conventional practitioners, to drug companies supplying drugs and to currently held scientific beliefs. The scale of the vicious attacks that colleagues have had over the years by those opposed to homeopathy is testament to that. Given the hate mail that has been sent to MPs during past Parliaments, jamming their mail boxes, I believe those people could now face prosecution under new legislation. They ridicule and humiliate anybody who supports this very valuable branch of medicine. They use legal threats to clinical commissioning groups. I am kind of curious about this—I have a feeling that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was itself threatened with legal action by this group. Once there is a writ and something is through the door, of course, the whole legal process starts; that is why I had a letter from a lawyer of theirs.
The antis also claim that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works, but of the 189 randomised control trials up to 2014, 41% were positive, finding that homeopathy was effective. The figures for conventional medicine are just about the same, at 44%. There is no difference. There is good statistical evidence that both homeopathy and conventional medicine work.
I also had the honour to serve on the Health Committee in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament; in fact, I chaired it for a while, when we got the long-term care and conditions report out. In 2014, I cross-examined the Secretary of State for Health about his views. He said:
“the system we have is that we allow GPs to decide whatever they think is in the clinical interests of their own patients.”
If my memory serves me well, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has subsequently signed a motion, was one of those under attack for supporting homeopathy. He said in answer to a question:
“Complementary and alternative medicine treatments can, in principle, feature in a range of services offered by local NHS organisations, including general practitioners.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 149.]
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I should first declare an interest: my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon and a partner in a veterinary practice.
I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he needs to be a little careful about conflating medicine for humans with medicine for animals. As a human, I am able to make these choices for myself; animals are not in a position to do that for themselves. That is why we have to approach the two disciplines differently.
David Tredinnick
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point. They are different: as far as animals are concerned, we cannot run trials; we can only take a view on how the medicine or treatment is working. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that farmers are not so foolish as to spend a lot of money on something that does not work. They see it working over a long period of time.
I have an informal arrangement with the Minister to give him the full time of a quarter of an hour to respond. In the past, I have noticed that colleagues can run away with themselves, leaving only five minutes for the Minister, who says that they do not have enough time to speak. This Minister will have lots of time to speak.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend has clearly raised the fact that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons very much opposes homeopathy, but we have not mentioned the British Veterinary Association, which was equally opposed. My understanding is, however, that its mood may be mellowing towards homeopathy. Has my hon. Friend’s hard work paid off, I wonder?
David Tredinnick
One or two things have been “going off”, as they say nowadays, for the last few weeks, including questions and marches.
To sum up, in veterinary medicine there is room for all. Of course there is room for conventional medicine; we cannot produce a calf from a struggling cow unless we use conventional medicine. There is room for conventional and homeopathic medicine: on that much I agree with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But there is also room for stand-alone homeopathy, as there always has been—there is no need to change the playing field. Nearly two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister’s questions:
“Does she agree that homeopathic vets should be able to make their own minds up about whether to use homeopathy on its own or with other treatments, too?”
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied:
“As regards all the issues he has addressed, it is right that those who are professionally able to make these judgments are left to make them.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 877.]
We should mark the Prime Minister’s words and agree that properly regulated homeopathic vets should be free to make up their own minds.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on securing this important debate. With a name like Tredinnick he could only hail from Redruth, where it is a very common name. Anything that begins with the letters “tre” tends to be from Cornwall.
I recognise that my hon. Friend has been a very long-standing campaigner for alternative medicines in general and homeopathy in particular. I do not have any particular strong convictions one way or the other on this issue, but I recognise that the consensus among veterinary opinion is one of scepticism. Before addressing the specific issues he raised, I want to start by making a couple of more general points.
As a point of general principle, I do not agree that contrarian viewpoints in science should be deemed or labelled as some form of scientific heresy. Those who, like me, believe in an enlightened approach to evidence should always welcome and engage in debate, and should never tolerate the tactics of bullying, abuse or ridicule. I recognise that my hon. Friend has suffered a lot of this behaviour himself in this sometimes fraught debate. Let me say that I say that I find that unacceptable, irrespective of one’s views on the issue. Even those who believe strongly and passionately disagree with homeopathy and disagree with the evidence supporting it should recognise the value in discussing it so that it provides a reference point for their own version of the truth.
Traditionally in science it has been very important to observe, through scientific trials and scientific evidence, to try to discern patterns and then, having discerned and observed patterns, try to build a more precise body of evidence in the form of statistics. I think it is fair to say that in recent decades there has been a tendency in science to neglect those basic skills of observation and instead to just resort to narrow statistics and what can be measured. My hon. Friend, irrespective of different views we might have, raises a valid point about that tendency in modern science, which can mean that we sometimes miss things that are important.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has a role in maintaining a register of qualified vets. This is, effectively, a system of self-regulation underpinned by statute. It has a royal charter that dates back to 1844. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 established a statutory role for it to recognise qualified vets. Under the 1966 Act, the RCVS has a role in maintaining a register. It also has a role in regulating the conduct of its professional members, supervising the registration of its members and suspending registration where it believes there has been a breach of its code. However, it is not the role of the RCVS to make decisions on veterinary medicines or indeed veterinary treatments. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is a Government agency that makes evidence-based assessments of veterinary medicines.
Homeopathic products are not formally assessed for their efficacy, but they are assessed for their quality and safety. Their use is therefore lawful. I know that the RCVS statement in November 2017 caused quite a lot of controversy. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there have been protests and much disquiet among some of those vets who practise homeopathy. I should perhaps point out an interest here. In my constituency of Camborne and Redruth I have a fantastic charity called the Cinnamon Trust. It mobilises thousands of volunteers right across the country to visit the homes of the elderly who are no longer able to walk their own dogs and to walk those dogs for them. This fabulous charity means that the volunteers give social contact to those elderly people by taking their dog for a walk and they make sure that elderly people, often suffering from loneliness, can enjoy the companionship of pets with the help of volunteers.
That charity engages a conventional vet who occasionally uses some homeopathic therapies. I am told by veterinary practitioners of homeopathy that they believe they see results for a number of particular conditions. Cushing’s disease in horses is mentioned—a condition that afflicts older horses and can lead to lameness—and I am also told that it can be effective when dealing with arthritis in older dogs and in managing some symptoms of certain cancers. Practitioners argue that for certain conditions that principally affect older animals, when conventional medicines have run their course and they have run out of options, homeopathy can help to manage a condition. I am told that homeopathy is at times quite useful when there may be side-effects from using more conventional veterinary medicines, or when there are allergies from their use.
A debate has always been had about the evidence and the quality of the evidence base, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are practitioners out there who believe that they see some results in some circumstances, and they can see they do not see those in all circumstances. Certainly, some of the vets that I have spoken to who practise homeopathy are very clear that this complements their approach to conventional medicine. When they believe that conventional veterinary treatments have run their course and can offer nothing further for a particular animal, or are not giving them the results they want, they will sometimes choose, as an alternative, to use complementary approaches and practices.
The RCVS statement, having sparked controversy, has been the subject of some discussion between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the RCVS, which has confirmed it is not at all its intention to ban the use of homeopathy. I understand that its concern is that in some instances, some vets, rather than using homeopathy as a complementary approach alongside conventional medicine, are perhaps refraining from using other, possibly more effective, conventional medicine in preference to homeopathy. In some cases, the RCVS believes that that may be affecting the welfare of the animal. It assures us that that is what it is attempting to address and that it has no intention to ban the use of homeopathy by its members. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that that is the position that the RCVS has set out to us.
Since I have the luxury of time, I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about antibiotic use. He is right: this is something that we are keen to reduce, and the O’Neill report set out some detailed approaches for doing that. It is also the case that adopting a different approach to livestock husbandry and using vaccines in a more effective way, rather than antibiotic treatments, is part of the key to getting down our use of antibiotics.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing an intervention. Has any advice that has been given to him on reducing antibiotic use recommended the use of homeopathic remedies?
George Eustice
No, I have not had any advice to that effect, but there are other approaches. For instance, one thing that we know can reduce the use of antibiotics in pigs is the gentle acidification of the water. We also know that turning animals out to grass in the spring can reduce the disease load and reduce the need to use antibiotics. Turning animals out to grass is quite difficult to measure, but we know that it is good for animals. On his specific point, no I have not had any such advice, but we are doing a great deal to reduce our use of antibiotics, since it is a very important issue.
In conclusion, we have had an interesting debate. I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue.
David Tredinnick
I am nervous that my hon. Friend is about to sit down, in which case the debate will be over, so, as we have a little time, I want to take this opportunity to thank him for coming. That a Minister of State, not an Under-Secretary, is responding indicates the deep concern in DEFRA about this. Given the exchanges and public interaction, and his own conversations with the RCVS, surely we are all on the same side and what we need is for the RCVS to go away, take cognisance of what has transpired in the last couple of weeks and see if it cannot come up with something that might make everybody happy.
George Eustice
As I said, the RCVS has sought to be very clear that it is not banning the use of homeopathy by vets; it is not even its place to do that—were that to happen, it would be for the VMD—but my hon. Friend raises an important point. The RCVS might want, in its council and among its members, to clarify what it actually means, which I understand to be as follows: it is not banning the use of homeopathy, but vets who use it should use it to complement other approaches, possibly where those are not proving effective, and not refrain from using approaches that might be more effective in order to practise homeopathy in isolation. I think that was its point, but I am sure it would be happy to clarify the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The regulations are critical to delivering the safeguarding reforms set out in the Children Act 2004, as inserted by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Their aim is to improve the protection of children across the country. The reforms in the 2017 Act were based on the findings of Sir Alan Wood’s 2016 review of the role and functions of local safeguarding children boards. The review found widespread agreement that the current system of multi-agency working should change in favour of a stronger but more flexible statutory framework. Alan Wood also recommended a new system of reviews to replace serious case reviews. That should include new centralised arrangements for reviews of national importance. At the same time, local reviews should be improved, and learning and the experience of the child should be at the centre of all reviews.
The 2017 Act enables the establishment of the new Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. The key function of the panel is to identify serious child safeguarding cases and trace issues that are complex or of national importance. Where the panel considers it appropriate, it will arrange for cases to be reviewed under its supervision.
I am absolutely delighted that, following a recruitment exercise conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Office procedures, Edward Timpson agreed to bring his skills and experience to chair the new panel. Following his advice and that of a skilled and representative assessment panel, last week we confirmed five appointments to bring a range of experience, which includes operational, strategic and academic rigour, to support him in this important work. The 2017 Act also gives the three safeguarding partners—chief officers of police, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities—a duty to work together to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the area. As part of that, they must determine the agencies with whom they intend to work as part of these arrangements.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I am listening to the Minister with interest, in particular to what he said about the appointment of the former Children’s Minister to chair that body. One of the great concerns that many people have is that giving more flexibility at a time when there have been huge cuts to public services could make it much more difficult to get agencies to take their child protection responsibilities seriously. The police in my local area are already saying that they will attend only if it is set out in legislation that they have to do so, because of the severity of the cuts. Can the Minister give some reassurance about that?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady mentioned the police in her area; the best answer I can give her is that Simon Bailey, the National Police Chiefs Council lead on child protection, stated in his response:
“Overall, I welcome the continued focus of Government on child safeguarding and the desire to improve the services available to children and young people across England in terms of safeguarding and multi-agency working…I believe the new arrangements present an opportunity to renew focus on safeguarding across partners including an increased focus on early intervention and prevention.”
I hope that gives the hon. Lady some confidence in what we are doing—hopefully with cross-party support.
Lisa Nandy
It is very hot in this room, so I promise that I will not keep Members here for longer than the air lasts. It would provide reassurance if the Department set out how the regulations will be monitored. The explanatory memorandum specifies that they will be reviewed again in three to five years; however, it would be helpful to know what will be done by the Department responsible for safeguarding children to monitor activity in other areas and make sure that the arrangements do not fall apart in the meantime.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful, Mr Robertson.
I hope that my speech will give the hon. Lady a little more comfort on how we intend to carry out monitoring. Part of the safeguarding partners’ duty to work together to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area will, as I have said, be to determine the agencies with which they intend to work. They must also consider serious child safeguarding cases that raise issues of importance in relation to the relevant area and, where they consider it appropriate, commission reviews of those cases.
The regulations cover important details that will enable the legislation on reviews and joint working to operate. They set out the broad criteria that the new independent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel must take into account when deciding whether to commission a review. The panel may also take other criteria into account as it sees fit. The regulations also give the panel a duty to set up a pool of potential reviewers, which must be made publicly available. The panel will determine how to set that up, and who will be in the pool.
Having a pool of potential reviewers will mean that when the panel decides that a national review should be commissioned, it will be able to select a reviewer quickly. However, it will have the flexibility to select from outside it, if no one in the pool is available or suitably experienced. The panel may remove a potential reviewer from the pool at any time, either because they wanted to be removed, or because the panel considered that a potential reviewer had shown evidence of general unsuitability. As the panel cannot let its own contracts, the Secretary of State will hold the contracts with reviewers. Therefore, the regulations require the Secretary of State to appoint them to or remove them from reviews, based on the panel’s recommendations.
The regulations also specify the panel’s supervisory powers during a review, and set out details about final reports, including regarding publication. The panel must ensure that reports are available for at least three years. The reports are expected to be significant, and to involve national-level learning. It is only right that there should be a requirement for them to be made public for a substantial period.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am interested, pursuant to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, in how we make sure that all the agencies play their part in ensuring the correct resources to take the action in question. The Minister referred to significant reports, which would mean a tremendous amount of work. That will need resources. We need a reassurance from the Minister that all the agencies will play their part financially and that the Government will ensure they have the money to share out among themselves.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will address the issue of money directly. It is important that local areas should have the flexibility to fund the arrangements that they design. The safeguarding partners should agree the level of funding secured from each partner, which should be equitable and proportionate, with, of course, contributions from each relevant agency to support the local safeguarding arrangements. The funding should be sufficient to cover all elements of the arrangements.
We do not expect the new arrangements to cost more than existing structures. Indeed, they may help to reduce duplication of resources and effort across agencies and areas, making greater efficiency and effectiveness possible.
Alex Cunningham
I was the lead member for children’s services when we set up the children’s trust in Stockton-on-Tees. Much as the various compartment agencies wanted to contribute financially to resourcing—both people and cash—it did not happen in all cases, and the local authority was left holding the baby. We have already heard about local authorities’ considerable financial suffering. How can the Minister ensure that the cash is there and, again, that he lays down the law to ensure that everybody plays their part in resourcing this legislation?
Nadhim Zahawi
If the hon. Gentleman will let me make some more headway, I hope I shall be able to convince him by the end of the debate.
The local review requirements in the regulations have some similarities with the national reviews. That section of the regulations also covers criteria, appointment and removal of reviewers, reports and the publication of reports. Like the panel, the safeguarding partners must make decisions about when it is appropriate to commission a review, taking the local review criteria into account. If the panel considers that a local review may be more appropriate, the safeguarding partners must also take that into account.
The safeguarding partners must consider the timeliness and quality of a review, and may seek information from the reviewer during the review to enable them to make that judgment. The regulations make it clear that the safeguarding partners may remove a reviewer who they have appointed at any time prior to the report being published to support the principles, which the new arrangements seek to establish, that the report should be high quality and produced on a timely basis. There is an expectation that improvements will be clearly identified, and there are clear requirements for publication.
Lisa Nandy
I am really grateful to the Minister for giving us the time. I welcome the fact that the pool of potential reviewers will be made publicly available, but I am concerned about the lack of independent oversight or scrutiny of the system. In particular, the regulations say that the panel may
“select a person as a potential reviewer who is not in the pool”
if it considers that somebody is not suitable. What thought has the Department given to ensuring independent oversight or scrutiny, for example by asking the Select Committee on Education to review or endorse the panel before a decision is made?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is important to remember that the panel is independent of Government. Of course, if the Education Committee chooses to call a witness for evidence, the chairman or any member of the panel will be compelled to go before it. To return to the funding issue, the Government will fully fund the national reviewers.
Alex Cunningham
Safeguarding boards up and down the country struggle to find experts to chair them, yet we are talking about people with similar skills and understanding forming the new pool. Never mind the panel’s independence, which is extremely important; how will the Minister ensure that we have a pool of suitably qualified people to carry out what are, as he has said, significant reports?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman mentions local government. The Local Government Association responding by saying that it welcomes the
“introduction of shared responsibility between health, the police and the local authority,”
which has the potential to give the new arrangements more authority over those core agencies. Ofsted, which obviously inspects local government, says that it is pleased to see a stronger emphasis on the involvement of schools and local partnership arrangements. I am confident that what we are putting in place will deliver the engagement, including of local candidates, to carry out those local reviews.
Lisa Nandy
I support the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North has made. Before I came into this place, I worked with child migrants, often in settings where they were primarily seen as migrants and not as children, of which immigration detention was the most acute. If someone had a safeguarding concern in one of those settings, they would want to ensure that they had access to somebody suitable who could carry out a review and who had a much more diverse range of experience than the pool might. If the Minister cannot answer that point today, I would be grateful if he at least took it away and thought about how the Department might develop arrangements along those lines.
Nadhim Zahawi
I shall certainly take the hon. Lady’s point away. In terms of funding and non-participation, which hon. Members have mentioned several times, safeguarding partners and agencies must comply with the arrangements. Public bodies may be held to account if necessary through legislation, which allows the Secretary of State to take action, so there is a lever that applies in terms of compelling safeguarding partners and agencies.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is being incredibly generous, and we are hammering a similar point, but can he say a little more about the lever that requires other agencies to come to the table? As has been alluded to, often the buck stops with the local authorities. They are the ones inspected and the ones with the statutory requirement. If other partners do not want to come to the table, how can we ensure that they do so and with some cash of their own?
Nadhim Zahawi
I hope to address that in the remainder of my opening remarks, but the hon. Lady makes a very important point, and there is a statutory requirement on the safeguarding partners and agencies listed in the regulations to participate.
The agencies selected must have functions relating to children, and safeguarding partners should consult with relevant agencies as they set up their arrangements and, for clarity and transparency, include a list of those agencies in their published arrangements. That list can change over time, as considered appropriate locally. Duties apply only to agencies included in local arrangements; the list in the regulations is for the purpose of selection only. Safeguarding partners may also, by mutual agreement, work with other bodies or persons not included in the regulations, although they will not be bound by the same duties—I think the hon. Lady was referring to this—as those listed in the regulations.
The Government consulted on the regulations and the associated statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, for around 10 weeks towards the end of last year. More than 700 written responses were received. Regional consultation events were also held, attracting some 450 people from a wide range of organisations. I very much welcome the contributions made and the valuable points raised. As indicated in the published Government response, consultees were largely positive about the proposals in the regulations and guidance. However, some changes in clarification were made to the regulations following the consultation, and rightly so in my view. We are in the process of reviewing the related statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, taking into account comments made during the consultation.
As was set out in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2018, which were made on 18 April, the new arrangements are due to begin from 29 June 2018. On that date, the new panel will begin operations, and the transitional period from the current system of local safeguarding children’s boards and serious case reviews to the new multi-agency arrangements and local reviews will commence. Local areas will have 12 months to publish their new arrangements, including their selected relevant agencies, and a further three months to implement them. Subject to the successful passage of the regulations before the Committee, we intend to publish the final version of the statutory guidance within the next few weeks. That will support the new arrangements and complement these regulations. Public bodies that fail to comply with their obligations will be held to account in a variety of ways. That could include a letter from the relevant Department or, ultimately, the Secretary of State.
In conclusion, I am extremely grateful to the very wide range of people, including Members of this House, who have been involved in moving us towards this important stage in our ambition to improve the protection of children across the country. These reforms, of which these regulations are a critical part, will support stronger but more flexible joint working arrangements, as well as promoting better and more timely learning from reviews, both locally and nationally. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to detain us too long or rehash the arguments we have already been through, and that we will not divide the Committee on the regulations. However, I seek some clarity from the Minister on a few key points.
The Minister will know that there remain concerns within the profession and among agencies more widely about unacceptable levels of involvement by the Secretary of State. It is puzzling that a Government who have thus far been committed to localism should impose such a top-down approach. It is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint and remove panel members, including the chair, and to make arrangements regarding the panel’s proceedings, reports, staff, facilities, pay and expenses. The Minister is nodding, so he must agree with me that it is unacceptable.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It remains unclear whether the Secretary of State will be able to override panel decisions in relation to which cases are and are not put forward to the panel. If he can do so, then the panel’s independence and political neutrality will be entirely compromised. I hope that the Minister will advise us on that in his response.
Will the Minister also expand on a related point? It remains unclear what requirements—such as qualifications, professional body registration and experience—will be deemed appropriate for reviewers and panel members. In recent years, the Department has tended to appoint people with experience of finance and investment to boards, as opposed to people with actual frontline experience of working in child protection. I am sure the Minister will agree that experience of child protection is vital when it comes to safeguarding and reviewing the most serious cases where harm has been caused to a child.
Lisa Nandy
I apologise again to everyone in the room for intervening.
I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying about frontline professionals, but the group of people that I have found to have the best understanding of what needs to change in child safeguarding and child protection are young people who have been through the system themselves, and who have often suffered serious harm. They quite often tell us that they want to see less of a blame culture and much more learning enacted when we have conducted these reviews. I did not hear any indication from the Minister that the Government are listening to those young people, or that they will make sure that what is learned from these serious case reviews or national reviews is actually implemented so that we do not have to keep having review after review where the same things are highlighted but very little is done. Perhaps the Minister will correct that in his closing remarks.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She comes to a point that I will be making shortly—great minds think alike.
May I also ask the Minister what his Department envisages will be the cap, if any, on pay, remuneration and expenses for the panel’s chair, board members and reviewers, especially since he gave assurances today that the new arrangements would be no more costly than the current arrangements?
The Minister will be aware that, despite the efforts of noble Lords and MPs from the Labour party throughout the passage of the 2017 Act, there remains a concern that reliance on local safeguarding partners is limited to the local authority, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police. That leaves schools and others who have always been core partners in local safeguarding arrangements out of the loop. Can he explain why, despite representations in the consultation phase expressing concerns about the absence of schools in particular as core partners, the Department is still struggling to understand that schools are vital in this process?
My final query relates to the dissemination of lessons learned and their practical application. Historically, the same lessons to be learned are highlighted time and time again when a child has been seriously harmed and such harm has resulted in their death. Yet rarely does anything on the ground change. Instead, a blame game is pursued. How does the Minister envisage the new arrangements making a difference, and what checks and balances does he feel are in place so that the same old outcomes of blame and increased bureaucracy and legislation will not be the stock go-to solution? That is ever more important against a backdrop of savage Government-imposed cuts that have served only to strangle a profession that is already undermined and is becoming increasingly demoralised.
Alex Cunningham
I had not intended to speak, and I will keep the Committee only a short time. The Minister spoke of receiving a positive response from the consultees, and that is fine. I do not have a problem with what is envisaged, but I worry about the implementation. The Minister said that he hoped during his speech to reassure us on the issues we raised in our interventions, but I am afraid that he has not reassured me—I do not know about my hon. Friends.
Where will the pool of expertise come from? I am not convinced that the people are out there who would be committed to doing the work. I gave the illustration earlier of trying to find chairs for local safeguarding boards. The people fishing in this pool, if I can put it like that, will face the same problems, so I ask the Minister again to address that. If he cannot do that today, I ask him at least to write to members of the Committee to tell us exactly where those people will come from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan raised the issue of independent scrutiny of the pool, and that point was not adequately responded to either. Where is the provision to direct people to participate, and where is the resource commitment from the Minister? No dedicated new funding is being introduced for the delivery of what the Minister described as substantial reports. There is no detail on people being held to account for not participating. A letter from the Department, or even from the scary Secretary of State, is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that we do not need to send any such letters because people will know that they have a responsibility under the law to participate in the reviews?
Lisa Nandy
One of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I have raised is about the blame culture and the damage it does, particularly to frontline social workers who are trying to deal with very difficult issues, often with incomplete information, under pressure and in an era in which cuts have become the norm. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that one of the unintended consequences could be that the blame culture is exacerbated, because the pressure and the spotlight will be very much on the Minister?
It is not hard to envisage that something terrible happens, a review is commissioned, and the Minister is under pressure and seeks to apportion blame before the review has been completed, firing off letters to the local area to show that he or she is taking the matter seriously. Would my hon. Friend welcome as much as I would a commitment from the Minister that that is not what is intended and, explicitly, that the Department intends to take a different approach from now on? That is not a party political point; we have seen instances of that under different parties over the years. It does huge damage and it should stop.
Alex Cunningham
I certainly would welcome a commitment from the Minister to ensure that we do not end up in a blame culture. Last week I was given the honour of starting to chair the all-party parliamentary group on social work, and the first presentation was about the stresses that social services departments are already under in delivering children’s services. In my own local authority, we spend 57% of our entire council budget on social care issues—on children’s services and adult services. They are feeling the strain, and people are looking elsewhere to see how on earth they can get out of some of the corners they are in, particularly when things go wrong.
Warm words are great, and I know that the Minister is a sincere man, but we need guarantees. We need to that people will participate, that the reviews will be done, that we will learn from them and, most importantly of all, that they can happen in the first place by being properly resourced.
Nadhim Zahawi
The regulations underpin the important safeguarding changes set out in the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The regulations are essential to drive the operation of the joint working arrangements. They will enable safeguarding departments to identify whom to work with to support the safeguarding of children in their area, and give force to those decisions.
The new Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel will be a high-profile, high-impact body, with powers independent of Government to drive improvements in the safeguarding of children. The new system of local and national child safeguarding practice reviews will enable the clear identification of any improvements that should be made to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. National reviews will be able to identify improvements on a national and local basis. The regulations support the proper functioning of those changes.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments and questions on the regulations. I will attempt to address them all in the few minutes remaining. The hon. Member for South Shields mentioned the possibility that the Secretary of State could override a panel’s decision. I assure her that that is not possible. The panel’s decisions are entirely its own.
A number of colleagues mentioned the independence of the new panel. The panel will ultimately be accountable to the Secretary of State, but how it will function is key to its independence. The panel will have sole responsibility for deciding which cases to review, the appointment of reviewers for national reviews, and the publication of such reviews. The Secretary of State will not have the power to direct the panel to initiate or publish reviews. The panel will be free to make recommendations on such matters relating to its areas of work, as it sees fit. Recommendations may be for the safeguarding of partners as well as for others, including Government and national or local bodies.
Reviews will focus on identifying any improvements that should be made to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, not on apportioning blame to individuals. The hon. Member for Wigan has spoken up passionately against the blame culture. Ensuring that we respect the independence of the panel is critical to its credibility and success. That will enable reviews of serious cases to lead to meaningful and enduring improvements to child safeguarding policy and practice across the country, which I know interests many colleagues.
The hon. Member for Stockton North was pressing for a better understanding of where the panel members come from and their expertise. Let me share that information with him. As I said, the panel will have the skills and experience to make sound judgments on complex situations that affect the lives of children. To ensure that the panel is independent, impartial and credible, members have not been appointed as representatives of their particular profession, employer or interest group. However, the experience and skills they bring in relation to safeguarding children or other areas will be vital to the panel’s success and credibility. To achieve that, it is made up of people who have direct experience of working to improve the life chances of children, which I think the hon. Member for Wigan mentioned. It includes individuals from local authorities, police and health.
Let me try to reassure the hon. Member for Stockton North by quoting some of the names of people who have joined the panel: Mark Gurrey, the chair of the South Gloucestershire improvement board, and the chair of the Devon and Wiltshire local safeguarding children boards; Professor Peter Sidebotham, associate professor in child health at Warwick Medical School and consultant paediatrician at South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust; Dr Susan Tranter, chief executive and accounting officer of Edmonton Academy Trust; Sarah Elliott, non-executive director at Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust and LSCB chair for Poole and Dorset; and Dale Simon, a qualified barrister and the former director of public accountability and inclusion at the Crown Prosecution Service.
I want to press the point that this process is about learning, not blame. Learning must be at the heart of all reviews, which should seek to prevent or reduce the risk of recurrence of similar incidents. Reviews should focus on identifying improvements to be made to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, not apportioning blame to individual practitioners or organisations. Other processes are in place to manage accountability issues. This process is not for that; it is about understanding how we can improve the system for those children.
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to delay the Committee. I appreciate what the Minister is saying by way of reassurance, but he will be aware that self-reflective practice is a particularly difficult and pertinent issue in the NHS at the moment, and there is an overlap with children’s social services. Given the recent case of the doctor who was dismissed for having engaged in self-reflective practice, will he give some reassurance to practitioners on the ground that such practice will be at the heart of the process and people should feel able to come forward and admit mistakes in the context of learning and reflecting, rather than it being an opportunity for them to be dismissed by the professional bodies?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady articulates that beautifully. She is absolutely right, and I want to drive this point home: the process is not about apportioning blame but about learning. Other structures are available to look at how people have behaved. People should be able to come forward in the knowledge that this is not about reports that apportion blame for their involvement in any case.
On involvement and the voice of children and families in reviews, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan, Edward Timpson and his panel are thinking carefully about how to ensure they hear the voices and reflect on the experiences of children and families in the reviews. That requires careful consideration to ensure that their vital contribution is meaningful rather than tokenistic. The panel’s membership includes several people with specific expertise relating to children.
The shadow Minister mentioned fees for the panel. The fees will be published as soon as possible on gov.uk on the pages covering public appointments and will be in line with those covering similar appointments.
On how we share best practice and learning and how we ensure that lessons are shared and implemented—that is ultimately what the process is about—the panel includes a representative from the new What Works centre for children’s social care, and that person will be a full panel member with the added responsibility of acting as a bridge between the panel and the What Works centre. The centre will collate findings from reviews, identify themes and disseminate lessons about what works in children’s services. The panel will also benefit from the centre’s overview of what lessons are already being learned so that, when it comes to deciding whether a national review is necessary, the panel can consider what current learning exists and how that is being implemented.
The hon. Member for Stockton North is clearly concerned about participation. The duty to co-operate and participate in safeguarding arrangements, which is set out in statutory guidance, in “Working Together” and in legislation, is in place. It will be up to the inspectorate to monitor the way in which safeguarding partners participate in multi-agency arrangements. The levers are there to push for full participation.
I have taken up far too much of your valuable time, Mr Robertson. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018.
Draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer Of Functions) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Wales Act 2017 delivered a clear devolution settlement for Wales, based on the firm foundation of a reserved powers model. The new model, which came into force on 1 April, puts in place a clearer boundary between the powers and responsibilities of this place and those of the National Assembly for Wales. Unlike in Scotland, there has never been a general transfer of Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas to Welsh Ministers. The different history and geography of Wales, compared with Scotland, and the greater cross-border interaction mean that the transfer of functions in specific areas has been more appropriate. Such an approach makes it clear which functions have been transferred.
During the passage of the 2017 Act, the Government committed to making it clear through the Act and associated secondary legislation how the Minister of the Crown functions that remain in devolved areas will be exercised. The new schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which was inserted by schedule 4 to the Wales Act 2017, sets out the statutory Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas that are exercised concurrently or jointly with Welsh Ministers. Also, a handful of so-called pre-commencement functions need to continue to be exercised solely by a Minister of the Crown. Those are set out in paragraph 11 of new schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act.
The draft order transfers the remaining Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas to Welsh Ministers. Many of those functions are pre-commencement functions, which Ministers of the Crown exercised before the National Assembly gained full law-making powers following the 2011 referendum. In October 2016 we published an initial list of functions that we intended to transfer. Since then we have worked closely with other Departments and the Welsh Government to identify the further functions in devolved areas that should be transferred.
The draft order is the culmination of that work, transferring functions to Welsh Ministers in a wide range of devolved areas, including health, education, agriculture and the environment. It also transfers functions to Welsh Ministers in areas such as Assembly and local government elections, teachers’ pay and the community infrastructure levy, to accompany the further legislative competence devolved to the National Assembly in those areas under the 2017 Act. The order also removes the requirement for Treasury consent from a number of functions exercised by Welsh Ministers where that requirement is no longer appropriate.
Finally, the draft order delivers on one of the commitments made in the St David’s Day agreement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire so ably delivered when he was Secretary of State for Wales. The commitment was to ensure a clear understanding of the UK and Welsh Governments’ respective roles in relation to civil contingencies, separating out devolved and reserved responders, and transferring co-ordinating functions for those devolved responders to Welsh Ministers. The order therefore further clarifies the boundary of responsibilities between UK Government Ministers and Welsh Ministers in relation to civil emergencies. The order makes it absolutely clear which functions have been transferred to Welsh Ministers, thereby delivering a clearer boundary between the responsibilities of UK Ministers and those of Welsh Ministers.
In drawing up the draft order, my officials worked closely with colleagues across Whitehall and counterparts in the Welsh Government. I am pleased that the First Minister of Wales has approved it. I commend it to the Committee.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, on this important matter. The draft order continues the long process—too long a process, some would say—of devolving powers from London to Cardiff over the past 21 years. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that we will not oppose these measures, which will ensure greater devolution to Wales.
Labour is the party of devolution. I was proud to play my full part in the devolution referendum in 1997 as the north Wales campaign co-ordinator. I was proud to vote for the Government of Wales Act 1998 and campaign for additional powers in the successful referendum in 2011. These powers have been a long time coming and it is a privilege to be on this Committee today when these powers will be tidied up and finally devolved.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Many members of the Committee will be intrigued to see measures such as the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 included. We now know that the seals of Wales will be fully devolved.
Susan Elan Jones
Indeed. One of the things that strikes me about the draft order is the number of references to agriculture. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we come to the post-Brexit era, it makes more and more sense for measures relating to agriculture to be decided by our devolved Government in Wales?
Chris Ruane
Absolutely. Agriculture in Wales pre and post Brexit is a top priority. Some 58% of farmers in Wales voted to leave the EU because of the promises that the funds they received on a regular basis from Brussels to the farm gate would be secure. Now they find that will not be the case.
The order represents an important change in the devolution settlement. Although the majority of the functions in it are relatively minor, their transfer to Welsh Ministers represents a significant step forward in matching the legislative competence of the Assembly with the Executive competence of Ministers. What the order does not do, as Labour argued consistently through the passage of the 2017 Act, is create the clarity that the opportunity of a new Wales Act could have provided. The whole period following the Silk Commission’s conclusions has been a missed opportunity by the Conservatives to put Wales on a stable and sustainable footing, consolidate all existing legislation and provide proper alignment.
On this journey, we had the debacle of the St David’s Day process, where the Tories could not get anyone to agree with them, yet persisted in calling it an agreement prior to the initial draft Wales Bill being published in 2016. The 2016 draft Bill was so universally loathed by politicians, academics and lawyers alike that significant changes had to be made before the Bill was introduced in Parliament the following year. We welcome those changes.
The Welsh Labour Government reluctantly recommended a legislative consent motion to the Assembly in 2017—not because the Wales Bill was perfect, but because it represented another step along the road towards the clarity that Wales deserves. That is where this TFO—transfer of functions order—comes in. As I said, it goes some way towards aligning the legislative competence of the National Assembly with the Executive competence of Welsh Ministers.
Of the 47 articles in the transfer order, there are three areas of significance: teachers’ pay and conditions, civil contingencies and elections. On teachers’ pay and conditions, we note the later date of 30 September 2018 for those coming into force. This, I understand, was at the Welsh Government’s request and is to ensure the smoothest possible transition for teachers in Wales when the new school year starts. I thank the Government for listening and for making the amendments proposed by Welsh Ministers.
The transfer of functions to Welsh Ministers in relation to civil contingencies should provide clarity for all those who deal day to day with emergency planning. We believe that will make for a better service response for the public and it is to be welcomed. I recently met the chief fire officer for north Wales, Simon Smith, to discuss fire issues and emergency planning. I pay tribute to all those who protect us in emergency planning and civil contingencies, including the police, fire services, ambulance services, local authorities, the coastguard and the NHS. I am sure they will be pleased with the joined-up approach that we are discussing today.
With respect to elections, we note that the functions will be transferred on a different basis from the other provisions in the TFO. Instead of listing the specific provisions to be transferred, the TFO provides that all functions in certain election-related enactments will be transferred, but only in so far as those functions fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly. That appears to introduce some uncertainty: it is not exactly clear which functions have been transferred, making the TFO slightly difficult to navigate. We understand that the Welsh Government offered an alternative draft to the UK Government that would have addressed that point. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee why it was thought necessary to proceed on the basis of what we have before us. Why did they not accept the Welsh Government’s proposals?
The final issue is Milford Haven port. The UK Government have compounded their determination to keep control of the port. Will the Minister confirm that they have no plans to privatise the port and will work with the Welsh Government to ensure its continued significant contribution to the economy of west Wales at this significant time, with Brexit looming large over us all?
The transfer of functions is generally to be welcomed. We will not divide the Committee, but I would appreciate if the Minister could shed some light on those issues.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Following various threats and encouragements from people around me, I will keep my contribution brief. I do not intend to say anything about the background process or the legislation we passed that has led to the order we are discussing this afternoon, but there is one item in the order that I would draw the Minister’s attention to.
Article 39 transfers ministerial functions on teachers’ pay and conditions under the Education Act 2002. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd alluded to this provision as one of the most significant in the draft order. It was also probably the most contentious part of the discussions we had in the run-up to the St David’s Day agreement in 2015. The hon. Gentleman made some quite churlish remarks about the nature of the agreement, or lack of it. The truth is that when it came to teachers’ pay and conditions, the biggest resistance to devolution came from Labour Members—specifically, from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). The concern he raised at that time, which was quite legitimate, was whether devolving teachers’ pay and conditions to Cardiff is a step towards breaking up unified national pay scales for teachers across England and Wales.
That is not just a theoretical point; the issue is very much live at the moment, particularly among supply teachers. A number of supply teachers in my constituency have contacted me about what they feel are the differential rates of pay they get for working in England and working in Wales, and the fact that they do not get access to the teachers’ pension service. They believe that the agency system that the Welsh Government’s national procurement strategy has set up to govern the way the teaching supply industry works in Wales does not work in the best interests of teachers. Does the Minister believe that this transfer of functions will give Welsh Ministers in Cardiff all the powers they need to address the problem that has emerged in the devaluing of supply teachers, with underpayment leaving them feeling worthless?
Stuart Andrew
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the fact that the Opposition support the order. The order delivers on our commitment to transfer the remaining Minister of the Crown functions to Welsh Ministers and provides the clarity I have referred to.
On teachers’ pay, I am glad that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd said that we have listened. That is the approach that we have tried to take: careful consideration of all of the issues that needed to be looked at in great detail. I pay tribute to people right across UK Government Departments and in the Welsh Government for the significant work they have done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire gives valuable insight and I am glad that he was able to contradict the picture of what happened in the discussions on the 2017 Act. On his point about powers, they are absolutely going to the Welsh Government, and it will be for them to come up with the plans and policies that they want on teachers’ pay. That responsibility will lie with the Welsh Government.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The draft order transfers a wide range of functions to Welsh Ministers, particularly in relation to agriculture and the environment. We still do not know what the specific consequences of clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be. Are there any functions in the draft order that may need to be retracted once the regulations in that clause are made clearer? If so, what will be the scrutiny procedure for bringing back any of the functions that are being transferred today?
Stuart Andrew
Of course, these are the particular functions that we have identified at the moment. Clause 11 of the withdrawal Bill is a totally different issue. If any more powers need to be transferred to the Welsh Government, we will bring another order before the House so that they can be considered properly.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd also mentioned civil contingencies, and he is absolutely right to point out the joint approach that has taken place. I join him in paying tribute to all those who work in the emergency services and keep us safe. They do a superb job. The clarity that we will now have in the management and planning of those will be welcomed right across the board.
On elections, the draft order makes clear the areas of election law to which the electoral functions that are being transferred will apply. It made sense to do that in this way, because the draft order would otherwise have become quite an unwieldy document. We felt that this was the best way to take this forward, and it means that it is now very clear that the functions for elections to local government and to the Welsh Assembly are now with the Welsh Government.
Stuart Andrew
Milford Haven is a reserved trust under the 2017 Act, and policies concerning it are therefore a matter for the UK Government and Parliament, not the draft order. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd asked about its future. I cannot at this stage give any information on its future, but I will happily write to him on that.
I thank members of the Committee for considering the draft order. It is an historic day. The transfer of these functions brings a lot of clarity about the responsibilities of the Welsh Government and those of the UK Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Save Our Shire Hill Hospital
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
Concessionary Bus Passes
(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
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered concessionary bus passes.
It is a pleasure to serve when you are in the Chair, Ms Ryan. During my three years in Parliament, it has been noticeable that although most of our fellow citizens use buses, we rarely get to discuss bus issues in the House. I am delighted to see in the Chamber my good and hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, who I am sure will be putting that right in the coming months and years. Today, I shall focus mainly on the concessionary fares scheme and highlight its value and how it could be extended, but I shall also make a few observations about the problems that arise when running such a scheme in parts of the country with unregulated bus systems, and draw out possible solutions.
The national concessionary fares scheme has been a huge success. It has really changed the way older people live their lives, by increasing their freedom and, in many cases, reducing loneliness and isolation. As I think hon. Members will be aware, the bus pass in England provides free bus travel for older and disabled people during off-peak times—from 9.30 am onwards. Ironically, should anyone have chosen to use their concessionary fares pass to get here this morning, they would have been late. I can see that some of my colleagues set out much earlier—not that I am suggesting they would qualify for a bus pass. I am very pleased that so many people have made such an effort to be here at what is quite an early hour for Parliament on its return from recess.
The age of eligibility for the concessionary fares scheme has become slightly flexible. If the eligible age had remained what it was when the scheme was first announced, I might almost have qualified by now, but it seems to be slipping into the distance; I hope one day to catch it up. I think it is now 66. I hope that, in the future, many more people will be able to benefit from the scheme.
The trigger for calling this debate was the 10-year anniversary of the scheme. I congratulate the National Pensioners Convention, which made a big effort to celebrate it, including by sending birthday cards to Downing Street; I joined members to go and hand those in. I have to say that I was hoping there might be slightly more enthusiasm from the Government for celebrating the anniversary. We did have a discussion at Transport questions, and the Minister, I am delighted to say, had removed the threat of ongoing review, but I was hoping for something slightly more celebratory—a bit more Jürgen Klopp, a bit more dancing up and down, celebrating the success of the bus scheme.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is a very long-standing supporter of buses. Will he also congratulate the TUC Midlands pensioners’ network? Its members marked the 10th anniversary of the concessionary bus pass by touring the midlands using their passes. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that, when they came to Nottingham and we were talking to residents in Market Square, the overwhelming number of people did not avoid us; they came and spoke to us, and they expressed their great joy and made celebratory remarks about the bus pass for older people and disabled people, because they know what a lifeline it has been for so many people. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is very prescient, because the TUC campaign was in the next paragraph of my speech; she has pre-empted it. She is right. Those of us who have done market square campaigning will know that we are not always a magnet for people to come and join us and enthuse, but I find that whenever we speak to older people, they are enthusiastic. I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to not only the east midlands TUC but Richard Worrall, who, when the scheme was initiated, set off on a tour of the country and was able to demonstrate that, using his bus pass, he could get round the whole country, which was very exciting. I am told that he is going to do that again, and certainly if he comes through Cambridgeshire I shall be very pleased to join him, although I shall be paying the extortionate fares that we suffer in rural Cambridgeshire—should we be lucky enough to find a bus. I say that because the enthusiasm to which I have referred is tempered by the fact that, in far too many areas, the Government seem to be managing decline rather than celebrating new routes. I will say a little about how that might be addressed, but first I would like to go back to the history of this scheme.
As I look around the Chamber, I see that some of us are old enough to remember that in the ’80s and ’90s pensioner campaigning was central to everything we did. I remember that, as a parliamentary candidate, I was summoned to many vibrant meetings—the pensioners’ organisations had a long list of demands at the time. That was because they compared, strangely enough, our situation in the UK with that in many other European countries and found that our European neighbours often enjoyed a whole series of things that pensioners in our country did not. One success of the post-1997 Labour Government was that they addressed pensioner poverty. I am thinking of measures such as free eye tests, the winter fuel payment and so on, and the bus pass was of course a key part of that.
However, there was not a particularly smooth path to that. We started with quite a panoply of schemes. Some places, such as London, had long had better schemes. Some of the urban areas—I have to say that they were almost always Labour-run areas—had been much more generous in the past. However, in the shires, it was much more of a battle. A kind of halfway house was introduced back in the Transport Act 2000, which gave pensioners half-price fares. That led to quite a lot of even more vexed campaigning.
I remember going to a Labour policy forum in 2004 with colleagues from adjoining counties in the rural east of England—I particularly remember the then leader of Norfolk County Council, Celia Cameron, and Bryony Rudkin from Suffolk. We sat with the then Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling—this was long before he realised he was to become Chancellor of the Exchequer—and explained to him why we thought that a concessionary fares scheme of this type would be not only equitable and fair but hugely popular. I remember the look on Alistair’s face: he said, “Do you know how much that would cost?” That was actually quite a good question because, as I shall explain in a minute, the question of costs has never been properly tied down. His point, of course, was that it would be quite a costly commitment. We went away, having established the idea in principle, but with no great hope that it would necessarily be adopted, so it was with huge joy that we greeted the development a year later. I am not suggesting that it was just we who achieved this; it was a wide range of campaigners, but in the 2005 Labour manifesto a full scheme was suggested, and it was finally implemented in 2006.
The issue of funding is important because, right from the beginning, it has proved to be complicated and difficult. When I was a parliamentary candidate, I spent many a happy hour trying to work out, with my local county councillors and district councillors, who was paying for what and how much it was really costing, and, frankly, coming to the conclusion that probably no one was entirely sure.
We are told that, overall, this scheme now costs £1.17 billion per annum. Not surprisingly, the cost has increased since the scheme was introduced. We are told that, in 2013-14, 9.73 million concessionary travel passes were issued across the country; that puts the average cost at £120 per person. When the scheme was first introduced, the Government provided an extra £350 million for 2006-07 through the formula grant system to fund the cost to local authorities as they then saw it. Between 2008 and 2011, the Department for Transport provided a special grant, totalling just over £650 million, to local authorities to pay for the statutory concession.
Since 2011, however, it is the formula grant that funds the bus pass; money is no longer ring-fenced. Of course, it is a familiar sleight of hand by central Government to apparently put money into the local government grant and tell local government that it has to do this. As the years go by, it becomes less and less clear what the money is for. There is a strong suspicion that it is a sleight of hand, and particularly when councils are being so heavily squeezed, it is asking a lot of them.
Therefore, my first question to the Minister is whether she would like to have a word with the Treasury about looking again at providing proper, ring-fenced funding for the scheme to local authorities. It is not entirely clear to me that the current system of local government finance, particularly with the move away from central Government funding and, supposedly, to business rates retention, actually provides a good, sustainable model for supporting a scheme such as this.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Surely a proper cost-benefit analysis ought to be part of that assessment. In many rural areas, the benefit is that people in smaller, local towns can access services. Most significantly, the benefit is to the health budget, by keeping so many of our pensioners active and engaged. There are lots of studies now on the impact of loneliness on older people. This scheme helps to get people out and about, and maintains their health for much longer.
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to the social and environmental benefits in a minute. This partly shows us how complicated it is to assess the long-term benefits.
Returning to the relationship between central Government and local government, local authorities were charged with coming up with a reimbursement system that left the operator no better or worse off, but they are in a difficult place, and I will come on to the reimbursement system in a minute. The Local Government Association estimates the cost to local authorities at around £760 million a year, with a funding shortfall of £200 million. I suspect that that pressure will only get worse.
The operators are not keen on the system at all. I frequently hear complaints. It is difficult to prove what it costs to carry passengers for free, in a way that observes that reimbursement rule. Putting some extra people on half-empty buses does not necessarily cost more. If there are too many extra people, however, extra services are required.
I understand that the prime task of the bus operators—the big five and many smaller operators—is to return a profit to their shareholders. That is right and proper; that is what they do. They will inevitably claim that this costs rather a lot. In the early days—this was my experience in Cambridgeshire—the bus operators did quite well, because the reimbursement cost they extracted from the county council was rather high. Over time that seems to have settled. As has been said in questions to Ministers, the number of appeals has settled down, which suggests that there is a kind of settlement in all this. I think there is a wider question, however, of how and whether the reimbursement system works.
There is a comparison to be made between London, which has a regulated system, and the rest of the country. Thanks to the Bus Services Act 2017, we hope that some of the new mayoral authorities will adopt franchising. I hope my own in Cambridgeshire does. In London, where you have gross cost franchising, it is much simpler for Transport for London to make decisions about the public good. It decides the fares and the frequency, and then it pays the operator to deliver the service. In a way, the operator has much less to worry about, provided it does not drive up usage and extra costs too far. For London, which groups pay and which do not, and how much is made up by the fare box and how much is raised in others ways, are political choices.
In the rest of the country, it is much less clear. It could be suggested that operators have a perverse incentive to put up fares, because if they know that many of their passengers will be concessionary fare holders, they will be reimbursed for that. We will see whether that gets any response from the operators. The choice over discounts and whether young people should qualify for similar fare schemes is essentially market driven; it is not a choice around social need or the social good. There is a huge opportunity, if we shift to franchising, to move to a much clearer and more efficient model. It may reduce operators’ profits, but if it provides lower fares and space for social choices for the social good, it is worth them paying that price.
I pay tribute to the work being done by the Transport for Quality of Life team, including Lynn Sloman and Ian Taylor, who have begun to look at European systems where, effectively, transport is provided for free across an urban area—it is predominately urban areas at the moment. That is not a novel or unprecedented idea, because many people take the view that public transport—like health, education, policing, parks and museums—is an essential public service that contributes to the fabric of local life. The organisation’s work—often commissioned by my trade union, Unite—shows that this is already happening in 100 towns and cities worldwide, including more than 30 in the United States and 20 in France. Dunkirk, with a population of 200,000, will apparently become fare-free in September. The largest city in the world to have made its public transport free is Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, with a population of 440,000. Free transport was introduced to residents in 2013. It has cost the city €12 million, but it believes that that has been offset by a €14 million increase in municipal revenues, as many more people have moved there, increasing the tax base.
That links to some of the work being done by my colleagues on the Transport Committee about mobility as a service. We are looking at a whole new range of ways of getting around cities. My vision is what I see when I visit an airport. Some airports are like small cities. There are travellators, lifts, shuttle metros and shuttle buses. The noticeable thing is that we do not pay to get on each of them, because it is in the interests of that community to get people where they want to go quickly and efficiently. I argue that is in the interest of all of us, in all our cities and smaller towns, to ensure that people can get around quickly and efficiently.
That is my vision for the future, but to return to the present, extending franchising beyond the mayoralty areas would allow local authorities much more control over services in their areas. It would put them in a much stronger position to maintain stability in funding the national concessionary travel bus scheme. The additional flexibility could also be extended to the community transport sector. That is sometimes a controversial issue, but it is being raised by people in the sector. If we are looking for a flexible mix of transport solutions, particularly in rural areas, I think it should be considered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) has already raised the social issues involved. Very good work has been done on that by Claire Haigh at Greener Journeys. She demonstrated, in research done a few years ago, that each pound spent on a bus pass generates at least £2.87 in benefits to bus pass users and the wider economy.
Lilian Greenwood
Like my hon. Friend, I am very familiar with “Bus2020: The Case for the Bus Pass”, produced by Greener Journeys. I noted that in responding to the Government’s decision to confirm the bus pass, Claire Haigh produced an updated figure. Greener Journeys’ research has now shown that every pound spent on a bus pass delivers at least £3.79 in wider benefits for society. That updates the case made in 2014, when Greener Journeys first published that research.
Daniel Zeichner
That shows why my hon. Friend is Chair of the Transport Committee—I should keep up. That is an even bigger benefit. I know it is always difficult for Government when such figures are put forward, but in straitened times, understanding the wider cost-benefits is one of the challenges. How many of us have sat on councils where we have talked about trying to pool budgets and make things work more efficiently? It is a challenge, but one worth pursuing.
As we have heard, there are also savings for social services. The social benefit is intangible, but some interesting recent research by Transport Focus has shown that the social benefit of the bus—people talking to one another as opposed to taking separate taxi journeys—has a real value. We must not underestimate these social benefits. The bus absolutely contributes to the wider social good.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Does he agree that the value of the bus is not only in its social benefits, but in the opportunities for the Government to realise some of their other policy goals, such as tackling poor air quality and congestion in our cities? Does he share my concern that the Government’s figures on congestion and traffic rises indicate that by 2040 there will be a 55% rise in traffic and an 86% rise in congestion? That is why it is in all our interests for the Government to adequately support bus travel.
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The environmental benefits are really important. I was pleased to see the Minister announce at the UK bus summit the retrofitting proposals, which I was happy to see in the Labour party manifesto last year. It is always good to see the Government adopt such things, and I will have some more suggestions for the Minister in a minute. Alongside that proposal are the very good hydrogen buses that are being developed. I suspect that other Members, like me, have been happy to go and see them. All those things add to my point that the bus is one of the important ways forward in improving the quality of life in our cities, towns and villages.
One extremely good way of promoting buses is by looking at the younger generation, who we are reading about this morning.
John Spellar
Just before my hon. Friend moves on, I want to make a point that may lead on to the next part of his speech. Does he share my concern about the Resolution Foundation’s report today that calls for increased taxes and charges on pensioners? It once again raises the concern that many pensioners have that their use of or access to bus passes will be rationed or restricted. I hope he would say that that certainly should not happen, and perhaps give the Minister an opportunity to make it clear on behalf of the Government that they will definitely not be taking any action to change the availability of bus passes for pensioners.
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend is an experienced and skilled operator, and I am sure the Minister will have heard his challenge, which echoed the challenge I laid down at Transport questions the other day. Older generations may have done better—as I indicated, only 20 years ago pensioner poverty was a very real and terrible thing, and because of policy changes it is only recently that people have been less likely to be poor when they are older—but we have to get the balance between generations right. We do not do that by punishing another generation; we do that by finding the resources from other places.
Turning to younger people, who now need to benefit, I want to reiterate something about the scheme in general. Claire Walters, the chief executive of Bus Users UK, recently said:
“Far more people rely on bus services than trains in this country. They are as vital to many people’s lives as gas, electricity and water”.
For many young people, particularly those in rural counties such as mine, getting to college or work is a real challenge. We are not talking about home-school transport today, but the Government would do well to consider that at some point, because there are rumblings in the shires, as they may have noticed last Thursday. Part of the challenge for young people is the cost of travel, including home-school transport.
As my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, the Resolution Foundation report showed the immense squeeze on the younger generation. They have experienced the tightest squeeze on household spending we have known since 2000, and they now consume 15% less than older working-age people on items other than housing. As we know all too well, home ownership is now out of sight for many people who are working, particularly in cities like mine. At the other end of the spectrum, those under 25 face significant restrictions on the amount of benefits they can claim.
I was absolutely delighted by the announcement by Front-Bench hon. Friends a few weeks ago that in future Labour would provide free bus travel in some parts of the country to those under 25. That would reduce the barriers to accessing work and education that so many young people face. The proposal could benefit up to 13 million young people, helping them save up to £1,000 a year. My hon. Friends have suggested that money ring-fenced from vehicle excise duty could be used. In addition to my earlier argument about franchising, with much greater control from local authorities there could well be extra headroom within local funds to help fund such an extension of the scheme.
I can anticipate the reaction from the bus operators. My local Stagecoach bus manager, with whom I have had many detailed conversations about bus franchising over the years, is not shy in coming forward to warn me of the perils of such an approach. I say gently to the operators that while their books remain closed and their finances opaque, it is not unreasonable for those of us interested in the wider public good to wonder whether more savings could not be made. We are told it is an unregulated market, but it is a funny kind of free market when public money accounts for more than 40% of bus operator revenues through local authority contracts, the bus service operators grant, reimbursement for trips made under the concessionary passholders scheme and grants. We therefore have a responsibility to ask whether we are making best use of that public money.
There is a lot of public money going into the bus system. Can we make it work better? I welcome the announcement that the concessionary fare scheme is no longer under review, but as I intimated earlier, I would like a slightly warmer endorsement of the underlying principles and a true enthusiasm for universally available mass public transport systems. Let’s hear it for the bus! Where older people have led the way, let us open the door for young people too. As we do not know when the next general election is coming—it could be a little while yet—will the Minister consider meeting me and the shadow Minister responsible for buses to discuss adopting yet another of Labour’s excellent bus policies? Young people would be as happy with their new bus pass as millions of older citizens have been with theirs over the last decade.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to speak in this debate about concessionary bus passes. As the House will know, the matter is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it is a policy to which myself and my party remain absolutely committed. As we have heard, the point of free bus passes for our senior citizens is not only to enable them, but to actively encourage them to go out and about and to socialise. We know that improves their wellbeing and their mental and physical health. It is worth remembering that society encouraging good physical health in senior citizens, even in purely monetary terms, is a sensible and ethical thing to do since the older someone is, the more likely they are to develop problems with their physical health.
It does not help senior citizens or society for our older people to be trapped at home, whether that is for reasons of poverty or a lack of social contact. We want them to live productive lives, travelling about the country, volunteering, spending time with grandchildren and building up social networks. That will keep our communities vibrant and our older people healthier for much longer. Indeed, a fairly recent study by KPMG found that every pound spent on the bus pass generates more than £2.87 of benefits for society and the wider economy. We have heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) that that has been revised upwards to £3.79, which is good news. The same report said that scrapping the passes would cost £1.7 billion due to the likely decline in volunteering and poorer health and wellbeing among older people. The news on free bus passes is very positive.
The scheme enables older and disabled people to have fuller and more efficient access to the key public services they need and to take part in activities that would not be affordable to them without the free bus pass. That freedom to travel has a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits, including the ability to use local shops and being more able to look after children and care for others. The study says that four out of five of those eligible to take up bus passes do so. The 12 million pass holders altogether took more than 1.2 billion trips across Britain in 2012-13. According to Passenger Focus research, some 95% of passengers believe that older and disabled people should be entitled to a free bus pass.
Lilian Greenwood
The Department for Transport’s latest statistics reveal that outside London, concessionary bus journeys have decreased by 14% since 2010-11. In London, they decreased by 4.8% in the same period. Does the hon. Lady not share my concern that the reduction in bus travel generally and the reduction in services, particularly supported services, by local authorities is leading to fewer people making use of their bus pass, perhaps because there is not a bus on which they can use it?
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Lady anticipates an important point I was going to make. My party and I are absolutely committed to free bus passes, because the policy makes ethical and financial sense. We know it would be penny wise and pound foolish for the bus pass to be under threat, and the hon. Lady makes a very good point.
In Scotland, Transport Scotland provides an annual subsidy of about £70 million to the bus industry, the aim of which is to keep fares at affordable levels and to enable bus operators to run services that might not otherwise be commercially viable. However, as a bus user myself, as someone who relies on public transport and having listened to what my constituents tell me—which I see for myself every day—I am concerned about cuts to bus services across North Ayrshire. That has persuaded me that we need to look seriously at bus reregulation—in my constituency the cuts to bus services have been nothing less than savage.
There is limited value in giving someone a free bus pass to encourage them to get out and about and to improve their health and wellbeing, if the bus services are cut to the point at which one cannot go where one would like to go using that bus pass. We need to look at bus reregulation, because the cuts have had a devastating effect in my constituency. I know that I am not alone in that situation.
Politics is always about choices. The principle of the free bus pass is a prize that we need to hang on to. Whatever else happens, it is something that we need to value, not forgetting the benefits it brings to us and to older people in our wider society. Politics is about choices, and we in the Scottish National party will continue to support the principle of free bus passes for pensioners but, like the hon. Member for Nottingham South, I am concerned about the overall cuts to bus services in our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Ryan, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing it and on setting the scene for us.
I have a particular interest in this issue because we are one of the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that already has a concessionary bus pass in place. I am pleased to put on the record in Hansard that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was the Minister who put that in—and he is now a recipient of the bus pass. It is always good to have such contributions in Hansard. I should add that I, too, am entitled to be a recipient of the bus pass, although I have not applied for it or taken it up. I want to make that clear.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning in passing that I introduced the pass. Does he agree that what we have seen in the 17 years since it was introduced in Northern Ireland is the incredible advantage taken of it by our elderly citizens, to the advantage of their social mobility and of their wider community?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague is absolutely right: the advantage of the concessionary bus pass in Northern Ireland is one that we see the benefits of—I see it in my constituency. For those who are on in years, the introduction of the bus pass has provided the fun of the bus journey, which can be across all of Northern Ireland, so they get the chance of going places, and all that without the fuss and the bustle of driving a car through traffic, which makes it relaxing for them. He is right that the bus pass has helped to improve social inclusion.
I want to declare an interest, not just as someone over 60 but because I am entitled to a bus pass—though, as I say, I have not taken it up. I have not availed myself of the pass because bus services outside the main cities are not the most frequent, including in my home village of Greyabbey on the Ards peninsula. My younger brother does use the pass, and so I want to focus the Minister’s attention on three issues: disability; vulnerability; and, for some people, social isolation, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said.
Some 12 years ago, my younger brother received a serious head injury during a motorbike race. He avails himself of the bus service, which stops literally outside his house. Our Keithy gets such freedom and independence from the bus. I have to mention the particular care given to him by the bus drivers—simply put, Keith is disabled as a result of the motorbike accident, so needs help getting on and off the bus, and the drivers are extremely helpful and give him specific care. That is a personal experience, but I hope this House will benefit from my alluding to it.
The bus pass for my brother means the difference between a life constrained to his four walls and the ability for him to go to the shop or to call into the office to see my staff, as he so often does. The fact of the matter is that Keith received severe brain injuries in the accident, so he also has someone that goes with him. A lot is happening there. I mention Keith because it is for him and others like him that I stand here—so that we do not forget the disabled or the vulnerable, to whom the pass is the difference between freedom and isolation, between community and loneliness and between connection and seclusion, especially in rural communities.
Those on the disability living allowance or, as it is now, the personal independence payment receive the half-fare concessionary option. Those like Keith who have to live off their state benefits because of their disabilities are therefore able to go out twice a week without being concerned about counting the pennies. It is a tremendous scheme. I am not saying that only because my hon. Friend and colleague introduced it, but because it is tremendous. I pay credit to all the hard work that went into the scheme that operates in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, those who have driven all their lives but are declared medically unfit to drive can still access an affordable way to get to work and to travel.
In 2016-17, to give an idea of the take-up in Northern Ireland, 312,593 SmartPasses were held by older people. I am following up on the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who listed the advantages for Scotland, as will her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). Comparing the numbers for holders of the 60-plus SmartPass and the Senior SmartPass for those over 65 with the 2016 mid-year population estimate of persons aged 60 and over, uptake of the SmartPasses was approximately 79%, which is a tremendous figure. Ninety-five per cent. of the passes were held by people aged 60 or over.
Moreover, in 2013 to 2015, almost a fifth—18%—of persons aged 16 and over who were surveyed reported having a mobility difficulty. On average, those with a mobility difficulty made 590 journeys per year, so they not only took up the concessionary passes, but made use of them, which goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry: it has turned out to be a magnificently utilised scheme by those who gain the advantage and benefit of it. On average, therefore, those with a mobility difficulty made 40% fewer journeys than those without a mobility difficulty, who made 988 journeys per year. In 2016-17, 98% of buses and coaches used as public service vehicles were wheelchair accessible. Transport NI, which runs the bus service in Northern Ireland, including the private bus companies, has taken significant steps to make its buses wheelchair and buggy-friendly, investing a lot of money.
I say this often, not to boast but to make a point: in Northern Ireland we have taken steps to advance things greatly, as others have in other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the concessionary fares, with the public transport response and investment, is an example. In Northern Ireland, clearly there has been large uptake of the pass by the elderly population and that is for a reason: many are unable to drive any longer, many feel less confident in driving and parking, and many have worked all of their lives but never had the opportunity to travel throughout Northern Ireland and now wish to do so. The concessionary fares also help take people to the Republic of Ireland, so they go outside our own area.
I recently read an article in the Belfast Telegraph that highlighted the extent of social isolation and loneliness in Northern Ireland. This goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry. I wish to quote it in its entirety, because it is important to have it recorded in Hansard:
“Northern Ireland is in the grip of a loneliness epidemic, with a quarter of people admitting that they don’t even know their neighbours’ names.
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of people admit to feeling lonely, a report found… The Rotary Club’s State of the Nation survey questioned people aged 16 to 59 on social and community issues.
It found that the highest percentage of people feeling isolated were in the 16 to 29 age group (71.5%), followed by 62.7% of those aged 30 to 44—ending the myth that loneliness only affects the elderly.
Further analysis shows that, while nearly half of people (48.6%) see their families on a weekly basis, a small number (2.9%) never see their relatives… The report found the main causes of anxiety for people in Northern Ireland were mental health (60%), poverty (57%), health problems (54%) and opportunities for young people (51%). Worryingly, 92% of people confessed to feeling bogged down by the stresses and strains of modern life”—
“bogged down” is one of the Ulsterisms we often use; I hope everyone understands what it means—
“while 42% thought it was harder than ever to manage finances, get on the property ladder (40%) or maintain a job for life (40%).”
The concessionary scheme is a way of connecting people. It allows people to make the journey to visit a family member without waiting on someone to collect them and leave them home. It allows those who may otherwise not be able to attend their local church or community group seniors meeting, or indeed their care for cancer group, to hop on public transport and go. Those two things are very important in my constituency—they mean a lot to my constituents. I see among the people I speak to on the ground that there is massive take-up of the concessionary fee in my constituency.
The SmartPass concession does not benefit only the holder, does not simply help to combat rural or social isolation and is not merely a means to open up the transport network to those who are no longer able to drive, are widowed or have lost their driver through death or divorce, although all those things are worthy enough. I spoke to constituents yesterday on the doorsteps of Greyabbey—like other Members, I try to make contact with people regularly, and yesterday was an opportunity to do that when people were at home—and a number of them said to me, “I’ve lost my driver,” or, “I was friends with a person who lost their partner, and now they’re away.” The concessionary fee and the bus become a big part of those people’s lives. Concessionary and free bus passes connect us all to each other, and we must think long and hard before we alter that and introduce means-testing.
I say this cautiously, but for how much longer will we squeeze our middle classes—people who have worked all their lives? Will it be until they are brought to poverty the minute they retire and stop working? Surely they deserve to retire at some age, and we must attempt to protect this perk. I spoke to the Minister and her Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), before the debate to remind them of the things I want them to focus on. The priority should be disabled people, vulnerable people and those who feel socially isolated. I believe that we could do something on the mainland. I know there would be a cost to that, but we cannot ignore the many benefits that would come off the back of it.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke passionately and movingly about the progressive policies in Northern Ireland. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who certainly did the bus proud in celebrating the 10th anniversary of concessionary bus passes. I am 57 years old, and I hope—if the Lord spares me—to get my own bus pass by the 20th anniversary. There is no greater joy in life than sitting on the front seat at the top of a double-decker bus, as I did this weekend. I must put on the record that, in my unbiased opinion, Keighley bus station is the friendliest in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Strangford rightly said that conversations on buses can be frank. Having conversations we would not normally have is one of the great joys of travelling on buses. I left the House in 2010 and spent a number of years outside it. I used to get the little hopper bus—the 962—from Otley to Ilkley. I was the youngest person on that bus by far. A particular lady who was well into retirement shouted across the bus to me every week, “Have you got a proper job yet, love?” The whole bus was riveted by the progress of my career outside the House.
The question of means-testing comes up from time to time, but the evidence shows that concessionary bus passes are a progressive policy. They are used by the middle class, but they are used most by those who need them most. If I remember the statistics correctly, a 2016 Department for Transport study showed that people with an income of £10,000 or less make twice as many journeys as those who earn more than £20,000, and that non-drivers tend to use their concessionary pass about three times more than drivers. It is a progressive policy. A quarter of people, like the hon. Gentleman, do not use their bus pass, but that is self-selecting. I do not think people waste their bus passes, but those who need them most use them most.
We have heard a lot about loneliness. This policy—one of the Labour Government’s most progressive measures—was introduced in 2006 for local public transport in England and extended nationwide in 2008. To be frank, loneliness did not come into the debate very much at that time. However, as other hon. Members have put more powerfully than I can, whatever someone’s income and however many friends they have—even if they have nowhere to go—they can get on a bus and get out, do a bit of window shopping, have a few conversations and so on. That is wonderful, and I hope that all parties commit in their next manifestos to leaving the scheme unaltered.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point about people making journeys almost for the sake of it, to keep up with friends or just to get out of the house, but around 25% of bus journeys by older people using concessionary bus passes are for medical appointments. Many of those people struggle with inaccessible or irregular bus services, as Age UK stated in its recent “Painful Journeys” report. Does he share my concern that those journeys are becoming increasingly difficult because of the number of bus routes that have been cut?
John Grogan
I do. As the number of bus routes is cut, the potential for journeys is cut. I think that is why there has been a slight but significant decline in the use of bus passes.
One of the great things about the scheme in 2008 was that it was universal in England. People over 60 knew that, wherever they went, they could travel on a bus for free. With the rise in the pension age and so on, that is no longer true. There is a patchwork of schemes across the country. As I understand it, London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have put extra money into the scheme so that people over 60 can travel for free on buses. In the rest of the country, I think that is true only in Merseyside. The scheme, which was national in England, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, is now broken, in the sense that people over 60 cannot be sure, unless they live in certain areas, that they can travel for free. That is a cause of resentment in areas of England outside London.
I will not divert too far into rail, but in some parts of England bus passes also give people rail concessions. Indeed, a number of years ago there was a revolt by so-called “freedom riders” against Sheffield City Council’s plans to abolish the rail concession completely. As in West Yorkshire, concessionary bus pass holders in South Yorkshire now get half fares on the railway, so there is that anomaly, too. I would like us to return to the idea that people over 60 can travel throughout England as of right, as they can in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and Merseyside.
I do not want to detain hon. Members for much longer, but it is worth looking at bus regulation and the Opposition’s plans for the under-25s. The politics of bus regulation is fascinating for those of us who were lucky enough to be in the House in 1997. If we are honest, even though the Labour Government were progressive in bringing in the concessionary fare scheme, they resisted bus regulation. We brought in a very complicated scheme of bus partnerships—it was almost impossible to jump through all the hoops—and we consulted on strengthening bus regulation only when we were out of office, because there was a lot of pressure, particularly from urban councils, to introduce it.
The current editor of the Evening Standard, George Osborne, then came along and wanted to do deals on devolution. What was the obvious thing he could offer to get Labour councils to sign up? Bus regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, it suddenly became fashionable in areas that were going to have Mayors. Then, lo and behold, some Tory shires thought, “We want a bit of this as well; we want to have a little bit more control of our buses,” hence we have the Bus Services Act 2017. We will have to see how that develops.
In theory, areas throughout England now have the potential to go for bus franchising. I have always thought that it is a very good idea, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge outlined. I understand that we now have a policy on free bus travel for the under-25s, and I look forward to hearing the details. Whatever we decide to do must be properly costed to stand the rigours of a general election campaign, and I am sure that it will be, in time. I would like whatever we offer to be a national offer. Otherwise we shall be doing exactly what was done in the 1990s for the over-60s. There is a patchwork of schemes, depending on whether councils opt for bus regulation. I believe in devolution and in councils’ right to determine the best way forward, but in my humble opinion it would overcomplicate things to say that under-25 concessions should be given only in areas that adopt a particular model of bus franchising or ownership.
I want to end on a positive note. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge lifted our eyes to the horizon of what is possible, and talked about free public transport as a possibility in some areas. That is not an idea of just the left or green elements of European politics; Chancellor Merkel’s Administration are clearly looking, on grounds of air quality rather than anything else, at running some experiments with free public transport in places such as Bonn, in the west of Germany. In future, on environmental as well as social grounds, it will be well worth looking at those ideas—properly costed.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate. We know that someone is passionate about a subject when they take the 9.30 slot after a bank holiday weekend; that is testament to his keenness. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan). He made an excellent speech, in which he outlined his own passion for the subject. I was curious to hear about his excitement at sitting in the front seat of a double-decker bus. It took me back to my schooldays, but then the measure of how cool we were was how far back in the bus we could sit. I never quite made it to the very back seat—that tells Members all they need to know. I am also curious to know whether the constituent he mentioned thinks he has a proper job yet. I suspect that most people think working in this House is not a proper job.
A strong theme came through about how successful concessionary bus pass schemes are in social terms, because they give people mobility and stop them being isolated. That brings further benefits, and different cost-benefit ratios were cited, but the higher figure of £3.79, against £1 spent on the bus pass scheme, is clearly a good thing. The discussion of middle-class people using the schemes brought to mind a curious thing that happened in Scottish politics. A Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in Scotland brought in the concessionary bus pass scheme in 2006, and it has been successful. Now that it is administered by the Scottish National party, however, apparently the universal concessionary element is suddenly a bad thing. We hear comments such as, “Why should a millionaire get a bus pass?” I have not met too many millionaires on the buses I have used, but if a millionaire takes a bus, leaves their gas-guzzler car in the garage and mixes with normal people like you and me, that is clearly a good thing for social cohesion. The universal aspect is important and we need to stick to it. I think most Members today believe that.
I like the fact that the hon. Member for Cambridge highlighted where there is universal free public transport. It is something we should monitor. The example of Tallinn in Estonia shows what a small independent country can do when it puts its mind to something. That welcome example is something to bear in mind for the future.
It would not have been a debate if the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had not spoken, so it was good to see him in his usual place. I must admit that the opening of his speech slightly disappointed me; I like to say how Scotland is first at everything, but he highlighted the fact that Northern Ireland brought in concessionary bus passes 17 years ago, and clearly it was the first part of the UK to do it. It is clearly a good thing, and we have all learned from that and introduced schemes. He gave a good personal example when he talked about his brother’s accident, and how having a bus pass enables him still to get out and about. That aligns in a way with the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Chair of the Transport Committee. She explained that many people use bus passes for medical appointments, and they can thus be a lifeline service. That lifeline must be protected.
The hon. Member for Cambridge suggested that in England there is something of a hotch-potch, with a variety of qualifying ages. For most people it aligns with pension age, which, as we know, is continuing to rise—it is mostly 66 for people in England. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have retained a qualifying age of 60, which is clearly a good thing. We know about the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women who have lost pension; they have suffered a double whammy, because they cannot retire when they want and they do not get free bus travel. They must wait longer for all their benefits, and that is a real shame. At least in other parts of the UK there is a slight mitigation for those women, because they can still have concessionary bus passes.
I personally consider Labour’s proposed scheme for free bus travel for the under-25s to be a good thing. There was a wee bit of friendly fire in the debate on the question of how well costed it might be, so it would be good to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), explain the costings. In Scotland we are looking at extending the scheme not universally to the under-25s, but to modern apprentices, to help young people get to work, so we are going somewhat in that direction. We also have free travel for under-25s if they are volunteers. It would be good to hear how a universal scheme for under-25s would operate.
This is the type of Westminster Hall debate where those who speak are mostly in agreement. We all agree that concessionary bus travel is a good thing that should not be eroded. The UK Government need to look at extending it along the lines we have heard about, and that certainly includes removing the link between eligibility age and pension age. There are clear benefits in reducing loneliness and promoting social cohesion, and of course there are cost benefits. To give one more example, in response to what the hon. Member for Strangford said about the middle class, I speak to people who could be called middle class who love using their bus pass in Scotland for travelling and going out and about. I am a big fan of Kilmarnock Football Club and some of those people use their bus passes to go to away matches. People may ask why middle-class people should do that, but it gets them out and about, and used to using buses. There are cost benefits, as we have heard, because they go to other places and spend money, buying meals and so on, which helps the economy more widely.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and congratulate him on securing this important debate, and on his knowledgeable speech. He has been a consistent campaigner on transport issues for many years. I also thank other hon. Members for their many and varied contributions. The debate is indeed timely; as my hon. Friend mentioned, it is 10 years since the then Labour Government’s Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 introduced free off-peak travel on local buses, nationally, in April 2008. It is right to mark that milestone.
More journeys are made on buses than on any other form of public transport. Indeed, for many people buses are the only form of public transport available. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge correctly says that the research shows the enormous benefits that concessionary bus passes bring to older people. For example, although it also covers modes of transport other than buses, Transport for London’s freedom pass is aptly named: it gives older people the freedom to travel locally, it increases their access to services and activities, and it reduces loneliness. I am sure we all agree that is a good thing.
My hon. Friend is also right, however, that the funding for concessionary bus passes has been contentious. Although there is a statutory duty on local authorities to provide concessionary travel schemes for pensioners and disabled people in England, there is no ring-fenced money. At a time of growing austerity, local authorities have highlighted how funding cuts have forced them to divert money from other services to continue to support the concessionary fares scheme. A recent Local Government Association briefing estimated that there is a £200 million shortfall in the moneys paid by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a non-ring-fenced formula grant. I am afraid that is down to a failure by the Government in devolving the cuts, giving local authorities the responsibility to deliver services while not providing the resources, or the means for them to raise funds, for that delivery. The next Labour Government, however, have committed to enabling councils across the country to provide first-class bus services for all, by extending the powers to reregulate local bus services to all areas that want them.
We have also committed to supporting the creation of municipal bus companies: those publicly run for passengers and not for profit. Municipal companies often provide cheaper services. They have higher usage and, as a result, provide much better value, both to passengers and to local businesses and services. Firms such as Nottingham Transport Group, and Reading Buses in my constituency, are indeed a model for many other areas. We would also introduce regulations to designate and protect routes of critical community value, including those that serve schools, local hospitals and isolated settlements in rural areas.
Labour will always be on the side of pensioners and will work to ensure security and dignity for older people in retirement. In our last manifesto we committed to keeping free bus passes for older people as a universal benefit, which we believe is a right rather than a privilege. However, as has been mentioned, we would go further. We are committed to concessionary travel, and the next Labour Government will extend free bus travel to under-25s across the country, in a move that would benefit up to 13 million younger people. Young people and households with children have less disposable income than working-age adults or households without children. Young people tend to be in lower-paid and more insecure work and they spend a higher proportion of their income on travel. Free buses are therefore an investment in the future of our children and young people, through improving their access to education and work. As with older people, encouraging children and young people to lead more active lives has significant related public health benefits.
The next Labour Government will provide funds for free travel for under-25s for local authorities that introduce bus franchising, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan), or move to public ownership of local services through municipalising buses. Labour will support and incentivise such local authorities, and local municipal bus services will be run for passengers and not for profit. Research shows that removing the profits that are extracted from the bus sector would achieve savings of £276 million per year for the taxpayer.
On savings for younger people, it has been noted that they would save up to £1,000 a year through free bus travel, which would generate a lifelong habit of using public transport. We will pay for that by using just one fifth of the revenue from the vehicle excise duty, which is currently ring-fenced for building new roads. We are committed to providing additional funds for new road building to support that policy through our other borrowing from central Government.
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the policy, given her previous remarks that the scheme is undeliverable, despite the Welsh Conservatives proposing a similar policy last autumn, offering free bus travel for all 16 to 24-year-olds in Wales. Perhaps the Minister will explain why a policy of free bus travel is affordable for young people in Wales but not in England.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the Minister’s announcement that the concessionary bus fare scheme is no longer subject to review is welcome. I am glad that he highlighted the immense value in our policy of free bus travel for under-25s, and I urge the Minister to join him in that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate about concessionary bus passes, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan.
I am a little bit nervous that I am not dancing or doing cartwheels, and the hon. Gentleman wanted a lot of excitement. Nevertheless, he is right that this debate is very timely and I am delighted that we are here this morning to mark the national concessionary bus pass. Instead of my dancing and singing, the good news may be that I announced some legislation only last month to protect the national concessionary travel scheme in its current form. I know that this issue was raised by more than one Member, so the Government have demonstrated our commitment to making sure that we no longer have to review legislation every five years, and this scheme will now be protected. Surely no greater celebration than that is needed.
Buses are essential for many people to get to work, to school, to doctors, to hospitals and to shops. Also, many hon. Members have commented today on how buses help to tackle loneliness and aid cohesion. For many people, particularly those in rural areas such as my constituency, the bus is a lifeline and without it they would not be able to access essential services or go shopping and socialise, with over half of those who rely on buses having no access to cars.
Lilian Greenwood
As the Minister represents a rural area, does she share my concern about the fact that the number of bus miles being served is decreasing? In the last year alone, there has been a 13.8% decrease in mileage on local authority-supported services, which she will know are approximately a fifth of all services. What will the Government do to address that decline in supported services?
Ms Ghani
Bus services in rural areas are a concern —especially in my constituency of Wealden—when we are dealing with an older population and people who might not have access to cars. However, this issue is complicated; it is not just about making sure that there is more money available. Funding is available through the £250 million grant that supports bus services, and the bus service operators grant, with £40 million going directly to local authorities. It is also about making buses accessible and easier to use. I will go on to discuss the other things that we are doing to make buses a far more attractive way to travel, in one’s own constituency let alone across the country.
Before that, however, I will just go on to another issue that the hon. Lady raised, which was loneliness. As part of the Prime Minister’s commitment to deliver a national strategy on loneliness, a ministerial group has been set up: I sit on that group as the representative of the Department for Transport. I am a passionate campaigner—even if I am not doing the cartwheels that the hon. Member for Cambridge wanted—for explaining and sharing how buses are vital in tackling loneliness and helping cohesion.
The benefits of a reliable and innovative bus service are clear—less congestion, greater productivity, and communities that are connected rather than being kept apart. However, we need more people to benefit from buses. That is why we introduced the Bus Services Act 2017, which provides local authorities with new powers to bring about change and unlock the potential for the bus industry to achieve more for passengers than it does today.
That includes a range of powers to introduce franchising or enhanced partnerships, with guidance on how local authorities and bus operators can work together to improve bus services in their area. These could include multi-operator tickets, improved vehicle standards and better connections between transport modes, employment and housing, all of which will drive an increase in bus usage and performance.
That is also why, as I mentioned earlier, last month I announced a change in legislation to protect the national concessionary travel scheme in its current form, so that it can continue to provide free travel for elderly and disabled passengers for years to come. It has been noted that the scheme has a value of £1 billion for 10 million people, which means 929 million concessionary bus journeys, or, on average, 95 bus journeys being taken per bus pass.
The concession provides much-needed help for some of the most vulnerable people in society, offering them greater freedom, independence and a lifeline to their community. It enables around 10 million older and disabled people to access facilities in their local area, and helps them to keep in touch with family and friends. It also has benefits for the wider economy, which was a point made earlier.
The national concession sets a minimum standard available to any eligible person anywhere in England, but of course it does not come cheap. That is why, given the current economic situation, there are no plans to extend the remit of the basic concession any further. However, local authorities have the powers to enhance the offer with discretionary concessions, according to local need and funding priorities. That may include extending the times when concessions are available to include peak-time travel, offering a companion pass for people who need assistance to travel, and offering concessions on different modes of transport. Some 71% of local authorities offer further concessions for elderly and disabled passengers. In Cambridgeshire, there are concessions for the elderly and the disabled before 9.30 am and after 11 pm.
Encouraging bus use among the elderly and the disabled is about more than just concessions. We are doing a lot to make buses more accessible. I draw attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on dealing with disability in his family and accessibility. On occasion, when I am allowed to leave this place, I am a carer for my parents, who both have very different disability needs. I know full well the occasional difficulties of being unable to understand which buses are running on which routes when dealing with people with different disabilities.
I will say more about accessibility later, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Equality Act 2010 requires the bus industry to ensure that buses are as accessible as possible for disabled passengers. Recently we also made announcements to make it clear that priority seating should be for people in wheelchairs. Since 2016, all buses have been required to meet minimum standards, with low-floor access. From March this year, all drivers are required to complete disability awareness training. The next step will be to ensure that all buses have audio-visual announcements, so that people with hearing or visual impairments have confidence that the bus they take will work for them. We plan to consult on those proposals this summer.
Alan Brown
I welcome audio-visual announcements. I am one of the MPs who backed the “Talking Buses” campaign by Guide Dogs. Can the Minister give a clearer timescale for when audio-visual information will be mandatory on buses?
Ms Ghani
We have had the action accessibility plan, which we will respond to shortly—within the month.[Official Report, 10 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 10MC.] We are working with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the charity Guide Dogs. We meet regularly with them to talk about how we can make the information available on all our buses, and in the most appropriate form. Unfortunately, during a trial some passengers complained that too much information was being given out all the time, and that occasionally the wrong information was given out. We are working on that with all the charities involved with people with visual impairments.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) has talked about concessions for younger people on several occasions. I draw attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) that any concessions or free bus service available for younger people has to be financially robust and stand up to the rigour of examination. The Government recognise that public transport is of particular importance to young people, and that the cost of travel can cause difficulty for those seeking education, training or employment opportunities. That is why a trial extension of discounted rail travel for 26 to 30-year-olds has recently been announced. That industry-led initiative to gather evidence on a full roll-out has seen a 100% take-up. The first phase of the trial saw 10,000 railcards sold across Greater Anglia, including Cambridge.
As I mentioned, local authorities have the powers to offer travel concessions on buses to local residents, and there are many examples of that for groups such as students. As part of the Bus 18 partnership between operators and West Yorkshire combined authority, there are half-price tickets for young people up to the age of 19, and pupils wearing their school uniform will no longer have to show a half-fare bus pass. In Liverpool, the voluntary bus alliance between Merseytravel, Arriva and Stagecoach has seen a flat fare of £1.80 for young people, with growth of 140% in bus travel by young people, as well as overall passenger growth of 16%. In Hertfordshire, young people aged 11 to 18 can pay £15 for a card that entitles them to half-price fares on local services.
There is more to encouraging bus use than cost alone. A recent report by Transport Focus found that young people want better access to information about buses. That is why we introduced powers through the Bus Services Act 2017 to require operators to provide better information on fares, timetables and when the next bus will arrive. In addition, a national scheme such as that in place for older and disabled people would require a change to primary legislation, but there are no plans to do that at present. The hon. Member for Reading East will appreciate that this is a complex area and there are no quick and easy solutions. The Department continues to work with local authorities and bus operators on young people’s travel.
I return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Keighley on the robust nature of the budget put forward for free bus travel for the under-25s. Labour originally calculated that policy to cost more than £1 billion, but unfortunately, the numbers were later calculated to be closer to £13 billion. At the moment, that has not reached robust investigation in Westminster Hall.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for her support and praise for local discounted schemes. I want to raise the report by University College London, “Social prosperity for the future: A proposal for Universal Basic Services”. Although we are not proposing this—perhaps to the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—the research by University College London estimates the possible cost of free bus travel for every person in the UK to be £5 billion per year. That suggests that the Minister’s estimate of £13 billion is somewhat excessive. Our estimate of £1.3 billion has been costed carefully.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman started at £1.3 billion and then moved on to £5 billion, which possibly could reach £13 billion—I am a little nervous about the true figure. We already have a concessionary programme that costs £1 billion. To announce something as available without it having been costed would do the bus industry no service.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned apprentices; the Department is considering concession options for apprentices and is completing research on a feasibility study. We will report on that later this year and it will inform the development of the policy. There are no plans to fund such a scheme but we will see what the feasibility study concludes.
Reimbursement by local authorities to bus operators is made on a “no better off, no worse off” basis. The hon. Member for Cambridge noted that reimbursement appeals have been in decline and have reached a new low. In 2006-07, there were 69 appeals, but in 2017-18 there were just 21. That means that operators are fairly recompensed for the cost of providing concessionary travel in both urban and rural areas. The reimbursement mechanism is now fit for purpose, as shown by the large fall in reimbursement appeals in recent years. EU state aid rules do not allow the Government to provide the concessionary scheme on any other basis—it cannot be used to provide hidden subsidy to operators.
Much has been said about the increase in pension age; the state pension age of men and women is being equalised. The pensionable age for women has risen gradually to reach 65 this year, and the state pension age for both men and women will rise to 66 by 2020. Equalising the age at which free bus travel applies makes the national travel concession scheme more sustainable. Finding efficiencies in this way rather than cutting back on the entitlement offer to older and disabled people is the best way to focus support on those who need it most.
It is right that Government support focuses on the most vulnerable members of society. The Government believe that local authorities are often in the best position to offer concessions that work for the people who live there. All local authorities have powers to introduce concessions in addition to their statutory obligations, including the extension of concessionary travel to those who are yet to reach the qualifying age. For example, in Cambridgeshire, the largest operator offers half-price travel to jobseekers.
I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge about securing funding for concessionary travel schemes, which sit across many Departments. He was right to note that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is responsible for the concessionary travel budget. The Treasury is jointly responsible for local authority ring-fencing. I work with all those Departments to ensure that we get the best that we can for bus services. We have just agreed a further two-year ring-fence for the local authority element of the bus service operators grant for the next two years.
The hon. Member for Cambridge also mentioned franchising; he will be aware that any local authority can request franchising, but will need to demonstrate delivery capability and a track record of doing so. We will see how that pans out.
I want to quickly talk about air quality and congestion, which was raised by the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). We have recently made some good announcements on that. The Government are committed to buses being greener, which is why we announced an extra £48 million for ultra low emission buses. That follows £30 million in funding for 300 new buses through a low emission bus scheme and £40 million for retrofitting 2,700 older buses to reduce tail-pipe emissions of nitrogen dioxide through the clean bus technology fund. We are trying to make journeys easier and more accessible, and to ensure that the concessionary bus pass remains in place.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are committed to protecting the national concessionary travel scheme for buses. We are keen to do what we can to improve bus service patronage. Of course, I will meet with the hon. Member for Cambridge if he has good evidence of best practice, especially of initiatives that have taken place in other countries that we can use here, and especially if they involve new, innovative technology, to learn as much as we can to ensure that the Department is doing what it can to increase bus patronage.
We are determined to ensure that bus patronage increases as much as it can, and we are focused on delivering concessions to those who need it most, while allowing local authorities and operators the flexibility they need to support their local populations. It was interesting to hear that, as we get older, we migrate from the front of the bus to the back of the bus, and then to the front of the bus again. Hopefully, we can all wait our turn until we get hold of our concessionary bus pass. Some will have to wait a little longer than others, but it will definitely be there, once we reach our old age.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank all hon. Members for the positive and constructive tone of the debate. I commend the Minister for her enthusiasm for the national concessionary fares scheme, which I hope will take it out of the political arena in future. For many older people, it has been a cause for concern but, if I understand what she is saying, we no longer need to have any concern about it.
A couple of points came out of the debate, such as universalism and means testing, as raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is fair to say that that debate ran through the Labour Government years. I think it has shifted in favour of universalism, and I hope it continues to, for all the reasons that hon. Members mentioned, such as bringing society together. There is an old adage that services for the poor produce poor services, but if they are universal services, they will be better services. That case has been particularly well made in terms of transport.
In the wise words of the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the concern is the declining availability of buses in too many areas. Having a bus pass without a bus is no use to anybody. In some of my wider reflections about how we could make better use of the public money that is spent, I was trying to suggest how to reverse what has seemed to many of us to be a sad decline. We all want my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) to enjoy the view from the front of his bus, but I suspect that if many more young people were on that bus, whether they were sitting at the front or the back, there would be more chance of having it. I commend Labour’s policies to the Minister and I suspect, over time, that we may well see progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered concessionary bus passes.
Children Missing from Care Homes
(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
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children missing from care homes.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. One of the first Adjournment debates I initiated in this House in 1995 was on the subject of children’s homes. I am pleased to say that since that time, there have been many improvements in regulation and inspection. In 2012, the all-party parliamentary group for runaway and missing children and adults, which I chair, held an inquiry into the risks faced by children missing from care homes. The inquiry expressed serious concerns about the high numbers of vulnerable children living away from their home town, some at a considerable distance. We heard evidence that children living in distant placements in children’s homes were more likely to go missing and therefore at higher risk of physical and sexual abuse, criminality and homelessness. I must make it clear that I of course accept that placing a child in another area can sometimes be in that child’s interest. My concern is that children are being placed in children’s homes out of their local area because there is no choice in provision.
Ministers responded positively to our report and introduced a number of changes in 2013 to try to reduce the number of out-of-area placements, but despite repeated pledges the latest Department for Education figures show that the numbers in placements subject to children’s homes regulations have soared from 2,250 in March 2012 to 3,680 in March 2017—a rise of 64%. They now account for 61% of all children in children’s homes.
At the same time, the number of children going missing from children’s homes out of their area increased by 110% between 2015 and 2017. That compares with a 68% increase in children going missing from children’s homes in their own area. Some 10,700 children went missing from all care placements last year, initiating 60,720 reports, of which 12,200 missing episodes, or one in five, were from placements 20 miles or more from their home address.
On average, children go missing from all care placements six times per year. About 40% of all missing incidents involved a child from a children’s home, despite the fact that they only account for 8% of all looked-after children. It is extremely concerning that nationally about 500 children were missing for more than one month in 2017, and 4,770 were missing for between three and seven days. Children who go missing are at risk of coming to harm and falling prey to grooming by paedophiles for sexual exploitation and by organised crime gangs exploiting them to carry and supply illegal drugs in county lines operations.
Figures for my own area of Stockport show that 53% of children reported as missing in April this year were at risk of child sexual exploitation and 65% of children who went missing from Stockport care homes were placed from other authorities. The report of the expert group on the quality of children’s homes set up by the Department for Education in 2012 said that,
“being placed a long way from family and friends is often a factor in causing children to run away.”
Those children are also more likely to be targeted for sexual exploitation, as has been highlighted in cases in Rotherham, Derby, Torbay, Rochdale and Oxfordshire.
The last Labour Government placed a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children in the local authority area, so far as is “reasonably practicable”. The intention was to ensure local provision for looked-after children, so that they could be placed nearer to home, with access to friends, family and support services. Local authorities are required to publish a local sufficiency plan detailing how they are meeting that duty. However, despite the existence of these plans, the number of children being sent to live away from their home area remains stubbornly high.
One of the main conclusions of our 2012 inquiry into children missing from care was that the unequal geographical distribution of children’s homes meant that large numbers of vulnerable children were placed away from their home area. We found that many placement decisions were made at the last minute, driven by what was available at the time, and in some cases by cost, rather than by the needs of the child. Children told our inquiry that they felt dumped in children’s homes many miles away from home, which increases their propensity to go missing.
One of the expert group’s conclusions was that local authorities must improve the planning, management and monitoring of placements for looked-after children. Introducing the Children and Families Bill in February 2013, the then Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson, called for an end to the out of sight, out of mind culture, which he asserted had led to the high number of children being placed many miles from their home communities.
In January 2014, new statutory guidance on children who run away or go missing from home or care stated:
“Any decision to place a child at distance should be based on an assessment of the child’s needs including their need to be effectively safeguarded. Evidence suggests that distance from home, family and friends is a key factor for looked after children running away.”
An April 2014 Ofsted report, “From a distance: Looked after children living away from their home area”, said these children were more likely to go missing and to submit to the serious risks associated with going missing. The research showed that, in far too many cases, local authorities failed to pay appropriate attention to the quality of care provided, leaving too many children without the support and help that they needed. The most common shortfall was that decisions to place children out of area were driven by a shortage of placements close to home, rather than by individual need.
In 2016, the all-party group produced a report on safeguarding absent children. The inquiry obtained data from local authorities that suggested that—in the areas that responded to information requests—an average of 50% of missing looked-after children were children who went missing from placements outside their home area.
The National Crime Agency’s 2017 report into county lines drug operations said that gangs were deliberately targeting vulnerable children and young people in care. It said:
“Children assessed as vulnerable due to missing episodes do appear to be more regularly linked directly or through association to drug networks operating in the areas they reside.”
I recently surveyed all 45 police forces about the use of vulnerable children by drug gangs with county lines operations. Many forces, including Humberside and Essex, cited evidence of the targeting of vulnerable children in care—especially those living away from their home areas.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady both on the great work she has done in this area over many years and on securing the debate. Does she agree that the one thing that children in care need most is stability? In instances in which children have to be removed from their parents, we should attempt to preserve stability in as many other facets of their life as possible. If we leave them isolated, they can fall prey to exactly the sort of malign influences that she describes.
Ann Coffey
I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it: children need stability. They need it when they live in families and also when we take them into our care. We should remember that and plan a care a system that responds to that need for stability, taking into account what children say they need as well.
The other aspect I am concerned about, which I highlighted during a previous Adjournment debate on children’s homes in April 2016, is the continuing unequal distribution of children’s homes. Some 54% of all children’s homes are concentrated in just three regions. Nearly a quarter of all care homes, but only 18% of the children’s home population, are in the north-west of England. Conversely, London has only 5% of children’s homes, but 14% of the children’s home population.
The choice of placements for children is constrained by the uneven distribution of children’s homes. Children can be placed only where there are children’s homes. The care market does not seem to be working for children: an increasing number are being placed outside their home area, and consequently an increasing number are going missing and are at risk of harm from those who seek to exploit their vulnerability.
The unequal distribution of children’s homes demonstrates a continuing catastrophic failure of the care market for some children. The system seems to work for the providers, but not for the children. The failure of the care market can be demonstrated vividly by the 2017 north-west placements census. Placements Northwest is a regional children’s service that assists the 22 local authorities in the north-west that make out-of-authority placements. It said in its recent report:
“There remain many young people from the North West placed outside the region, in part because of the 693 beds located here taken up by young people from the rest of the country.”
There has been a significant and unprecedented increase in the number of externally purchased residential placements, which have risen to 836 active placements, up from 646 in 2016. This has resulted in an estimated increase in spend of £45 million between 2016 and 2017, from £95.5 million to £145 million—
“a very significant and unsustainable increase in the spend on residential services driven by increased consumption and increased unit cost of individual placements”.
For the first time, the cost of some homes has hit £5,000 per week per child, which now applies in 9% of placements. Placements Northwest maintains that the increased mismatch between demand and supply is a driver in the increased costs. It adds that the costs of residential placements seem inconsistent between providers and purchasing decisions, and that they are often led by available capacity rather than clinical social work decisions about what is best for the young person.
In his independent review of children’s residential care in England, which was published in 2016, Sir Martin Narey said:
“Certainly, too much of what I saw and heard was really about buying places in children’s homes, not about commissioning them.”
That is an important statement, because commissioning is about ensuring that there are places where they are needed, not simply placing children randomly where there happens to be a place.
Edward Timpson, the former Minister for Children and Families, said in his response to the debate on children’s homes in 2016 that he shared concerns about uneven distribution of children’s homes and that he wanted to see more regional commissioning. He said:
“there are still instances where the supply of places distorts too many decisions.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 131WH.]
I welcome the setting up of the new residential care leadership board under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wood. Sir Martin Narey said that it could improve commissioning and obtain better value for money for local authorities, and will look into out-of-borough placements. I hope the Minister will give the House some information about its progress.
We also need a better understanding of the relationship between out-of-borough placements and children going missing. For example, a child could be placed more than 20 miles away from their home but could still be inside their local authority’s boundary, whereas a child could be placed five miles away but be in another local authority’s area. Is the problem distance, or the fact that it is more difficult to support a child who lives in another council’s area? What matters to children? Is the quality of placement a mitigating factor? I do not know the answer, but it is alarming that nobody else seems to, either.
This is a complex area. Each child’s needs are unique. Of course, it is not always possible to find the perfect placement, but if the evidence collected over the years is correct that distance and being placed away from home are factors in children’s going missing from care homes, it cannot be right that in spite of that evidence, concerns about such placements and an increasing understanding of the risks of harm to children when they go missing, more children are being placed out of their home area than in 2012.
The Department for Education collects data about the number of children’s homes, children placed in them, and out-of-borough and distance placements, and it collects a lot of comprehensive data about children going missing from children’s homes. The situation is much improved, compared with 2012. However, it would be helpful if the Department could bring that data together in a more accessible form—perhaps in a yearly datapack.
Ofsted also collects data about children missing from children’s homes at each full inspection to inform its lines of inquiry for that specific inspection, which include whether the child was living out of borough. Although that information is not published, it is a potential source for understanding the patterns of children going missing.
It is very difficult for individual local authorities to be commissioners of children’s homes because they simply do not have the financial clout. Of course, they can be direct providers, which would give them much more ability to provide the care needed by their looked-after children. Devolution offers Greater Manchester combined authority an opportunity to commission on a regional basis. However, the DFE needs to offer support to regional commissioners to help them to develop a framework for commissioning the provision of children’s home places where they work best for children. Perhaps the Minister could tell us more about that work.
The innovative “Achieving Change Together” project in Rochdale and Wigan, which was funded by the Department for Education, demonstrated a successful alternative approach. It invested in social workers and worked with young people on the edge of care to keep them in their communities and families, which is much better than placing them in distant children’s homes and secure units. Perhaps that is a way forward—there has to be one.
If we take on responsibility for the care of the most vulnerable children and young people, we have a responsibility to keep them safe. The evidence suggests that that is not happening: an increasing number are being placed in children’s homes outside their home area, and an increasing number are going missing from those homes and coming to harm. Children’s homes need to meet the needs of children. If locality is an issue for children, local authorities and Government need to respond to that need proactively to ensure that change happens and their needs are met.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I commend the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate. The Government share her commitment to protecting all looked-after children by giving them a stable, loving environment where they can succeed and achieve the outcomes we would all want for our own children. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on his previous work and on his ongoing work, now as a parliamentarian. His is a committed and serious expert voice.
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about placing children far away from home. However, we recognise that, for very specialist provision, a child may sometimes need to be further away from home. In addition, as she rightly points out, sometimes circumstances make it the right decision for a local authority to identify a placement outside of the child’s local area, such as when a child is at risk from sexual exploitation, trafficking or gang violence, which she spoke about eloquently.
I fully recognise that placing a child far away from home can break family ties and make it difficult for social workers and other services to provide the support a young person needs. I have first-hand experience of speaking to a child about his personal problems when he was placed too far away from his mother, who is clearly very loving but was unable to provide the safety he needed, which meant he had to run away. It is also in many ways unsettling for children—the hon. Lady is right that it increases the likelihood of them going missing from care.
The needs of the child must be paramount when we make decisions about the right care placement. As the hon. Lady rightly described, local authorities have a duty to consider the right placements for the child and take into consideration a number of factors, one of which is placement area. However, there must be effective planning and oversight of the decision. The hon. Lady will be aware from earlier discussions that my Department has worked closely with local authorities through the Association of Directors of Children’s Services to strengthen legislative safeguards relating to children being placed out of area. Directors of children’s services must approve all decisions to place a child in a distant placement. That directive encompasses all placements that are more than 20 miles away from the child’s home address. Ofsted will also challenge local authorities where they believe poor decisions on out-of-area placements are being made.
As the hon. Lady rightly points out, far too often local authorities are unable to find the right care placement in the right location to meet a child’s needs. Local authorities remain responsible for ensuring a sufficient range of placements for looked-after children and for working with their local providers to make sure that provision meets the needs of the young people living in that area. Sir Martin Narey pointed out in his review of residential care that there is value in local authorities coming together to fulfil those responsibilities so that they can jointly commission and address gaps in provision. That is why we are providing almost £5 million in innovation programme funding to test new commissioning arrangements that bring local authorities and providers together to achieve better outcomes and improve the experiences of looked-after children. The projects being funded are in and around London, where demand for places far outstrips supply.
To deliver the degree of change needed, all those involved in the commissioning and provision of care in children’s homes will need to work together. Only by working in partnership will we be able to tackle the trickiest issues and deliver a sustained improvement in the quality of care for the country’s most vulnerable children. That is why we are also setting up a residential care leadership board, chaired by Sir Alan Wood, so that sector leaders and practitioners can come and work together to drive improvements in commissioning and address gaps in provision. The board will engage with the wider sector to support the development of new approaches and ensure that best practice is shared and implemented.
For a small number of very vulnerable children, a secure home is the best environment and can address why they go missing from care. We are improving the availability of this provision in partnership with ADCS, the Local Government Association, the Youth Custody Service and the Secure Accommodation Network. That work is also being driven by Sir Alan Wood, the chair of the residential care leadership board. We are considering the best long-term commissioning arrangements for secure homes and looking at options to build local capacity. In the interim, we continue to fund Hampshire County Council’s secure welfare co-ordination unit. Through that unit, we have established a central point of contact and source of support for all local authorities seeking secure placements. We continue to invest in the secure estate with our £40 million capital programme over this spending review period.
We have made it a requirement of all children’s homes to have clear procedures in place to prevent children from going missing. The statutory guidance empowers homes to challenge local authorities where they are not providing the input and services a child needs, which include offering an independent return-home interview to a child after a missing episode, which could help to inform care planning and reduce the risk of repeat missing episodes.
In addition to Ofsted’s inspection of individual children’s homes, Ofsted’s local authority inspections always report on the responses of local authorities and their partners to missing incidents, highlighting good practice and identifying specific areas for improvement. Since 2013 the Department has published guidance on protocols regarding how and when Ofsted can share information on the location of children’s homes with the police—a positive development, I believe, that is pivotal to ensuring that children in care are robustly protected.
When children go missing they can be vulnerable to threats that include criminal exploitation and sexual abuse, and no child should have their life blighted by that abhorrent crime. That is why the Government’s “Tackling child sexual exploitation” report, and the follow-up progress report of February 2017, set out a national response to child sexual exploitation. We have boosted capacity and expertise in local areas that experience high volumes of child sexual exploitation by funding a CSE response unit, and we have introduced a new definition of child sexual exploitation, and practice guidance for professionals. We have also funded projects through the children’s social care innovation programme, such as the St Christopher’s Fellowship Safe Steps project, which is targeted specifically at children in care who are at risk of sexual exploitation. In addition, the £7.5 million centre of expertise on CSA, which is funded by the Home Office, is introducing evidence of what works to prevent and tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation.
We are working collaboratively to ensure that key partners in health professions and children’s social care are trained to identify and refer young people who are involved in criminal exploitation, such as the county lines mentioned by the hon. Lady. We are undertaking a nationwide awareness raising communication activity about the threat of county lines targeted at young and vulnerable people, including advice on how to avoid becoming involved with and exploited by gangs. I sit on the Home Secretary’s taskforce that seeks to tackle this scourge.
Again, I thank the hon. Member for Stockport for securing this debate, and I express my immense gratitude for the relentless passion and commitment that she has demonstrated over many years in her capacity as chair of the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults, and for her wider advocacy for the wellbeing of children in care. Although I recognise the ongoing challenges, I am keen that we do not let them detract from the fact that children’s homes do a sterling job of caring for some of the most vulnerable children and young people. Residential care continues to remain a vital part of the children’s social care landscape.
The hon. Lady raised important issues, and the steps we are taking will support local authorities in addressing gaps in provision and ensure that the needs of young people are met in the right care placement. Our underpinning principle, as set out in the Children Act 1989, remains that the interests of the child are paramount, and that must be reflected in all decisions about individual children’s care.
The hon. Lady mentioned data. Since 2014, local authorities have collected data on every incident of a child going missing, not only those missing for more than 24 hours, which has been a massive improvement. I remind Members, however, that those data continue to be experimental, and in 2018 we will seek to ensure that the data are robust and can be presented in a form that will allow the hon. Lady and her colleagues rightly to challenge us all the time, and to challenge local authorities to do better. I will soon visit Manchester—I hoped that it would be this week, but alas departmental duties mean that I have had slightly to postpone the trip. I want to see the opportunities for Greater Manchester, where 10 local authorities can work together to have a commissioning strategy that works properly for children in that area.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
As the Member in charge of the next debate has been caught in traffic and is not here, we are unable to start it. I am afraid I shall have to suspend the sitting, without the debate, until 1 o’clock.
Skills Strategy
(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 Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to a debate about progress on the Government’s skills strategy, in which we will hear from the former skills Minister and the present one.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress on the Government’s skills strategy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. One thing that has remained remarkably consistent as I have spoken to business leaders in my constituency over many years is that, when I ask them what they look for in their future workforce, their answer does not often focus on exam certificates. They want individuals who have a good attitude and are good communicators, excellent problem solvers and strong team players. Yet, barely a day goes by without a story in the news about skills shortages in one sector or another.
It is a drain on our economy and our society that job vacancies cannot be filled because employers are unable to find the right skilled individuals. That is not just a challenge to productivity and prosperity; skills are a social justice issue too—perhaps the central one. When we look at the overwhelming number of senior leaders who were privately educated—I am lucky to be one of them—it is not so much their exam results that got them where they are today, but the connections they were able to make and the networks and team-working skills they developed. If we are serious about social justice, it is our duty to afford those opportunities to all young people.
Since the closure of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, no single organisation has had responsibility for monitoring skills shortages and sharing information about them, so I was delighted when the Edge Foundation stepped forward to form an analysis group, bringing together key organisations in the area. I pay tribute to the foundation’s chair, Lord Baker. The first in a regular series of its bulletin is published today, and it makes for challenging reading—I will happily ensure that copies are available to Members.
The British Chambers of Commerce report says that 60% of services firms and 69% of manufacturing firms experience recruitment difficulties.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Culham Science Centre in my constituency? It has got together an apprenticeship hub that specialises in providing high-tech engineering apprenticeships for local people, and it has transformed how local firms react to those skills.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a champion of skills and apprenticeships, and the Culham laboratory is exactly what we need to build up our skills base and address our skills deficit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the organisation he mentions.
Shortages of skilled manual labour in manufacturing remain at their highest level since records began. That concern is echoed by the CBI, whose education and skills survey last year showed that the number of businesses that are not confident about being able to hire enough skilled labour is twice that of those that are confident. Reducing the skills shortages must be a key aim of our skills strategy and a barometer of its success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing the issue to Westminster Hall. Northern Ireland has a very strong education and IT skills system, which has been key in creating jobs and attracting new business. Does he feel that the Government should be encouraged to look to Northern Ireland as an example of how a skills strategy can be brought together? There are good examples there. Let us use what is good in the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to benefit us all.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of skills. We can learn a lot from Northern Ireland’s incredibly high education standards. I am sure we have a lot to learn from the skills and the IT that he has just mentioned.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills has her work cut out because, as the skills strategy is implemented, the economy is changing rapidly. Driverless vehicles will automate road haulage and taxi operations. Artificial intelligence will power medical diagnosis, and 3D printing will be used to construct bridges and houses. Our skills strategy needs to not only address the skills shortages in our economy, but create our most resilient and adaptable generation of young people. They will need to be able to turn their hands to new careers and demonstrate the human skills such as creativity that robots cannot master.
CBI research shows that the biggest drivers of success for young people are attitudes and attributes such as resilience, enthusiasm and creativity. Although 86% of businesses rated attitude, and 68% aptitude, as a top attribute, only 34% said the same of formal qualifications. The Department for Education’s own employer perspectives survey showed that more than half of employers said that academic qualifications were of little or no value when recruiting, while two thirds said that work experience was significant or critical. Yet in the same survey just 58% of businesses said that 18-year-old school leavers in England were prepared for work. That is a key blocker to social justice and a gap that must be addressed through the skills strategy.
Before they are delivered into the care of the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, young people have already received more than a decade of education in school. As I said in the House only a couple of weeks ago, I am convinced that the quality of education, particularly in English and maths, has improved greatly in recent years. Yet despite record overall levels of public money going into schools, the skills shortages in our economy have been growing. Clearly, something has become disconnected in the wiring between our schools and our skills systems.
Four key steps would build on the strength of the knowledge-rich curriculum to ensure that it fosters young people who are also skills-rich and behaviours-rich—the areas that employers say they value most. First, we must remember that since 2015 all young people have been required to participate in some form of education and training up to 18. Yet GCSEs remain just as much the high-stakes tests they were when many young people finished their education at that age. We must fundamentally reimagine this phase of education as a time for our younger people to prepare themselves for their future life and work. At a time when we can extend the ladder of social justice to young people from all backgrounds, broadening their horizons, building their skills and helping them develop the social capital that will take them far, we have an opportunity for that phase of education to end in a much more holistic and comprehensive assessment—a true baccalaureate. Just as the international baccalaureate does in more than 149 countries, this would act as a genuine and trusted signal to employers and universities of a young person’s rounded skills and abilities.
Secondly, we must match the broader phase of education with a broader and more balanced curriculum. I support the need for every young person to be able to access through their schooling a working knowledge of our cultural capital, our history and our literature. However, it is also essential that we develop the next generation of engineers, entrepreneurs and designers. A narrow focus on academic GCSEs is driving out the very subjects that most help us to do that. Entrants in design and technology have fallen by more than two fifths since 2010, alongside reductions in creative subjects such as music and the performing arts—the very skills that will give young people an edge over the robots. There is a real danger that no matter how hard the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills works to make skills a success post 16, young people who have never experienced anything but an academic diet up to that age will be unable to compete for an apprenticeship or even progress to a T-level.
Thirdly, I often speak about the importance of careers advice, and it is vital, but we must go further and create deep connections between the world of education and the world of work that inspire and motivate young people. I am talking about employers providing externships so that teachers can experience local businesses and provide first-hand advice to their pupils, collaborating on projects that bring the curriculum to life and sharing real-world challenges to help students to develop their problem-solving skills. That kind of profound employer engagement strikes right at the heart of the social justice debate: it gives young people from all backgrounds the kinds of experiences, contacts and networks that have traditionally been the preserve of those attending elite institutions. We should merge the duplicate careers organisations into a national skills service that goes into schools and ensures that students have the opportunity to do skills-based careers.
Fourthly, we must acknowledge that what we measure affects what is delivered in the education system. Therefore, we should start to measure explicitly what really matters—the destinations of young people who attend our schools and colleges. At present, destination measures are seen as no more than a footnote in performance tables. We need to move destination measures front and centre, giving school leaders and teachers the freedom to deliver the outcomes that we want for our young people.
I had the pleasure last month of meeting senior education leaders from Nashville, Tennessee. Ten years ago, Nashville’s high schools had very poor rates of graduation, and businesses were clear that they were not receiving the skilled labour that they needed. They set about working intensively with the school board to revolutionise the system. In the first year of their high school experience, young people have the opportunity to take part in intensive careers exploration: through careers fairs, mentoring, visits and job research, they broaden their horizons and understand the full range of opportunities available. For the remainder of their time at high school, they join a career academy, which uses a particular sector of the local economy as a lens to make their schoolwork more relevant and engaging. Young people in the law academy learn debating skills by running mock trials, while those in the creative academy are mentored by lighting designers, who help them to understand the relevance of angles, fractions and programming in the real world.
The results are extraordinary. High school graduation has risen by more than 23% in 10 years, adding more than $100 million to the local economy. Attainment in maths and English has improved by as much as 15% to 20% as young people see the relevance of their work. Leading schools in the UK are already starting to show that similar approaches work just as well here. They range from School 21 in Stratford, where employer engagement is its ninth GCSE, to XP School in Doncaster, whose innovative expeditionary learning Ofsted has judged as outstanding across the board.
The planned programme of skills reforms can be a success only if it goes hand in hand with a schools system that is equally focused on preparing young people for work and adult life. I would encourage the Ministers responsible for skills and for schools to work closely together on that shared aim. I have no doubt that T-levels can provide great opportunities for young people to prepare for a successful career, and I am impatient to see them on the ground, having a tangible impact on young people’s lives. I would encourage the skills Minister to learn from some of our most prestigious apprenticeship employers and attach a rocket booster to the programme, but sometimes I wonder whether there is really a need at age 16 for young people to choose between a wholly academic route and a wholly technical route. Might many young people benefit from a more blended opportunity?
An excellent model exists north of the border in Scotland’s foundation apprenticeships, which are the same size as a single Scottish higher and can be taken alongside academic qualifications to maximise a young person’s options. They carry real currency with universities and support progression to higher education. They also allow a head start of up to nine months on a full modern apprenticeship. That is truly a no-wrong-door approach that helps people to keep their options open.
I want apprenticeships to go from strength to strength. Most people think of apprenticeships as helping young people to achieve full competency in their future career, but the figures show that in the 2016-17 academic year, 260,000 of the 491,000 apprenticeships started were at level 2, and 229,000 were started by individuals aged 25 and above. It is essential that apprenticeships continue to focus first and foremost on preparing young people for skilled jobs, otherwise we will weaken one of the rungs on the ladder of opportunity.
Continuing the expansion of degree apprenticeships—my two favourite words in the English language—will play a pivotal role in that. They hold the unique power to fundamentally address the issue of parity of esteem between academic and vocational education, which has plagued this country for far too long. They give young people the opportunity to learn and earn at the same time, gaining a full bachelor’s or master’s degree while putting that learning into practice in a real paid job. Leading employers are already making a dramatic shift from graduate to degree apprenticeship recruitment, which allows them to shape their future workforce. More must follow suit.
I recently came across an example of a remarkable university from Germany, DHBW Stuttgart, which is entirely made up of degree apprentices. I issue a challenge to our higher education institutions, including Oxford University, which will not even open the door to degree apprenticeships, to be the first to declare their intention to work towards becoming the first dedicated provider of degree apprenticeships.
We are at an exciting crossroads for the skills system. Employers are clear that there are significant and growing skills shortages, but they have given us a clear recipe to address them. The foundation for that must be laid in school by a broad and balanced curriculum, intensive employer engagement, and destination measures as a key driver of success. That will create the basis for a holistic system that prepares young people for high-quality T-levels and apprenticeships as part of a blended route that breaks down the artificial divide between academic and technical education to create a real ladder of opportunity for our young people.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk in broader terms. I have a great pile of briefings from my wonderful officials, which I will not refer to at all, because I would be telling him things that he probably already knows. He makes a wider point about why skills matter, and he is absolutely right that we have a significant skills shortage in this country.
I was at the WorldSkills competition in Abu Dhabi last year, and there was also a conference where I met many Ministers from Germany and Singapore—there were a whole host of them there. It is clear that we have a world skills shortage; it is not just in this country, although some countries are perhaps doing slightly better. One of the Ministers I talked to attributed their success in technical education, particularly at levels 4 and 5, largely to embedding maths and English so well in the curriculum. When young people came out of that skills system, it was a given that they had reached a high standard, so they could get on and take the academic or technical route that they wanted.
As my right hon. Friend rightly said, surrounding all that is this country’s economic need for a skilled workforce, but it is also about social justice. I did not go to private school and I did not have the networks that my right hon. Friend referred to, which many people have. In fact, I entered politics knowing almost nothing and absolutely nobody. I had to make it up on my own, which was fine for me—I chose politics as a second career—but it is not all right for a young person leaving school at whatever age. It should not be about who someone knows or actually about what they know, or where they live or where they come from; it should be about what skills they have.
My right hon. Friend talked about what employers are looking for. Like him, I have heard that reiterated to me time and again. It is about resilience, attitude, team playing, problem solving and aptitude. Those will not be learned only in the classroom. He also talked about the narrow focus of the curriculum. In some ways, there has been a focus on some of those academic subjects for exactly the reason a Minister from another country pointed out to me: a good foundation in certain key subjects, such as English, maths and digital skills, is important. However, it is also important to widen young people’s eyes to the opportunities that are out there.
My right hon. Friend talked about employer experience, which is critical, particularly for children who are not doing particularly well at school, who are bored in lessons and who do not understand the point of it. Contact with employers demonstrates to them why they are learning those things. It gives them a goal and an aim; it makes it all make sense. Without that it is much harder, particularly for people who, for whatever reason—not necessarily to do with how bright they are—find school slightly more challenging.
Experience of the working world also prepares children to go on to the next stage. I am a mother of four children, and all four worked weekend jobs when they could, and certainly during the holidays. That gave them invaluable experience, because the errors they made will have stood them in very good stead when they went to university or into a job after leaving school.
My right hon. Friend is quite right that the glue around that is the provision of careers advice. Ever since I was at school, which was a very long time ago, I do not think we have got that right. The careers strategy that we published last year is a step in exactly the right direction. It is not necessarily particularly tidy, but the way to reach young people these days is not simply an hour-long lesson with a careers teacher; it has to be much more than that. At the end of the previous Parliament, he was responsible for changes to the Bill that meant that providers of technical education and of apprenticeships must be allowed into schools, which opens young people’s eyes to other possibilities.
John Howell
A difficulty in my constituency is that the sixth-form colleges do apprenticeships and skills training very well but ordinary schools do not; they are still wedded to an academic view of life. Does my right hon. Friend share my view?
Anne Milton
Yes. My hon. Friend mentioned an organisation in his constituency and its apprenticeship hub, and I commend that local initiative. I have seen something similar down in Gosport that showed an absolutely groundbreaking attitude. He is right that careers advice in schools has traditionally not always been very good.
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend for what she said. She mentioned the legislation ensuring that schools have to invite apprenticeship organisations and university technical colleges into schools and further education colleges. What is she doing to enforce that? There are suggestions—and there have been a number of reports—that schools are not actually implementing the legislation.
Anne Milton
I am very mindful of that, which is why I have frequent meetings—I think weekly or every other week; certainly once a month—with the careers team in the Department for Education. The need to do this was introduced only in January, so we are in quite early days, but I will watch this, because the proof of the pudding will be in whether it actually happens.
My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that teachers could do with some of this advice, because a classroom teacher might have left school, gone to university and got their degree, done their teaching qualification in whatever way they wanted, and never experienced the world of work outside the institutional school environment, and that experience is critical. I suggested that to a number of careers professionals the other day. It would be really worthwhile, particularly in the local economy, so that teachers understand the needs of local businesses and can tailor their whole approach to them. A career is what someone does after school, and that should be the thread that runs through everything they do within school. Otherwise, if someone is like I was at school, they will say, “What’s the point of all this?” That is absolutely critical.
Jim Shannon
I will not hold the Minister back for long. In my intervention on the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I suggested perhaps looking at the Northern Ireland system, where education and IT skills are coming together. I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to consider that.
Anne Milton
The hon. Gentleman is right; the Government should not be too proud to learn from anywhere that is doing well. We have set off on a course, but it is not restricted and I will pick up on anything that makes this process work.
We have seen good progress, certainly on raising the quality of apprenticeships. We have gone from 3% of apprenticeships on standards up to 36%, which is well beyond what we expected. We are making progress. The opening up of degree apprenticeships is critical, and my right hon. Friend is right that it will help achieve that parity of esteem for apprenticeships. I think we will start to see a huge tide of degree apprenticeships coming forward, because employers will get not only people with the required academic qualifications, but people with the skills. For a young person leaving school, of course, it is a no-brainer; they are getting paid, they are getting a qualification and they will have no student debt. What is not to like about that?
Achieving that parity of esteem is important. My right hon. Friend talked about a holistic education, which is so important. There is a wonderful scheme in my patch—I was with it on Friday—whereby one of the independent schools provides a year’s worth of stringed instrument teaching to year 3 pupils. It is funded by the local community foundation. Royal Grammar School Guildford has been really supportive. That increases young people’s knowledge of things. They will not necessarily all go on to learn an instrument, but it widens and broadens their experience, so they will think of other things, and that will filter through everything they do.
Work experience is important because, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, we must be careful not to draw a sharp distinction between technical and academic education, with pupils feeling that they have to choose between one or the other. The two must be interwoven, and degree apprenticeships are a way of doing that, whether at age 18, 19, 20 or whatever point. He talked about that as a ladder of progression, but I sometimes see it as a path, because a lot of the apprentices I have met have maybe done one or two level 2 apprenticeships, trying to find out which way they want to go and which is the best career option for them, while at the same time improving their skills and aptitude, and their ability to understand the knowledges and behaviours needed within the general workplace, rather than in one specific workplace.
I share, with a passion, my right hon. Friend’s view that we need to do this for the economy of the country, because employers are desperate for the skills. Employers now have the means to employ apprentices—those paying the levy and, soon, those not paying the levy. The means are there. What matters now is that we make the system work, because for me, as for him, it is a matter of social justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Rohingya: Monsoon Season
(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
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the monsoon season on the Rohingya.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. The desperate situation facing the Rohingya people is one of the greatest humanitarian crises of recent times. It is a deliberate crisis—a man-made crisis—and one now set to be compounded by nature as the monsoon season hits Bangladesh. Nearly 1 million Rohingya refugees who have fled Burma are in camps in Bangladesh. During August last year, nearly 700,000 Rohingya men, women and children fled, following unspeakable violence and systematic abuse, including torture, rape and murder, by the Burmese military.
The monsoons look set to exacerbate an already dire situation. The International Rescue Committee has estimated that 36% of the Rohingya in the camps already do not have access to safe water. Nearly one quarter are suffering from acute malnutrition. Communicable diseases thrive in those conditions; 81% of water samples collected from Rohingya refugee households in December last year held E. coli. The World Health Organisation’s report on the situation in the camps makes for grim reading. Diphtheria, acute jaundice, respiratory infections and watery diarrhoea stalk the camps. To mitigate those problems, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees put out a plea for $950 million to meet the refugees’ immediate needs, but less than 20% of that money has been raised.
I visited the largest of those camps, at Kutupalong, with parliamentary colleagues in November last year. I saw sights, and heard testimony, so shocking that they will remain with me for the rest of my life.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on her speech. I had the privilege of going on that visit with her. It was difficult to get around Kutupalong when the roads were dry and the sun was out; if it is pouring with rain, those roads will be simply impassable and treacherous, especially to the young children in the camps.
Jo Stevens
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is hard to imagine how anyone will be able to move. When the monsoons hit, not only will shelters collapse, but it will be almost impossible away.
When we were at Kutupalong last November, I met a young, very frail woman, who beckoned me inside her tarpaulin shelter and pointed at a little bundle of dirty rags on the plastic sheeting on the ground. I did not know what she was pointing at, but she slowly lifted the rags and underneath was her days-old baby. She held the baby up with such pride and with tears in her eyes, but I thought, “What a beginning to life for that child.” It is a squalid existence, but undoubtedly a safer one than if that young, heavily pregnant woman had been unable to get out of Burma.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate, but there are a number of things that need to be considered. There are 102,000 people at risk of being directly affected by landslides. Of those in flood and landslide-prone areas, 54% are children and 33% have vulnerable people under their control. Some 46% of water pumps are at risk from flooding and landslides, as are 38% of women-friendly services, and 36% of people are without access to clean and safe water. Only 1% of the 3,500 in need of legal and counselling services for sexual violence and trafficking have been reached. If we wanted seven good reasons why the Government should respond, which encapsulate the debate, those would be the reasons. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Jo Stevens
I could not have put it better myself. What was most shocking about Kutupalong was the number of children there. I have never seen anything like it, and I hope never to again.
It is now nearly nine months since the August 2017 slaughter and rape by the Burmese military. One shocking statistic is that an estimated 60,000 Rohingya women are pregnant in Kutupalong and other refugee camps along the southern Bangladeshi border. Many of those women are victims of brutal sexual violence, used by Burmese soldiers as a weapon of genocide. Pramila Patten, the UN envoy on sexual violence, has described it as
“a calculated tool of terror aimed at the extermination and removal of the Rohingya as a group”.
Aid agencies are preparing for a surge of births and abandoned babies at the camps, and it is reported that Bangladeshi social services have already taken in many refugee children whose parents have been murdered, have got lost or disappeared among the hundreds of thousands of people in the camps, or are unable to care for and support their children, having lost everything they owned in the flight from Burma. There is deep concern that many more children will be abandoned in the coming weeks by mothers who are victims of rape and cannot bear to keep their babies.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that in the memorandum of understanding there was a discussion about the status of those children, who will potentially be taken in by the Bangladeshi Government and not given any recognition of their vulnerability?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Lady is right. Not only do the Rohingya have no citizenship from where they came; they are now in a sort of no man’s land in Bangladesh, and children are obviously particularly vulnerable.
A new generation of victims of this terrible and evolving crisis is about to develop, and these desperate people now face a further tragedy as the monsoon season hits and threatens to wipe out even more lives. We know that Bangladesh can be hit by some of the most severe monsoons in the world, with 80% of Bangladesh’s annual rainfall occurring between May and September. Severe cyclones have killed thousands of people there within living memory, and those victims were not living in flimsy shelters in refugee camps.
In Kutupalong, we saw the shelters that people were living in, some of which consisted of just a piece of tarpaulin tied to a tree or wall and pegged to the dry, dirty ground. Others consisted of a few bamboo sticks and a bit of plastic sheeting on steep hillsides. They were crammed next to each other, with little space for people to live. In Cox’s Bazar, more than 102,000 people are in areas at risk of being directly affected by flooding and landslides in the event of heavy rain.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I think the point the hon. Lady is making is that the biggest risk is the type of land on which people have been settled. Will she join me in calling for the British Government to work with the Bangladeshi Government to try to find risk-free land where these people can settle?
Jo Stevens
I entirely agree that it is about the topography, but it is also about the flimsiness of the available shelters —and not everyone has a shelter. The Bangladeshi Government have done wonders, given the limitations they have.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned in his intervention, 33% of the 102,000 people in Cox’s Bazar are classed as vulnerable—including single mothers, children, the elderly and the ill—and at particular risk of being killed in a natural disaster. However, the risks are not confined to the initial effects. For example, the rains will adversely affect mobility around the camps, which is already very restricted, turning steep dirt pathways into mud and making roads impassable. That could severely restrict access to more than half a million people, worsening the malnutrition rate. More than 91% of people are reliant on food supplies. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has made it clear that the shelter packs that I saw being handed out in Kutupalong in November by hard-working UNICEF aid workers will not survive monsoon rains. That will inevitably lead to harm and displacement as shelters collapse.
Jim Shannon
It has been reported that half of the refugee population do not have access to sanitation facilities. Some 13% do not have access to latrines. The latrines are not gender-segregated or fully functional. Does the hon. Lady share my concern, and that of many in this House, that disease and contamination will be critical at this time of year, during the monsoons?
Jo Stevens
I would use a terrible analogy, which is that it is a perfect storm. Conditions are terrible, and communicable diseases will be rife where there is a lack of sanitation. That is why the situation is so bleak. There is an urgent need for international action.
Shelters will collapse. At best, that will lead to overcrowding, but the obvious outcome is far, far worse. The latest round of oral cholera vaccinations will bring the number of locally vaccinated people up to 1 million. That is welcome, but a population of 1.3 million people are affected, so 300,000 are left unvaccinated, which is a desperate situation. We know that unsanitary conditions and malnutrition make people more vulnerable to all kinds of diseases. The World Health Organisation has been clear that the risk of disease, more than the initial flooding itself, could lead to a massive loss of life. The UN estimates that up to 200,000 people could perish.
Some preparations have been made for the monsoon season. I have seen the details of the upgraded shelter kits that are being made available to vulnerable families in the camps, but they consist of tarpaulin, rope, bamboo, wire and sandbags—no real protection against winds, severe rain and flooding. I am afraid that hundreds of thousands of refugees are effectively sitting targets for the monsoon, and that could be catastrophic.
What can be done? A crisis does not stop because the headlines have moved on elsewhere. I obviously welcome this weekend’s announcement of the additional financial support from the Government. That additional £70 million is good news, as it will help to fund some sanitation, healthcare and vaccination programmes for the most vulnerable refugees. The British public have shown remarkable generosity, raising nearly £26 million for the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. In my constituency, the British-Bangladeshi community has raised more than £30,000 through the Cardiff Bangladesh Association, spearheaded by my Labour colleague, Councillor Ali Ahmed.
We need to recognise, however, that trying to protect a million people living in squalor on open hillsides is not a long-term solution. Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with other Governments about encouraging more international financial support to meet the overall funding shortfall? Access to the camps for the UN and other aid agencies is being held up by red tape. I have repeated conversations with aid agencies about that long-standing problem. I have also discussed it with the Bangladeshi high commissioner, and it does not seem to be getting any better.
We must work with the Government of Bangladesh to see an increase in the speedy registration of international organisations to work and deliver services in the camps. That will allow technical experts to support the incredible Bangladeshi response so far. Without that expertise, almost half a million people will continue to be unable to access services such as health, food, support and education. Will the Minister ask the Bangladeshi Government to streamline the FD-7 approval system by ensuring that applications are processed within the stated 48-hour window, to provide extended windows of at least six months for programme delivery, and to allow for appropriate visas for international emergency personnel?
The Rohingya have an inalienable right to return to Burma, and that right must be protected. It is vital that steps are taken to address the conditions that have forced and continue to force people to flee. The findings of the Annan commission on Rakhine state provide a nationally and internationally endorsed framework designed to address the marginalisation of the Rohingya—although I wanted it to go much further and recommend immediate and full citizenship for the Rohingya. It is vital that the UK, in partnership with regional actors and partners, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, supports the progressive implementation of those findings by the Burmese Government, but progress on ensuring Rohingya citizenship must be an essential condition for return.
In the longer term, the international community must work with the Government of Bangladesh to define, agree and finance a response to the crisis that supports refugees’ self-reliance, as well as contributing to improved conditions for host communities and Bangladesh’s own development objectives.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The picture that my hon. Friend is painting accords absolutely with what the Select Committee on International Development saw when we visited Cox’s Bazar in March. However, I want to take her back to the monsoon and the action that needs to be taken now. She has already made the point that strengthening the shelters and shacks will simply not be enough to protect them against the monsoon. This goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), but Bangladesh has said that it has been looking for other land to which Rohingya in the camps can be moved in an emergency. Does my hon. Friend have any information on whether progress has been made on that? If she cannot answer, perhaps the Minister will say something about that when he sums up.
Jo Stevens
I do have some information. An island has been identified as a potential space for refugees to move to. I am concerned about it because, as I understand it, the island is like a floodplain, so people would not be in a better position were they to be moved there. I hope that the Minister can give us more information about that, if he has been discussing it with the Bangladeshi Government.
Agreements have been reached with other refugee-hosting nations, including Jordan, Lebanon and Ethiopia, which provides an indication of what can be achieved with the right package of support, combined with strong partnerships. In my view, strong partnerships and political leadership on the rights of the Rohingya, and action against Burma for its gross violations of international law, must go hand in hand. I want our Government to take a lead.
In January, I wrote to the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), at the Foreign Office to ask the Government to support a referral to the International Criminal Court. In February, I was one of 100 parliamentarians who wrote to the Foreign Secretary in exactly the same terms. What was the response of the Burmese Government? It was to ban individual members of the International Development Committee from visiting Burma. The Minister will say that a UN Security Council resolution on a referral might be vetoed by Russia and China, but that is exactly why we in the UK must start to support a referral, building global support—from the European Union, the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation and other countries—to overcome such opposition. Our Government can hardly ask other countries to support a referral when they do not even call for one themselves.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Will she consider suggesting, first, that the Minister also look at freezing the assets of the Burmese Government and of people who are connected to that Government? Secondly, because the ICC covers citizens of signed-up countries, the Government should be clear that any UK citizens, or those with joint citizenship, could be referred to the ICC if or when any incidents occur.
Jo Stevens
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The Government should take every possible measure to show the horror we feel about what I believe to be a genocide in Burma. We should be taking the political lead, and everything that can be done should be done. As Edmund Burke, a former Member of Parliament, said, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. This humanitarian and human rights disaster is about to be compounded by a natural disaster, which was entirely avoidable. It cannot be allowed to happen again. Burma cannot be allowed to operate with impunity and to set an international precedent for the unpunished genocide of a minority population.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.
This is an enormously important debate. We have heard the statistics about the amount of rainfall, so I shall not rehearse them, save that the north-eastern part of Bangladesh receives the greatest average precipitation of some 4,000 mm per year. By the end of the monsoon season, as the Minister knows because he has been there so often, a third of the country is under water. As other right hon. and hon. Members have seen, and as I saw when flying down from Dhaka to Cox’s Bazar in September, the landscape is vast and watery, barely above sea level. Many areas of Bangladesh are treacherous and cut off in the monsoon season, which was absolutely visible. There are already huge pressures on the population as a whole—not just the Rohingya—as a result of global warming and the rains. When those rains come, communities can be accessed only by boat, houses are damaged, crops and livestock are lost and, importantly, the rice harvest is often lost, which impacts the population’s future.
In the pre-monsoon and monsoon seasons, there are access constraints on the mud roads to which the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) referred. They become impassable, footpaths become slippery, and earthen stairs and slopes become dangerous and may collapse. Members who have been to the camps will know that they are like something from Mars or the moon, and will have seen the deforestation that has gone on to create mounds of earth. Where hills and mountains were covered in greenery, there are now barren, muddy landscapes with little to hold the soil together. Shelters and facilities will be flooded and damaged, prompting displacement and overcrowding in even more of the camp.
This issue is not new—as the Minister knows, it goes back 20 years—but Rohingya camps have never existed on such a scale, and never before have so many people been confined in such a small, cramped and inhospitable place, so there is no direct experience to indicate how that number of people will survive the monsoon. They have withstood monsoons in the past, but not in such numbers.
When I visited in September, I saw vast deforestation. An elephant rampaged through the camp, killed someone and was shot. People thought that was terrible, but to be fair to the elephants, every single bit of their habitat is gone. As far as the eye could see, the landscape was totally barren and vulnerable to landslips and shelter collapse. We were there for several days, and we actually witnessed 100 small, pitiful homes of the sort the hon. Lady described that had been washed away overnight. I felt utterly guilty to be listening to the heavy rain in my hotel in Cox’s Bazar. As we have all seen, many of the Rohingya in camps do not have shelters at all—some simply shelter under plastic bags and other small pieces of plastic, which they hold over their heads. It is pitiful. After several nights of heavy rain, the gullies that people had been easily fording turned into death traps, and we saw an individual who had drowned while trying to access food for his family being pulled out of a flooded gully.
I am appalled that, to resolve the overcrowding that no doubt exists in the camps, 100,000 individuals from that very camp may be relocated to Bhasan Char island, which the hon. Lady mentioned. That island—a misnomer if ever there was one—is basically a large mudflat. It is a shifting bank of sand that did not even exist 20 years ago. It is not an island but an accumulation of sediment formed by the Meghna river. It changes shape radically. If anyone has not looked at it, it is possible to go online and see its changing contours. Sometimes it is totally submerged under floodwater. It is not a suitable place to create a haven for the Rohingya.
I wrote to the Secretary of State and pointed out that the topography of the island makes it extremely vulnerable to flooding and cyclones, and that it regularly disappears underwater. I also mentioned the increasing concerns about the adequacy of resources such as food, water and additional facilities, and about humanitarian access to the island. I wrote that I am worried that the planned settlement—the media are trying to look at what is going on on Bhasan Char island, but it is being planned in quite a secretive manner—would, in effect, act as a prison camp. It would allow the refugees to be resettled, but I am concerned that the island would not be a safe haven for the Rohingya.
The Minister has stated that the Government have
“concerns that the island may not provide safe accommodation for Rohingya refugees and we have shared these concerns with the Government of Bangladesh.”
Given that building is going on apace, and that plans are going on apace to relocate 100,000 people to Bhasan Char island, I want to know what progress if any has been made with stopping that relocation. A huge amount of building is going on. The designs for the island show that there will be cyclone shelters, which look amazingly like prison blocks. They are absolutely tiny. The Rohingya who are there are already traumatised. I question what the value of those cyclone shelters will be, if they are imprisoned on a featureless mudflat in the bay of Bengal, cut off from the current aid groups that are in the camps on the mainland.
The flooding of contaminated water has already been referred to. Camp sanitation is bleak—I know because I have used it. I am not surprised that there are outbreaks of E. coli and other faecal matter diseases, given the overflowing latrines. We do not know what facilities will be on Bhasan Char island. I would like to know if the Minister plans to visit Bhasan Char island to reassure us.
The UK has just generously pledged £70 million more. That is £129 million pledged on behalf of the British taxpayer. Many of my constituents are fundraising for the Rohingya. I do not think many of them are aware that there is a potential Alcatraz—as I refer to it—in the bay of Bengal. I would like to know whether the British Government plan to visit given the amount of development that has already happened there.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
When the International Development Committee visited, we were told that NGOs had identified significant amounts of other land that would be safe for the Rohingya to be put into. Does the hon. Lady agree that the British Government need to use all their powers to get the Bangladeshis to release the land that the aid agencies have identified, and focus less on putting them on to an island?
Mrs Main
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. We cannot dictate, however, to other countries that have opened their arms and done a very big job in taking nearly 1 million people. Far be it for me to tell the Bangladeshi Government which bits of land they should give away. That would not be appropriate. I do have concerns, however, about the pieces of land that have been identified. To be fair—hon. Members have been there and seen them—other areas are barely above sea level, but the island is particularly vulnerable. With the cyclone coming on, a cyclone shelter just does not cut it.
I would like the Minister to have plenty of time to answer these questions, so I will not carry on much longer. The hon. Lady mentioned the pregnant women in the camp. I am concerned that women and children will be located on this island, many of whom are pregnant as a result of rape by the Burmese militia. We should call that out. I am absolutely appalled that we do not have any formal international recognition of the atrocities that the Burmese army are committing in order to call them out for what they are, which I believe is genocide and war crimes that should be held accountable.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff Central for bringing this debate and allowing me to speak in it. The British Government have been enormously generous. The Bangladeshi Government have opened their arms, but they have an election coming up and the Rohingya are not a vote-winning issue, as there are already pressures on the Government to sort out the problem with disease in the camp and some of the unfortunate practices that are being associated with the camp, which the local population are not happy with. My main point is that Bhasan Char island is not an acceptable place to send people who are already traumatised. Following the response I have had from the Government on sharing my concerns, I would like to know that the Minister has asked for a visit.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) for bringing this important and timely debate. I also thank the many hon. Members who have been to see first-hand Cox’s Bazar and to hear the accounts of the Rohingya refugees who are there at the moment.
Today, nearly 1 million Rohingya refugees have fled across the border from Myanmar into Bangladesh. Most of them arrived in the last year. These people have arrived with virtually nothing and have fled unspeakable levels of violence after decades of persecution accelerated rapidly over the last nine months. After fleeing horrific and barbaric violence, Rohingya refugees now face potentially life-threatening monsoon rains and cyclones this summer. As we have heard, the situation has the potential to spiral out of control and the need for collective action is more critical than ever before. Cox’s Bazar is already one of the most frequently flooded regions of one of the most flood-prone countries on Earth. To put that in perspective, monsoon and cyclone season brings more than 2.5 metres of rainfall in three months alone—more than four and a half times the average annual rainfall of my Dundee constituency, a region not unaccustomed to rainfall.
Pre-monsoon rains have already started in Cox’s Bazar, and the storms have damaged shelters. UNICEF has reported that many children have been sitting on top of their family shelters in an attempt to keep the plastic rooftops from blowing away. The Bangladesh Government and aid groups estimate that as many as 200,000 refugees are at direct risk due to landslides or floods and require urgent evacuation, but they have nowhere else to go. Basic services, including clean water, sanitation and healthcare, remain inadequate, and the spread of disease will be worsened by flooding and stagnant water. In addition, one third of health facilities and nutrition centres, and more than 200 educational facilities, could be lost, putting at risk the lives of the 60,000 pregnant women and their babies—many of whom are born of systematic rape which, as we have heard today, is used as a weapon of war. To make it worse, it is highly likely that aid provision will be disrupted because the roads into the camps are made of clay and may become impassable after heavy rain.
When I visited Cox’s Bazar only two months ago with the International Development Committee, including some hon. Members who have spoken, I saw for myself the condition in which the Rohingya refugees are living. Nothing could have prepared us for the enormity of this humanitarian emergency. We saw, for example, that refugees are making a living in makeshift, flimsy shelters, built only of bamboo and tarpaulins, which are precariously positioned on land or carved into sandy, deforested hillsides, and are easily swept away when the monsoon season arrives. Let us be clear: the conditions were already dangerous before the monsoon season began. Now there is—dare I say it?—the perfect storm for a catastrophe. The heads of NGOs I had a chance to speak to were deeply fearful and could not emphasise strongly enough that our inaction would result in needless destruction, disease and death.
As our Committee’s report outlined last month, more funding and resources must be made available immediately to save lives and improve living conditions during the monsoon season. I therefore join others in welcoming yesterday’s news that the UK has pledged an additional £70 million of humanitarian support for the crisis. Alongside providing more funding, the UK Government must urgently step up their efforts with other donor nations and international agencies, and encourage and work with the Bangladesh Government. There is an immediate need for NGO staff to be allowed into the camps. Without technical expertise and the ability to deliver basic programmes, almost half a million people will continue to be unable to access essential services. Although I acknowledge Bangladesh’s generosity in taking in the Rohingya refuges, the UK Government must put more pressure on it to allow aid agencies to operate more freely.
There is no time left. This has been neglected until the eleventh hour, and there is nowhere to turn and no other options. We cannot hide from this deadly issue, so it falls on us to do all we can to help. Urgent action is needed now so that we, as elected Members of Parliament, are not forced to stand up in this House in the months to come and admit we could have done more for the Rohingya and the Bangladeshi communities that host them. On a humanitarian and human rights front, the UK Government should be operating on the principle that everything that can be done should be done. I look forward to hearing how the £70 million will be spent, for what purpose it will be used and, most importantly, how soon it will be made available.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) on securing this important debate. Her testimony about her recent visit to Cox’s Bazar was deeply harrowing and real. Other hon. Members also made excellent contributions. We have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), and the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for St Albans (Mrs Main), who raised concerns about the relocation of the Rohingya. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) echoed the concerns raised by the Members who spoke before him.
The plight of the Rohingya people is clearly one of the greatest human tragedies of this century. Forced by violence to flee their homes, more than 1 million refugees have sought haven in Bangladesh—the majority in Cox’s Bazar. That speed of displacement has not been witnessed since the Rwandan refugee crisis in 1994. More than half a million Rohingya arrived in Bangladesh within a month.
Cox’s Bazar is one of the most flood-prone areas of Bangladesh and has an average of 2.5 metres of rainfall during June, July and August. To put that in perspective, in Britain, where we are far from blessed with glorious sunshine, we receive less than 1 metre of rain in the entire year. Time is clearly of the essence. The pre-monsoon rains have already begun, and the situation is critical. On 26 April, a storm damaged shelters and affected several families in the camps. Last week a mudslide was reported in camp 4 in Cox’s Bazar, and there were reports of at least one fatality. The scale of the potential humanitarian disaster is truly horrifying, and more than 100,000 people, more than half of whom are children, are at risk of being directly affected by landslides and floods. That is only a conservative estimate, because that figure could double, should the rains be particularly heavy.
It is not just that there is a direct threat to life from the rains and mudslides. We have heard today that sanitation conditions are expected to deteriorate significantly, leading to reduced access to safe drinking water. As of December, water samples collected from households showed that 81% were already contaminated with E. coli, and the situation will only get worse in the coming months. It is highly likely that there will be increases in water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea and hepatitis and in diphtheria, malaria and dengue fever. According to the International Rescue Committee, 36% of people are already living without access to clean, safe water—a figure compounded by the fact that 46% of the functioning water pumps in the area are at risk from flooding or landslides. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK emergency medical team is in position to respond, much as it did between late December and early February, to an upsurge in disease in the camps?
The window of opportunity for moving refugees to more secure locations is rapidly closing. As of 23 April only 12,400 refugees had been relocated to safer sites. I recognise that the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in the humanitarian response, and I welcome its overall humanitarian work—especially the announcement yesterday of an additional £70 million towards preparing for the monsoon. Will the Minister provide assurances that that leading role includes encouraging others to increase their contributions to the effort, and will he outline what steps are being taken to achieve that?
I welcome the Department for International Development’s direct humanitarian work, but it is clear that the issues of humanitarian access, safe, voluntary, dignified returns, and dealing with the long-term persecution faced by the Rohingya in Myanmar can be addressed only with a political solution. For that purpose I urge the Government to keep their eye on the ball and to step up the political will and the focus that they are devoting to finding such solutions.
Mrs Main
Does the hon. Lady share my concern at the lack—particularly when the memorandum of understanding between Bangladesh and Burma was being agreed—of a voice for the Rohingya at the table? There is no identified leader and no person who can speak out for what the community would like to happen in the negotiations.
Preet Kaur Gill
I absolutely agree, and I will come on to that point.
The Government of Bangladesh have rightly been praised for their initial response, but as we move into a dangerous new phase of the crisis it is imperative to address operational barriers that hinder the work of aid agencies. International donors have granted $14 million of funding, which cannot be utilised at present because of restrictions on which organisations can deliver aid programmes in Cox’s Bazar. That has led to the utterly perverse situation of badly needed aid money being returned to donors.
In response to a written question that I tabled on 13 April, the Minister recognised:
“International non-governmental organisations face ongoing challenges with securing and renewing visas and permits”.
He stated:
“UK Ministers and officials continue to liaise with their Government of Bangladesh counterparts on this issue.”
With that in mind, will the Minister provide an update on discussions between the UK and Bangladesh Governments on the process of issuing FD-7 visas so that international aid organisations can implement humanitarian projects, and will he confirm that the UK Government are pressing for the duration of the authorisation to be increased?
Owing to further administrative procedures, up to 90% of aid staff currently have to use short-term tourist or business visas to enter the country. Will the Minister assure me that his Department is doing all it can to ensure that the Government of Bangladesh agree FD-6 agreements with agencies, so that their staff are able to apply for the appropriate visas necessary to plan and implement their work?
Secondly, at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, a roundtable on the Rohingya crisis was co-hosted by the UK and Canada, with the Foreign Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Bangladesh in attendance. That meeting represented a chance to discuss the crisis at the top level of Government. Will the Minister say whether preparations for the monsoon season were specifically discussed at that meeting?
Thirdly, although the immediate priority must of course be the impending monsoon, the only permanent solution to the crisis is for the security situation in Rakhine state to be such that the Rohingya are able to return safely and voluntarily to their home. Although in January an agreement was reached between the Governments of Bangladesh and Myanmar to repatriate 156,000 Rohingya over the next few years, in reality neither the security situation nor the stipulations placed on returning Rohingya, such as identity documents, are conducive to such a move.
I met the Myanmar ambassador to raise my concerns about the ongoing treatment of the Rohingya, but I do not believe that blaming the failure of Rohingya repatriations on administrative errors by the Bangladeshi authorities indicates a serious desire on the part of the Myanmar Government to solve this crisis. The UK Government must maintain pressure on the Myanmar authorities to engage seriously with the issues faced by the Rohingya, not least those of security and citizenship. What are the Government doing to ensure that the Myanmar Government and General Min Aung Hlaing are properly brought to account for the atrocities they have committed? Does the Minister agree that the Myanmar Government cannot be trusted to protect the Rohingya until they truly feel the heat of international pressure and accountability for what has happened?
I welcome the UK continuing to fund humanitarian work in Cox’s Bazar as monsoon season approaches, but I hope that that terrible threat will act as a spur to renew the UK’s political will and to solve some of the longer term political problems. Only then will we finally see an end to the suffering of the Rohingya people.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) for securing this debate and all colleagues for taking part.
I will begin with some general remarks, and then turn to the substance of the debate. As we know, this is an immensely complex issue, but the moment that people moved in August last year, it was perfectly obvious that the monsoon season would come round again. Colleagues can therefore be reassured that preparation for this event has been long in the planning, although there is only so much that can be done on the piece of land that colleagues have, in many cases, seen and described accurately. With such flimsy conditions underneath, only so much can be done to prepare and strengthen shelters. At the same time, handling the crises of people who are already there, and the multifaceted difficulties that they bring, has been exceptional.
Colleagues are right to question the responsibility of the host Government, but we must be sensible about this. Bangladesh has taken on an enormous responsibility. It is supported by the rest of the world community, but there are limits to telling a sovereign Government who they should admit to their country, who must work there, under what terms, and everything they can do. We must understand the limitations that we are working with, but equally we must accept that from the moment so many people moved last August, people have been aware of what was going to happen, and have been making appropriate preparations as best they can. That sets the background to this debate.
Jo Stevens
I absolutely accept the Minister’s point about aid and outside agencies and countries directing the Bangladesh Government, but does he agree that, if millions of pounds of funding is being given to help, the Government have leverage to sort out these difficulties? There are practical difficulties of aid workers not being able to get into the camps to help.
Alistair Burt
We entirely agree. We constantly raise these issues directly with the Bangladesh Government, and have letters from agencies that have been helped and supported thanking us for the work we have done in company with others. There is no point in aid being available if it cannot be distributed, but the Bangladeshi Government have issues with who comes in and why. These are big camps, and there is a lot of scope for things to go wrong. They must have the responsibility themselves, but easing administrative difficulties is a key part of what supportive Governments do on behalf of the various agencies.
Chris Law
We are in the second week of May and the monsoon starts in a month. I accept the Minister’s point that we have known that the monsoon was coming since August last year, but just eight weeks ago when I and colleagues from the International Development Committee were there on the ground we heard from NGOs that nothing is getting done—or that what is getting done is far too late. Given that we had all that information and we know that there are monsoons in the region year on year, why are we only now at this critical stage putting funding towards monsoon relief, and with little or no plan for what we will spend it on?
Alistair Burt
That takes me comfortably to the second part of what I want to say. Let me answer that, because it is a perfectly fair challenge. I pay tribute to the Government of Bangladesh and the communities in Cox’s Bazar for the extraordinary generosity they have shown in welcoming hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fleeing despicable persecution in Burma—persecution that amounts at the very least to ethnic cleansing, and possibly more. More than 680,000 have fled since the latest violence in August 2017, and they join about 300,000 fleeing waves of violence in previous years, bringing the total Rohingya population in Bangladesh to almost 1 million.
One camp alone in the Kutupalong area of Cox’s Bazar, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) referred to, contains almost 600,000 people, giving it the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest refugee camp. Conditions in such camps are almost unimaginably hard, as colleagues who have visited have made clear. As my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary saw when she visited Bangladesh last November, many are makeshift, built piecemeal and without proper planning or foundations. Those fragile structures are extremely vulnerable to the heavy rains of the current monsoon season, which could soon be compounded by high winds and storm surges if a cyclone hits the area. The Bangladeshi Government have an excellent track record in saving lives in extreme weather events, and we call on them to use their expertise to help support those currently at risk.
As far as preparedness is concerned, UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs, with support from the UK, are working tirelessly on measures to improve conditions in the camps and prepare for extreme weather. The UK has led the way in terms of the scale and speed of our response to the crisis, pledging £59 million in humanitarian response. As colleagues mentioned—I am grateful to them for welcoming this—my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary announced yesterday a further £70 million of UK support for the crisis, which will help to protect vulnerable people during this volatile rainy season, improving structures and infrastructure such as roads and latrines, and help to clear newly allocated land. It will also provide urgently needed humanitarian support such as food, medicines, shelter and psycho-social support to many hundreds of thousands of Rohingya and the communities so generously hosting them.
Let me spell out a few more details. That support is expected to try to help 200,000 people with much-needed materials to strengthen their shelters and 300,000 people with food assistance and clean water. The aim is also to provide emergency nutrition for 30,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women, plus 120,000 children younger than five. Another aim is to get access to midwifery care for 50,000 women, including many who may give birth during the rainy season, and to provide access to bathing cubicles for nearly 53,000 women and girls. It is hoped that another 50,000 people will be helped in getting access to healthcare services.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) for bringing forward the debate. I have written to the Minister about the potential for a serious malaria epidemic in the area. As he well knows, there is the issue of drug-resistant malaria coming up from Burma, which may impact on the area. What preparation is being made to prevent a devastating outbreak, which could transmit drug-resistant malaria further afield through Bangladesh and into India and beyond?
Alistair Burt
On receipt of my hon. Friend’s letter, I took advice from the agencies on the ground about their concerns. Their concerns were not quite as acute as his information, but they were aware of the risk and were taking precautions against them.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) mentioned the emergency medical team. It is not permanently out there but it is always on stand-by to respond, just as it responded to the cholera and diphtheria epidemic around Christmas time. Many people saw that work. That emergency medical team remains on standby. I am conscious of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about malaria —we keep an anxious check on that.
Alistair Burt
I try always to be honest with the House when I do not know something. I do not have any information on that. My hon. Friend knows full well that the quality of the ground makes washing, digging foundations and shelter difficult enough. Latrines are far too close to services, so burying people must be even more dreadful than it would ordinarily be. I will find out the answer to her question and supply information.
UK aid already ensures that more than 250,000 people will continue to have access to safe drinking water during the rainy season. The latrines issue is vital: more than 7,000 latrines have been constructed and strategically placed throughout the camps, and more than 6,700 new latrines will be decommissioned or re-sited. There is an understanding of the importance of that. UK-supported cholera, measles and diphtheria vaccination campaigns have been carried out in readiness. They will provide protection against some of the most common diseases in the camps, which are expected to be more widespread during the rainy season. Preparation for that is being done. More than 391,000 children under the age of seven have been vaccinated to date. Healthcare workers are being trained to prevent, identify and treat common illnesses expected during the rainy season and to manage higher case loads.
Some 450,000 people have benefited from support to make their shelters more resilient to rain and heavy winds. Site improvements such as drainage, protecting pathways and stabilising steps and bridges to enable access are already being undertaken. Everyone with knowledge of the camp knows that there is limit to what can be done, not only with the flimsy shelters but the foundations on which they are built. We are advised that the best protection possible is trying to be devised and put in place.
We are funding efforts to relocate or accommodate up to 30,000 of the most vulnerable refugees. We welcome the fact that the Government of Bangladesh have made an additional 800 acres of land available close to the existing camps, and we are supporting the work of the UN to make this land suitable for the safe relocation of refugees.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans mentioned Bhashan Char island. I will be happy to go and see that when I get the opportunity. She made clear that we have had our own reservations about that particular piece of land. We have made clear to the Government of Bangladesh that any relocation of refugees must be safe, voluntary, dignified, and in accordance with international humanitarian standards, principles and laws. We have shared with the Government of Bangladesh our concerns that the island may not provide safe accommodation for Rohingya refugees. We have requested that the UN be given the opportunity to conduct a technical assessment of plans for the island. We have had no involvement in developing plans for the proposed relocation—we are very conscious of the pressures on land in the whole area, but that is the role that we intend to take in relation to Bhashan Char island. The sheer scale and availability of alternative lands makes things so much more difficult.
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central spoke of sexual violence and pregnancy. Accountability for crime is very important, and the assessment of what happened to people is vital, but supporting them now is equally important. We believe we have led the way in supporting a range of organisations, providing specialised help to survivors of sexual violence in Bangladesh. That includes 30 child-friendly spaces to support children with protective services and psycho-social and psychological support and 19 women’s centres that will offer a safe space and activities to women. Case management is being provided for just over 2,000 survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Thirteen sexual and reproductive health clinics will provide access to sexual and reproductive health services, including antenatal care. More than 53,500 women will be provided with midwifery care. Medical services counselling and psychological support will be provided to Rohingya refugees who have either witnessed or are survivors of sexual violence. With DFID support, UNFPA and partners have developed guidelines on how to support women and girls who have been raped and are pregnant, which includes the training of caseworkers and those who will support them through pregnancy and beyond.
This is a desperately serious issue and Members are right that the births that will take place in the next few months will be among the most difficult that could be witnessed, but we have done all that we can, alongside various other agencies, to try to prepare for these circumstances.
Jo Stevens
I welcome all of that. It is very welcome, but it is small in comparison with the size of the problem. The Minister has not addressed the question of Burma’s impunity for those crimes and for the murder and torture of other Rohingya. I hope he will address that point and tell us what the Government are doing to seek a referral.
Alistair Burt
Let me turn to the issue of Burma—the hon. Lady was right to anticipate this point. We do not and should not forget that it was the actions of the Burmese military that drove Rohingya from their homes, leading to the current extremely precarious situation in which they find themselves. Although it is of course vital and right that we provide immediate, life-saving humanitarian support to Rohingya in Bangladesh, we continue to call upon the Burmese authorities to create the conditions for them to be able to return home safely, voluntarily and with dignity, under a process overseen by the UN. In particular, Burma should fully implement the recommendations of the Rakhine Advisory Commission, beginning with full, unfettered access for agencies to northern Rakhine.
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) mentioned the referral and access to justice. Other countries know the UK’s commitment to justice. It was the UK that secured a UN presidential statement in November calling for accountability for what happened in Rakhine. The UK was instrumental in getting a recent UN Security Council visit and the Security Council is now considering Burma’s statement made during last week’s visit that it was ready to conduct an investigation. We will press for that first. We also await with interest the decision of the International Criminal Court as to whether it has jurisdiction regarding forced deportation into Bangladesh, which it has just announced it is examining. Calling on the Security Council to refer Burma to the ICC will remain an option.
The UK has sought to lead the way in a variety of different ways—in responding with aid; in using the UN to call for the presidential statement and getting other states involved; in securing sanctions against named individuals who have been responsible; and in continuing the work and efforts in preparation for the monsoon season. As I said at the beginning, this is a very complex issue and we will discuss it again, but the United Kingdom, with other agencies, is doing as much as it can to do what we can. We will not desist from that and recognise that there will be much more to do in the future.
Jo Stevens
I thank the Minister for his remarks and everyone who has participated in the debate. It is most important that we do not forget the children, women and men in those camps. I welcome what the Government have done so far. I hope they continue to put international pressure on Burma and build a coalition against it so that we can see justice for the 1 million people who have suffered this terrible atrocity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the monsoon season on the Rohingya.
Written Statements
ECOFIN: 27-28 April 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
An informal meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Sofia on 27-28 April 2018. The Council discussed the following:
Working lunch—Deepening of the economic and monetary union
Based on a presidency issues note, the Council exchanged views on the ECOFIN Council roadmap of June 2016 on completing the banking union. This was followed by an update from the Eurogroup president on reform of the European stability mechanism.
Working Session I
The Council were then joined by Central Bank Governors for the first working session.
a) Convergence in the EU—Inside and outside the euro area
Following a presentation from the Centre for European Policy Studies, the Council discussed the possibilities to increase convergence in the EU among both euro area and non-euro area member states.
b) Further reducing fragmentation within the capital markets union
Following a presentation from Bruegel on deepening of the capital markets union, the Council discussed measures to further reduce capital markets fragmentation.
c) Miscellaneous
The Council were then debriefed on the outcomes of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting on 19-20 April.
Working Session II—Improving revenue collection and fighting tax fraud in the single market
The Council exchanged views on ways to improve administrative co-operation and the exchange of tax information between member states in order to improve revenue collection and fight tax fraud in the single market.
Working Session III—Corporate taxation and tax challenges of the digital economy
Following the recent publication of Commission proposals regarding fair taxation of the digital economy, the Council exchanged views on the. approach to corporate taxation in the single market and the tax challenges arising from digitalisation of the economy.
[HCWS667]
Data Protection Bill (English Votes for English Laws)
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order 83L in respect of the Government amendments tabled for Commons Report stage for the Data Protection Bill [HL].
[HCWS668]
Teaching Career Consultation
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
On Friday 4 May 2018, the Government published their response to the recent consultation on “Strengthening Qualified Teacher Status and Improving Career Progression for Teachers”.
This consultation closed on 8 March, and had over 2,000 written responses. The majority of responses agreed with the case to strengthen support that teachers receive in the early stages of their career. This is in addition to finding more effective ways of enabling teachers to access high quality continuing professional development throughout their careers.
The Government response sets out how we will take this work forward, including:
Increasing the length of the induction period for teachers from one year to two years;
Developing an early career framework of support and mentoring, which will create a better and more consistent induction experience for all new teachers;
Exploring the creation of new qualifications for experienced classroom teachers, alongside work to consider how we can make the existing continuing professional development market easier to navigate for schools and teachers; and,
Piloting a sabbatical fund for experienced teachers.
As this work is developed further, we will work with teachers, school leaders, and education experts. We will also ensure that improving continuing professional development for teachers aligns closely with wider work on the recruitment and retention of teachers.
The response is available on www.gov.uk and I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS669]
House of Lords
Brexit: Digital Single Market
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s ability to take advantage of the Digital Single Market and of country of origin principles for e-commerce once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to see that, by including the phrase,
“once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union”,
in his carefully prepared Question, the noble Lord has confirmed from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that we will be leaving the EU. The UK will not be part of the digital single market once we leave the EU. We are undertaking a comprehensive programme of analytical work looking at the implications of the UK’s exit from the EU. We are seeking input from a wide range of businesses, civil society groups and consumer bodies to inform our future trading agreement negotiations with the EU. This includes e-commerce.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, recent CEBR estimates put the value of our digital exports in the creative industries alone at £21 billion, yet as the Minister has confirmed and the Prime Minister stated at the Mansion House on 2 March—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, repeated it last week—
“the UK will not be part of the EU’s Digital Single Market”.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
“This is a fast evolving, innovative sector, in which the UK is a world leader. So it will be particularly important to have domestic flexibility, to ensure the regulatory environment can always respond nimbly and ambitiously to new developments”.
How on earth will that protect those digital exports? Or is this just another example of the Government whistling in the dark?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that the creative industries and digital are a very important part of our economy. We are the leaders in Europe—7.9% of our GDP is digital, with the next biggest, I think, being France, at 3.9%. We acknowledge that this has to be part of the wider negotiations on the single market. We are undertaking a great deal of analysis to make sure that we understand the implications of those negotiations.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, analysis, study, the eventual bringing to our attention of possible ways forward—is the Minister able to help us in a shorter term than that, given that nearly two years have passed since all this began? I know that he will use the word “shortly” or “soon”, but can he give us an idea of when we will have a fix on this? The greatest part of our trade is led by our activities in this sphere. All the talk is about trade, yet this issue has the potential to damage a significant part of our trading arrangements. Has not enough advice been given by the House of Commons DCMS Committee in its recent report? Urgency is what we seem to be lacking.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I have to disagree with the noble Lord: urgency is not lacking, and considerable work is going on. Clearly, when we are about to undertake some of the most important negotiations that we have had for decades, we would not want to outline exactly what our negotiating position was before we did it. We absolutely take on board what the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have said and understand the importance of the digital area. That will take place within the broader single market negotiations.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the digital industry is very important to the British economy. What options are the Government considering to deal with this problem? Can they spell them out?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think it would be mad to spell them out before we even start the negotiations.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to go from the macro to the micro, if we leave the EU, might we not be susceptible, as individuals, to roaming charges when we go to Europe? Is not the addition of, say, up to several hundred pounds on the phone bill of everyone who visits Europe something that might lead us to put on the line some compromise of our position regarding our new independence?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is right that roaming charges are one of the main areas that we have to look at as part of the negotiations that particularly affect DCMS. That is absolutely on our radar and we understand the implications both ways. We understand that it is a fairly recent innovation not to have roaming charges within the EU: we completely understand that and it will form part of the negotiations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I agree about the importance of the creative industries and I am sure they will continue to be creative as we go forward beyond Brexit, but I want to ask my noble friend a question about portability. This is the ability to take your television programmes abroad digitally when, for example, you go on holiday in the Mediterranean, so that you are able to watch “Coronation Street”, “EastEnders” or whatever is your particular delight. Can my noble friend give me an update on whether that will still be possible?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not absolutely clear whether that will still be possible. I do not think it is the highest on our list of priorities. However, I will certainly take it back to my department and get my noble friend a clear and concise answer.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, by chance I called on a UK tech association last week and the message I received was that the industry is in the doldrums—that is my word. I think the inference was that it is depressed—that since whenever this exercise started, there has been a depression in the industry generally. Does the Minister wish to say how we can reinject a sense of optimism into the sector, to give the heads of these trade associations the view that we are, indeed, heading in the right direction?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I can absolutely dispel the noble Viscount’s gloom: the tech industry is not in the doldrums; in fact, quite the reverse. The creative industries, including tech industries, are growing at twice the rate of the economy. I hope the noble Viscount is reassured by that.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, digital is an important part of the Government’s industrial strategy. So when will they initiate their industrial strategy council, whose job it is to chivvy the Government and get them to take action on this sort of thing?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not quite sure which council the noble Lord is talking about, but as part of the industrial strategy, as he knows, we are launching sector deals, and I am pleased to say that the artificial intelligence sector deal was launched a week or two ago to great acclaim.
Brexit: Logistics Industry
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have asked any organisations in the logistics industry to sign confidentiality agreements in respect of negotiations concerning the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Exiting the European Union is responsible for overseeing the negotiations to leave. We continue to engage regularly with companies across the economy to inform our negotiating position and prepare for our departure from the EU. The department has not signed any non-disclosure agreements in respect of negotiations.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Since he is close to the logistics industry, does he agree that the line favoured by the Prime Minister has the potential to solve the looming crisis in the supply chain industry, or does he agree with the Foreign Secretary, who has described the Prime Minister’s proposals as “bonkers”?
Lord Callanan
If the noble Lord is referring to customs solutions, there are, of course, two models on the table. I am sure noble Lords are very familiar with the issue, but there is the streamlined model and the alternative model, a new customs partnership. Both have issues and drawbacks as well as opportunities and the Government are examining both models closely. When we have reached the most appropriate solution that is best for the UK, we will announce it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 73 years ago today was Victory in Europe Day, when Britain, Russia and America saved Europe from a new dark age. I ask the Minister: when we leave Europe will we have the mechanisms in place to ensure the correct defence and security arrangements to look after the security and safety of this continent and this country?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a very good point. As the Prime Minister said in her Munich speech, our offers for the guarantees of security in Europe are unconditional and we look forward to a close and productive security, foreign affairs and defence partnership with our EU partners.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, 9 May is Victory Day, which will be attended by all those who were part of winning the Second World War. Will a Minister be present at this memorial?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, returning to supply chains and logistics, currently it is estimated that a non-EU vehicle entering one of our ports takes 45 minutes to get through customs and all the procedures, whereas for EU vehicles it is a few seconds. The FTA—Freight Transport Association—has said that an extra two minutes means 17 miles more of queue. What is the Government’s estimate of the extra time that it will take a vehicle to cross the border post Brexit?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord is aware, we are negotiating to have as frictionless customs arrangements as possible. We do not want any delays and we want whatever delays there might be kept to a minimum. That is the purpose of the discussions we are having and of the agreement we hope to come to.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that when freight from Dublin goes across the UK to the continent, it takes approximately 10 hours? If that same freight had to go around the UK to Europe, it would take 40 hours. What are the Government doing to prevent the Irish situation affecting the frictionless border?
Lord Callanan
The border between the UK and Ireland will be a customs border in the future. Of course, we want to make that border as frictionless as possible, as we do the other borders. That is the purpose of the discussions.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can come to the assistance of the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be at sixes and sevens over whether or not we are going to leave the European Union. I am certain that we will not leave the European Union. Last week we had a Question on the dangers of gambling, particularly internet gambling, but I am prepared to make a wager with the Minister of at least £10—I am a generous Scotsman—that by the date designated for exiting we will not be leaving the European Union. Will the Minister take that bet?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure whether the rules of the House permit gambling exchanges across the Floor. I am probably better off not answering that question in case I get into trouble with the House authorities. It is very good of the noble Lord to come to the rescue of the Liberal Democrats on behalf of the Labour Party, whose position seems equally confused.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are quite clear that we do not want to leave the European Union. I ask the Minister: what mechanisms do the Government use to engage with members of the logistics industry, which has some 40 different representative organisations and groups? Have the Government now engaged with the Port of Dover, which recently said that not one Minister had been to visit it despite the fact that it is predicted to be at the eye of the storm when—or if—we leave?
Lord Callanan
I assure the noble Baroness that we have had many meetings with the Port of Dover. We continue to engage extensively, at both ministerial and official level. Of course, it is one of 275 ports and airports—albeit one of the largest—that we need to engage in discussions with to make sure that we put in place the logistical arrangements to make the border as frictionless as possible.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, in an earlier answer the Minister identified two potential solutions to the customs issue. Can he please tell the House when he expects the Government to solve that problem and decide which of them they will choose, if either, and how?
Lord Callanan
The “how” is that we will look in detail, using our excellent teams of officials, at all the available options. We will announce in due course what the best solution is for the United Kingdom and then, of course, we will have to discuss those matters with our European partners.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is it not worth remembering that most digital traffic does not go through ports or customs anyway so the entire customs union debate, which is quite separate, is completely irrelevant to this question of digital and knowledge product trade. What are relevant are all the regulations and licences, which govern the trade in digital services throughout the European Union, and where—even after 40 years of membership—we have not been very successful in making much progress. Is the real concern not a global one? Are not the real markets where growth is coming in the next 10 years predominantly—90%—outside the European Union, and should we not think in rather wider terms that this petty issue of digital services in Europe?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, my noble friend, with his long experience of these matters, makes an extremely good point. Digital products can of course cross the European frontier very easily and cross worldwide frontiers extremely easily. The issue of trying to unify regulations is on a worldwide basis and the EU is a shrinking market in the world.
Product Safety: Freezers and Refrigerators
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to strengthen legal safety requirements for fridges and freezers sold in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, we believe that Britain’s product safety requirements are among the strongest in the world. Manufacturers have a legal responsibility to place safe products on the market. The UK is leading on proposals to enhance the standard for fridges and freezers at an international level.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, the recent Which? report said that current safety standards are not fit for purpose and that its tests have resulted in “Don’t buy” recommendations for 250 models, most of them from household names accounting for 45% of the market. In particular, Which? advised not buying plastic-backed models. While we await the appropriate report on the Grenfell Tower blaze, what actions will the Government take to reassure consumers and support the findings of the Which? report?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am of course aware of the Which? report. It made it quite clear that most or all of the fridge freezers it referred to did meet existing standards. The Which? report was looking at enhanced standards. The Government will certainly look at that and are working with Which? and other parties. This is why I stressed in my opening Answer that seeing whether even more stringent standards can be set has to be done internationally. But those products certainly meet existing standards—which, as I said in my original Answer, are among the safest in the world.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this worries me. I declare an interest in that a close friend of mine escaped with her life when she woke up in the night to find that her fridge was on fire. Although the brilliant London Fire Brigade was there within minutes, her entire flat was gutted. The firefighters who got her out and put her safely in the back of the ambulance guessed what make her fridge was and said, “Tell your friends never to buy one of those”. The firefighters know this; that is why the London Fire Brigade has been campaigning for the last five years for a ban on those kinds of fridges. If they know that, do the Government not know that, and will they not protect us?
Lord Henley
My Lords, all fires are potentially disastrous and it is right that the noble Baroness should highlight that point. The number of fires that have been caused by fridge freezers is very small indeed—something like 2% of all domestic fires—and the number is declining. We are aware of the concerns, which she rightly highlights, about products with plastic rather than metal backing. That is why we are looking at strengthening standards in that area. As I made clear, I think that our standards are already very high, and all the fridges meet those standards. The Which? report, rightly highlighted by the noble Baroness and her noble friend, said that we should possibly look at strengthening those standards. That is what we are doing.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in view of what has been said, I am very glad that the Government have set up a new Office for Product Safety and Standards, and am grateful for my invitation to visit it. On from fridges, what is being done with the many hundreds of thousands of outstanding Whirlpool tumble driers, which also pose a fire safety risk? I believe that the Minister must be on the consumer’s side in these matters.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think I have used the expression, “The consumer is always right” on other occasions. We are on the consumer’s side. My noble friend will be aware that my honourable friend Andrew Griffiths has already had discussions with Whirlpool and made his concerns clear. This question is related not just to fridge freezers but, as my noble friend is well aware from her experience as a Minister in this department, and I am grateful for the work she did, to other items as well. We want to look at all the standards and make sure that we continue to have the right standards and that they are as stringent as possible.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is of course aware that his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has led a continuous charge on this and related issues since she ceased to be a Minister. Does he accept that there is a suspicion that the failure to take proper action over this and related issues is an indication that, as a result of Brexit, government decision-making elsewhere is paralysed?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I totally and utterly reject that accusation. We are doing a great deal on this front. However, I agree that my noble friend has done a great deal on this—and not just since she left government. She led the charge on this as far back as November 2014, when she announced the original review of the UK product safety system.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I think one should share some of the credit. The Minister’s noble friend did a great deal of work, but the Opposition were also involved in trying to get the new Office for Product Safety and Standards set up. The Government are saying that we lead the world in terms of our standards, but, if these standards are linked to roughly 60 fires a week in the UK, how many deaths is it going to take to get them to change their mind on this? We have a new body, the Office for Product Safety and Standards. It has a wonderful website with a list of things it can do. When is it going to do something, and does it have the power to change the way people manufacture these dangerous machines today?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will echo the noble Lord in saying that it is not just the work of my noble friend and pay tribute to the Opposition Front Bench, other Members of this House and another place and, for that matter, Which? magazine for highlighting problems here. Obviously any electrical equipment has the potential for danger. That is why we want to get the right safety regulations in place and why we are looking at tightening them. That is why we want to make sure that proportionality is considered in all these matters and that is why I highlighted the fact that only about 2% of fires are caused by fridge freezers. There are other products that need looking at. We will continue to look at our safety standards, keep them under review and make sure that they continue to be the safest in the world.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Will the Minister go back to the mantra that he gave to the House a few minutes ago? He said that the consumer was always right. That really is arrant nonsense if he begins to think about it. It is not right when it comes to unhealthy eating, which is why the Government seek to intervene. It is not right when people are forced to pay very high interest rates on loans. It is not right when it comes to alcohol consumption levels, and it is certainly not right when it comes to massive stakes on fixed-odds gambling machines—so can I persuade him not to issue that mantra again?
Lord Henley
No, I am afraid the noble Lord will fail in that, because I believe that the consumer should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision on all these matters, whether they be excessive amounts of food, which might interest the noble Lord, alcohol or whatever. The consumer can then make their decision. Allied to that, there should be adequate protection in terms of goods of this sort, so that the consumer is not endangered in matters where they would not be able to make an informed decision.
NHS: Overseas Doctors
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many overseas doctors recruited to work in the National Health Service have been refused visas to enter the United Kingdom in the last 12 months.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, no application for a medical practitioner role that is on the shortage occupation list, which is based on advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, has been refused a tier 2 skilled work visa. The Home Office publishes regular visa statistics. However, the Home Office visa case working system does not capture the profession of the applicant. That information is captured on the tier 2 visa application form, and to provide it would require a manual check of our records.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for the detail there but it does not actually answer my Question. I have some figures from NHS Employers, which says it knows of at least 400 cases of qualified doctors from overseas who have been offered jobs in the NHS but not been allowed in because of the lack of being in a designated shortage occupation and the pressure on tier 2 visas. When the NHS is short of thousands of doctors, applications from EEA doctors are diminishing and the NHS is actively recruiting overseas, what possible logic can there be for the doctors whom it has recruited then to be turned back and denied visas by the Home Office? Last week the leaders of 12 medical colleges, the BMA and NHS Employers wrote to the Home Secretary asking him to take action to end this ridiculous and indefensible situation that damages patients. Will the Government act now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there were quite a few points in that question. The noble Baroness’s first point was that there are 400 cases of doctors overseas who have been denied visas because they are not on the shortage occupation list. Therein lies the point: the shortage occupation list is arrived at with advice from the Migration Advisory Committee regarding those occupations that cannot fill the demand within the NHS. If we expand some of the doctor numbers that are not on the shortage occupation list, we are in danger of pushing out some of those other professions that we do need and that are on the shortage occupation list. We need to think about this in the round.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to give the Minister a direct example. In Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, children and young people with mental health problems are having to wait many months to access mental health treatment because the child and adolescent psychiatry consultant, who has been chosen and appointed, has not yet been granted a visa five months after the cap for tier 2 NHS workers was reached; on Friday it will be six months, and we will probably find that the same applies. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s hostile environment policy is now directly damaging patient care? Does she agree with my honourable friend Jon Ashworth, who asked the Home Secretary in a letter on 1 May:
“The visa rules clearly aren’t working in the best interests of NHS patients. I am asking that you put patient safety first by taking NHS workers out of the tier 2 visa system so that hospitals can get the right numbers of staff in place”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained last week, the term “hostile environment”— coined by former Home Secretary Alan Johnson—is not one that he wishes to use because of all the negative connotations. Instead we will talk about a compliant environment—that is, complying with Immigration Rules. On the direct example that the noble Baroness gives me, I will not talk about specific examples because clearly I do not know the details of the case. I will go back to my original Answer, which says that no one on the shortage occupation list should be denied a work visa.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend give the House an assurance that all overseas doctors will be submitted to the same checks on their medical qualifications and knowledge of language as all EEA doctors are obliged to submit to before they are allowed to practise in this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
All overseas doctors—I think my noble friend was talking about non-EEA doctors—should obviously have the requisite qualifications to practise. At the danger of repeating myself, if those doctors are on the shortage occupation list, there should be no bar to obtaining a visa.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee. As someone once said, “Advisers advise, Ministers decide”. Are the Government confident that the restrictions on visas for particular occupations are supported by employers, stakeholders and the general public?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I cannot speak for the general public at large. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that advisers advise, and those advisers advise on those professions for which we have a shortage. We have not talked about other professions, such as particular types of skilled engineers, which are in shortage in this country. She is absolutely right that Ministers then decide on what the criteria should be.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 8th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-VI Sixth marshalled list for Report (PDF, 210KB) - (3 May 2018)
16:05 - Division on Amendment 93 - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 227 - Amendment 93 agreed.
17:01 - Division on Amendment 95 - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 233 - Amendment 95 agreed.
19:37 - Division on Amendment 110A - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 218 - Amendment 110A agreed.
20:56 - Division on Amendment 70 - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 70 agreed.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
“Future interaction with the law and agencies of the EU
Nothing in this Act shall prevent the United Kingdom from—(a) replicating in domestic law any EU law made on or after exit day, or(b) continuing to participate in, or have a formal relationship with, the agencies of the European Union after exit day.”
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I move this amendment for two principal reasons: first, in order to assist the Government in their shaping of their case for the UK’s future relationship with the European Union post Brexit; secondly, because it is consistent with Amendment 49, which was passed earlier on Report.
Speakers in these debates have repeatedly suggested that anyone who moves an amendment is a hypocritical remoaner intent on sabotaging the Bill and trying to prevent Brexit from ever happening. I regret the referendum result, but I accept that the UK is to leave—even on this 73rd anniversary of VE Day. My concern, along with that of many in your Lordships’ House, is to ask the Government seriously to consider improvements to the Bill in order that the people should be clear about the how as well as the what of Brexit, and that the transition to a final arrangement is as good as we can get it. It is my understanding that this is both the role and the responsibility of this House.
I remain concerned that a deeply divided country is being offered two stark alternatives which, if you will bear with me, I will put in biblical terms—someone has to. Like the people of Israel in the desert, we too easily romanticise the past and yearn to return to Egypt; or, on the other hand, we promise on the other side of the mountain a land flowing with milk and honey, ignoring the challenges that go with it not actually being our land to do with as we will.
I mean it seriously when I suggest that we should be honest in our discourse on Brexit and acknowledge that we shall be spending some years in the wilderness as we begin to work out the consequences of the decisions we have taken and the implications of the relationships we must now begin to establish. Wilderness time is not necessarily negative time—simply a time of waiting, wishing and hoping or recriminating—but a time for stripping away the clutter, identifying and owning our values and priorities as a nation and actively bringing together a people divided by their varying apprehensions of events that have befallen them. That serious need for a concrete unifying strategy has yet to be addressed seriously in either House of this Parliament: slogans and wishful thinking are not enough.
With this in mind, then, I come to the substance of the amendment standing in my name, and to which, I am sure, the Prime Minister would give her consent as it rests on commitments already articulated by her. In her Mansion House speech of 2 March 2018, the Prime Minister confirmed for the first time that the UK will seek to maintain a formal relationship with certain EU agencies after Brexit. She further acknowledged that the terms of the future UK-EU relationship may see the UK Parliament take the step of replicating certain provisions of EU law. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for quoting in order to obtain clarity. She said:
“Our default is that UK law may not necessarily be identical to EU law, but it should achieve the same outcomes. In some cases Parliament might choose to pass an identical law—businesses who export to the EU tell us that it is strongly in their interest to have a single set of regulatory standards that mean they can sell into the UK and EU markets. If the Parliament of the day decided not to achieve the same outcomes as EU law, it would be in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access”.
She went on:
“And there will need to be an independent mechanism to oversee these arrangements”.
She also said:
“We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries”.
She added:
“We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution”.
The Prime Minister then went on to set out what the mutual benefits of such an approach might be. These include: first, that such membership, however described, is the only way to ensure that products need to undergo only one series of approvals in one country; secondly, that such membership would enable the UK to contribute its technical expertise in setting and enforcing appropriate rules; and thirdly, that this might then allow UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.
That is enough for now to demonstrate the Prime Minister’s case. She concluded with a further statement about the sovereignty of Parliament and the acknowledged costs of rejecting agency rules for membership of the relevant agency and linked market access rights. It is important to remember that these decentralised agencies were originally established following a proposal from the European Commission and agreement by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which, if I am correct, means that the establishment of over 40 bodies was achieved with the support of the UK. Surely it makes sense, then, to be consistent and retain access to them.
As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech, there will be consequences of not doing so. For example, and to take just one, there is the European Maritime Safety Agency. Our international reporting and monitoring obligations on maritime safety are currently handled via EMSA and there are shared EU rules on seafarer working conditions. That enables the UK to maintain its status as a “quality flag state” under international law. The complexities involved in replicating this would appear to be immense. Furthermore, establishing a domestic equivalent to the EMSA will inevitably put a huge strain on the Civil Service, taking many years to negotiate, and will be enormously expensive. Could that be yet another uncosted consequence of Brexit? I could equally cite the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, Europol, the European Medicines Agency, and many others.
Is it not probable that any future UK-EU trading relationship might demand replication of certain EU measures—product safety regulations, for example? As other regulations continue to evolve in Brussels in the years to come, is it not probable, if not inevitable, that the UK might have to keep pace if reciprocal arrangements with the EU 27 are to continue—for example, those covering matrimonial and parental judgments?
This amendment does not in any way place an additional burden on the Government, nor does it ask the Government to change their stated policy stance. It formalises and reinforces those commitments made by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech. Furthermore, with phase 2 of the negotiations now well under way, the addition of this clause would demonstrate Parliament’s wish for the UK to maintain a close relationship with the EU and, in this sense, it is consistent with the role envisaged for Parliament in Amendment 49.
“(c) negotiating continued membership of the European Economic Area, and its corresponding agreements.”
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, following consultation with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I have decided that it would be better not to debate this amendment and to decouple Amendments 110A and 112BC for a fuller debate later in the proceedings. To pick up a theme of the right reverend Prelate, I hope not to be in the wilderness for too long. I shall certainly value my waiting time, and it would be nice if that waiting time ended some time before dinner, but I shall understand if it does not. On that basis, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his courtesy and do not intend to press the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is a great pleasure to support and echo the eloquent words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. In doing so, I commend the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in so graciously agreeing not to press an amendment that would find a place later in this Bill, while also recognising that we have had the opportunity to debate the matter that he wishes to discuss in that amendment at three different stages, and I do not believe that he was present at any of those stages. So we are very grateful to him.
I declare my interest in that I advise on environmental matters, as declared on the register, and am also delighted to sit on the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England General Synod. I particularly believe that the European Environment Agency would benefit from Amendment 93. Many noble Lords will be aware of my particular interest in Denmark, since I am half-Danish. I have had the opportunity to visit some British members of the European Environment Agency while in Copenhagen last year. To follow through on the thoughts and arguments developed by the right reverend Prelate, I argue that the European Environment Agency provides essential research on which the European Commission and other institutions depend and on which environmental protections for British citizens currently flow.
I want to put some questions to the Minister who is responding to this debate. First, I presume that the British Government wish to continue to benefit from the research undertaken by the European Environment Agency, as was indicated by the Prime Minister in the words quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Leeds. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and what financial arrangements will be made to cover the work of the agency? Many environmental protections have been debated in this House during the passage of the Bill.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is a matter which was impressed on me in the meeting I had in Copenhagen in August with British officials working for the European Environment Agency. This is not the first time I have raised this; I had a number of conversations about it with the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Bridges. However, over a year has passed and I have had no reassurance whatever in this regard. Many of these officials are British; many are married to Danes, Swedes or people of other nationalities. Many of them are experts and not on permanent contracts. I met one who was a very clever scientist who has a big question mark hanging over her future. Her young family wish to attend school and, subsequently, university. The House will recall an amendment that deprived EU citizens living in this country of the right to vote in our original referendum.
There is an urgent need for clarity because President Juncker has committed that British officials working for European institutions—I presume this is both permanent officials and those on expert contracts—will be able to apply for Belgian nationality from 30 March next year. If that is the case, British officials working for European Union institutions in Brussels will have preferential status, compared to those working for other agencies such as the ones mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and to the ones I met who were working in the European Environment Agency. It is now a matter of urgency that we reassure those excellent British officials working for such agencies that they will have at least the same status as those working for EU institutions in Brussels.
To sum up, what will be the Government’s future relationship with agencies such as the European Environment Agency? What will be the extent of our financial commitment, and when will we know what that is? What will be the status of those working for the European Environment Agency, the European Medicines Agency, and all such agencies? When will they know what their future will be?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that he did not wish to press his amendment I should have asked the House—and I ask it now—whether it is your Lordships’ pleasure that Amendment 93ZA be withdrawn.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of Amendment 93, because it strengthens the argument of some of the amendments which I moved in Committee about maintaining our standards through membership of many of these EU institutions. These institutions set the standards which give us a quality of life that we have come to accept as normal as members of the European Union—indeed, as Europeans. They not only set the standards but have mechanisms to enforce them and are independent of government. In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Bill will seek to retain in UK law all these rights and protections,
“so far as is practical”.—[Official Report, 19/3/18; col. 19.]
The law may well be transposed, but it is toothless unless we have these institutions which monitor, measure and enforce compliance, and which have the right to exact penalties for non-compliance.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said that to set up our own institutions would require a lot of time, expense and expertise, which we are short of. To accept these institutions would demonstrate that, by opening up our market, we are not entering a race to the bottom and we are not going to abandon the precautionary principle. There is a lot of uncertainty over withdrawal, but this amendment goes some way to ensuring that our quality of life as citizens will not suffer because of this uncertainty. That is why I support it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will be equally brief and will make just one point. When I had the honour to serve on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House—something that was brought to an abrupt conclusion when I voted for those two amendments on the Article 50 Bill last year—I remember vividly one particular evidence session. Those giving evidence were led by a notable citizen of the United Kingdom, Mr Rob Wainwright, who was the head of Europol. Everything he said throughout his evidence to our committee made it abundantly plain that, if our security and our relations on the police front were to be maintained, we had to have a solution that as closely as possible replicated what we already enjoy. That is why I strongly support the amendment, which was admirably moved by the right reverend Prelate and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. They have made equally valid points, but at the end of the day what is fundamental to our country’s survival is adequate and proper security and the proper interchange of information throughout the 28 nations of the European Union as it is now. We are leaving, but in doing so we must not jeopardise in any way the security of our people. That is why I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and also thank the right reverend Prelate for his able speech, which was strongly reinforcing as regards our gradually becoming ever closer to the European Union itself. That is the reality of these matters, because although the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, wishes to say on behalf of others on his Benches as well that we are leaving, there is now in this country a firm feeling of second thoughts on that matter, and therefore we may not be leaving.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister herself has got closer and closer to the EU in terms of various different parts of our linkages, in particular in respect to the agencies, and in terms of some of the procedures and laws. The strongest one, apart from Europol, which is a good example, is the European arrest warrant part of that security procedure, which is increasingly regarded as an incredibly indispensable instrument of suitable control between the justice systems of the member states, and so on—we had the recent example in Spain of something that was widely welcomed in this country.
With a number of agencies, if we were to relinquish membership of them—or even “almost membership”, however close that might be to them—that would be damaging not only to individuals who are involved in them but to the recipients of those services and the security of the high standards maintained. As we go on with this torturous process—we will see it again with the revival of the discussions about the EEA, the customs union, and so on in later amendments—we realise now that our closeness to the EU is a reality and not just an aspiration.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to this amendment, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his introduction to it. As he says, what is not to like about it? It reflects the Prime Minister’s policy and intent, and it provides an opportunity for the Government to negotiate with Brussels with the good will and strength of Parliament behind them. So why not accept it? It seems to me an excellent amendment.
Whether we are talking about the Brexit debate or about the people dealing with Europe, I am struck that the European institutions that citizens generally know about most are the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it is an absolute fact that these agencies, which are relatively new in the evolution of the European Union, are among the key instruments under which Europe works. They are among the most efficient, benefiting from huge economies of scale in expertise and costs to industry and other organisations within the Union; they are very successful; and they are highly regarded not just within the European Union but internationally. That is why it is so important that we as a country, whether we leave or not—although we are on a trajectory to leave—should stay in strong contact with these agencies. Many of them are major determinants in British industry being able to access and work with the European single market in the future.
I am the chair of your Lordships’ European Union Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. When we looked at Brexit and the environment, 100% of the witnesses from UK industry who appeared before us or sent us written evidence were very clear that we should stay as close as possible to EU chemicals policy regulation and the REACH regime. They did not want to have to manufacture a third set of rules and regulations—not just for North America and the EU but our own as well. That was a fundamental aim of the industry.
One of our more recent reports concerned the internal energy market. The Prime Minister also mentioned this in her speech as something we need to stay near to, and it is an enterprise that Britain has led. I doubt that even Members of your Lordships’ House have heard of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, but it will be an important element of, and part of the jigsaw of, our energy security and energy prices in the future.
We have already mentioned Europol and the European Medicines Agency. Just like REACH for the chemicals industry, it is very important for the pharmaceutical industry that we stay part of the EMA and avoid huge duplication in development and approval costs.
For all those reasons, we need, if we can, to stay part of and be a participant in those agencies. Many of them currently have observers from the EEA states. The European Space Agency is not a European agency as such but Canada and other members are associates of it. Maybe that is a model we could persuade the EU 27 to follow. We also need to take into account the “soft” area. This is not just about being an associate member; the knowledge and work inside the European Union institutions determine markets and how industry needs to work in the future. By retaining involvement in those institutions, we will have that information, contact and networking, which otherwise we will forsake. For that reason, I believe it is very important to support the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, as someone who voted leave, I have always envisaged that what is being debate here will actually happen. I have always assumed that, when Britain is outside the European Union, it will want to co-operate extensively with Europe on a whole range of matters, such as environmental matters, which have been mentioned. I cannot conceive of any future Government of our country, whether they be Labour, Conservative or coalition, wanting to reduce the environmental quality of life. The trend is all the other way: to make it even better as it goes on. That is what will happen when we are out of the European Union, just as ever it did when we were in the European Union.
Similarly, as an ex-Home Secretary, I see the value of Interpol. I am quite sure that we will continue to work very closely with Interpol and continue the exchange of information that is so vital to arrests and to the reduction of crime, not only in our own country but in Europe.
One item not mentioned today is the Erasmus programme. I was the Education Secretary who started Erasmus and I think it has brought inevitable great benefits, both for students of our own country and students of other countries. Indeed, I discovered that one American university has decided that, during one year, all its students have to go and study in another city for three months. Erasmus allows that to happen and I am quite sure that it will continue in the future.
Having said all that, I do not think it requires a parliamentary fiat, if I may say so to the right reverend Prelate. It is clearly the Government’s policy to do that because it is a policy based upon common sense. It is essentially part of our negotiations, as has been made clear by the Prime Minister, and I hope that the negotiations are successful.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I want to support this amendment. I think I was probably responsible for the previous three occasions that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to, in that very early in this debate I asked the Government to set out for each of the European agencies their intention for future co-operation. I did that because, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as chair of one of the sub-committees I know that every industrial and professional sector wants to know what its future relationship would be, as that is the normal way of doing business: they operate with their European counterparts through those European agencies. I then asked further questions about the environment, food safety and, vitally, transport, which would otherwise close down.
I am very grateful that the Prime Minister has picked out aviation as an area on which we must continue to co-operate, and chemicals—the European Chemicals Agency regulates 20,000-plus day-to-day chemicals. Unless we have very close relationships with all those industrial sectors, and on issues such as security and Europol, Brexit will be a serious blow to the way large parts of our industry, public sector and professions operate day to day. We need to give them certainty. I still think it would have been helpful had the Minister produced a detailed list, because we are gradually working our way round to saying that, on all these issues, co-operation will need to continue.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My noble friend has given a great deal of thought and study to this issue. Is he aware of any legal impediments that prevent us continuing to participate in agencies in any event? Is this change in the law in any way required?
Lord Whitty
In terms of the Government’s intention in the negotiations, it is required. But to counter, to a degree, the otherwise helpful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the EU have to agree it. If we do not have this as a positive point in our negotiations, and if we do not co-ordinate the role of British industry, sectors and professions with those of their European counterparts, there will be an end to that co-operation. I have had cause to remind the Minister that the EU’s current guidelines in negotiations say that we will no longer participate in these agencies from March next year. If so, that is seriously disruptive. It is therefore important that this House gives an indication to the other place and to the Government that we must continue to participate. I hope the Minister does not repeat his and his colleagues’ previous disdain in dismissing the need to make this clear. I hope the Prime Minister’s intention is wider than the few specific agencies to which she referred in her Mansion House speech.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, partly to give our support to the Prime Minister against those within her divided Government who do not believe that it is important to stay closely associated with these agencies.
Perhaps I may give a little of their history. I was on the staff of Chatham House in the early 1980s when the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, first proposed the single market and made it clear that what was in Britain’s interests—as well as, she argued, in enlightened European interest—was to replace a tangle of different national regulations with single regulations in a single market. She did not assume that we would get rid of all these regulations but that we would agree on common regulations. Many of the agencies then grew up to make sure that these regulations were observed and enforced, and altered and developed as technology, pharmaceutical research and other things changed. That was why they were clearly in Britain’s interests. There were always some in the Conservative Party who did not believe in that—they believed in deregulation—and thus were dubious about the single market because it was replacing national regulations with common European regulations.
One of the most interesting pieces of research carried out for Chatham House in that period was by an American trade lawyer who wrote about the extraterritorial jurisdiction of US regulations over the United Kingdom until the single market was formed. Very often business, engineering, the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry in Britain simply followed American regulation. The idea that we had sovereign regulation on our own did not exist. As the single market developed, so European regulations, over which we had considerable influence, replaced the British adoption of regulations designed for American purposes, which we felt we had no choice but to accept.
That is these agencies’ historical origins and they clearly still serve British national interests. It is therefore important that if and when we leave the European Union we remain associated with them. Technology and research have continued to develop and these agencies therefore serve an increasingly important role. I therefore hope that the Minister in replying will reinforce what the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech and make it clear that a major objective of the Government is to remain as closely associated with these agencies as possible, even if Boris Johnson may then denounce it in the Daily Mail.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I share in full measure the hopes and concerns articulated today by so many of your Lordships. That said, if the amendment is put to the vote, I shall not feel able to support it. My approach to this amendment, as to earlier amendments to the Bill, has been essentially that it is fine to tell the Government what they must do once they have achieved what they regard as the best available deal, but it is not fine to seek to impose on the Government requirements as to precisely what that deal must be or how to achieve it. In other words, we can tell the Government what rights Parliament or, as I promoted, the public should have on a further referendum as to what we can do and should do, by way of approving or rejecting the proposed final deal—or, indeed, a decision to exit with no deal—but we should not seek to bind or inhibit the Government in reaching a deal and so risk weakening their negotiating position.
The Bill is not for that purpose but to keep our statute book intact. I urge your Lordships, rather than indulge all our hopes and wishes in this area, to think about whether we ought to put these explicit requirements into this legislation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is reading the same amendment as me. The one I am reading, which was so well introduced by the right reverend Prelate, states:
“Nothing in this Act shall prevent the United Kingdom from … replicating”,
or “continuing to participate”. It does not say that we have to do it. It just says that nothing shall prevent our doing it. Perhaps I am reading a different amendment from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Funnily enough, when I first read the amendment, I took the same point from it that my noble friend has taken. However, it seemed that it could not be so because it simply would not make sense to move an amendment that is not intended to have any effect on the Government as they pursue this legislation.
Lord Adonis
The House may be aware by now that I am in favour of our staying in the European Union. I have great respect for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds; it is great for bishops to spend a long time in the wilderness, but not for people doing trade and leading the economic life of the country. While the right reverend Prelate is in the wilderness, perhaps he can conduct our negotiations with whoever we are conducting them with in the wilderness on our behalf.
My reading of the amendment is that it has zero impact. I cannot see anything in the Bill that prevents our having any relationship with European agencies. Our issue with the Government is that they do not want relationships with many of them. I do not intervene, however, just to make the point that the amendment is useless. I am concerned by what is becoming a pattern in our debates on the Bill: thinking that changes with no substance whatever amount to great advances in our campaign to reverse Brexit. We should concentrate on things of real substance: the customs union, the single market and the referendum. Those are real changes.
As far as I can see, the Minister will not accept gestures of this kind because he does not accept anything from this House on principle, even from Bishops. Perhaps the Almighty can sway his mind in a way that we mere mortals cannot. He could accept the amendment but he will not. Even if we go to a vote, it is not worth wasting the time of the House on trivial matters of this kind; they may give us the impression of having some impact, but we are in fact having zero impact.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. One of the most important matters is security. In Barcelona the other day, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives—Jamie Acourt—was arrested in a joint operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Spanish police, possibly assisted by Europol. The NCA head of international operations said:
“Our ability to share information and work at speed with our international partners ensures there is no safe haven for fugitives. We will never stop pursuing these individuals”.
That is no doubt true, but Acourt will be returned under the European arrest warrant. If we do not stay part of the warrant and have to fall back on the long-winded extradition arrangements that predate it—without any participation in Europol to facilitate cross-border police operations—our security will be endangered. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, accepts that security is one of our most important interests. I hear what noble Lords said about the effect of the amendment but, politically, it is important that this House presses on the Government the importance of staying in agencies and institutions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of the key Amendment 93, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith added his name and which was moved so biblically and effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. Of course, at that time, I had not only a brilliant legal adviser on my right, but a theological one—my noble friend Lord Griffiths—who has now left the Chamber. I said, “I have to have a biblical quote”, but I am afraid he has a sense of humour and said, “The people who were wandering aimlessly in the pre-Brexit wilderness were soon squabbling among themselves, ignoring the advice of their leader”, and so on. But I will leave my noble friend’s helpful comments for another time.
I say this particularly in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Adonis. This is an important and meaningful amendment because it would restrict the pretty wide powers given to Ministers in the Bill. That is why we need to pass it. We have on a number of occasions, on this Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, expressed our surprise that nowhere in the referendum process—in the immediate aftermath, nor in this legislation or any other—did the Government ever spell out that the Article 50 process automatically triggered our exit from Euratom. I will not repeat the costs and dangers of that eventuality given earlier debates on it, particularly the input at that point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
However, equally unremarked on and unmentioned by the Government, or by the Brexiteers during the campaign, was the similar removal of the UK from a swathe of agencies, many of which, as we have heard, we helped to construct and all of which have served this country well. Colleagues will already know, from medical researchers who have been in touch, patient groups, health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry, of the risks of being outside the European Medicines Agency, quite apart from the loss of jobs and specialisms that are now moving to Holland. But the same could be said about the European Food Safety Agency, often referred to, but not today, by my noble friend Lord Rooker; the environment agency, emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Whitty; the railways and aviation agencies, often referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley; the European Chemicals Agency, which has been mentioned; and, of course, Eurojust, suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and Europol, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
The commonality is that any mention of those agencies in this House and beyond has included a plea for us to remain members, associates or partners with whichever such agency is in the frame. Sometimes this means following the same rules—as the Government have now accepted for clinical trials—to assist in monitoring; for safety; for easy and rapid transport, as for medical isotopes; to facilitate trade and exchange; to enable skilled persons to undertake checks or repairs; or, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said, to guarantee safe products for users and consumers.
For some of the agencies it might mean paying money in, as the Prime Minister acknowledged. For some it might mean harmonising assurance, governance or penalties for rule-breaking. But for all it will mean a willingness to adapt and respond to requirements, usually simply to maintain our existing rules and practice. What is clear is that, given the wide powers in the Bill for Ministers, we must ensure that none of those powers is used to frustrate our continued involvement with such agencies, whether because, for example, we set different sanctions for breaches, raise fees or charges in a different way that makes it difficult to move along in their way of working, or apply variant rules or any other similar change. That is why it is critical to circumscribe the powers in the Bill so that they cannot be used to prevent us having necessary EU rules or ways of working that would frustrate our participation in any of these agencies. We do not want the powers to be used for that reason, hence the very simple amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, had it right: the Bill should not be used to frustrate the intention, should that be the Government’s wish, to stay in these agencies for the good of the whole country. It is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said in his introduction, entirely in line with what the Prime Minister said in Mansion House and it would allow this country to continue such relationships where that continuation is in the national interest.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind Amendment 93 tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds— I assure him that I am not one of those who regard him as a hypocritical remoaner. However, I must make it clear that the Government consider its inclusion in the Bill to be both completely unnecessary and totally inappropriate.
Once we leave the EU, this Parliament—and the devolved Administrations, where appropriate—will be free to change the law where they decide it is right to do so. As such, nothing done by this Bill, or any other Act of Parliament, can bind the actions of future Parliaments. A provision which essentially provides that future Parliaments can mirror EU law, which this Bill neither requires nor prevents, is therefore completely unnecessary. Nor does the Bill prevent Parliament approving any future relationship between the UK and the EU, including its agencies and institutions.
If the intended effect of the amendment is to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, it is also completely unnecessary. The amendment may have been tabled with one eye on the withdrawal agreement, but my ministerial colleagues and I have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage, both within this House and in the other place, that its aim is just to create a functioning statute book as we depart from the EU—a point well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Bill does not seek pre-emptively to legislate for or against any final withdrawal agreement or future relationship with the EU. On this point, I am surprised to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, probably for the first time in the Bill’s passage. On this narrow point, he is right. Incidentally, we have accepted many amendments put forward in this House and by its committees. We have tabled more than 100 amendments responding to concerns raised by various Members of your Lordships’ House, so it is not quite true that we always reject everything that is said.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, there will be further opportunities for the noble Lord to accept amendments in due course, particularly on membership of the single market.
Lord Callanan
We will come to that debate later.
Let me make it clear: if there is a role for any EU agency as part of the withdrawal agreement, it will be legislated for under the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill which we are planning to introduce later in the year. The same principle applies to the future relationship which will, as necessary, be legislated for in due course.
The inclusion of this amendment would make this position less clear than it is at the moment. It may also create an odd presumption that, since the Bill does not prevent the amendment’s intended effect being achieved, the specific inclusion of the new clause would mean that the UK will seek to mirror the laws of the EU after our departure or to continue its current participation in EU agencies. That may not be the right reverend Prelate’s intention, but the amendment could be read as going even further and attempting to save, or partially save, the European Communities Act for the purposes of mirroring changes in EU law after exit. If that is the case, it could be seen as allowing a wide discretionary power to keep pace with EU law. This would also be a wholly inappropriate approach when we do not yet know the outcome of the negotiations.
As I have highlighted during our previous debates on the Bill, the UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and traditional liberties are protected domestically. The UK leads the world in many areas in setting and upholding high standards across our statute book; for example, in areas such as consumer protection, environmental standards and workers’ rights—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Baker. I believe that all Members of Parliament, in this House and in the other place, are invested in the continuation of this legacy. It is in Parliament that we are better able to address and legislate for the specific needs and ideas of the UK.
In our negotiations, we are seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU, and our relationship with its agencies and bodies is being evaluated on this basis. I assure the House that where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will carefully examine whether we should pursue this. In response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, participation in the European Environment Agency is of course a matter for the negotiations, but if we do negotiate participation we will, of course, make the appropriate financial contribution.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Will my noble friend help the House in one respect? I am trying to understand whether the amendment in any way obliges the Government to do anything or in any way prevents them doing anything. It seems to me entirely neutral in its effect. Can he help us?
Lord Callanan
I think I covered that in what I said earlier: we believe it to be unnecessary and pointless.
Going back to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s questions, the second question she asked me was about contracts of employment of staff employed in those agencies. Of course, these are a matter for those agencies, but the rights of those UK citizens, as UK citizens in other EU countries, are guaranteed in the agreement we reached with the EU in December. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked me about the membership of agencies ending in March 2019. As set out in the agreement reached in March, during the implementation period common rules will remain in place and the UK may continue to participate in EU agencies where the presence of the UK is necessary and in the interests of the Union or where the discussion concerns acts addressed to the UK and its citizens.
In conclusion therefore, while I fully understand the intentions behind the amendment, I do not believe that anything would be gained from its acceptance in the Bill, apart from confusion.
Lord Woolf (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, can he help me on one matter? I am sure there is an easy answer to it. The Bill is exceptional in its regulatory power. Whereas I see the strong force of what is being submitted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I wonder if it has the effect of curtailing these very wide Henry VIII clauses.
Lord Callanan
I do not believe that it does curtail our powers under the SI provisions of the Bill, on which we have had separate, long discussions.
In conclusion, I do not believe that anything would be gained from its acceptance in the Bill apart from confusion and uncertainty. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all those who have spoken in the debate. I often find myself changing my mind when I hear good argument but I cannot assure the House that I have done that in this case. The Minister referred to the sentiment behind the amendment, but it is not sentiment: what I offered was a rationale, not a sentiment. The intention behind it is as I stated in my speech. I take the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about “common sense”, but every time I hear the phrase I begin to worry. Usually, common sense is so common and so thinly spread that it does not always apply in the specific, and as they say, the devil lies in the detail. So I am not sure that it is enough just to be sure that things will continue, or that we can continue to hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that it is not good for businesses and so on to be in the wilderness. I totally agree, but my point in using that metaphor is that we are, whether we like it or not, going to find ourselves in some sort of wilderness, because it will take a long time to work this through. It will not be that suddenly on day one, whether we stay or leave, everything in the garden is rosy. I am just being realistic about that. Finally, I find the repeated charge that this House is trying to impose on the Government, or tell the Government what to do, tiresome. It seems to me—I may be simple—that the remit and responsibility of this House is to send back to the Government and to the other House arguments that may make them think again. Otherwise, we have no purpose. So, while I take the comments seriously, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
“( ) an enactment contained in any Order in Council made in exercise of Her Majesty’s Prerogative,”
Lord Callanan
My Lords, we have just debated an important issue, and later I shall turn to some other very substantive matters. Nevertheless, I ask for a moment of the House’s time while I make the case for the five government amendments in this group, especially for the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who apparently does not believe that we are tabling any amendments to the Bill.
These are all consequential amendments on the status provisions that we debated on day two of Report, and which I am pleased to say that the House accepted without a Division. I know the House will look again at these complex provisions at Third Reading but, as I said on day two, I hope there will be no further amendments beyond anything that relates to additional matters where the distinction between primary and subordinate legislation is important, and therefore we should insert that distinction between retained principal direct EU legislation and retained minor direct EU legislation.
Amendments 93A, 93B and 93C clarify types of legislation that are included in the definition of “enactments” in the Bill. This definition includes a non-exhaustive list of enactments. The new status clause provides that enactments are to retain the same status as they had before exit day. The intention behind the provision was to address the concerns of some noble Lords about the effect that the Bill has on domestic legislation via Clause 2 and whether it changed the status of that legislation. As part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring clarity and certainty, we have tabled the amendments to make it clear that these additional types of legislation all continue to have exactly the same status that they had before our exit from the EU. The amendments clarify that Church Measures, Orders in Council made in exercise of Her Majesty’s prerogative and devolved enactments made in exercise of the prerogative are within the definition of “enactments” and therefore will retain the same status that they held prior to exit day. The Government have of course consulted with the Church of England, the Palace and devolved authorities before tabling the amendments. The amendments also make it clear that in the highly unlikely case that any of these instruments are related to the EU and contain deficiencies, the Government could correct those deficiencies if appropriate, although in these cases it is likely that others would use their own existing mechanisms to so do.
Amendments 112BA and 112BB simply insert the new definitions of “retained principal direct EU legislation” and “retained minor direct EU legislation” into the Interpretation Act so that the terms do not need to be defined in future legislation. I hope noble Lords will find nothing to object to in this group, and I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I understand and am grateful for what the Minister has said about the purpose behind the amendments. He is quite right that, for example, the first three amendments identify as enactments things, including Church Measures, that would normally be regarded as such but were not included. My question for him is simply this: he said in moving the amendment that one of the advantages of the amendments would be to enable deficiencies, if there were connections with EU law, to be corrected through secondary legislation. Could he explain how these amendments will enable that to be done? I did not quite follow that.
Lord Callanan
As I said, we think it is highly unlikely that any of these instruments that are related to the EU will contain deficiencies. If appropriate, we could use secondary legislation powers to correct those deficiencies but, as I said, in virtually every case it is likely that others—the devolved Administrations, the Church and so on—would want to use their own existing measures to do so.
Lord Callanan
“( ) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England,”
“( ) an enactment contained in any instrument made by a member of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government, a Northern Ireland Minister, the First Minister in Northern Ireland, the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty,”
Lord Callanan
The Duke of Wellington
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, which I have proposed with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is not the most significant of the various cross-party amendments which this House has passed in recent weeks, but it is nevertheless important. We propose that the wording of the Bill simply reverts to the original drafting. During the debate in Committee on this point, there was near unanimity that the date should be taken out of the Bill.
We have so often been told by Ministers in this House that a certain amendment was unnecessary. Well, it was certainly unnecessary for the Government to amend their Bill during its passage in the other place to fix the date. Article 50 clearly states:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply … two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period”.
So we know beyond any doubt that for the purposes of this Bill, we leave the EU on 29 March 2019, but this date should not be defined and specified in the Bill, in case it becomes necessary and in the national interest to agree an extension, as provided in Article 50. Any extension sought by the Government could be limited to only a few weeks, as the European Parliament elections are now fixed for 23 May 2019 and the Parliament will be dissolved towards the end of April 2019.
I have reread the speech given in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. She said that the original drafting of the Bill, which did not include the date, was unacceptable to the House of Commons but, as I am sure she is aware, Members on both sides of the House of Commons were highly critical of the Government’s amendment to write the date into the Bill. Indeed, the Committee for Exiting the European Union in the other place stated that the government amendments will remove flexibility and create significant difficulties if, as the Secretary of State suggested in evidence, the negotiations,
“went down to the 59th minute of the 11th hour”.
Catherine Barnard, professor of European Union law at Cambridge, described the amendments as creating “an artificial straitjacket”. She said:
“In other words … it creates a rod for the UK negotiators’ backs, weakens any UK negotiating position and adds unnecessary pressure to those in the executive trying to deliver Brexit in a coherent, measured fashion”.
In the face of this strong opposition to the government amendment, in the end a compromise was proposed in the other place by Sir Oliver Letwin to give Ministers the power to change the date. This was passed in a whipped vote.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to give another opportunity to the other place to think about whether including the date is really expedient. What is the point of putting the date in the Bill when it may have to be changed in circumstances which we cannot foresee? If there is a case for putting the date in primary legislation—which I do not accept—it might be more appropriate to put it in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will come to Parliament later in the year.
As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is absolutely necessary for the good government of the country. Although Ministers have said that they have no intention of seeking an extension to the two-year period, nevertheless, in legislating the process of withdrawal, we should give them a bit more flexibility to secure and obtain ratification of the best possible deal which will do the least damage to the economy and to the national interest. Ministers should recognise that, from all sides of this House, we are trying to help the Government in their negotiations and in no way to thwart the process. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 95 and also Amendment 99, both of which stand in my name as well as those of other noble Lords. The case for these amendments has been stated clearly and cogently by the noble Duke who has spoken before me, and I shall put it quite succinctly.
First, as the noble Duke said, there was no reference to the date of our exit from the EU in the Bill as it was originally drafted and tabled by the Government about a year ago. It is a fair assumption therefore that, in the Government’s view at that time, putting the date in this Bill was neither necessary nor desirable. If it had been either of those things, it would have been in the original Bill. Its inclusion at a later date was a purely political decision—alas, another of those sops to one of the all-too-frequent outbursts from the Government’s Brexit-at-any cost supporters.
Secondly, the date seeks to pre-empt, or at least to make far more difficult, the use of one of the key provisions of Article 50—that which enables a two-year cut-off date to be extended by common accord of the 27 and the exiting state, the United Kingdom. Today is not the moment to discuss the eventuality under which that provision for an extension might arise, but it is surely premature today to seek to rule out at this stage that possibility, particularly since the post-negotiation withdrawal and implementation Bill, to which the noble Duke referred, could provide an opportunity to do that if by that stage it was clear beyond peradventure that the provision of an Article 50 extension was not going to be required or needed.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Can my noble friend clarify one point? I think the noble Duke said that such an extension could be for only a few weeks because it could not extend beyond the date of the European elections. Is that correct?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
That is a political judgment about the views of the 27. It is not a political judgment on the views of the British Government, who have always said that they would never under any circumstances propose such an extension—one of those statements which I fear they may have to eat cold at some stage. The answer to my noble friend’s question is that it is a political judgment about the attitude of the 27. I do not think that today we can rule it in or rule it out, and I do not think we should.
Thirdly, we have heard from the Government Benches on a lot of occasions during the passage of this Bill that this is a purely technical Bill; I think the most recent occasion was earlier this afternoon. It is a technical Bill designed simply to prepare our statute book for exit day and that it is not a proper vehicle for policy formulations, in which case, and on that analysis, I suppose the Minister will shortly rise to his feet and accept the amendment, which I would certainly encourage him to do.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have nothing of substance to add to the speeches by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who have made a compelling argument to delete the date from the Bill. Having the date in the Bill was really a very silly move by the Government. It was not in the Bill to start with for very good reasons. It gave flexibility to Ministers to determine what it should be. They put it in only under pressure from part of the Tory party; they only then amended it and made it more complicated under pressure from other bits of the Tory party. The original position of having flexibility in the Bill made eminent sense, was preferable to what we have now, and we should revert to the original position.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 96, which is associated with this debate, but also to speak to Amendment 95, moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The comments that have been made across the House add up to a sentiment, shared by the overwhelming majority, that it is singularly inappropriate to define 29 March at a certain time as the point of exit.
My amendment suggests that, after the word “means”, we insert:
“the day concluding any implementation period or transition period agreed between the United Kingdom and the EU”.
I am proposing that because the meaning of “exit” should surely be at the end of the implementation that leads to exit; otherwise, there is a contradiction in what we are putting into law. If the feeling in the House is to pass Amendment 95, I should be very content.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have to acknowledge that this is not an amendment that thrills me, not least because it seems to me to offend one of the great principles of social and economic thought, enunciated in a wondrous book, of which this year is the 60th anniversary—namely, Parkinson’s Law or the Pursuit of Progress. Noble Lords who are old enough to remember it will know that that law as enunciated was that work expands to fill the time available. I have no doubt, as far as negotiations in relation to the EU are concerned, that, whenever the end date was pronounced to be appropriate, there would be no difficulty in filling the time available, and everything that has happened so far confirms me in that impression.
The other related observation about human behaviour, which sadly has governed a lot of my life—I am not proud of it—but seems to be almost an abiding characteristic of the European Union is that you never do today what you can put off till tomorrow. I think that we have seen enough of negotiations EU-style, with late-night ministerial meetings and early-morning press conferences, to know that lastminute.com is one of the abiding principles by which the European Union reaches its decisions.
What troubles me about the amendment—although I shall lose no sleep about what happens to it—is that, whatever the mover’s intentions, the undoubted interpretation from the world outside will be that this amendment is designed to put further down the track the date on which we shall leave the European Union. That is an observation that I hear time and again in talking to people. After all, in March next year it will be almost three years since the British people made that historic and momentous decision.
I cannot help being vain enough to mention just two points that I made at Second Reading about this House and its treatment of this Bill. I simply said that, in all our discussions, there will be an elephant in the room—the chasm between the spread of opinion on Brexit in this House and the spread of opinion in the country at large. I think that I can be allowed to make special reference to my own region of the West Midlands, which was the strongest voting region in favour of leaving the European Union. Coincidentally, the House’s own research tells us that one of the least represented regions in the United Kingdom in this House is the West Midlands. The other two, by the way, are the north-east and east Midlands. Those three regions amount to the three most strongly Brexit parts of the country. It would be nice to have a lot more people here from the West Midlands—and, should the Government want any advice on people whom they might think of putting in the House in order to address that regional imbalance, I would certainly give it to them. But this mismatch is the elephant in the room.
I repeat what I said then: for all that we may try and decipher the motives of people who voted leave, the most generally accepted one is that people felt there was a chasm. So many people in this country sensed that Westminster, and Members in both Houses, were not listening to what they were saying. At the start of the Bill, I was fearful that this House would make that anxiety even more justified, and I have neither seen nor heard anything at Second Reading, in Committee or on Report that has given me any reason whatever to doubt that judgment. We have passed 11 substantial amendments already. There is no doubt that they were all well presented and for good, rational reasons, although I did not agree with them all. However, they have the compound effect of it appearing to be the case that this House is trying to delay, to block or, in the case of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who has been honest enough to say so throughout, to reverse the decision which the people made two and a half years ago. That has undoubtedly been the impression that we have been presenting.
Of course, people say that that is our duty; it is what the House of Lords is for. I agree that it is a perfectly legitimate objective for this House to make the House of Commons think again on any Bill. However, this is not any old Bill. This Bill has the authority of a referendum, with an unprecedented vote, to back and sustain its objectives. It has been moved inexorably on its way by the votes in both Houses to implement Article 50. This House did it; so did the House of Commons. The Bill is an inevitable and necessary consequence of the referendum and of the votes in these two Houses.
Lord Cormack
It is also a Bill which is capable of improvement, as is proved by the fact that the Government have put down many amendments themselves.
Lord Grocott
I agree that that is our job. The Government, and the House of Commons, can be asked to think again. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords who have made this point on a number of occasions, will agree with the proposition I am about to make. If the Commons does think again on some of these amendments, and sends them back here, our job is then completed. I think that is the consequence of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and is, surely, the way we should proceed.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
At heart, the noble Lord seems to be saying that it is our duty to implement, regardless, the will of the people nearly two years ago. Does he forget that the Government tried to bypass Parliament and implement Article 50, the date of which we are discussing now? They wanted to do it without consulting Parliament, bypassing it and the people. I do not call that democracy or respect for Parliament at all.
Lord Grocott
We have had this argument on many occasions. Parliament can do what it wants to do. I repeat that to the noble Lord, but I am sure he understands it. If Parliament thinks that the proposal which is coming before it is so obnoxious, it can throw it out—it can throw the Government out. It has done that during my parliamentary career and that of many other noble Lords. The idea that Parliament is a pathetic institution that needs protecting from the Government of the day is a fundamental misunder- standing of what is meant by parliamentary democracy.
The House can, of course, pass this amendment if that is the wish of the majority, which I suspect it will be. That will make 12 things for the House of Commons to think again about. However, we have to remember that the Bill has to get on the statute book, and in good time. I do not think there is a lawyer here who denies that for a moment. We keep hearing about cliff edges, so far as the economy is concerned. I do not agree with that, but the words “cliff edge” have gained currency. There is no doubt whatever that, if this Bill does not hit the statute book in good time, there will be an undoubted cliff edge for the legal structure and operation of this country, for the meaning of legislation and where European legislation fits into it.
I therefore hope that we will acknowledge that we have certainly done our duty of making the Commons think again—I ask your Lordships not to represent me as saying that we must not make amendments to the Bill; at no stage have I said that and of course I have not, as I have been here for far too long to make that kind of suggestion. However, this is an important Bill which needs to be passed—
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend with the respect with which I always listen to him. Would he not agree that on the day of the referendum a substantial proportion of the British population was unconvinced? If we are to make a success of change in the constitution, consensus and maximum good will are essential. That is why it is so important for the House of Lords to take as long as necessary to make sure that the anxieties of the large section of the population that did not go along with this decision is reassured.
Lord Grocott
As far as that is possible; the choice was and is still a binary one. I do not think that there can be a compromise between my noble friend Lord Adonis’s position and mine, because he wants to remain in the European Union and I want to leave it. There may be a halfway position there, but I have not quite discerned it yet. Larger brains than mine need to find a consensus on that, if there is one. However, I am utterly clear that once this House of Lords, as well as the House of Commons, has said to the British people, “We want you to make a decision. We’ll tell you what the wording on the referendum ballot paper will be. We’ve decided that, we will decide the date, and we will abide by that decision”, those statements are unchallengeable. It is our duty to deal with the legislation which is the inevitable consequence of that decision, of which the Bill is one part.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I will restrain myself from entering into a longer debate on this issue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Grocott that this is an important Bill, but it will also affect the negotiations, and part of that will be affected by the timetable.
It is interesting that at various times when we have discussed the promised vote on the final deal—it is not just a matter of leaving but of our future relationship with the EU after we have left—the Minister has said that he hoped that the vote, in both Houses, would take place before the European Parliament has had its say, but that he could not definitely promise that it would, because our parliamentary timetable might not be flexible enough to fit in with that of the European Parliament. I cannot say that I accept that argument, because after all, we control our business and when we have votes—not necessarily how late at night they happen, but effectively we control our timetable. However, if the Minister was correct in the assumption that the European Parliament’s vote might not be at a predictable time—it may be delayed because talks are still going on—it may suddenly be brought forward.
Here, I will answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. It seems essential that the deal has to be agreed before April, when the European Parliament will go into recess, because under Article 50 the deal has to be agreed and have the consent of the European Parliament. If the European Parliament is to recess, adjourn or prorogue before its elections, the deal has to get consent before then. Therefore, there is a timetable, and it has to go before the European Parliament. I have had various legal advice about what happens if the European Parliament does not give its consent—it seems quite complicated—but certainly Article 50 says that it has to give consent. Therefore, the negotiations could go on a bit later than everyone wants, and the European Parliament will have to prorogue for its own elections and will have no authority thereafter. The date on which we leave could be fixed by the words in an Act of Parliament which will be passed in August or whenever, some months after those events, and that seems a very unhelpful position for our negotiators to be in.
I am sure that there will be late-night sessions and lots of consultations, with people ringing back for instructions as the negotiations go on—there are people who have been through all this. I hope that we have trained the Minister well in coping with late nights here, because he may well have more of those, but there could be very long nights as the negotiations go on. If one side—our negotiators—were curtailed by a strict date in the Act, that would put us at a disadvantage. The other side is not so constrained. The European Parliament can meet at very short notice when a decision has been taken.
However, I interpret Article 50 slightly differently. It says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after … notification”.
So, without having to go to the Council for a unanimous decision, the withdrawal agreement could contain a leaving date of a week or two weeks after the two-year period, which would allow the last-minute arrangements to be made. If that is what the withdrawal agreement specifies, if that suits all the parties and if our Government would like to sign up to it, it would seem silly not to be able to do that.
It is important that we enable the negotiators to get the best possible deal, setting out exactly how we leave and exactly what our future terms of trade will be. If the amendment is passed, it will remove the straitjacket that the Government inserted at the behest not of the negotiators but of certain ardent Brexiteers. Let us remove that straitjacket, make the task easier for the negotiators and reflect what our own EU Committee said:
“The rigidity of the Article 50 deadline of 29 March 2019 … makes a no deal outcome more likely … enshrining the same deadline in domestic law would not be … in the national interest”.
I am sure that the Government want to put the national interest first and I certainly believe that this House will want to do so. Therefore, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and we urge everyone to go into the Lobby behind him.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Exit day has been discussed at length throughout the passage of this Bill. Set dates such as this are often crucial to the functioning of any legislation, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind noble Lords of the particular importance of exit day in this Bill.
Exit day is the moment in time when the European Communities Act is repealed. It is the point at which EU laws are converted into UK law, when the deficiencies in retained EU law emerge and when a range of other effects are triggered under the Bill. However, I reiterate that exit day within the Bill does not affect our departure from the EU, which is a matter of international law under the Article 50 process, as my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made clear. What it does affect, however, is whether we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly fashion.
The definition of exit day, and how it is to be set out, has been amended significantly since the Bill was introduced to the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on 13 July last year. My noble friend Lady Goldie has previously described the sequence of events which led us to the current drafting and I will not test the patience of your Lordships by repeating the arguments she made in Committee. What I will say, however, is that, crucially, the Bill left the other place reflecting the reality of international law under the Treaty on European Union. I see no reason, therefore, to change the Bill any further. The final drafting also reflected the concerns of Members of the other place who had been on both sides of the referendum campaign. That fact sits at the core of my opposition to Amendments 74, 95 and 99 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
As has been stated on many occasions during Report, this House reviews the legislation sent to it by the other place and highlights—often very well—areas where it does not think due consideration has been given. This point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as a leaver from the West Midlands. As a leaver from the north-east, also an area underrepresented in this House, I have considerable sympathy with his arguments. I therefore cannot why these amendments are seeking to restore something like the original drafting of the Bill when that drafting was considered at great length, on many occasions, and was rejected by the other place.
I also do not agree with Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The Bill is designed to provide continuity and certainty in domestic law as we leave the EU. This must be true in a scenario where we have a deal with the EU, but it must also be true in the unlikely event that there is no agreement between the EU and ourselves. While this is not what anybody on either side is hoping for, it would be irresponsible and out of keeping with the remainder of the Bill not to prepare for that unlikely event. In that circumstance, it would be vital that the Bill did not make reference to concepts which are contingent upon a successful negotiated outcome, such as an implementation period. That would prevent the Bill achieving its objective as agreed at Second Reading, because in that scenario further primary legislation would be required to alter exit day and provide for an operable statute book. Even in the Government’s preferred scenario of a successfully negotiated withdrawal agreement, including of course an implementation period, the noble Lord’s amendment presumes that no substantive provisions of this Bill will be required until the end of that implementation period.
While I do not want to be drawn into a discussion about the legal construction of the implementation period, which will be a matter for the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—I have no doubt we will have great fun in our opportunity to consider that—I do not think that the noble Lord can be certain in his assumption. This is the real issue with the noble Lord’s amendment: it attempts to use this Bill to legislate for the implementation period. But the Government have been quite clear that the implementation period will be a matter for the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill once we have agreement. This Bill is deliberately and carefully agnostic about whatever deal we strike with the EU, prejudging neither success nor failure in negotiations.
Of course, we hope and expect to be successful in these negotiations, and our continuing progress demonstrates good movement towards that goal. I hope that noble Lords will reflect the compromise reached by the elected House, and therefore I respectfully ask the noble Duke to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
My Lords, I will respond first to the pertinent question from the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I did not mean to imply that, under the Article 50 process, there could not be a longer extension. I just feel that, as a practical matter, it is unlikely to be practical to extend for more than a few weeks, because the European Parliament will indeed be dissolved in late April prior to the European elections in May 2019.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Are we not talking about two types of extension? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the European Parliament will have to approve or disapprove the agreement before it adjourns. But it could agree a deferment of the date on which the UK leaves the EU by a much longer period, could it not? It would be within its power to do that.
The Duke of Wellington
With the unanimous agreement of all members of the European Council a delay can be agreed without a term. That is unlikely. I referred to the European Parliament elections because that is a practical deadline in this process. That is the point there.
I agree strongly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that this Bill must be passed. There is no doubt that we need this Bill for the good governance of the country, as I said earlier and at Second Reading. However, I do not agree that this should be construed as a device to delay Brexit by more than a short period for technical reasons.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He said that we have a duty to improve this Bill and we have done so in many ways in the 10 or 11 amendments that we have so far passed.
This amendment and the related amendments give the other place an opportunity to think again about the expediency of including a date in this Bill, and it is right that we should test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
The Duke of Wellington
“(2) In this Act—(a) where a Minister of the Crown appoints a time as well as a day as exit day (see paragraph 19 of Schedule 7), references to before, after or on that day, or to beginning with that day, are to be read as references to before, after or at that time on that day or (as the case may be) to beginning with that time on that day, and(b) where a Minister of the Crown does not appoint a time as well as a day as exit day, the reference to exit day in section 1 is to be read as a reference to the beginning of that day.”
Lord Callanan
“(6A) In this Act references to anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 include references to any modifications, made by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time, of the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures concerned.”
Lord Callanan
“Anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 | Section 14(6A)” |
“Retained direct minor EU legislation | Section (Status of retained EU law)(6) |
Retained direct principal EU legislation | Section (Status of retained EU law)(6)” |
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
“Time limit for making certain provision
4A(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), no regulations may be made under paragraph 1 after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(2) After the end of that period, regulations may be made under paragraph 1 for the purposes of—(a) revoking any provision made under that paragraph,(b) altering the amount of any of the fees or charges that are to be charged under any provision made under that paragraph,(c) altering how any of the fees or charges that are to be charged under any provision made under that paragraph are to be determined, or(d) otherwise altering the fees or charges that may be charged in relation to anything in respect of which fees or charges may be charged under any provision made under that paragraph.(3) This paragraph does not affect the continuation in force of any regulations made at or before the end of the period mentioned in sub- paragraph (1) (including the exercise after the end of that period of any power conferred by regulations made under that paragraph at or before the end of that period).”
Lord Callanan
“( ) paragraphs 3A, 3B, 19(2)(b), 40(b), 43(2)(c) and (d) and (4) of Schedule 3 (and section 11 (4A) and (5) so far as relating to those paragraphs),”
Lord Callanan
“( ) paragraph 29(9), 30A and 31 of Schedule 8 (and section 17 (6) so far as relating to those paragraphs),”
“(1A) In section 11 —(a) subsection (2) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making regulations under section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998, (b) subsection (3A) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and(c) subsection (3C) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 6A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(1B) In Schedule 3 —(a) paragraph 1(b) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making regulations under section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) paragraph 2 comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006,(c) paragraph 3(b) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,(d) paragraph 21(2) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998,(e) paragraph 21(3) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(f) paragraph 21A comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 30A or 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(g) paragraph 36A comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 80(8) or 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and(h) paragraphs 48A and 48B come into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 6A or 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;and section 11(4) and (5), so far as relating to each of those paragraphs, comes into force on that day for the purposes of making the regulations mentioned above in relation to that paragraph.”
Lord Callanan
Lord Goldsmith
“( ) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day on which section 6 is to come in force unless this day follows the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, this amendment deals with a point that we raised and discussed in Committee. It may be that this group will not take too long, although that will depend upon what the Minister has to say. The important point about this is that the Bill as drafted would mean that at the moment Royal Assent was given, certain things would happen, including that the jurisdiction of the CJEU would come to an end. We raised the point that, given that it appeared likely that during an implementation period the Court of Justice of the European Union would continue, by agreement, to have certain jurisdiction, it would be important not to see the CJEU’s jurisdiction fall off a cliff edge, as it were. It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to reassure us that they will deal with this so as to ensure that if the CJEU continues to have jurisdiction in certain circumstances—which, as I say, I believe is a likely outcome of the continuation of the discussions—the Bill will not have taken away the ability to do that.
Amendment 109 would not allow Clause 6—which, among other things, brings the CJEU’s jurisdiction to an end—to come into effect until,
“the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.
The amendment focuses on transitional arrangements that are in fact agreed, not hypothetical arrangements. It would achieve no mischief because transitional arrangements would in fact be agreed and we would be saying simply that the jurisdiction of the CJEU should not come to an end until the end of that period.
The Minister may put forward some alternative way of achieving the same effect. I will listen very carefully, as will other noble Lords, to what he has to say about that. For the time being, I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, in light of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord in moving this amendment, I will make one observation at this stage in response to his invitation to me.
Part Four of the withdrawal agreement so far agreed between the United Kingdom and the EU sets out:
“During the transition period, the Union law applicable pursuant to paragraph 1 shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which it produces within the Union and its Member States and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the same methods and general principles as those applicable within the Union”.
That would mean that during the implementation period—assuming that that is actually agreed—the CJEU will continue to fulfil the role it currently does with regard to the UK’s legal structure. This effect will be provided for under the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. I do not know whether that assists the noble and learned Lord but that is the position as set out.
I add only that given the terms of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment—and I appreciate that it has been deliberately framed in this way:
“A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day on which section 6 is to come in force unless this day follows the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union”,
if that amendment was passed, it would throw into doubt what would happen if there were no transitional arrangements. That is not an outcome that we seek but it is a distinct possibility and would mean either that Section 6 did not come into force at all or that potentially we would be thrown back into the billowing mists of uncertain inference. So I have that objection but I thought it might assist noble Lords if I made clear our position with regard to the implementation period. I hope that that responds to the noble and learned Lord’s observation.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I cannot agree with the point raised by the Minister about the wording of the amendment. The amendment says that a day may not be appointed,
“unless this day follows the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.
If in fact no arrangements have been agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, it would seem that effect could be given to the amendment.
Be that as it may, the important point is that, as I understand it, the Minister has said two things. He has said, first, that if an implementation agreement is agreed, it will include continuing jurisdiction of some sort for the Court of Justice of the European Union and, secondly, that the Government will make sure that that jurisdiction is provided under the terms of legislation to be brought forward; I think the implementation Bill is what the Minister has in mind. If that is right and the Government are telling us that they intend that legislation will incorporate a continuing jurisdiction if that is agreed, that would deal with the mischief that this amendment was designed to deal with.
If that is the position—it would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm whether it is—I would then be able to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am watching his body language but I have been fooled by that before, so I would be grateful if he clarified whether what I have said is right.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is of course the position that there is no certainty that there will be an implementation agreement. In that event, I would seek to differ with the noble and learned Lord about the interpretation of his amendment but that is a matter of little moment, I agree. However, in the event of there being an implementation agreement that follows the terms of the withdrawal agreement in outline, which noble Lords have seen, then during the transition period the Union law applicable pursuant to paragraph 1 will produce the same effect in the United Kingdom as in the remainder of the EU. That would extend to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of the matter of the interpretation and effect of such law. The noble and learned Lord is quite right that it would be the intention of Her Majesty’s Government, in those circumstances, to ensure that such a provision was expressed in the withdrawal agreement Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“(2A) None of the sections of this Act to be commenced under subsection (2) may come into force unless it is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to secure continued EU citizenship for UK citizens.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, Amendment 110 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It would quite simply prevent any sections of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, from commencing until the UK Government have adopted the negotiating objective of securing continued EU citizenship for UK citizens. I do not wish to rerun the arguments for continued EU citizenship which I presented during Committee. I would, however, point out that there was a massive response on the electronic media to that debate, overwhelmingly favourable to the viewpoint which I presented. This told me that the subject is very close to the hearts of thousands of people in these islands and is one which the Government should ignore at their peril.
Since Committee, the Minister has kindly allowed me to meet him to discuss these and associated matters. I was grateful to him for that and I better understand from where he comes on the issue. I hope that he likewise understands from where I come, even if he does not agree with my viewpoint. Of course, some of the legal challenges are still being pursued and we await their outcome. I would, however, like to respond to two concerns raised during Committee.
The first is the issue of reciprocity and whether EU nationals should be offered British citizenship. Regardless of my personal opinion, this is not what is proposed in this amendment. My argument is that it would be illegal under international law and European law for the UK or the EU to take away our European citizenship from those of us who already hold it. For those who are not currently European citizens—for example, those who will not be born until after Brexit—I believe that we will need to negotiate a form of associate European citizenship. This is, in fact, what I understand the negotiator on behalf of the European Parliament, Mr Guy Verhofstadt, has been calling for. That would require a provision to be negotiated into the withdrawal agreement. Whether or not we offer some form of associated British citizenship to EU nationals would therefore be a matter of negotiation at that time. I very much hope that the Minister can assure the House that such an option has not been explicitly ruled out.
Secondly, may I address the issue of whether there is a solid precedent? I want to reiterate the Irish example, which I explored informally with the Minister earlier but which is still material. Following the creation of the Irish Free State—now the Republic of Ireland—and Northern Ireland, a comparable situation occurred. Irish citizens who reside in the UK, while remaining Irish citizens, are permitted to enjoy all the benefits of UK citizenship, including freedom to take up residence and employment in the UK, and to play a full part in political life, including voting in parliamentary elections and seeking membership of the national legislature—that is, becoming a Member of Parliament. Am I not right in asserting that this state of affairs will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU? Can the Minister confirm whether this is a correct interpretation?
The Irish state also offers citizenship to all residents on the island of Ireland; people resident in Northern Ireland can therefore choose British, Irish or dual citizenship. This is an example of citizenship being on offer to those residing outside the granting authority’s jurisdiction and, I suggest, is therefore pertinent to the case I am making.
When Plaid Cymru sent a letter to the Prime Minister setting out its position on this matter, it was supported by the leaders of other parties including the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, by a range of legal experts and by a host of organisations which are concerned about this matter. My party secured an Opposition day debate on this issue in the House of Commons, which passed without division a Motion on this matter—in fact, the first Motion that Plaid Cymru has ever succeeded in getting the House of Commons to pass in that way. The debate was well attended and support came from the Labour and Conservative Benches and from SNP, Liberal Democrat and DUP MPs. In other words, there was a broad consensus in favour of the objectives being discussed, which are crystallised in this amendment.
The Minister may not be in a position to accept this amendment, as no doubt he will shortly tell us. But if he takes such a line I hope that he will also take the opportunity to assure UK citizens that in the negotiating process, the Government will seek to achieve the fullest possible agreement on a wide range of citizen-related issues and that this worry, felt by so many, should be overcome if a successful negotiation does transpire, leading to an agreement. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I have often been in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in the course of these debates but I hope that he will forgive me on this occasion if I do not go with him. I wholly agree with the underlying sentiments that he has expressed; my concern is with the word “objective” because it is very difficult to define at any one time what an objective truly is. Some are stated and some are unstated—and even if stated, they may not represent the true state of mind of the person making the statement. The problem with an amendment of this kind is that it is capable of giving rise to litigation. I just do not see how a court could ever seriously determine whether the objective of a Government at any one time was sufficiently truly stated to give rise to the remedy which I know will be sought by the litigants. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, although I agree strongly with his underlying sentiments, I do not think this is the way to achieve that objective.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, notwithstanding the very reasonable sentiments just expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I think that I would be among others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the way in which he has taken the initiative on this subject. It is becoming increasingly complicated with the approach of the so-called exit day—whatever date that may be in legislation and so on—and, therefore, we need to think very carefully about this. Although this was a long time ago, I recall that the Maastricht treaty bestowed on citizens of each member state individual citizenship as EU citizens, too. It was a solemn and profound moment when that was announced many years ago in 1992, and it was made much of, mostly in the other member states but also in Britain as well. A lot of British citizens who were working abroad were delighted at the idea of being citizens of the European Union as well, which added to their obvious practical freedom of movement, although that was not essential to it.
We have now got to be very careful to make sure that the Government respond to the civilised and reasonable request for them to expand their minds a little bit into thinking about this matter, because it will be quite complicated. There is the question of the Irish Republic’s offer, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the special status that may emerge in Northern Ireland, not deliberately, according to the DUP, but accidentally. It is not much to their liking that a special status would be accorded to people there and they would remain individuals citizens of the EU. Is this a matter of collective bestowal of citizenship because of the Maastricht treaty in 1992, or is it now a matter of it being an individual proclivity if the right was there, given that there are exceptions to the idea that you have to be within only one member state to be a citizen and you can apply for citizenship from outside? It therefore may be that the very act of applying for citizenship and continuing to have the protection of the ECJ as individuals because of the bestowal of European citizenship would need to be included in this wide examination. It is a very complicated matter and should not be excluded from people’s mind and, mostly, the Government’s mind. They may be very unwilling to consider these matters, but they need to do so and we are grateful for this amendment and this debate.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for continuing to champion this important cause, which is dear to the hearts of these Benches. There are several invidious features of this matter. First, it creates a division among United Kingdom citizens. Not only do people in Northern Ireland have the right to acquire Irish citizenship and thus EU citizenship, but many other British citizens have the right to, or are already pursuing, dual citizenship in order to get the passport of another country. I believe that I have the right to an Irish passport because my mother and my grandmother were born in Dublin. That creates two sets of British citizens: those with the additional political expression and practical advantages of EU citizenship and those who are unable to continue to enjoy them.
Another feature of this matter is hypocrisy. Do the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the Minister agree that the following is deeply hypocritical of the leading voices in Legatum? It is reported that the co-founder, who is of New Zealand extraction, and the chief executive have managed to acquire Maltese passports. How they have done so, I have no idea. That will give them EU citizenship, including the right of free movement. As advocates of the hardest of hard Brexits, they have had the ear, we believe, of many leading members of the Government. They have been pushing hard for Brexit so as to deprive the rest of us of EU citizenship, but they have made sure that they are feathering their own nest by obtaining citizenship of another EU member state and thus EU citizenship and free movement.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she is absolutely right, but is she aware that one of the DUP Peers who spoke at length in the debate last week has an Irish passport?
Baroness Ludford
I take the noble Lord’s word for it. I have no reason to doubt that. I have a feeling that there may be many people in similar positions who are saying one thing and doing another. I find that pretty reprehensible.
We strongly advocate that all UK citizens should continue to have the opportunity of EU citizenship. Many of us feel particularly for young people. Those of us who are getting long in the tooth have for 45 years had the advantage of the freedom to move to and work in another EU country. It is extremely sad that the young people of this country are going to be deprived of that opportunity.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, as I think it is extremely sad. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, speaks for a huge proportion of the younger people of our country who resent seeing their rights as EU citizens, particularly the right of movement, being taken away from them.
My objection to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is even more objective than the objection of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We are asking the Government to do something impossible. It is not possible to be a citizen of the European Union if you are not a citizen of a member state of the European Union. That is how citizenship is defined in the treaty. It is left entirely to member states to decide who their citizens are, but if you are a citizen of a member state, you are a citizen of the European Union. When—I hope if—the UK leaves the European Union, every British citizen ceases to be a citizen of the European Union, and there is nothing that we can do about it. Although my heart is with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my head says that this amendment does not make sense. The only way that the young people of this country can retain the rights they now enjoy as EU citizens is for us to decide not to leave the European Union.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, this is being tested in the courts in Europe, so not everyone is of the opinion that you cannot have European citizenship. I believe that in June we will hear the result of the appeal by the Netherlands.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am the only member of my family unfortunately unable to get an Irish passport, and I very much resent it. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for raising this issue, but I fear that my noble friend Lord Kerr has got it absolutely right. I wonder whether, when we have left, there will be any possibility of negotiating any sort of individual relationship for UK citizens with the European Union. That is my hope, but perhaps it is a faint hope. Much though I admire what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, my noble friend Lord Kerr is absolutely right and there is no point in supporting this amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, one aspect of this will be dealt with, or should have been dealt with, by looking at the immigration system we will have with Europe. We have made proposals for the free movement of young people, and we could have proposals for movement without visas and so on and so forth. Personally, I think the Government made a serious mistake in not setting this out and getting into a negotiation with the European Union that would tackle some of the aspects that have been raised.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the House has heard the pleas of the heart if not of the head. I think I have said before that, although I was born in Germany, I sadly do not qualify for a German passport or else I would be doing the same as many others. So many people are doing it because they fear and regret losing their EU citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quite rightly said, in the treaties EU citizenship is an add-on. Only people who are citizens of a member state have EU citizenship, with all the rights, protections and consular protections that brings. They have to be a citizen of a member state. Sadly, that change will come and we will not be EU citizens.
I would like to leave a thought with the Minister. We have not treated the whole of this aspect sufficiently seriously. We have not reached out to EU nationals living here and to people who are losing their rights as EU citizens. We have still not told EU citizens living here—unless I missed it—whether they will be able to continue to vote in our local government elections. We know they will not be allowed to vote in the European Parliament elections—that is fairly obvious—but there are other changes that the Government have been very lax and slow in spelling out.
The plea behind some of the feelings that we are having is to listen to the current EU citizens. If there is one plea that I would leave with our negotiators, it is that we need a withdrawal deal that puts citizens at its heart, not as an add-on, and that we should do everything that can be done to keep the links that we already have with agencies, education and so on. That would help to make a withdrawal deal that would enable British citizens, even if they will not have that lovely treasured purple passport, still feel as if they are continentals—full associates, if you like—with the rest of the EU.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this is of course an important issue that has already been covered in depth, both in this Chamber and in the other place. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it further with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, when we exchange views on the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of Treaties, particularly Article 70 thereof. I acknowledge fully his interest in this area, the depth with which he has examined it and the importance that he underlines with regard to this matter.
Nevertheless the position remains, as summarised eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that there is no provision in EU law for the concept of associate EU citizenship. It is clear that EU citizenship is tied to citizenship of a member state. The European Commission itself has referred to the additional rights and responsibilities attributed to the nationals of EU member states by virtue of EU citizenship, which they automatically attain under the provisions of the EU treaties. I emphasise the EU treaties because to take such a matter forward it would be necessary to contemplate the amendment of the EU treaties in a quite radical way, in order to attempt to confer on citizens of non-EU members the status of EU citizenship or something connected to it. However, we are willing to listen. Noble Lords may recollect that the European Parliament mentioned the idea of some associate citizenship; it has never elaborated upon that but if it wishes to, we are listening, and we would listen to that. I wish to make that clear.
The position of the Republic of Ireland emerges as the consequence of bilateral treaties that predate our entry into what was then the EEC and Ireland’s entry into the same, and that is not directly affected by our exit from what is now the EU. My understanding is that those arrangements continue in force.
With regard to the wider issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—the matter of voting rights, for example—during the course of the earlier negotiations we attempted to negotiate with regard to the exchange of voting rights, but at that stage the Commission declined to do so. That is something that we would wish to carry forward but the Commission was not prepared to engage in that discussion at that stage of the negotiation. Again, we remain open on these matters.
The citizens’ rights agreement reached in December, which is now set out in the draft withdrawal agreement, provides certainty for UK nationals in the EU regarding their rights following our exit. The agreement with the EU protects the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK on exit day and indeed vice versa. To that extent, it will give citizens certainty about a wide range of rights including residence rights, healthcare rights and pension and other benefit rights. That will mean that UK nationals who are legally resident in the EU by the end of the implementation period will continue to benefit from most of the rights that stem from their EU citizenship today. As I say, associate EU citizenship does not make up part of the citizens’ rights agreement, and indeed by attempting to make it a negotiating objective we would be setting ourselves what is, frankly, an impossible target. The consequence would be that, should the amendment pass and the Government fail to adopt such an impossible negotiating position, our entire post-exit statute book would be put at severe risk. There would appear to be no sensible point in attempting to do that.
I stress that with regard to this matter we are in listening mode. Reference was made to the suggestion of further litigation in this area. A case is going on in Holland at present. It was referred by the Dutch Government to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which has heard the appeal and is due to deliver its judgment later in June. We do not believe that is going to affect the matter at all but we await the judgment of that court. At present, though, we must proceed with the ultimate goal: to deal with Brexit in the easiest manner possible so far as citizenship is concerned.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, could the Minister tell us what the case at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal is?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, it was an application about the rights of certain UK citizens resident in Holland having rights post Brexit in Holland. The objective of the case was clearly to secure a reference to the CJEU for the interpretation of certain treaty matters. When that proceeded, it is my understanding that the Dutch Government then intervened in the proceedings and they were the subject of a hearing before the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam. That matter is not yet advised, so that is where it stands. I am afraid I cannot give further details of the case but I understand that it was partly funded by lawyers in the UK. I hope that assists the noble Lord.
As I say, at present we, the EU and the Commission are quite clear on what the concept of EU citizenship means, that the source is the EU treaties, and that there is no provision at present for associate citizenship. If during the course of negotiation the Commission or other bodies in the EU come forward with such proposals, we will of course listen to them. At this stage, though, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate: the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Dykes and Lord Green, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It has been a short but worthwhile debate. Some of those participating in it have seen weaknesses in the amendment, and I accept that there is room for criticism in that direction and that it is a challenge with regard to the status quo within which we are operating.
None the less, I feel that some benefit has come out of the debate, in that the Minister has indicated that the Government would be in listening mode, both in terms of the negotiations that are going on and in terms of what may or may not come forward from the European Parliament itself on this matter, bearing in mind that Mr Verhofstadt has indicated fairly strong feelings in that direction. If it were possible for some form of associate citizenship to develop out of this—if indeed we leave the EU, which I would regret but is likely to happen—that could retain our links for the period while we are outside the EU directly, I am sure that would be of interest to a large number of people, particularly to young people, as has been mentioned in this debate, because they identify with the European dream. The European dimension is part of their identity and they would like to have some access to it in a more formal way. On the basis of the comments made by the Minister, which I welcome as far as he was able to go, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2B) But none of the remaining provisions may come into force until it is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day.(2C) Regulations under this Act may not repeal or amend subsection (2B).”
Lord Alli
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 112. The amendments are an attempt to ensure that we end up with a framework to deal with not just the goods we import and export but the services we trade in. The customs union amendment that we passed overwhelmingly a few weeks ago is only one half of the equation. The customs union deals only with goods. That is very important: it deals only with goods—tangible items such as cars, washing machines and televisions—where we have a £96 billion trade deficit. That is something we need to fix, but perhaps that is for another debate.
The EEA deals with services—such as retail, tourism, transport, communications, financial services and aerospace, where we have a £14 billion trade surplus. The customs union only will benefit our European neighbours in their imports, but without an EEA equivalent, it will damage our profitable export business and therefore the jobs and livelihoods of many thousands of people. It is for that reason we need to ensure that any continuation in the customs union must include continuation in the EEA or its equivalent.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
While sharing my noble friend’s admiration for the extraordinary work that has been put in by our Front Bench both here and in the Commons, I remind him of an amendment proposed to the Bill in the House of Commons on 13 December last year, which said explicitly:
“No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise”.
When that amendment went to the vote, there were 292 votes in favour. It was therefore clearly supported by the great majority of Labour Members of Parliament. Was that amendment not a model of cogency and clarity and completely consistent with my noble friend’s amendment this evening? Is it not the most practical way, as he suggests, to avoid the cliff edge of huge and costly disruption to supply chains and loss of access to vital service markets; and, with the customs union, for which this House has voted, to provide us with a real opportunity of a border-free Ireland?
Lord Alli
I could not agree more with my noble friend. He is absolutely right. On 13 December, a similar amendment was moved in the other place, and the Labour Party put a three-line whip on it. I think we are in the right place here. Party policy is very clear on Europe, and a three-line whip on a similar vote justifies this. I agree with my noble friend. It is very clear that we on the Labour Benches are in line with our party policy and that the membership of our party is with us.
But this is bigger than party politics. It is about people’s jobs. It is about the future of our economy. That cannot be left to doing what is politically convenient at the time. These amendments have been drafted to give the other place the opportunity to think again. That is what I believe we should do this evening. We should pass these amendments and give the democratically elected House the opportunity to think again. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 112. I have followed this debate closely in your Lordships’ House and the other place. This is the first time that I have spoken in this debate, and to find myself opposing the Government is a decision that I have not taken lightly. But, as other noble Lords have said, this is an argument based not on ideology but on the pragmatic reality of what faces our business community, our employers, our wealth generators, if we do not get the right outcomes. They all need certainty, they all need to plan, they all need to look at their current business models and they all need to look at what disruption they will face. I have spoken to many businesspeople, particularly those in the supply chains—the small and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of our country. Whether it has been privately or in the many discussion forums that I have attended, the main concern of the business community is the Government’s rigid position on exiting the EU.
We all know that 52% of the voting public voted to leave the European Union. That debate has been had. What nobody voted for was for us to be poorer because we were unable to get our basic building blocks right. Indeed, my honourable friend Mr Stephen Hammond, in a Westminster Hall debate in the other place, recently articulated very eloquently that,
“we need an exit and a deal that allow us to trade freely with our former partners and to sign new free trade agreements, and that provide a level of economic certainty to businesses and economic and security certainty to our citizens”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/18; col. 545WH.]
For the sake of clarity, as a member of the EU we are members of the EEA, along with the other 27 EU partners. A strong message was sent out last week to the other place to look very carefully at the need to remain in the customs union. Our concern is that 80% of our economy is service-led, which is not covered by the customs union, so while hugely important for our goods sector, what about the 4.3 million businesses in the services sector? As 79% of our employment is in services, that is 24 million people contributing to 33% of turnover last year. Issues such as non-tariff barriers will have an enormous impact on business, particularly SMEs and supply chains. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, in 2016 trade in services with the EU had a surplus of £14 billion. Why would we want to put barriers in the way of our vital and successful services sector?
The EEA is not the same as the single market. It excludes, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. It is not under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. What we are asking, through this amendment, is to continue as a member of the EEA. The referendum had one question: whether to leave the EU. Remaining a member of the EEA offers business certainty and will enable us to influence through the many committee networks that exist for non-EU members in the EEA.
Leicestershire, the region of the east Midlands that I call my home, spans industries and sectors in both goods and services, from manufacturing to transport, with our rail, air and freight links transporting goods around the world, to top universities, pharma companies and creative services, to professional and business services and retail, to name a few. The Government’s own impact assessment set out the following Brexit scenarios for the east Midlands: remaining a member of the EEA would mean a 1.5% fall in GDP; a free trade agreement would mean a 5% fall in GDP; a no deal and reverting to WTO rules would result in an 8% fall in GDP.
We have to be pragmatic. In this region, the fallout from the 2008 economic crisis has been incredibly hard on people in the east Midlands. We are a fantastic region, where our confidence is emerging. Austerity has taken its toll, and while we all knew we had to really tighten our belts for the last few years, we must not now embark on a path of uncertainty on which businesses cannot make decisions. I have been in the SME sector and supply chains for 40 years, and my family since the 1950s, and I have taken UK businesses overseas to explore emerging markets on many occasions. I, like others, want the UK to remain at the top of investors’ minds as a place to do business, but the recent rhetoric is not helping. The PM, for whom I have great respect, has said her sense of duty is towards her country and its people. My commitment and my duty to my country is, I believe, just as strong.
For those who believe this House does not have the right to ask the other place to revisit legislation they want Parliament to put through, that is not how I see our role in your Lordships’ House. I have received lots of communications, spoken to lots of people and listened carefully to all sides of the debate. There is support for these amendments in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. There is an opportunity for the democratically elected other place to discuss and debate this properly in the interests of our country.
I genuinely believe that we must send a strong message to our EU partners, and to others with whom we want to pursue FTAs, that we take all our relationships seriously and are not in the habit of turning our backs on our friends old and new, and that we are trusted partners—a nation looking outward, and stronger for our relationship within the EEA. For business, good news is great and bad news is manageable, but it is the uncertainty that persists from the Government that is forcing UK businesses to look as if they are facing a cliff edge.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, this House has already voted in favour of the customs union to stop the imposition of trade barriers that would decimate our manufacturing base. We did so, I suggest, with the tacit support of half the Cabinet, and a majority of Conservative MPs, including in her dreams, I suspect, the Prime Minister. We have to do the same for Britain’s services industries as well. Unlike manufactured goods, cross-border services trade does not have effective WTO rules to fall back on in the absence of any preferential trade agreement between Britain and the European Union. It is absolutely fundamental for us to be clear in our minds that services are not the same as goods. WTO rules effectively provide for goods; they do not provide for services.
Such a free trade agreement between Britain and the EU would be extremely hard to negotiate services into; there is almost no precedent for it—goods tariffs quite possibly, but services very unlikely. Therefore we are not talking of a trade agreement between ourselves and the EU, which is Canada-plus, plus, plus. This is far from it. I have been both a British Trade Secretary and a European Trade Commissioner, so I have seen these issues from both ends of the telescope. It is not possible, given EU rules, and the red line of the British Government, for us to achieve anything like the sort of trade agreement that the Government speak of.
This, therefore, is the crux of the matter in the debate. Without effective WTO rules for trade in services, and without the likelihood of a full bilateral agreement covering all services, we have to maintain our services access by other means, and the only dependable means available to us outside the European Union is membership of the EEA. This would give us coverage by right of all the regulatory standards and rules, harmonised within Europe’s single market, and would give us what amounts to free trade in services. Such single market rules apply to Britain’s pre-eminent EU exports. Our exports to Europe in financial services, including other business services and broadcast services, are colossal. These sectors represent over half of our services economy, which in turn amounts to 80% of Britain’s economy as a whole. This is how important they are to our future economic well-being in this country. Financial and professional services alone account for 25% of all UK services exports, using the automatic passporting arrangements that presently come with our membership of the European Union and the single market.
If we quit the single market as a result of leaving the EU, without the access that the EEA gives us, these rights and their powers of enforcement would be forfeited—no ifs and no buts: that would be consequence that we would face. The impact on cross-border delivery of services to Europe would be savage. A significant proportion of our broadcast content production, as well as cross-border banking and insurance, would be hit for six. This will have a major knock-on effect on the whole of our creative industries in this country and on employment in Britain. In financial services, Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam will be the principal beneficiaries, as we are already beginning to see.
Our economy simply cannot afford this loss. We are not talking about the next few months; we are not talking about the next couple of years. We are talking about the medium-term consequences, as investment strategies shift to reflect our exclusion from the single market. I understand why the hard Brexiters will probably not lose any sleep over this at all because, for them, it is not economic—it is political. But for the rest of the country, it is their jobs, their livelihoods and the future of their businesses, as well as our country’s income and, moreover, our public services and what we will be able to afford to spend on them, that will be at stake.
I know fully well the arguments about the obligations as well as the advantages of being out of the EU but in the single market via the EEA. We would indeed be presented with a dilemma over rule-making because we would no longer be full voting members of the EU. But no economy of our size and status as a former EU member has ever attempted to join the EEA before. We would be in a reasonable position to frame the negotiations over our EEA membership. It would be a first—but it would also be a welcome first for the EU 27 seeking to keep trade barriers to a minimum, and I think we would be entitled to expect and receive some flexibility.
As for free movement of labour, it is already open to Britain to operate less liberal labour market policies, and we can do so as EEA members. Let us be honest: we all know, do we not, what the Government’s intention is? They know fully well that businesses and public services in our country, including the National Health Service, will continue to need EU nationals as employees, which is why they intend to allow them to keep coming, whatever they say or do not say now. To pretend otherwise is simply to perpetrate another Brexit fraud on the British public.
As I say, as a former Trade Commissioner, I know only too well what is at stake and how we would need to navigate our EEA membership application to gain the maximum national advantage—and I believe it can be done. On Brexit, the time has come for economic reality and common sense to prevail over political dogma and wishful thinking. In this House, in making up our minds on these crucial issues, we are not so easily bullied, and we know why. That is the privilege we have of being Members of this House. This amendment gives us the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and, in my view, that is what we have a duty to do and why we should support this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, before the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Forsyth, tell us that we are frustrating the will of the people, it may be appropriate to remind them of the arguments that the leave campaign made before the referendum for leaving the customs union and the single market. We had to leave the customs union because, if we stayed in, we could not negotiate those different free trade agreements that we would make independently with India, China, the United States and many others, which would give us better conditions than we had had, constrained as we were by being a member of the European Union. They said that we had to leave the single market because we had to get rid of so many of these constricting regulations that bound the British economy and which we could be free of when we left. I wish to suggest that neither of those arguments now holds.
The Government have so far spent well over half a billion pounds on the Department for International Trade, and the Treasury, as the newspapers reported this morning, has decided that that is getting to be too expensive for the value that is being produced, which, after all, is very low. Liam Fox has travelled the world several times—someone told me the other day that he has travelled half the distance between here and the moon so far—and has achieved remarkably little. A number of countries have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to offer us anything better than we would get as a member of the European Union. Our hopes that we have a wonderful free trade partner in the United States do not appear to be assisted by President Trump’s present approach to foreign economic relations. Those who still support a hard leave, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, are reduced to attacking business as being part of Project Fear when business says that its interests are about to be damaged so badly.
On deregulation, we have heard increasingly from members and supporters of the Government, including those on the Front Bench at present, that we do not want to deregulate—that we want to maintain the high standards of regulation. I have not even heard anyone suggest recently that we should get rid of the working time directive. If that is the case, the reason why we want to leave the single market has also evaporated. The Minister earlier this afternoon suggested that, as an independent country, we could mirror EU regulations by passing, on our own, the same regulations the European Union has just passed. That is wonderful parliamentary sovereignty, isn’t it—jumping in behind, taking the rules and saying, “Gosh, look, we’re doing it on our own”? Geoffrey Howe, a far greater Foreign Secretary than the present incumbent, used to talk about the gains to Britain of the single market: that we would be sharing sovereignty and taking part in decisions about common regulations. Outside the single market we will be taking the rules others have given us and pretending that we are a sovereign country.
The Minister suggested earlier this afternoon that the amendments in question would introduce confusion and uncertainty. I suggest to the Minister that most of us think that that describes the Government’s current position. Indeed, I took part in a radio discussion on Sunday morning with someone whom I imagine is quite a good friend of his—Nigel Farage—who agreed with me that the Government’s current negotiations with the European Union are a total mess. That is the relatively widespread set of opinions from a range of different views around the world. Then, we are faced with the Daily Mail this morning, in which the Foreign Secretary is rubbishing the Prime Minister’s views. If that had ever happened during the coalition Government —if a Liberal Democrat Cabinet member had rubbished the Prime Minister—there would have been a government crisis. But we apparently have such a weak and unstable Government that they totter along from one thing to another, unable to decide what they are doing.
My question to the Minister and to noble Lords who are about to speak is: given that the arguments the leave campaign made in that hard-fought and narrowly won referendum have now evaporated, what are the arguments for staying out of the customs union and single market?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I feel sometimes in this House that one has wandered into the film “Groundhog Day”; one hears the same arguments over and over again. I thought I might actually address the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that I thought we were debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill which, on my reading, simply seeks to ensure that we have in place the necessary legal framework when we leave the European Union, which the other place voted for overwhelmingly when it agreed that we would give notice under Article 50. I have no idea why an amendment about membership of the EEA has any relevance whatever to the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, it is the job of this House to ask the House of Commons to think again: but to think again about the legislation we are actually debating, not policy matters which Members of this House do not agree with. That is what the noble Lord is doing.
For brass neck, the noble Lord really takes the prize when he stands up to criticise the Government for not being clear about what they want to achieve. They are pretty clear about it: they want a negotiation which will ensure the best deal for our country. That is not helped by the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Mandelson, and others who are seeking to undermine their negotiating position by passing amendments of this kind.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. It is not helping at all to be giving the impression that this House has a different view from the elected House of Commons.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. My noble friend has quite a lot to say, and I am sure I will give way to him in a moment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is concerned about the Government’s position, I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, helpfully reminded the House that over 200 people voted to join the EEA. The noble Lord pointed out that that was on a three-line whip in the House of Commons. What he did not say was that it was defeated in that House, as was membership of the customs union. What on earth are we, in this unelected House, doing asking the House of Commons to think again?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord says that we are doing our job. Our job is to address this Bill, not to pursue—
Lord Kinnock
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The figure which I used, accurately, was 292, which is slightly over 200. The margin of defeat of that amendment was very small—about nine votes. I was demonstrating the very strong body of opinion, in the elected House, in favour of the principle set down in my noble friend’s amendment. The noble Lord’s familiarity with the Bill should have shown him that, when we are discussing the matter of the EEA, we are completely consistent with the proposals of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which covers our membership of the European Economic Area. Consequently, to try to ensure that we leave the European Union in good order—similar to the phrase that he used—it is surely utterly relevant and entirely proper for this revising House to say to the House of Commons: “Since the Bill provides for reference to the EEA, we are completely consistent with our purpose and the purpose of democracy in asking for further consideration of the arguments in favour of sustaining our goods economy, our service economy and the unity of our nation”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his guidance on the procedures and nature of this House. He will be well aware of the importance of brief interventions at this stage in the consideration of a Bill. There were indeed 290 votes on a three-line whip, but what is the whip on the Labour Benches today? You are all being told to abstain. For the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to say that the Government’s position is confused, when not many months ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, pointed out, the Labour Party had a three-line whip on the EEA but is now urging people not to vote for this amendment—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
As this has been raised, it is only fair—for my colleagues more than for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—to make it absolutely clear that the three-line whip was on an issue about whether that decision should be taken by Parliament or not. Heidi Alexander, who proposed the new clause 22, said that:
“New clause 22 would not decide on the substantive question of EEA membership, but it would guarantee that at a future moment the House could have its say”.—[Official Report, 15/11/17; col. 426.]
That is, of course, what we have done with the meaningful vote. It is appropriate that accuracy is put before this House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I note that the noble Baroness has not said that her colleagues have been asked to abstain on this matter.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
So, from having a three-line whip, and arguing for the importance of the European Economic Area, we now have a “Don’t know” position on the Front Bench. And the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has the cheek to say that the Government are confused about their position; just as the Opposition have been confused about a customs union or the customs union. The truth of the matter is that a number of noble Lords wish to reverse the decision of the British people.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked me to comment on the position in the referendum campaign. I campaigned in the referendum campaign and went to a number of public meetings. I heard the argument being made that, if we were to join the EEA and be out of the European Union, we would have “fax diplomacy”. We would have no say in the regulations and that was the worst of all worlds. I now find that the people who were advancing that argument are now pretending that it is in the interests of the country: it certainly is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, asked: “What are we getting for our money?”. As my noble friend has pointed out repeatedly, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There will be no money paid if we do not have a negotiation which is in the interests of the United Kingdom. By suggesting that that money will be paid, and that the Government cannot get a good negotiation, he is undermining the position of his country, and of the Government, in vital negotiations which, as speeches on all sides have pointed out, are of great importance to the economy as a whole.
Lord Alli
I have been in this House for a little while—about 20 years—and I understand that this is an important issue. There has been a civility in this House which has made it a special place to have a debate. I hope that, whatever the feelings of noble Lords, the rest of this debate can be conducted, as is our tradition, with kindness, care and consideration of other people’s views. I know that the noble Lord has strong views, but if we could take it down a notch it would allow us all to have the debate we want in the spirit to which this House has become accustomed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure that the noble Lord was not among those jeering when I was trying to make my points earlier and that his advice to his colleagues will be well received. He said, “Take it down a notch”: he is proposing that we fly in the face of the biggest democratic vote in our history and that, as unelected Peers, we ask the House of Commons to consider a matter which has been considered before and not concentrate on what we are here for, which is improving the legislation in front of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, said that this is sort of connected to the Bill. There will be an opportunity for us to consider this matter at the end of the negotiations. The Government have promised to bring forward legislation on the agreement and have promised a vote in both Houses on this matter.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend says “A meaningful vote” from a sedentary position. By that he means a vote to reverse what the British people voted for in a referendum. There will be a vote on the negotiation and on the agreements which have been reached. I urge this House not to undermine the position of the Government in their negotiations or that of the Prime Minister by seeking to argue that her objectives cannot be achieved.
Lord Cormack
I am grateful, and at this point an intervention is appropriate. If anybody is undermining the Government at the moment, it is the Foreign Secretary rubbishing the Prime Minister. My noble friend, who is a brilliant debater—I am delighted to be able to debate with him—is arguing for a cause but completely missing the point. I ask him just to reflect: what sort of example are we being given by a Cabinet that is rent asunder by the Foreign Secretary, the second most important member of the Government, rubbishing the Prime Minister in the Daily Mail?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that my noble friend is not very keen on the Foreign Secretary, and that he has made a number of attacks on Boris Johnson in this House, including calling on the Government to sack him. I point out that Boris Johnson played an important part in the referendum campaign and that the people voted—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. Can I just deal with this intervention? I did not think that we had interventions on this scale on Report.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On Report—I am just referring to Standing Orders.
The Foreign Secretary set out his case, which was not to be in the customs union or in the single market, and the British people voted overwhelmingly. This House is seeking to undermine that vote, and in so doing it is damaging its own standing and reputation in the country.
Lord Patten of Barnes
My noble friend has just made, unusually, an unforced error, as they say in tennis. Did he not—perhaps he did not—agree strongly with the Foreign Secretary during the referendum campaign, when Boris Johnson made it absolutely clear that he was in favour of us staying in the single market?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, I did not, and I was not aware that he had done that. I do not think that my noble friend and I would be at loggerheads or in disagreement if I said that the Foreign Secretary does not always get everything right. However, he argues passionately for the democratic mandate which was given to this Parliament and to this Government, and which this Government are determined to carry out.
These amendments are doing no good whatever to this place or to our ability to get the best deal for the British people. If my noble friend Lady Verma said that, like the Prime Minister, she has in all conscience to get the best deal for the country, I suggest that the difference between her and the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister is elected and the responsibility is hers, and my noble friend should give her her loyalty and support.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments, and I will start by putting this in context. When you make a change in business, you do so if there is a burning platform—if you have to make the change—or to make a change for the better, to improve things. Now we keep hearing about equivalence, and about whether we will be able to get terms as good as those we have now when we leave. To follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we have heard comments from other members of the Conservative Party, and not just Boris Johnson. Jacob Rees-Mogg has accused the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, of,
“promoting ‘Project Fear’ by saying that thousands of jobs were at risk if Britain did not minimise friction in trade”.
That is the Business Secretary saying that, and it is called Project Fear. Boris Johnson has said that the proposals for a customs partnership after Brexit are “crazy” and that it will not work.
Lord Green of Deddington
Is the noble Lord aware that this was looked at in some detail during the referendum campaign, and the Norwegian experience was that they had to show severe difficulties in their labour market, it had to be reviewed every three months, and they never used it because they feared retaliation? It is not as simple as that; there is a major issue with the EEA, which is freedom of movement, and outside this House it matters.
Lord Bilimoria
We all know the noble Lord’s views on migration and immigration, so I will not even bother to go into that.
I go back to some senior Labour figures and supporters, including former shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna, who lashed out at his leadership, the TUC, Chris Leslie, the former shadow Chancellor, and Wes Streeting. Even John McDonnell says:
“Respect the referendum result but get the best deal you can to protect our economy and protect our jobs”.
Again, he explained that that meant being in a customs union and remaining,
“close to the single market”.
Why can the Labour Party not get behind this totally? I find it astonishing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, 80% of our economy is services—the EEA would address the services issue. Financial services account for 12% of Britain’s economy—we would have unfettered access, so all this passporting would be allowed—and 50% of our trade is with the European Union. There is all this talk of going global and agreeing free trade deals with other countries. I have said this before: try agreeing a free trade deal with the USA, or with India without talking about the movement of people. It is all about the movement of people and about tariffs and goods. The CETA with Canada took over seven years to bring about and does not include services. The European Union has said that it is not as easy to get the best free trade deal in the world as Liam Fox has claimed it is. What would Canada say about it? Moving on to equivalence, WTO rules are the worst possible option. I do not think the country would accept crashing out under WTO rules. The no deal option would not be acceptable to Parliament or to the people.
Perhaps the Minister can answer the nub of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Green. We have no control over our borders, yet a 2004 EU regulation allows all EU countries to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they show that they do not have the means to support themselves. Other countries, such as Belgium, repatriate thousands of people a year. We have never used this regulation, yet we say that we have no control over our borders. Why have we not used it? Why has no one spoken about this in the past?
In conclusion, the best option by far would be to remain. To quote the Financial Times:
“The EEA is not an ideal port for a ship seeking shelter from the worst of the upcoming Brexit storm, but … it may be the only port available … docking in this port is perhaps better for the UK than sailing straight into the storm just because it is exciting, insisting on a perfect port and nothing less, or maintaining that there is no impending storm at all”.
Today is VE Day and we are celebrating peace. There has been peace in the European Union for 70 years. I thank the European Union for that. It is not just down to NATO; the European Union has been responsible for that peace. A Spanish MEP, Esteban González Pons, recently made a very powerful speech in the European Parliament. He said that Europe’s past is war; its future is Brexit. He went on: “Brexit teaches us also that Europe is reversible, that one can go backwards in history … Brexit is the most selfish decision taken since Winston Churchill saved Europe with the blood, sweat and tears of the English. Brexit is the utter lack of solidarity when saying goodbye … Europe is peace after the disasters of war. Europe is forgiveness between the French and Germans … Europe is the fall of the Berlin Wall. Europe is the end of communism … Democracy is Europe. Our fundamental rights. Can we live without all of this? Can we give up all of this?” He went on: “I hope at the next Rome summit we talk less about what Europe owes us and we talk more about what we owe Europe after everything Europe has given us. The European Union is the only spring our continent has lived in its entire history”.
Europe is full of faults but I think it is the best option we have, and the role of this House is to challenge and to bring this up as the least bad option. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, in the dim and very distant past, responsibility was given to me by Neil Kinnock—now my noble friend Lord Kinnock—for dealing with the Maastricht treaty Bill in the House of Commons. John Major had come back from the Amsterdam summit with a flawed agreement and an opt-out on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht treaty. We somehow had to protect the treaty, which we supported, while making the case against the exclusion of the Social Chapter. For over a year and a half, I, along with my party and 26 Conservative MPs, one of whom was to go on to lead his party, ran the Government ragged and made life for my now friend, John Major, a complete misery.
Therefore, I know a little bit about the parliamentary tactics involved in dealing with European legislation. I know a bit about the European issue as well, and maybe that is why I have played such a small part in these debates up until now—I have had my fill of it in the past. But I knew about the way in which tactics play out. A lot of my friends in the House of Commons —the European supporters, some of whom are speaking in this debate tonight—kept questioning the tactics of the Front Bench. They kept asking, “Why are we doing this? We’re endangering the project as a whole”. I said, “Wait a bit. We’ve worked out the strategy and the tactics”. I also had to pacify the Eurosceptics on our Back Benches, who thought that I was not opposing enough. At the end of the day, because our strategy and tactics were right, we inflicted the first defeat on the Conservative Government in 14 years, and it required a Motion of confidence by the Prime Minister to get the opt-out from the Social Chapter through.
During this debate I have listened to my noble friends—they are long-standing friends as well—and they make a powerful case. Crashing out of the European Union, as we might do, would be almost fatal to the economy of this country and to the future generations for whom we have responsibility. However, I have to say to these noble friends that our Front Bench has been incredibly successful up until now by taking a careful and calculated view of the issues involved here. We have given the House of Commons a series of issues on which it can make the final decision. We have not overegged the pudding or overstretched ourselves; we have been careful, because my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lady Smith have carefully judged the mood of this House and have anticipated the mood in the other House. If it is their calculated view tonight that we should not vote for this amendment, I shall accept that judgment.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, it really is intolerable that my noble friend Lord Forsyth should give lectures about loyalty at a time when the Foreign Secretary is writing in the Daily Mail and the European Research Group is laying down ultimata. It is intolerable that he should cast doubts over the loyalty of my noble friend Lady Verma. Of course he is right to point out that we are considering the withdrawal Bill and to say that we are considering a number of matters that the House of Commons has already considered, but the role of the House of Lords is to give the House of Commons the opportunity to consider things a second time. In the end, its will will of course prevail, but we have a duty and a right to ask it to consider matters a second time.
Since the House of Commons last considered these matters, time has moved on and we have seen members of the Cabinet at each other’s throats. We have seen Ministers openly defy the Prime Minister in a way that I have never seen in the nearly 50 years since I was first elected to Parliament in 1970. We have seen Back-Benchers laying down ultimata in a way that has not been seen before. We have seen the most senior Ministers in the Government, as well as Back-Benchers, divided over the direction in which the country should go. If they are divided over the direction in which the country should go and if they are trying to hem in the Prime Minister, reduce her range of options and drive her down the road towards the hardest possible Brexit, we have a right to widen those options and to give her and other members of the Cabinet and the House of Commons a wider choice than they might otherwise have. It is not a question of thwarting the will of the people or of delaying the Bill; it is a question of trying to improve it in a way that will help the House of Commons reach sensible conclusions about the kind of relationship that this country should have with the European Union after our departure.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alli addressed the House on the basis of principle and with passion—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I greatly respect the commitment to the national interest of all who have spoken, including of course those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I suggest that it would be good for our proceedings if, whatever side we are on in these passionate debates, we could all work on the assumption that each other’s motives are to be respected.
Of course the future of UK services industries is of immense importance—that is not in doubt at all, and it has to be a major concern of the Government as they develop their negotiations with the European Union on the terms of Brexit. My noble friend Lord Mandelson is pessimistic about their prospects, but it seems to me that it must be in the interests of the European Union as well as of the United Kingdom that the EU does not put impossible barriers in the way of our services exports.
I feel bound to point out that membership of the European Economic Area does entail certain conditions. Non-EU members of the EEA have agreed to enact a large volume of legislation similar to that of the European Union. Non-EU members are consulted on prospective legislation, but they are not represented in the governing institutions of the European Union. The Norwegians refer to the legislation that is presented to them as “fax democracy”: they wait by their fax machines in Oslo to find out what the legislation is that it has been determined in Brussels should govern them.
It is also worth noting, as my noble friend Lord Alli did, that agriculture and fisheries are not part of the terms of reference of the European Economic Area and, therefore, that membership of the EEA would do nothing to assist us in resolving the problems of the Irish border.
A second condition of membership of the EEA is to accept the principle of the free movement of people. My noble friend Lord Alli suggested that somehow this could be got around. My noble friend Lord Mandelson and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, drew attention to the possibility that, under existing EU provisions, it would have been possible for us to have operated a tighter regime on immigration. Those things may be so, but the fact remains that, if you are a member of the European Economic Area, you accept the principle of free movement of people. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, explained calmly and clearly what the possibilities and the difficulties are.
A third condition of membership of the European Economic Area is that those who are in membership have agreed that they will pay in considerable sums of money to finance grant schemes intended to reduce the economic and social disparities within the EEA. We should note that the size of those payments greatly increased following enlargement in 2004.
As we all know very well, those who voted leave in the referendum—a majority of our people in, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly reminded us, the biggest exercise in democratic participation that we have ever seen in this country—voted advisedly to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. In respect of the three principles of membership of the European Economic Area that I have just mentioned, it is clear that, if we remained in the EEA or applied to join it—whatever the precise status would be—we would not have taken back control of our laws, our borders and our money.
We were told again this evening that it will be a cataclysm for the economy if we do not find ourselves members of the EEA. I am afraid that the citizens of this country, who were unimpressed by the forecasts of doom that were presented to them when they were so strenuously advised that it would be a terrible mistake to vote leave, will not be impressed by renewed forecasts of doom. They expect the wish that they so clearly expressed in the referendum—a referendum which they were told by the Government would be determinative and not advisory—to be met. If they perceive, as I think they would if this amendment were passed, that your Lordships’ House is seeking after all to keep them effectively in the EU by another name and to thwart the very clear decision that they expressed at the referendum, they will, to use the term of my noble friend Lord Mandelson, feel that a fraud has been perpetrated on them.
We of course have the right in this House to send our advice to the other place by way of amendments. The question that we have to judge is not whether we have that right but whether it is wise in these circumstances to exercise it. It seems to me that now is a time for a politics not of confrontation but of healing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I am sceptical about the EEA option. I am not sure that the EFTA EEA partners particularly want us—some of them tend to say that they do not—and I am not sure that the consultative arrangements that they find sufficient, or reasonably satisfactory, would be found satisfactory by this country.
I have always thought that the sort of consultative arrangements that we could secure would be best devised here and put forward in the proposal for the framework of the future relationship. I have always thought it very strange that the Government always insist on playing away—that it is for the other side to put forward the drafts. I do not know why we have not put forward our own prescription. I think we still should—but I begin to despair that we ever will.
I am very impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. We have not yet done anything on services, and we really must do something. I am not sure that the EEA is right—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, if we applied to join the EEA, it would be a different EEA that would emerge. It is not, therefore, a knock-down argument that the template that suits Liechtenstein would be imposed on the United Kingdom. I think we could do better. So, although it is not for me the ideal way to go, I would much rather that Britain put forward a British proposal optimised for the British relationship with the European Union that we will have left. If we are not going to do that, this is the next best thing. So, despite my doubts about the EEA option, I will vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House—and I hope that others will, too.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, who supported my amendment both in Committee and on Report. I am very taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said. This is not just a Labour tactic. I believe that there has been genuine cross-party consensus on choosing a few very precise issues. I will not rehearse the arguments again—they are there for your Lordships to see—but the noble Lord, Lord Alli, paid me the compliment of saying that he has used those arguments in crafting the amendment before us this evening.
We have had this discussion at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I believe that the time to bring this back is during the scrutiny of the trade Bill. The reason I say this is not that my arguments in favour of remaining within the EEA are any weaker, but if we send too many amendments back to the other place, where I served for 18 years, we will dilute its focus. I am putting all my confidence in the fact that there will be a majority in the elected House for our remaining in a customs arrangement or a customs union.
As I have argued previously—I have not had a definitive answer—lawyers are split on whether or not we need to formally leave the EEA and trigger an application to leave. I argue that without such a formal application to leave, the UK will remain a member of the EEA. I have worked closely over years with the food manufacturing industry and I continue to work closely with the farmers in North Yorkshire. I accept that the point on services has to be addressed. I understand that negotiations are going on to which we are not privy, and that is the difficulty in all the discussions on this amendment.
On the basis that I believe there will be a further opportunity to discuss this, and because I gave a commitment that I would wait until that time to discuss the EEA in a different context, and on my genuine understanding that we will remain members of the EEA, I urge the noble Lord not to put this amendment to the vote this evening but to keep it up our sleeve for a different occasion.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I have three brief points. The first is a take on the theme of the noble Baroness a moment ago. The reason I believe, from my background in industrial finance, that we need to give the House of Commons the option of addressing this amendment, alongside the customs union amendment which we passed, is in order to have coherence in the debate in the House of Commons. We help it by doing this.
My second point—I follow the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, in this—concerns the importance of the services sector. It is a growing sector in terms of soft power, our cultural industries, broadcasting and data-related industries. It has massive potential and its market is overwhelmingly in Europe.
Thirdly, I draw to the attention of colleagues, particularly on this side, the fact that, whereas the leader of the Opposition may be opposed to this down the Corridor in another place, a Labour Government in Cardiff produced a White Paper in the past year based on these very principles. They did so to safeguard vital manufacturing and services jobs that are so important to our economy. I plead with colleagues to put the interests of a Government trying to do a job first rather than just an oppositional approach.
Baroness McGregor-Smith (Con)
As noble Lords may know, I come to this debate from a business services background having worked in the services industry in the UK and globally for more than 30 years. I am passionate about growing services businesses and that is why I am speaking today. I understand the sensitivities and the challenges of this amendment but I want to talk about the impact on businesses, not party politics. I completely accept leaving the EU next March and I absolutely respect the referendum result.
As my noble friend Lady Verma has outlined, services are a vital part of our economy and we must ensure that our services sector as well as our goods producers have access to our closest and biggest market. The latest CBI report, Smooth Operations, from 11 April 2018, points out that there are much greater costs than opportunities if the UK chooses to move away from the EU rules and regulations. This is based on conversations with thousands of businesses and many trade associations over recent months.
In saying that, I know that there are concerns when we talk about the single market. This amendment seeks to offer an alternative that could square the circle between the referendum result and safeguarding our economy, access to trade and jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, touched upon the differences between membership of the EU and the EEA. These differences could address a number of concerns, including the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The EEA extends the benefits of access to the European market and is based around the four freedoms, of goods, people, services and capital. It is governed differently from being a full member of the EU and can offer more flexibility. This may satisfy some of the concerns that have led us to where we are today. The EEA has its own regulatory, governance and institutional frameworks. The administration and management of the EEA structure is shared between the EU and EEA EFTA states. As such it is not the same as being an EU member.
We are coming to this debate back to front: we are considering a withdrawal Bill before there is a withdrawal agreement. The details of our future trade structures are either up in the air or they are not known. We have no idea what the withdrawal agreement will look like and there remains a possibility that there may not be one at all, which for me and everyone would be a devastating option for our businesses and the economy.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support this important amendment. The EEA offers a way out of the impasse our negotiations are in. I am therefore disappointed that many in this House seem opposed to the amendment. I urge my noble friends to recognise that there are many Conservative and Labour MPs who wish us to pass this amendment tonight and send it back to the other place for reconsideration. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned this, and I urge him to recognise that there is a strong and growing feeling in the other place that it would like to reconsider the EEA. Seeing the problems facing the country, and seeing businesses large and small increasingly explaining how vital it is not only to have a customs union—or partnership, or whatever we wish to call it; perhaps fish and chips, as my noble friend Lord Patten suggested —MPs increasingly realise that it is not enough to protect British manufacturing and the vital services sector.
It is crucial to keep EEA membership as an option and I ask for your Lordships’ indulgence to explain why the EEA is consistent with the referendum vote and how the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, omits important elements. Being in the EEA would ensure that we are protected in a no-deal scenario, which could otherwise be catastrophic for the UK economy and would necessitate a hard border in Ireland. EEA membership has an emergency brake on free movement of workers so that we could limit the numbers coming into the UK if needed. Articles 112 and 113 state that if there is serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties immigration can be curtailed.
Being a member of the EEA means that regulations can stay aligned with the EU, so our exports of goods and services will not face new barriers. There is no more risk of ever-closer union as the EEA is strictly an economic union. EEA disputes are settled by the EFTA court using the English language, not the ECJ. EEA membership does not include the common agricultural and fisheries policies, as we have heard, but it also does not cover many other areas which the British people may be concerned about as EU members, such as VAT, justice and home affairs or commercial policy. Decisions require unanimity, not qualified majority voting, so there is not the same risk to our sovereignty. There are already negotiations and free trade agreements with 27 countries and negotiations are under way with India, Indonesia and Vietnam. The EU agencies that we already voted for earlier this evening are open to EEA members in most cases. Surely the value of protecting the Northern Ireland border and continuing close trading relationships with the EU in both goods and services far outweighs the possible benefits of imaginary trade deals with third countries. The Government’s analysis shows that, even if we get a free trade agreement with the US, India, Australia and others, it would boost GDP by only 0.7%.
Unlike EU law, EEA law does not have direct effect, but has to be incorporated into national legislation in accordance with each state’s constitutional requirements. EU legislation is not imposed on non-EU EEA states. The final decision on whether rules will be implemented is made by the EEA Joint Committee, which compromises of EU and non-EU EEA states, so decisions are taken on the basis of unanimity. That means that, in extremis, a non-EU EEA state could veto proposed rules, as Norway has done in the past. I urge noble Lords to vote for the amendment as a protection for the UK, its people and its democracy. Being in the EEA respects the referendum result. We would not be in the EU but we would minimise damage to our wonderful country and its citizens.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this has been an informative, interesting and passionate debate on a key element of our future relationship with the EU. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I think that it is entirely appropriate for us to discuss this here and in the context of the Bill.
It has long been the judgment of the Official Opposition that the Prime Minister made a grave mistake at the very opening of negotiations in sweeping certain options completely off the table. Her red lines, which closed down the possible positive and constructive development of a new partnership with the EU, were irresponsible, short-sighted and aimed more at her hard Brexiteers than at the interests of every part of the UK. Whether one is thinking about Ireland, Scotland, the regions, Welsh farming, manufacturing, the City, aerospace, automobiles or any other sector of the economy, those options were off the table before we had even had the impact statements.
It is not the way that we would have opened discussions on our post-Brexit status. Nor would we have written our own red lines. Instead, Labour set out the objectives for, rather than the particular architecture of, any new relationship. One of the problems with the specifics of these amendments is that they define the structure, not what we want to achieve. Indeed, on the objective, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Alli. We urgently need a deal on services if the UK economy is ever to thrive—but the particular model defined may have some shortcomings, some of which the House heard about in the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, touched on. Not only might EFTA, with its 14 million people to our 66 million, not want us and not suit us, but, because EFTA is not in the customs union, it cuts across the major amendment passed with a majority of 123 in this House on 18 April that was in favour of us being in a customs union. It also does not mention agriculture, which is so important in Ireland. At the moment, we cannot have both a customs union and EFTA.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Because that is what EFTA rules say. It is true that, if the negotiations were in our hands and we were in government, I would have a great deal of faith that, if my right honourable friend Sir Keir Starmer, my noble friend Lord Mandelson or the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, were navigating through the negotiations, they could find a new course for the UK, retaining the benefits of our EEA membership —perhaps even continuing our membership—while forming a customs union with that massive market just off our shores.
We have been clear throughout that any Brexit deal must deliver a strong new relationship with the single market that ensures full tariff-free access, no new impediments to trade and no drop in rights and protections. No doubt this will require a new UK-EU treaty, which must also include a new customs union and a close relationship with the EEA. Any such new arrangement must be based on a negotiating mandate. Thanks to Amendment 51, moved by my noble friend Lord Monks and passed by this House, that mandate would have to be approved by Parliament. It is at that point, when the mandate could be amended, approved or even rejected, that Parliament should help steer the course for our future long-term trading relationship, and other relationships, with the EU. Then, Parliament could decide on whether we are in or out of a customs union, the internal market, the agencies we have just discussed or any such issues. That is what Heidi Alexander’s amendment was about: not sweeping things off the table until Parliament had its vote.
As we heard and witnessed, last week, over the weekend and even this morning the Cabinet has struggled to find a coherent approach to the customs union. Unbelievably, as has been referred to, we even heard the Foreign Secretary call his Prime Minister’s customs plan “crazy”. Our priority now should be to nudge, encourage and persuade the sensible Members of the Government to heed pleas from Ireland, business, the professions, unions and others to close off the possibility of frontier posts, import duties, and checks and hold-ups at borders. At the moment, the Government are risking the end of our hassle-free trading, as well as risking employment and growth. Because of this House’s requirement of Parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate, this House’s support for a customs union and possible practical problems associated with EFTA membership, we ask our colleagues to abstain on the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is not a shame. What were the words? “Kindness, care and consideration”. It is because we share the objectives of that best possible deal that we should make sure that our mandate and agreement serve the whole country, the economy and the regions. At this stage, we should not support one particular approach to that. I urge the House to abstain on the amendment.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, before I address the amendment I will say a brief word, if the House will permit me, about the previous group, which we did not get a chance to speak on. I did not have the opportunity earlier to announce that the Government intend to consult further on ambulatory references—about which I am sure noble Lords are concerned—particularly in relation to contracts. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, further legislation might be brought forward under the consequential powers in the Bill.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
We intended to cover this under the previous group of amendments, as my noble friend said. This is a very important although highly technical area, transposing European law into English law for the sake of contract agreements. Under the way this is currently phrased in the Bill, there is a danger that the UK version of the EU law would be transposed into EU versions of EU law. The amendments are concerned with consulting on how this can be avoided, so that international contracts made under UK law can continue to be made under UK law for the benefit of the City of London, financial services and the accountancy and legal professions in London. With that, I congratulate my noble friend on this consultation and greatly welcome it.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his support. [Laughter.] Noble Lords laugh, but this is an important issue that actually is something to do with the contents of the Bill, unlike some of the other amendments we are considering. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her somewhat grudging support of our position. Since the Foreign Secretary was mentioned so much, I think it only fair we should mention the sterling performance of the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, this morning on the radio, who, in rejecting the so-called EEA/Norway model, set out for us with great clarity what the Labour Party’s position is. She said that they “kind of want to stay in the same kind of place”, effectively.
Amendments 110A and 112BC seek to make continued participation in the EEA a negotiating objective for the Government. The UK is a party to the EEA agreement by virtue of its membership of the EU. At the March European Council we agreed with the EU that the UK is to be treated as an EU member state for the purposes of international agreements for the duration of the time-limited implementation period. This means that international agreements to which the UK is a party by virtue of our EU membership will continue to apply to the UK as they do now. This includes the EEA agreement. The agreement reached at the March European Council on the application of international agreements throughout the implementation period is a positive and significant step and will enable us to secure continuity in our relationships with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein for that period.
Once the implementation period ends, we will no longer be participants in the EU’s international agreements, including the EEA agreement. We will instead seek to put in place new arrangements to secure our future relationship with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein outside the EU. Seeking to negotiate to remain in the EEA agreement would not pass the first test that the Prime Minister set out for our future economic partnership with the EU. It would not deliver control of our borders or our laws. On borders, it would mean we would have to continue to accept all four freedoms of the single market, including freedom of movement. On laws, it would mean the UK having to implement new EU legislation on which, in future, we will have little influence and, of course, no vote. This would not deliver on the British people’s desire as expressed in the referendum to have more direct control over decisions that affect their daily lives.
Some noble Lords think that the EEA would be the right relationship for the UK to have with the EU. I and the Government simply do not agree. As I set out, it is not right for the UK, nor, necessarily, would it be right for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, whose institutions were not designed to accommodate a member like the UK. Other noble Lords view the EEA as the right course because they believe the Government should seek any port in a storm. The Government are entering negotiations convinced of success and we will secure the right deal for the UK. I cannot support an amendment that rejects before even starting our objective of seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership with the EU, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I thank everyone who participated in the debate. We have had a full debate and it was encouraging to hear the voice of business come through, particularly as it is often stifled by rhetoric and dogma. I thank the Minister for what he said. Clearly, I disagree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Mandelson, best set out the kind of negotiation one would expect to have with the EEA, which would be different. In the absence of anything else, this is where we are left. I also thank my own Front Benchers for their courtesy and the way they handled this difficult situation, with many of us on this side of the House wanting to vote for this amendment. It has been a privilege to work with them. I want to say that on the record.
I will highlight a couple of other people from the debate. It will be my only opportunity, and that of many in this House, to say thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has done an extraordinary job managing to herd the cats that are non-aligned on this Bill with regular updates and emails. I am sure that noble Lords who have had those will join me in thanking her for the work she has done. I highlight two speeches above anything else. It is very brave to speak against your own party when you do not normally do so. The contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady McGregor-Smith, were exemplary. To take something you believe in and to say and make those arguments against the wishes of your own party shows real bravery and independence. It has been a real privilege to be on the same amendment as them.
I am sure it will be of no surprise to the Minister that I reject his thesis entirely. I also reject the notion that if those of us in business and services wait long enough, the Government will come up with something to tell us about their trade negotiations. It simply does not wash. I ask my side to take the examples of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady McGregor-Smith. Be brave and vote—as they say in Ireland, vote often if you can. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
Baroness Goldie
“(9A) See paragraph 3A for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub-paragraph (9).”
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to move this group of amendments as the final piece—to use the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—of the devolution jigsaw puzzle in this Bill. The amendments in this group all relate, in different ways, to the scrutiny that the devolved legislatures will apply to the delegated powers for devolved Ministers in Schedules 2 and 4 to the Bill.
It is right that in conferring powers on devolved Ministers, the Bill should also provide for how they will be scrutinised. It would be irresponsible not to do that. We cannot confer powers and then make no provision for legislative scrutiny whatever. However, the Government recognise that the scrutiny of powers is ultimately a question for the legislature undertaking that scrutiny and the Administration being scrutinised. That is why the Bill consciously preserves the competence of the devolved legislatures, under the respective devolution statutes, to amend those parts of the Bill that make provision for scrutiny of devolved delegated powers. It is why we have sought the views of the legislatures and the devolved Administrations on the appropriate scrutiny arrangements, and these amendments reflect that engagement.
Amendments 69D, 72ZC, 78C and 115A allow for the “made affirmative” urgent scrutiny procedure to be used by devolved Ministers making regulations under their Schedule 2 powers. This was not included in the Bill as originally drafted because it is not a standard procedure in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. However, we have confirmed with the devolved institutions that this procedure is acceptable and that it should be available to devolved Ministers for the same reasons of urgency as it will be available to UK Ministers. These amendments will achieve that.
Amendments 69C, 70C and 77E provide for the “sifting committee” procedure to apply for negative procedure instruments laid by Welsh Ministers under their Schedule 2 powers. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government have both confirmed that this procedure should apply to the Welsh Ministers. These amendments would therefore apply the same procedure as currently applies in the Bill to UK Ministers.
Noble Lords will appreciate that there are very specific arrangements for committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly and this relates to the structures of power-sharing within the Northern Ireland devolution settlement. In that context it would not be appropriate for this procedure to apply, so we have not included it in the Bill. The Scottish Government have informed us that they and the Scottish Parliament wish to apply some form of sifting arrangement to the Schedule 2 power. However, their intention is to undertake this by means of their own legislation. As I have said, the Bill preserves the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on this matter.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I want to clarify what the Minister has just said. When she said that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament wish to do it by their own legislation, is that their Continuity Bill, which is currently before the Supreme Court? If it is, what happens if the Supreme Court strikes it down, or maybe some other piece of legislation they bring forward?
Baroness Goldie
That is a reference to this Bill preserving the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on that matter. I understand that it would have to make legislation within the competence of the Parliament. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the UK Government question the competence of the continuity legislation. That, therefore, as far as I am aware, is a completely separate issue and not what I was referring to.
Amendments 83KA, 83P, 83LA, 83MA and 112B require the Scottish Ministers to make the same explanatory statements when exercising the powers, under this Bill or when amending regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, that UK Ministers must make when exercising their powers. I will not stray into greater detail on each of these statements, as we have debated them at length already. I will, for the sake of clarity, remind noble Lords that this obligation to explain comprises seven elements. The first is a “good reasons” statement; the second is an equalities statement; the third is a statement explaining the purpose and effect on retained EU law of the instrument; the fourth is a statement of urgency when using the made affirmative procedure; the fifth is a “good reasons” statement when using any delegated powers to amend ECA Section 2(2) regulations; the sixth is, where appropriate, a statement of the “good reasons” for creating a criminal offence, and of the sentence attached; and the final one is, where appropriate, a statement to explain why sub-delegation of the power is appropriate. As is the case where a UK Minister sub-delegates the powers, there will also be a duty on the authority to which the power is delegated to then lay before the Scottish Parliament an annual report on the exercise of the sub-delegated power, if exercised that year.
Finally, Amendment 83AC makes a straightforward provision to clarify that the duties on UK Ministers to make explanatory statements when exercising powers under the Bill will apply when exercising the Schedule 2 powers jointly with a devolved Minister. A purpose of joint exercise will allow greater scrutiny by requiring instruments to be considered by this Parliament and the relevant devolved legislature. It would not, therefore, be correct for Parliament to receive less information in relation to the instrument than it would have received if the UK Minister had been acting alone, and this amendment clarifies that this will not be the case. The duty will not extend to devolved Ministers, but the statements, as with the instrument, will be the joint product of both Administrations. The statements, in being made available to Parliament, will also therefore be available to the devolved legislatures, and the relevant devolved Administration can choose whether to lay this alongside the joint instrument.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise these amendments for what they are: they are positively the product of our continued and sincere engagement with the devolved institutions. I also hope that your Lordships will welcome the steps this takes to respond to calls in this House and in other places for greater scrutiny of delegated powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie
Lord Lisvane
“Parliamentary committees to sift regulations made under section 7, 8, 9 or 17
3_(1) This paragraph applies if a Minister of the Crown—(a) proposes to make a statutory instrument, whether under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, to which paragraph 1(3), 6(3), 7(3), or 11 applies or which has the same purpose as an instrument to which those paragraphs apply, and(b) is of the opinion that the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (“the negative procedure”).(2) Before making the instrument, the Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the instrument together with a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the negative procedure.(3) The negative procedure applies unless within the relevant period either House of Parliament requires the affirmative procedure to apply, in which case the affirmative procedure applies.(4) A House of Parliament is taken to have required the affirmative procedure to apply within the relevant period if—(a) a committee of the House charged with reporting on the instrument has recommended, within the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply, and(b) that House has not by resolution rejected the recommendation within a period of 5 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the recommendation is made, or(c) irrespective of the committee reporting on the instrument, that House has resolved, within the period of 15 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply to the instrument. (5) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) where an instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure, it may not be made unless the draft of the instrument laid under sub-paragraph (2) has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,(b) “sitting day” means, in respect of either House, a day on which that House sits.(6) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding, at any time before a statutory instrument mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a) is made, that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument.”
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I can be brief because the arguments on a Westminster sifting mechanism were deployed in Committee.
Amendment 70 continues the theme of constraints which should be imposed by Parliament on powers delegated to Ministers. For many of the sweeping regulation-making powers, the Government would have a choice under the Bill as to whether the affirmative or negative procedure is to be used. So, as the Bill stands, the scrutinised are to choose the level of scrutiny to which they are subject. This cannot be right. The sifting provisions now in the Bill are better than nothing, but not much, because it is the very making of a recommendation by a sifting committee that brings into play the Minister’s power to ignore the committee and to choose the negative procedure over the affirmative.
Two very red herrings—if I might call them that—entered into the debate in Committee. One was that because there are sifting mechanisms with teeth in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the Public Bodies Act 2011 and the Localism Act 2011, and those Acts provide for the super-affirmative procedure, this would somehow introduce the super-affirmative procedure into this Bill. It would not and I agree with the Government that, given the time constraints, super-affirmative would not be appropriate. That is why this amendment does not provide for it.
The second red herring was that allowing one or other House to override the decision of a committee could undermine confidence not only in the sifting committee itself but in the whole committee structure. I have had a bit to do with Select Committees of both Houses over the past 45 years and I find this argument truly bizarre. A Select Committee is subordinate to the House that creates it. Select Committee recommendations are often ignored or rejected, usually at the instigation of the Government of the day. No plaster falls from the ceiling; committees do not go into an irreversible sulk; it is a perfectly normal feature of parliamentary life.
The Leader of the House said she hoped that occasions when the Government did not agree with a sifting committee’s recommendation would be “very rare”—even rarer if both committees made the same recommendation. If that is to be the case, what damage is done by putting the onus on the Government to reverse the decision in one House or the other, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche?
I make no apology for repeating my final point—that we will see a flock of exit Bills over the next few months. There will be a strong temptation for the Government to use this Bill as a precedent for ministerial powers in the others. This is one such power that I suggest should not be replicated. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I advise the House that if Amendment 70 were agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments 70A to 70BB because of pre-emption.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose work on delegated legislation will be familiar to many of your Lordships. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 70—the sifting amendment—to which I have added my name. I will also speak briefly to introduce Amendment 71. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has set out very powerfully the case for Amendment 70—for the sifting committees’ decisions to be binding on Ministers—as has the Delegated Powers Committee in its reports.
When we debated an equivalent amendment in Committee, the Government’s argument against the proposal relied chiefly on their assertion that they were in any case likely to accept the sifting committees’ decisions and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, ignoring them would be, “hopefully, very rare”. This is a very weak argument. It is not based on principle. It is based on a suggestion of compliance, except in undefined, unexampled and no doubt exceptional circumstances. What it really means, of course, is that the Government, at their absolute discretion, will be able to impose the negative procedure on SIs, denying Parliament the more robust and intensive scrutiny provided by the affirmative procedure.
There is simply no case for allowing the Executive this unfettered and unqualified discretion. If Parliament is properly to exercise its scrutiny function in the face of the tsunami of SIs coming our way, it must be able to decide conclusively which SIs deserve higher levels of scrutiny and which do not. That is the whole raison d’être of the sifting committees: they allow Parliament itself to decide which SIs merit what level of scrutiny.
Not only have the Government demonstrated no real need for this override power, they have not even hinted at any harm that might be done by making the sifting committees’ decisions binding. In any case, throughout this Bill we must guard against the unnecessary transfer of power to the Executive. What the Government propose is such an unnecessary transfer of power. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, will press his amendment to a vote. If he does, we will support him.
I turn very briefly to Amendment 71, which is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Norton of Louth. The Government expect this Bill to generate between 800 and 1,000 SIs. There will be many others generated by other Brexit Bills. As things stand, we have only two options for dealing with these SIs: we can accept them or we can reject them. A regret Motion has no practical effect.
In the past, this House has shown an understandable and very deep reluctance to reject affirmative SIs. We have rejected just six in the past 68 years. We have used our “nuclear option” very infrequently. This entirely understandable reluctance to reject will certainly continue for withdrawal SIs. But given the enormous volume of such SIs and the delicate and sensitive areas they will deal with, this proper reluctance to press the red button will almost certainly lead us to approve marginal cases or cases about which we retain serious misgivings. This would be an unsatisfactory outcome for the quality of created law and potentially damaging to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament.
Amendment 71 proposes an additional method of dealing with affirmative SIs—and it is an additional method; it does not in any way affect our current powers. We would retain unaltered our powers to approve or reject, exactly as at present. Amendment 71 would simply allow us to do what we so frequently do: to ask the Commons to think again. Where we believe that asking the Commons to think again would be desirable, we simply co-ordinate scrutiny so that the Commons can pronounce first. If it rejects the SI, that is the end of the matter. If it approves, Amendment 71 would allow us to ask the Commons, with reasons, to think again. This mechanism would not frustrate the will of the Commons. If it chose not to reconsider within 10 days, the Lords would be deemed to have approved the instrument.
Amendment 71 would give Parliament more flexibility and room for more discussion in dealing with those SIs where real concern exists but where we are properly reluctant to reject. It simply allows a conversation with the Commons, after which the Commons will decide the matter. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 84 and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. During the passage of the Bill I have raised several issues, all of them designed to ensure that the SIs that will eventually be made under it when it becomes an Act will contain as few errors as possible. This may seem a modest aim, but we are in uncharted waters, and the amount of secondary legislation that will be needed, as has been mentioned, and the little time available to make many hundreds of instruments, taken together with the imperfect nature of human faculties, make error all too likely. One way to minimise this is to consult those with knowledge of and interests in the question at issue. This in turn necessitates publishing draft instruments that can be scrutinised by all. As is so often the case, openness is the best antidote for error.
We have made progress. The Minister has kindly arranged for me to meet officials concerned with agriculture, customs, intellectual property and financial services. It is clear to me that proper plans have been made. A few draft instruments have been published, but things are moving forward at a slow pace. We have made less progress on agriculture than I had hoped; I should declare an interest as chairman of Assured Food Standards Ltd, which operates the Red Tractor scheme. However, this is not the fault of Defra, which seems to be well resourced in this area. One of the serious problems for that department stems from recent rows over devolution, which affects draft SIs in the vital areas of agriculture and fisheries. Defra seems unable to publish drafts without the agreement of the devolved Administrations. This has proved to be an unfortunate state of affairs, which would have been better avoided—but in any case it would be better for everyone in the UK, including the devolved Administrations, if many more specimen drafts were published immediately.
There have been several debates on subordinate legislation and I am glad that the Government have made some very important concessions on scrutiny. Indeed, this very evening they have done so on ambulatory references and arrangements in Scotland. However, the Government have also lost on an amendment in this area, which means that they will be looking at the arrangements again in the House of Commons. That is where I believe Amendment 84 might be useful. It is modest—much more modest than my earlier amendments and those of others—and asks the Government to make public their statutory instruments on GOV.UK 10 days before they are laid. That is all I ask. It would be any 10 days, including parliamentary recesses and festivals.
I would like the Minister to write this into law, perhaps as part of the review of Amendment 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and its consequentials. But if that cannot be, I would like her to undertake to add this provision to government guidance on the making of statutory instruments. As an ex-Minister who has had the embarrassment of having to make new orders correcting past mistakes, I can assure her that future legislators and civil servants would thank her. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It may be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that we are debating Amendment 70 and the other amendments in the group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke to Amendment 84, which is grouped with Amendment 70 —but agreeing to Amendment 70 is the question before the House.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I support Amendment 70, moved by my noble friend Lord Lisvane. May I express the hope that it serves as a precedent for use in other legislation? The parliamentary control of statutory instruments is notoriously inadequate. I speak with a considerable degree of experience, having lived through some 31 years of statutory instruments. We know that far too much legislation is passed through this House without any sensible scrutiny, discussion or amendment. I personally have always argued for the amendment of statutory instruments. I ventured to put forward proposals in Committee on this Bill. They did not make any progress, and I know full well that they will not do so in this Bill now.
However, the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is a useful first step in that it would require Ministers to explain why the negative procedure has been adopted. Furthermore, it would give Parliament the opportunity to transform a negative procedure into an affirmative procedure. While the affirmative procedure is far from perfect, it is a great deal better than the negative procedure and, on that basis, it is very much a useful first step. I support the noble Lord’s amendment and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I have a strong support for her proposal, too. It seems to me that transparency is a very good idea—but I will make one caution, if I may. There will be times when statutory instruments take an emergency character, and the 10-day limit could cause a serious problem. That will need to be addressed if her amendment makes further progress.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lisvane who, with his vast experience, has come up with a suggestion that is essential, primarily because I feel that the balance between the Executive and the legislature has been truly tested during these Brexit times. This started with the Government trying to bypass Parliament in implementing Article 50, and then trying to not give Parliament a meaningful vote. At every stage, we have to make sure that the power comes back to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said that the Government estimate that there will be 800 statutory instruments just as a result of the EU withdrawal Bill. How many statutory instruments does the Minister think that there will be in total, as a result of Brexit? I have heard somebody say 2,000, but there may be even more than that. It is therefore all the more important that we have proper scrutiny. We cannot entrust it to the Executive; Parliament has got to have the power, and I support my noble friend Lord Lisvane’s amendment.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on Amendment 70. It is a very useful first step and if he presses his amendment I will be pleased to join him in the Lobbies. I shall speak to Amendments 70BA and 70BB, both of which are in this group. I am in a pretty precarious position because I am speaking to amendments to a government amendment which has not yet been moved and is subject to the right of pre-emption. If the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, wins then I am wasting my time. I do not want to waste the House’s time although I do not mind wasting my own.
I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I do not speak for that committee but I have been a member of it for some time. These amendments take the last opportunity available to the House to persuade the Leader, who has been attentive to the issue of the extent of the relevant period for consideration, to increase the amount of time available to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to 15 days. Amendments would do that in both Houses. It is not often that the House of Lords tells the House of Commons what to do, but it would be inelegant if the two Houses had different sifting periods.
I do not need to explain the role of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Most Members understand that it takes its duties very seriously and is largely trusted to point out matters of concern under the headings available to it to refer statutory instruments to the House. In my experience, it is a much better system than in the House of Commons. The worry of some members of the committee, which I share, is that in dealing with the flow of statutory instruments occasioned by Clauses 7 to 9 of the Bill, we will end up creating precedents which will in the long term dilute the quality of the scrutiny delivered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I know the chairman is very concerned about that.
Practical experience of the rhythm of how we deal with the flow of existing regulations shows that 10 days is not enough. It is enough for normal business. If we get the compliance we need from government departments in terms of answers to our queries and dealing with outstanding questions as SIs pass through the process and get expeditious returns, the committee is quite confident that in usual circumstances 10 days would be enough, but it is not enough for exceptional circumstances and there is no provision for exceptional circumstances in the legislation as it stands.
Noble Lords might think that this is a very small point, but if the important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, does not find favour with your Lordships’ House, there will be circumstances where Members on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee will on day 9 in the consideration of some order which is causing them continuing concern be faced with the question of what to do. Do they say they need to take further and better particulars from government departments and take further evidence from witnesses and risk going over the 10-day period, at which point the House’s responsibility for the issue ends as the Government will take the issue back and the SI will become by default a negative instrument, or do they say they are in some doubt about it and so will err on the side of caution? They do not really have the evidence to be sure that the instrument should be upgraded from a sift of a negative to an affirmative, but if I am unsure I will always by default argue within the committee for recommending an upgrade. If that kind of thing happens, it is going to create even more difficulty for business managers. It will not happen every week, or anything like it, but the Government’s wish to get the statute book in good order by exit day is absolutely understood and members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are responsible and diligent and understand the difficulties in doing that, but they are going to be put in a very difficult position.
I do not know where the 10-day limit came from. I think it originally came from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but there was no back-up about why it chose 10 days as opposed to 15 days, 13 days or anything else. With the help of the excellent staff of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we have done a grid and have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for the committee to meet twice within 10 days under this new regime, and that will be essential to be sure that exceptional circumstances are dealt with. On the grid we have done, it is clear that 15 days clears us from exceptional circumstances problems. In particular, I am very concerned about consulting devolved legislatures in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Clauses 7 to 9, as this Bill proceeds.
We are taking a big risk. We are going to put at risk the scrutiny process that we rely on day in, day out to keep the quality of the scrutiny process that the House is so rightly concerned about if we do not either make an exception or give some powers for someone to make a case on cause shown for getting an extra couple of days, or an extra five days, on instruments that can be shown to be exceptional. Although the scrutiny committee is doubling its numbers, making provisions and getting support from the Government for doing that, if we do not increase the relevant period for the consideration of sifting, we risk prejudicing the quality of the work that the scrutiny committee can do on behalf of the House in future.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to extend the scrutiny period of the statutory instruments committee from 10 days to 15 days. Like the noble Lord, I speak from experience as a long-standing member of the committee. Yes, where an instrument is fairly routine and uncontentious, 10 days with one meeting is manageable but tight. That is not possible where the committee has doubts or queries and needs to make inquiries; to get answers from Ministers, from other parliamentary committees and, most importantly, from stakeholders and experienced people outside Whitehall in response to its concerns; and to have their views and responses considered at a second meeting. After all, they are the people who are most affected. I could give examples but the time is late. Still, there are many occasions when these inquiries have materially changed the view of the statutory instruments committee.
In my time many statutory instruments have been reported to the House as having had insufficient consultation, so I am reporting this clause to the House for not allowing sufficient consultation time. I hope the Minister will take note and change it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 70. If I am in order, I shall speak also to Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I declare an interest as serving as a trustee of the Hansard Society under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord.
Way back in what now seems like pre-Neolithic times at the time of the Queen’s Speech, when we raised some general issues about the potential passage of the Bill, I spent some time, I think rather to the House’s amazement and considerable boredom, trying to emphasise some of the points about the role that secondary legislation was likely to play in the passage of the Brexit legislation as we now see it coming before us. The estimates since we spoke about that have varied widely, but I have to say that the director of the Hansard Society, who I regard as one of the country’s leading experts on this whole area, has mentioned a figure of 2,000 statutory instruments coming before this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has competently and eloquently described, both today and in Committee, the importance of his Amendment 70. Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, myself and two other colleagues is what I see as a belt-and-braces addition to Amendment 70; as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has already said, it would be only a so-called nuclear option in particularly difficult circumstances. Given what has been described as the vastly uncharted waters in which we now embark on this, and remembering my time as the chairman of the Constitution Committee —on which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, whose name is also to this amendment, was one of my most helpful colleagues—we need at this stage to put some detailed amendments in the Bill that enable the principles that we have discussed so often during the passage of the Bill about the pre-eminence of parliamentary authority over secondary legislation to be put very firmly on the statute book. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is sufficient. With the addition of the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have put my name, we will have, as I say, belt-and-braces protection.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. In my view, it strikes the right balance between the role of the Government and that of this House and its committees in the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Amendment 71, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, follows the recommendations made by the royal commission that was chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, those of the Leaders’ Group on working practices, which I chaired in 2011, and those of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which we debated in January 2016. That amendment hits the nail pretty well on the head and, if it is reached, should be supported.
I find myself in agreement with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in its 23rd report of this Session, published in April, on the defects of the Government’s amendments as then tabled. In my view, the responsibilities must rest with this House and its committees and the discretion thereto, not with the Government. So I support this group of amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest in Amendments 70 and 71. I am interested because they address the issue that I believe is central to the Bill: the process by which the two Houses of Parliament scrutinise legislation returning from Brussels to this country as part of the Brexit process; and simultaneously to ensure that that scrutiny is effective and that opportunities for a power grab by the Executive are prevented. In my remarks, I am informed by my past membership of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I think I agree with every statement that has been made in the course of this debate. A real consensus seems to be emerging from both Benches’ contributions. I just want to add briefly to that, because it is an important issue.
In my view, the treatment of secondary legislation in our country is one of the hidden scandals of our constitution. It is done better in this House than it is in the other place. I was in the other place for 23 years. When I was on the Front Bench, like everyone else, I was from time to time press-ganged by the Whips to sit on a secondary legislation committee. What I witnessed there was a travesty. I often commented on it by intervening in those debates to say how disgusted I was with the whole process. Nobody was given an opportunity to brief themselves on the subject—we would have actually been discouraged from doing so. Certainly, anyone who had an interest in the subject would have been disqualified from serving on the committee in the first place. Everyone brought in their constituency correspondence or read a book. Nothing was said and there was no investigation of the issues raised, which were sometimes important issues. This went on for weeks and months and years, and I am sure continues.
The great virtue of this debate is that Brexit has given us an opportunity—simply because of the vast volume of secondary legislation that will be generated—to look again at our procedures in both Houses of Parliament to deal with it. Some very interesting suggestions have been made this evening. I particularly support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. Ultimately, of course, we need to solve this problem in a different context from the one we have tonight, but I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, say that the solution must be to rely on Parliament to amend statutory instruments—secondary legislation. Only that will ensure that we have the opportunity for proper debate on the substance of these laws coming through Parliament, which is so severely lacking at present.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 70. There is not really much left to say as noble Lords have addressed so many of the points. I do not wish to delay the House, and I would like to hear what the Leader of the House has to say.
Having served in both Houses, the difference in how statutory instruments are treated is very familiar to us, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies. I always said in the House of Commons that when a statutory instrument committee came along and you were asked to take part, you would ask, “Why me, and how long will it take?” In this House, we have had more speakers on this debate than we had on the previous one on the EEA. That shows the level of interest and excitement generated by statutory instruments in your Lordships’ House. Someone may have said, “So many SIs and so little time”.
As we progress on the road to Brexit, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, this House and the other place will clearly have to address a huge number of SIs. The concern is that we have to get this right. The consequences of making mistakes against the Government’s intention of ensuring that EU law can be transposed into UK law are very serious. Those SIs have to be accurate and they have to be properly considered.
In Committee, the noble Baroness confirmed that the Government intend to publish draft SIs “where possible and appropriate”. If you look at the website, there are a few drafts—not many, but a few. There are illustrative examples, and I am grateful for those. They are helpful, but there is no way of knowing whether those examples are representative of the statutory instruments that are to come, particularly given the drive to reduce the overall number by packaging up multiple issues in one statutory instrument. I have raised this issue with the Government over some time. I gave evidence on it to the Select Committee in the other place and I gave evidence to our Constitution Committee, and it is really important that we have those draft SIs for, if nothing else, the appearance of accuracy, so that we know we are getting it right.
As I said, the noble Baroness made helpful comments on this about publishing draft SIs. However, I have to say that I am not convinced that “where possible and appropriate” is good enough. Can she go one step further and guarantee that SIs will always be published in draft form prior to being introduced into either House, unless of course they are made under urgent procedure? That is another discussion and there would obviously have to be very good reasons why they were urgent. Having those draft SIs is absolutely essential—not for delaying but for giving them proper consideration. It is much harder to rectify mistakes at later opportunities than if we deal with them straightaway.
The noble Baroness argued previously that the Committee stage amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, were unnecessary, and she said then that if both committees were to reach the same recommendation,
“the Government’s expectation is that such recommendations are likely to be accepted”.—[Official Report, 19/3/18; col. 154.]
I understand that that is the intention, but “expectation” and “likely to be accepted” are a bit woolly for legislation. I do not think that is adequate. We hope that would be the case but, as the noble Baroness told us at the time, there would be a problem if the two committees disagreed or if the Government decided not to accept the proposed upgrade to the affirmative procedure. It is a limited upgrade; I would not get too excited about the affirmative procedure being too intrusive. We recognise that it is a step in the right direction. The noble Baroness told the House that she hoped the latter scenario—that the Government would not accept a proposed upgrade from one House—would be very rare. Again, it is very speculative. How rare does she think that occurrence will be? Could she outline the steps she would expect Ministers to take in the event of it becoming a reality?
All of us want to see EU law on the UK statute book as accurately and as quickly as possible, but to do that we must have confidence in the process and procedures that we have in place. We cannot do it on a wing and a prayer. If we do not get this right, there will be serious consequences, which will be far harder to rectify or amend later. I hope the Minister can give some reassurances on that issue in the course of her comments.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The Government take parliamentary scrutiny of the powers afforded them very seriously, which is why, from the outset, I have made clear our view that both Houses should be treated equally when it comes to the sifting process proposed by the Commons Procedure Committee. The Government have already accepted amendments, although they only included a committee in the other place, and the government amendments that we have just discussed would extend that process to your Lordships’ House. We have listened carefully to the views of the House and numerous committees on ways in which to improve this Bill. Among other amendments, we have removed the Clause 8 power altogether and sunset the consequential power and the power to make new fees or charges. The correcting power has been prohibited from creating public authorities or amending the devolution statutes, and we have provided that regulations should be amendable only in the same way as primary legislation.
Having heard the views of the House in Committee, I am pleased to confirm that the Government have tabled amendments that we will debate shortly to extend the sifting committee’s remit to instruments made under the power contained in Clause 17(1). I hope that noble Lords will see this as further evidence of the Government’s willingness to listen to the case put by this House and, in particular, by the DPRRC. I believe that we have made clear our commitment to ensuring that this House can rigorously scrutinise the secondary legislation that will flow from this Bill.
The government amendments allow the changes to the SLSC’s order of reference, agreed by the Procedure Committee, to be put into practice following Royal Assent. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides will want to consider the committee’s report in good time. As I have said before, the agreement reached regarding the SLSC taking on the new and vital role as the sifting committee demonstrates the constructive collaboration of the House. I remain grateful to other members of the Procedure Committee and the SLSC for their support in this decision.
A number of noble Lords have made it clear that they would like further reassurance that the recommendations of the sifting committees will be taken seriously by the Government. I am happy to repeat what I said in Committee—that if both sifting committees were to make the same well considered and no doubt persuasive recommendation that an SI should move from the negative to the affirmative procedure, I assure the House that the Government’s expectation is that such recommendations are likely to be accepted. Where the two committees disagree, the situation would, of course, need to be carefully considered on its merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, tempted me to speculate on how often the Government would disagree with a recommendation coming from both committees. Clearly, I cannot usefully do that, but I can say that the Government are not placing shackles on their ability to make a recommendation to upgrade the procedure if they so wish. It is right that this is the case, but I repeat my view—I expect that to be a rare occurrence. I can confirm that on the very rare occurrence, one hopes, when that happened, and the Government did not agree with a recommendation to use the affirmative procedure, we would fully expect to publicly set out our reasons to the committee concerned.
Amendments 70 and 77 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Norton and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, propose an alternative sifting process. There are two significant differences between the process proposed in Amendment 70 and that proposed by the Commons Procedure Committee, the consequences of which would put at risk our ability to achieve this Bill’s fundamental aim: a functional statute book on exit day and, indeed, for this House to exercise timely and effective scrutiny. The first would make the sifting committee’s determinations binding on the Government unless the House decided to disagree with its committee. The second is that the amendment would build into the sifting committee process a mechanism for the House as a whole to make a binding determination, irrespective of the decision of the committee to which it has delegated the responsibility for making recommendations. Such determinations raise several serious problems. The first is the potential for disagreement between the Houses, and I note that Amendment 71 involves the same problem, to which I shall come in a moment.
The second risk, which is potentially more serious in practical terms, is the delays which this process could create. Given that this House and the other place do not often sit on Fridays, 10 sitting days is already likely to stretch across three weeks. The addition of an extra five-day period, during which each House could overrule its own sifting committee, potentially extends this process into a fourth week. Of course, if any of this were to occur around either House’s normal recesses, the period would be longer still. Then, after that, any negative instrument would still have a praying period of 40 days during which, as now, a debate could be sought. In addition, any affirmative instrument would be subject to the usual scrutiny procedures and laid before Parliament until it could be accommodated in the parliamentary schedule.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. From the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, it is clearly an opportunity for your Lordships to gain insight into that world of fascination and excitement which is statutory instrument procedure.
My noble friend Lord Bilimoria was much too kind to me when he credited me with the crafting of Amendment 70. There have been a few changes to it since we debated it in Committee, but it was actually crafted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which regarded it as an extremely important matter of principle.
It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge some of the things that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House set out, including the improvements that have been and are to be made to the Bill by subsequent government amendment. I can well understand the nervousness that there must be in the minds of government business managers in this House and in the other House, with fleets of these SIs coming forward—different but alarming numbers have been quoted this evening—very little time and, in the back of some minds, the possibility of some rogue committees automatically upgrading everything to affirmatives. Here I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. He emphasised the responsible attitude taken by the SLSC, and I am quite sure that that will be replicated in sifting committees in both Houses. However, these are, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, uncharted waters.
I thought that the Leader of the House was rather apocalyptic about timing when she piled period of time upon period of time, all made much more difficult by praying time of 40 days added at the end. If it is a matter of sifting, it is not a matter of judging and analysing merits but of asking: does this get over the bar? That rapidly becomes quite a straightforward process—so I think that that might be slightly overstated.
I also rather shied away from what I took to be the implied threat that, if your Lordships were so sagacious as to approve Amendment 70 this evening and the Commons were to reverse it, we might end up with no sifting process. If that were the reaction, I can only say that it would be highly unedifying, and I do not believe that that is likely to happen. It is important to remind ourselves that the regulation-making powers, including sweeping Henry VIII powers, are extremely extensive, and much debate on this Bill has centred on making the scrutiny of those effective.
It was kind of the Leader of the House to give us, once again, her strong expectation of what would happen, particularly if two committees were to agree. With all respect I have to say that, however strong an assertion and however deep a belief that is, it is not legislatively bankable. There is still at the heart of this matter an issue of principle, which is that the scrutinised should not be able to decide the level of scrutiny to which they are subject. So, with those thoughts in mind, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, in the third Division earlier this evening on Amendment 110A, the number of noble Lords voting Content was 247, not 245 as announced in the Chamber.
As a result of the House accepting Amendment 70, I am unable to call Amendments 70A and 70B and the amendments to those amendments for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 70C
Lord Callanan
“Committee of the National Assembly for Wales to sift certain regulations involving Welsh Ministers
3A_(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the Welsh Ministers are to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies and are of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.(2) The Welsh Ministers may not make the instrument so that it is subject to that procedure unless—(a) condition 1 is met, and(b) either condition 2 or 3 is met.(3) Condition 1 is that the Welsh Ministers—(a) have made a statement in writing to the effect that in their opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, and(b) have laid before the Assembly—(i) a draft of the instrument, and (ii) a memorandum setting out the statement and the reasons for the Welsh Ministers’ opinion.(4) Condition 2 is that a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with doing so has made a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the instrument.(5) Condition 3 is that the period of 14 days beginning with the first day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the National Assembly for Wales as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) has ended without any recommendation being made as mentioned in sub- paragraph (4).(6) In calculating the period of 14 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the National Assembly for Wales is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than four days.(7) Nothing in this paragraph prevents the Welsh Ministers from deciding at any time before a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies is made that another procedure should apply to the instrument (whether under paragraph 1(9) or 4B).(8) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 as applied by section 11A of that Act (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid in draft before the Assembly) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.(9) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(9) do not include references to paragraph 1(9) as applied by paragraph 7(5)(for which see paragraph 13A).”
Lord Sharkey
“(a) a declaration that the Minister of the Crown concerned is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved, and(b) a statement of the grounds for urgency.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, Amendment 72 would impose measures on the Minister, where he or she was dealing with the urgency procedure in the Bill, for the delaying of “made affirmative” SIs. When we debated this in Committee, I made the point that there was no need, as the Bill is currently constructed, for the Minister to give any explanation for why he or she thought that the instrument should be urgent. I suggested, as Amendment 72 does, that the Minister should explain in writing why the SI should be considered urgent. However, I notice that in Amendment 83N—I am sure that the Leader of the House will explain it in a moment —the Government appear to have recognised the force of the arguments we advanced in Committee, which I have just summarised. In my view, Amendment 83N satisfies the requests we made in Committee and the requirements of Amendment 72. However, I want to ask the Leader of the House a question about where Amendment 83N specifies a failure to give reasons for urgency.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify something. He has been referring to Amendment 83A in terms which suggest that he is under the impression that it is a government amendment. In fact, I will move it in a few minutes. Is he perhaps thinking of Amendment 83C?
Lord Sharkey
In fact I was thinking of government Amendment 83N—I am sorry that I did not make that clear—which deals with Amendment 72. I was about to ask a question. Amendment 83N says that in the case of a failure of a Minister to give the reasons that he or she should give for urgency, the Minister must write explaining why he has failed to do that. The only thing missing at this point is some indication of when he might write to do that. I ask the Leader of the House to try to help the House by indicating when a Minister should write to indicate his sorrow and apology for not doing what the amendment asked him to do. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. If urgent regulations have to be laid, having an explanation and clarity from the Minister as to why it is urgent is always helpful. It is fairly simple and straightforward. I hope the noble Baroness will say that she is prepared to accept the amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank noble Lords for this very brief debate. As I indicated in Committee, the Government have reflected on this point further and decided to table their own amendments to achieve the same aims as the noble Lord’s amendments. The Government have always said that we expect Ministers to use the Bill’s urgent procedure rarely. This might be where, for example, corrections to the statute book are required very close to exit day and where the impact of not making these corrections would be significant.
The Government have always been committed to ensuring an appropriate level of scrutiny is afforded to the Bill’s provisions. I remind noble Lords that the made affirmative procedure still requires debates and potentially votes in both Houses. We have always wanted to be transparent about how this unusual process will work and it is for that reason that we have clarified the time period in which a made affirmative SI must be debated. In response to the persuasive case made by noble Lords in Committee, where the Government choose to use the urgent procedure we are happy to commit in statute to supplementing any declaration of urgency with a commitment to making a statement explaining why this was considered to be appropriate. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, Ministers will write as soon as is practicable. This is in addition to the obligation to make a statement.
While the Government cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment for technical reasons, I hope noble Lords will be content to accept those tabled by the Government in its place and that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will feel able to withdraw his amendment accordingly.
Lord Sharkey
I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for Amendment 83N and for agreeing with us that it is in fact necessary. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“Scrutiny procedure in certain urgent cases: devolved authorities
4A_(1) This paragraph applies to—(a) regulations to which paragraph 1(6) applies, or(b) regulations to which paragraph 1(7) applies which would not otherwise be made without being subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) The regulations may be made without being subject to the affirmative procedure if the regulations contain a declaration that the Scottish Ministers are of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without them being subject to that procedure.(3) After regulations are made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), they must be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(4) Regulations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(6) or (7) do not include references to paragraph 1(6) or (7) as applied by paragraph 7(5) (for which see paragraph 14(6A)).4B_(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to—(a) a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(8) applies, or(b) a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies which would not otherwise be made without a draft of the instrument being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.(2) The instrument may be made without a draft of the instrument being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales if it contains a declaration that the Welsh Ministers are of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved.(3) After an instrument is made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), it must be laid before the National Assembly for Wales.(4) Regulations contained in an instrument made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales. (5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the National Assembly for Wales is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies to a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies where the Welsh Ministers are of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.(8) Paragraph 3A does not apply in relation to the instrument if the instrument contains a declaration that the Welsh Ministers are of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without meeting the requirements of that paragraph.(9) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(8) or (9) do not include references to paragraph 1(8) or (9) as applied by paragraph 7(5)(for which see paragraph 14(6A)).4C_(1) This paragraph applies to—(a) regulations to which paragraph 1(10) applies, or(b) regulations to which paragraph 1(11) applies which would not otherwise be made without a draft of the regulations being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.(2) The regulations may be made without a draft of the regulations being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly if they contain a declaration that the Northern Ireland department concerned is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved.(3) After regulations are made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), they must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.(4) Regulations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(a) dissolved,(b) in recess for more than four days, or(c) adjourned for more than six days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(10) or (11) do not include references to paragraph 1(10) or (11) as applied by paragraph 7(5) (for which see paragraph 14(6A)).”
Lord Callanan
“Power to repeal provisions relating to retained EU law restrictions
7A_ A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 11(4B) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If Amendment 72H is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 73 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 72H
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
The Duke of Wellington
“Power to appoint “exit day”
10_ A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 14 which appoint a day as exit day may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Callanan
“(2) See paragraph 13 for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub- paragraph (1).”
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment 70, agreed by your Lordships a short time ago. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
“Committee of the National Assembly for Wales to sift certain regulations involving Welsh Ministers
13A_ Paragraph 3A applies to regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2 as it applies to regulations under Part 1 of that Schedule but as if—(a) the references to paragraph 1(9) were references to paragraph 1(9) as applied by paragraph 7(5),(b) the reference to paragraph 4B were a reference to that paragraph as applied by paragraph 14(6A), and(c) paragraph 3A(9) were omitted.”
Lord Callanan
“(6A) Paragraphs 4A to 4C apply to regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2 as they apply to regulations under Part 1 of that Schedule but as if—(a) the references to paragraphs 1(6), (7), (8), (9), (10) or (11) were references to those provisions as applied by paragraph 7(5),(b) the reference in paragraph 4B(8) to paragraph 3A were a reference to that paragraph as applied by paragraph 13A, and(c) paragraphs 4A(7), 4B(9) and 4C(7) were omitted.”
Lord Callanan
“Anticipatory exercise of powers in relation to retained EU law
18A_ Any power to make regulations under this Act which modify retained direct EU legislation, anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or any other retained EU law is capable of being exercised before exit day so that the regulations come into force on or after exit day.”
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thought we would never get there. I shall speak also to Amendment 83E. These amendments have been drafted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I should declare my interest as having just been appointed to the disability advisory committee of the EHRC. I have retabled these amendments to give full effect to the Government’s commitment that current protections in the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 will be maintained once we leave the EU. As the Minister knows, I have concerns that powers in the Bill could be used to change fundamental rights currently protected by EU law.
Noble Lords who have followed this debate will know that the Government tabled an amendment in the Commons in response to calls for the Bill to include a commitment to ensure current protections in the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 will be maintained after Brexit. This is now enshrined in paragraph 22 of Schedule 7. However, as I have said before, this does not properly fulfil the Government’s commitment to maintain current equality protections. Amendments 83A and 83E put this right by requiring a ministerial statement that secondary legislation made under the Bill does not reduce protections under equality legislation.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for taking the time to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and me to discuss our concerns about equality rights after we leave the European Union. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 does not fulfil the Government’s commitment because it does not require a statement that current levels of protection will be maintained. It merely requires the Minister to explain whether and how equality legislation has been changed, and that due regard has been paid to the need to eliminate conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. There is nothing to stop the Minister, having had due regard to this need, deciding to reduce protections anyway. The duty to have due regard is already a requirement under the public sector equality duty, and the Minister’s statement will do no more than simply confirm that they have partially complied with an existing statutory duty.
The requirement focuses on the first duty in the public sector equality duty: to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination. However, the public sector equality duty also includes other duties: to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations. The focus on just one aspect of the PSED, rather than the whole, risks confusion about whether Ministers are obliged to fully comply with the whole public sector equality duty, as opposed to just this single limb of it. This must be rectified to ensure clarity and compliance with existing statutory duties.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I should point out that if this amendment were to be agreed, I could not call Amendments 83AA to 83AC by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I support the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Low. He set out the case extensively as to why these amendments should be made. I also echo his thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for discussing them with us in what I found to be a useful and constructive meeting.
The first point I wish to raise is in relation to Amendment 83A, which seeks to take out the reference to,
“section 7(1), 8 or 9”,
and insert “this Act”. Can the Minister clarify in responding whether the Government’s Amendments 83AA, 83AB and 83AC will meet the purpose of that amendment? Our main concern had been that the original Bill, as it stood, put requirements on the Government with regard to what would have been Sections 7(1), 8 or 9—although Clause 8 has now been dropped from the Bill—but we were also concerned that Clause 17 had wide powers, to which the requirements under this part of Schedule 7 did not apply. It would appear that Amendment 83AB extends to Clause 17(1), which I think would go a long way, and Amendment 83AC to other parts in Schedule 2. I seek confirmation that that would now include all parts of the Bill when it becomes an Act, as in our amendment, which might be relevant to the requirements made under paragraph 22 of Schedule 7.
I make a further point in relation to Amendment 83E, which would require the Government—or the Minister in tabling regulations—to be,
“satisfied that it does not remove or diminish any protection provided by or under equalities legislation”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Low, indicated, the origin of much of this is a report from the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place which recommended that the Bill should explicitly commit to maintaining current levels of equality protection. In response, the Government tabled amendments in the Commons, the effect of which is that the Minister has to make a statement that,
“so far as required to do so by equalities legislation”,
the Minister had,
“had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010”.
That merely repeated what was already a matter of law, so it did not take us much further. This amendment would require the Minister to make a much wider statement that the proposed regulation,
“does not remove or diminish any protection provided by or under equalities legislation”.
I understand that that is the Government’s intention. It is their politically declared intention, and this amendment makes that a requirement.
When we discussed this with the Minister we agreed that the fact that Ministers are required to make statements under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act focuses ministerial minds on whether a provision is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. We are saying here that, in terms of equalities legislation, ministerial minds should be focused when regulations are being brought forward so there is no diminution in any protection that it provides. That does not mean that there is a deliberate intent by the Government to diminish equalities legislation but means that people have to think about equality protection in bringing forward regulations, check right through and make sure that what is being done lives up to commitments that have been made. I cannot see any reason why Governments should be afraid of or concerned about this amendment. It merely seeks to give effect to the commitment that has already been made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Low, indicated, when we debated my Amendment 30, one of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was that the word “protection” did not have any statutory basis and therefore was not appropriate. He was possibly not aware that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 provides as one of the preconditions for the exercise of delegated powers under that Act that a provision,
“does not remove any necessary protection”,
so there is already a statutory basis for what we are proposing in this amendment, and therefore I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of these amendments, to which I have added my name, especially as I was unable to speak in support of similar amendments in Committee because of another commitment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for his perseverance on this important issue. When I read the report of the Committee’s proceedings, I was pleased to note the warm words from the Minister, including his acknowledgment that the amendment looks very much like stated government policy, although he qualified that by arguing that the language of political commitment does not necessarily lend itself to the equalities statute book.
I am sure that no one would quarrel with that as a general proposition, but the body charged by Parliament with advising the Government on the equality and human rights implications of proposed legislation has drafted this amendment carefully to guard against such a weakness. I repeat the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—that in particular the Minister objected to the use of the term “protection”, yet the EHRC points out that the term can be found in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 with regard to the use of delegated powers under that Act. It requires that a Minister must be satisfied that a provision,
“does not remove any necessary protection”.
Does that sound familiar? I imagine that is why the EHRC drafted this amendment in those terms.
The Minister also promised to take away for further consideration the point about the scope of the public sector equality duty, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and also mentioned earlier today. The Minister described it as a constructive suggestion in order to bring further clarity to these parts of the Bill. It was thus very disappointing not to find the government amendment that would have brought this clarity, and I trust the Minister will explain why. I hope he will respond in particular to the EHRC’s injunction that:
“This must be rectified to ensure clarity and compliance with existing statutory duties”,
as the noble Lord, Lord Low, quoted earlier.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly, and I hope that in that respect I will be a safe harbour for your Lordships this evening. I have added my name to the amendments and I share the concerns expressed by noble Lords today in relation to equalities and human rights. Amendments 83A and 83E would protect against the use of delegated powers in the Bill —I have often expressed concern in that regard—to diminish protections in the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010. Equally, they would address shortcomings in an amendment introduced by the Government in another place.
The amendments relate only to the exercise of delegated powers. They would not set existing rights in stone or prevent Parliament legislating in future to amend laws by primary legislation—indeed, the preferred route when looking at issues such as equalities and rights. Rather, they would guard against the effective transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive by requiring substantive changes to fundamental rights such as equality rights to be made by primary legislation.
In the previous discussion on similar amendments, I urged my friend the Minister to clutch them to his chest but he disregarded my plea. Tonight, I commend these amendments to the House. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, I had hoped that the Government would accept them but they have not. There are reassurances that NGOs and organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission are still looking for. It is not too late to give those assurances and perhaps, if this is not the Government’s preferred way, find another way to address these deep and real concerns.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments, but I wish to ask about what I thought was a remarkable statement made by the Deputy Speaker after the previous Division. She announced that the result for the Contents in the Division on the single market amendment was out by two. The vote in the Contents in that Division was 247 rather than 245. I ask the Minister, in the interval before he replies to the debate, to explain to the House what happened. This is now the fourth Division on the EU withdrawal Bill where figures have been misreported to the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Perhaps I may explain. There was an error in transmission between the votes presented by the tellers and the clerk’s note handed to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, consequently. That was the reason. I am sure that the clerk would wish me to explain what had happened. I accept that there is always a slight problem because the votes we declare when we come forward are the votes that we have telled, but some votes are taken at the Table, and they appear separately on the total in front of the clerk and, in this case, unfortunately, they were missed. It made no difference to the result and the matter has now been corrected.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, perhaps I may comment a bit further, because I think there is a serious problem in the conduct of Divisions in the House when large numbers of Peers are voting. We have had only 14 or 15 Divisions on the EU withdrawal Bill, but this is the fourth amendment where the result of a Division has been misreported in the House. On three previous occasions, there was a difference in the tallies between the tellers and the clerks, which I think is a serious business. The majorities have been quite large, but if they had been small, we would not know what was the view of the House by the way that the Divisions have been conducted.
We have now had a serious misreporting of a vote. It takes an inordinate time for Divisions to be conducted because the procedures of the House were not conceived for the number of Members that we have but—more importantly, I think—because the new electronic system of recording votes is very inefficient. I simply note this for the attention of the Clerk of the Parliaments, with whom I have now raised this twice. I should note that he has not replied to my last letter to him on the subject. I think this issue needs to be looked at by whichever is the appropriate body in the House responsible for the conduct of business.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I may be under a misapprehension, but I thought that the Question before the House was whether or not to agree Amendment 83A.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and intervene briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for Amendment 83A and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for Amendment 83E, and both of them together for what they have said. I agree entirely with their remarks and thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his characteristically forensic analytical ability to go through all the points, with which I strongly agree, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his remarks. This is an important matter, and, as the only speaker who is not a signatory to the amendments, I think it would be right if the Government gave a comprehensive answer. People are worried about the future of equalities legislation in this country. On the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to the possibilities, there may be a case for primary legislation in future—a new, comprehensive Act—but that subject is separate from this amendment and debate.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the amendments have been moved so powerfully and comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Cashman that I do not want to spend much of the House’s time commenting on them. I just want to make a few points. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, on the new advisory role that he mentioned—or, perhaps even more, the Equality and Human Rights Commission for taking him in that advisory role. That will be very valuable for the commission.
Secondly, I very much support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said about the benefit of statements that Ministers have to make; that focuses their minds on what they are doing. I know from my own experience that that is a valuable example from the Human Rights Act, and I have no doubt that it will be very useful here.
Thirdly, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cashman, we are talking not about preventing amendments being made to the level of protection, but preventing them being made through delegated legislation without considerably more care and scrutiny. That takes me to my final point. Amendment 11, which has already been referred to, moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, will be doing exactly that. It is a very important amendment that was accepted in your Lordships’ House. It will be one of the ways in which the very important continuing protection for equality may be maintained.
I support the amendment and look forward to hearing what the Minister says in opposition.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his time and consideration on the important issue of how we maintain our equality protections as and after we leave the EU. I appreciate the discussions on this topic that he has had with the Bill officials and my ministerial colleagues. Before addressing the noble Lord’s Amendments 83A and 83E, the Government have reflected on our conversations with him, and today tabled amendments that will extend the statements regarding the Equality Act under Schedule 7 to SIs made under the consequential power in Clause 17(1).
This and other amendments we debated in Committee have sought to reflect in statute the political commitment that the Government have already made in this area—we will maintain the existing protections in and under the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 after our exit from the EU. Following requests for assurances on this point in the debate in the other place, we tabled an amendment that will secure transparency in this area by requiring ministerial Statements about the amendment made to the Equality Acts by every piece of secondary legislation made under key delegated powers in this Bill.
The statements will, in effect, flag up any amendments made to the Equality Acts, and secondary legislation made under those Acts, while ensuring that Ministers confirm in developing their draft legislation that they have had due regard for the need to eliminate discrimination and other conduct prohibited under the 2010 Act.
As previously stated, the language of a political commitment does not translate to the statute book. So while our commitment to existing equality protections works perfectly well politically, and indeed in the wider world outside this place, these terms do not and could not have a sufficiently clear and precise meaning for the purposes of statute. These statements as tabled in the other place—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Minister is repeating what he said in response to my Amendment 30. It was pointed out by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the word “protection” has a statutory basis in the 2006 legislation.
Lord Callanan
I heard the point that the noble and learned Lord makes, but we are talking about the statements generally.
These statements, as tabled in the other place, applied only to Clauses 7(1), 8 and 9. The Government did not include other powers in this Bill because they are much more tightly constrained than those powers, and their exercise should not give rise to any amendments to the Equality Acts or any harassment, discrimination or other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. However, we have, as I said, reflected on this, and held discussions with the noble Lord, and we are happy to extend these statements to the consequential power in Clause 17(1). I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord and that it will enable him to withdraw his amendment. However, this is not a matter on which we will be reflecting further before Third Reading. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all those who have spoken—my co-signatories to the amendment and also the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to whom I am very grateful for his remarks. I should say that the advisory committee was making six appointments, so perhaps it was not as difficult as it sometimes is to be appointed. I should also say that it is a very strong line-up of other people who have been appointed, so it will be a privilege to serve among them. I particularly want to draw attention to the outstanding qualities of the others who have been appointed; it is not just me.
Lord Callanan
Baroness Goldie
“(2A) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant Minister must make a statement as to why, in the Minister’s opinion—(a) there are good reasons for the instrument or draft, and(b) the provision made by the instrument or draft is a reasonable course of action.”
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, the statutory instruments to come under this Bill are the means to a unique end—correcting our statute book and properly incorporating an entire new body of law into our domestic legal order. I hope that the group of amendments I now have the pleasure of introducing is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to transparency before Parliament. This transparency will enable Parliament to subject the Executive to the scrutiny that is only right and proper when we bring before your Lordships proposals for delegated legislation. A key part of this transparency offer is the array of statements which we are committing in statute will accompany each of the SIs and be published alongside them in their explanatory memoranda.
Before addressing each of the amendments in this group in turn, I wish to put on record the answer to some questions which noble Lords have raised regarding the provision at sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 22 of Schedule 7. This provision does not circumvent the obligation to make any of the statements in paragraph 22. Rather it is an additional requirement, meant to create a further obligation to Parliament that if, for example, there has been some administrative error in publishing a statement, Ministers must provide an explanation to Parliament for their failure, in addition to providing the original statement.
Amendment 83D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in common with Amendment 11, accepted two weeks ago by the House, introduces a distinction into the Bill which the Government cannot accept. This is a Bill to make, in common parlance, largely technical changes; substantial policy will be brought forward elsewhere. However, the distinction between technical changes and policy decisions is not one that could ever be defined in statute. Even the most technical of changes could constitute a policy decision, including as to whether to make the change at all. Nor, even if the noble Lords were to accept that point, can any clear line be drawn between technical policy, minor policy or substantial policy changes.
This amendment would require each Minister making an SI to make a declaration which depends entirely on where one is sitting—the prism through which one would see the amendment. For example, to the fishing community in Lerwick, the rules on the make and size of nets are certainly a matter of policy in which it takes an interest, while packaged retail investment product customer information requirements are most certainly a technical matter. I hazard that the asset manager in Kensington might feel a little differently. This amendment risks saying that either everything is technical, or nothing is technical. I hope all sides of the House will agree that neither of these positions is true. This is a Bill to make largely technical changes: that is our policy choice. As I am afraid that the two cannot be cleft asunder, I must ask the noble Baroness and noble and learned Lord not to press their amendment.
Government Amendment 83C and its consequentials 83H and 83J ensure that, where a Minister makes regulations under Clauses 7(1), 9 or 17(1), a statement must be made as to why there are good reasons for the instrument, and the provision made is a reasonable course of action. This is in line with the Constitution Committee’s recommendation in its ninth report and is, I trust, further evidence of the Government’s willingness to give due consideration to all amendments which do not undermine the fundamental operation of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will indulge me as I once again quote the Constitution Committee in support of the proposal. Such an amendment, it said, would:
“require explanations to be given for the use of the power which can be scrutinised by Parliament. It will also provide a meaningful benchmark against which use of the power may be tested judicially”.
The committee continued:
“In this way, the Government can secure the flexible delegated powers it requires, while Parliament will have a proper explanation and justification of their use that it can scrutinise”.
Of course, I cannot put forward these amendments without making reference to the “appropriate versus necessary” debate, which these government amendments were clearly a response to. This House came to a decision on that question which the Government are disappointed with. Nevertheless, I would still commend these amendments to the House in an effort to increase transparency by some considerable measure.
Government Amendment 83F is in a similar vein, and would require Ministers to make a statement as to the purpose of an SI before it is laid. The Government have reflected carefully on the concerns raised within this House that the intention behind a modification to retained EU law might not always be clear. Such concerns were particularly focused on how modified retained EU law may be interpreted in light of Clause 5(3), and whether a modification to retained EU law is to be subject to the principle of supremacy of EU law. These concerns have also been raised in relation to Clause 6(6) and whether an item of retained EU law which is modified after exit day is still to be interpreted in accordance with retained case law.
As was discussed in Committee, we expect in many, if not most, cases that it will be evident from the modification and the context whether the modification is intended, for example, to continue to benefit from the principle of supremacy, and whether modified retained EU law is intended to be interpreted by reference to retained case law. There is no getting away from the point that, ultimately, where such issues arise, they would need to be resolved by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
However, to ensure that there is the maximum clarity and transparency as the SIs are scrutinised and made, we have tabled Amendment 83F, which requires a Minister to make an explanatory statement about the purpose of the instrument, alongside the other explanations required in the same paragraph, including about the relevant pre-exit law and the effect of the instrument, if any, on retained EU law. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance by requiring Ministers to provide transparency on this point to Parliament and the courts without risking adversely fettering the discretion of our courts in terms of how SIs and modifications to retained EU law are interpreted. I hope, therefore, that this amendment can be supported across this House.
Noble Lords will all no doubt be aware of Amendment 83G, tabled by the Government, which would require a Minister to make a statement when exercising the powers to create a criminal offence. The statement will need to explain why, in the relevant Minister’s opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it. The statement will be made in writing by a Minister before the instrument is laid and will then be published, usually in the Explanatory Memorandum, to inform the deliberations of the committees and the House.
We previously touched on this amendment during debate on Clause 7, when we said that we would discuss what form this statement would take. This is still ongoing, although we will update the House as and when any decision is made on the matter. This amendment comes following the recognition of growing concerns in the House regarding the use of the powers to create a criminal offence. The Government’s plans for creating an offence will now be even more transparent to Parliament, and our reasoning will have to be clear and justified. This will ensure that the committees will have all the relevant information necessary at their disposal to make sound decisions when considering these important instruments. I hope, and am sure, that the House will welcome this.
I thank your Lordships for bearing with me. These are important issues and we thought it important that the House should understand the reasoning behind the Government’s approach to these matters. The Government’s amendments here provide for a material increase in the transparency of the exercise of the powers in the Bill. No one should underestimate how seriously these obligations are being taken by Ministers and officials. They have been designed specifically to address the concerns expressed in Parliament, and the Government intend to meet our end of the bargain in enabling effective scrutiny of the legislation we propose. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 83C but will refer to Amendment 83D, to which the Minister devoted considerable attention. Amendment 83C goes some way to meet the concerns of the Constitution Committee, indicated by the tabling of Amendment 83D, even though the committee’s amendment is expressed in different terms. I will refer to that difference initially. The noble Baroness spoke at length about it, and it is a sore point with the Government. They do not want there to be any possibility of being accused of making big policy choices by delegated legislation, and indeed they ought not to do so. The Constitution Committee’s purpose in drafting its amendment was to ensure that delegated legislation is used to make technical changes which are necessary to ensure that retained EU law functions after exit day, and not to make policy choices.
I recognise that there are some cases where a technical change does in fact represent a policy choice—for example, the question of which body should handle this matter in the UK might be seen as a policy choice —but it would be no bad thing for Ministers’ attention to be focused on the need to police that boundary, so far as there is a boundary, between what provisions of EU law it is necessary to put on to our statute book in functioning form and what represents a policy change. That is what the House is anxious about.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beith. The Government have moved on this, and that is to be recognised and appreciated, but they could have moved further, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has made very clear. It is slightly paradoxical that, as he says, the Government’s concern not to appear to be making policy changes prevents them adopting an amendment which makes it clear that what the instrument is to do is not to make a policy change. Be that as it may, although I find it hard to believe that the Government and their advisers could not have come up with a form of words that indicated the technical nature of the change being made while not falling into the trap of appearing to make policy changes, we would not prevent that amendment being agreed.
I want to underline three points which I invite the Minister to comment on. First, the way that these Ministers’ statements are described makes it clear that it is the statement of the Minister that is required. She spoke on at least one occasion about the Government’s view that something should be done, and no doubt the Minister would not do something if it were not the Government’s view. However, it is an important and critical part of the statement obligations that the Minister in question should apply his or her mind to the issue. That is the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, rightly made in the earlier debate. Therefore, I would be grateful for her confirmation that it will be understood that, where Ministers are to make such a statement, they have a personal responsibility to be satisfied. That is the whole point of including those words—so that the House or another place has the confidence and assurance that the Minister has focused on the issue and determined that the conditions are satisfied.
The second point I want to underline is that acceptance of these amendments does not in any way undermine the importance of the amendments that the House has already agreed in relation to the “appropriate” and “necessary” distinction. That requirement will remain, and the fact that the Minister’s statement may be expressed in different terms does not undermine it in any way. It will still be necessary—to use that word—for the necessity condition to be satisfied. I would be grateful for the noble Baroness’s confirmation of that.
My third point is that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, am intrigued by the reference to the Government still considering the wording to be used for the creation of criminal offences. We look forward to seeing what they say. It sounds like it will be coming back at Third Reading, and on that I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation. In any event, in doing that, and as the Government consider their words, the House might expect the Minister’s statement to explain not just that there are good reasons for creating the offence but why there are good reasons for creating it in this way. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has said, there is no reason not to create criminal offences by primary legislation; our concern has been creating them by delegated legislation. The House will need to be satisfied that that is an appropriate thing to do in a given case. I look forward to hearing the response to those points.
Baroness Goldie
I now look forward to giving that response. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments. On his first point, which is fairly legitimate, he will be acutely aware that Ministers have not just a personal but a political responsibility. They are, in the office of being a Minister, responsible for having made the statement. That, I think, imputes to the Minister both a political and a personal responsibility. Governments of all colours act in good faith and the Ministers involved act in good faith. I think this House will be satisfied that Ministers of whatever political hue acting under these powers will genuinely have a personal focus on what is being discussed—I think “focus” was the word used by the noble and learned Lord.
The statement must both make the original statement and give an explanation of the delay in having brought the statement forward. I have tried to make that clear in my remarks: this is not an alternative responsibility but a complementary responsibility; the two things will apply. A Minister cannot shoal off one of them and offer the other. Both responsibilities will apply.
The final point was that, when creating an offence, the noble and learned Lord thought it was appropriate to justify not just why the offence was being created but why it was being created in this way. Again, that is ex facie. Part of the impact of the responsibilities of the Minister under the Bill, if so amended, is that they can expect to be questioned closely. Indeed, given the now very robust scrutiny procedures that are in place, Ministers will expect to be questioned closely not only as to why they are creating the offence, but why they are doing so in this way. That is implicit in the structure within which Ministers are now being asked to operate. I hope that to some extent answers the noble and learned Lord’s points.
Lord Beith
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I assume that she is going to answer the questions I put to her, not least about Third Reading but also about the importance of Ministers recognising that the inclusion of policy choices is something we would prefer not to see in delegated legislation.
Baroness Goldie
I am sorry. I did not have a detailed note about the point raised by the noble Lord, so may I undertake to write to him?
Lord Beith
I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, who is normally so helpful, but she has not clarified what she said about the Government reconsidering the wording in relation to criminal offences. It seems to me that, if the Government are reconsidering the wording, then we have to come back to that at Third Reading.
Baroness Goldie
We are not reconsidering. We are simply considering the appropriate text. The general point has been made clear by the Government: that they will not want to retract what is already their policy position. They will simply undertake to inform the House when a form of words has been adjusted.
Lord Newby
Is the Minister saying that the Government have no intention to come back on this issue at Third Reading?
Lord Callanan
“( ) Where an instrument or draft creates a criminal offence, the statement required by sub-paragraph (2A) must (among other things) include an explanation of why, in the relevant Minister’s opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it.”
“22ZA(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 2 , or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement to the effect that in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion the instrument or draft does no more than is appropriate.(3) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement as to why, in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion—(a) there are good reasons for the instrument or draft, and(b) the provision made by the instrument or draft is a reasonable course of action.(4) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement—(a) as to whether the instrument or draft amends, repeals or revokes any provision of equalities legislation, and(b) if it does, explaining the effect of each such amendment, repeal or revocation.(5) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement to the effect that, in relation to the instrument or draft, the Scottish Ministers have, so far as required to do so by equalities legislation, had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010.(6) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement otherwise explaining—(a) the instrument or draft,(b) its purpose,(c) the law before exit day which is relevant to it, and(d) its effect (if any) on retained EU law.(7) Where an instrument or draft creates a criminal offence, the statement required by sub-paragraph (3) must (among other things) include an explanation of why, in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it. (8) If the Scottish Ministers fail to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement explaining why they have failed to do so.(9) A statement under sub-paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (8) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.(10) In this paragraph “equalities legislation” means the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts.”
Lord Callanan
“Further explanatory statements in certain sub-delegation cases
22A(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7(1) or 9 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 which create a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before each House of Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant Minister must make a statement explaining why it is appropriate to create a relevant sub-delegated power.(3) If the relevant Minister fails to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the instrument or draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement explaining why the relevant Minister has failed to do so.(4) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(5) Sub-paragraphs (8) and (9) of paragraph 22 apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.(6) For the purposes of this paragraph references to creating a relevant sub-delegated power include (among other things) references to—(a) amending a power to legislate which is exercisable by statutory instrument by a relevant UK authority so that it becomes a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) providing for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead as a relevant sub-delegated power by a public authority in the United Kingdom.(7) In this paragraph—“the relevant Minister” means the Minister of the Crown who makes, or is to make, the instrument;“relevant sub-delegated power” means a power to legislate which—(a) is not exercisable by any of the following—(i) statutory instrument,(ii) Scottish statutory instrument, or(iii) statutory rule, or(b) is so exercisable by a public authority other than a relevant UK authority;“relevant UK authority” means a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government or a Northern Ireland devolved authority.”
Lord Callanan
My Lords, throughout debates on this Bill we have been discussing the role of this Parliament in approving legislation. This arose in relation to the scrutiny of the powers in this Bill, and the Government have moved significantly to ensure greater transparency and scrutiny of the powers in the Bill—even if our efforts are not always appreciated by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
It also arose in relation to any sub-delegated legislative or quasi-legislative powers that might be exercised by Ministers, or devolved Ministers not directly accountable to this Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The Government are therefore tabling these amendments, which provide that Ministers must make written statements explaining the appropriateness of any relevant sub-delegation. These statements will be published alongside any SI creating a legislative power that is not to be exercised by Ministers by statutory instrument or devolved equivalent. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this will ensure that the House is provided with all the information required to forensically scrutinise any SIs providing for such sub-delegation.
To ensure that, once delegated, the exercise of such powers remains transparent, we have also required that a report on the exercise of each power should be laid before Parliament each year. I expect that relevant departmental Select Committees and committees of this House will take a close interest in these reports and use them as a basis to scrutinise and challenge both the bodies exercising these powers and sponsoring Ministers if Members of the other place or noble Lords are displeased by the way these powers are being used in practice.
I have stressed before why the Government think such sub-delegation can be appropriate. I shall try not to repeat myself too much, but Parliament has already granted legislative or quasi-legislative powers to a number of public authorities where this has previously been thought to be appropriate. In line with the Bill’s aim to provide continuity, Parliament should have the option of approving authorities such as the financial regulators or the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to make binding rules and codes in their respective areas. I mention these examples because I hope they demonstrate the very technical areas where this has been done previously.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the draft SI published by DExEU and Her Majesty’s Treasury, which demonstrates how the Treasury might sub-delegate legislative functions to the financial regulators. My ministerial colleagues have discussed this with a number of noble Lords and, I hope, demonstrated that the Government’s approach here is an appropriate allocation of responsibilities that respects the existing framework set by Parliament, ensures democratic accountability for framework legislation that sets the direction of policy, and fits with the existing responsibilities of the regulators. In this case we will also be placing on top of this the provisions of these amendments.
The Government feel that this proposal balances the informed scrutiny by Parliament and Parliament’s ongoing monitoring of the exercise of legislative powers against the appropriate sub-delegation of some responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the Government have come forward with, in effect, some concessions in this area so as to give added safeguards to Members of this House that these powers will be used responsibly.
I know that the Minister recognises how concerned Members of the House are about the way that legislative power may be exercised other than through the full parliamentary process, or sub-delegated to others. That is why it is very important that the statements that it is proposed will have to be made are carefully considered. I will not repeat what I said in previous debates about the importance of ministerial responsibility for them, but the Minister has said that the House and another place will want to scrutinise very carefully both the statements that are made and the reports that are proposed to see how this is going. I therefore appreciate the changes being made by the Government and will be happy to see them go through.
Lord Callanan
“22AA(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 which create a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement explaining why it is appropriate to create a relevant sub-delegated power.(3) If the Scottish Ministers fail to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement explaining why they have failed to do so.(4) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph references to creating a relevant sub- delegated power include (among other things) references to—(a) amending a power to legislate which is exercisable by Scottish statutory instrument by a member of the Scottish Government so that it becomes a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) providing for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead as a relevant sub-delegated power by a public authority in the United Kingdom.(6) In this paragraph “relevant sub-delegated power” means a power to legislate which—(a) is not exercisable by Scottish statutory instrument, or(b) is so exercisable by a public authority other than a member of the Scottish Government.”
“Annual reports in certain sub-delegation cases
22B(1) Each person by whom a relevant sub-delegated power is exercisable by virtue of regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under section 7(1) or 9 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 must— (a) if the power has been exercised during a relevant year, and(b) as soon as practicable after the end of the year,prepare a report on how the power has been exercised during the year.(2) The person must—(a) lay the report before each House of Parliament, and(b) once laid—(i) provide a copy of it to a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) publish it in such manner as the person considers appropriate.(3) In this paragraph—“relevant sub-delegated power” has the same meaning as in paragraph 22A;“relevant year” means—(a) in the case of a person who prepares an annual report, the year by reference to which the report is prepared, and(b) in any other case, the calendar year.”
“22BA(1) Each person by whom a relevant sub-delegated power is exercisable by virtue of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers by Scottish statutory instrument under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 must—(a) if the power has been exercised during a relevant year, and(b) as soon as practicable after the end of the year,prepare a report on how the power has been exercised during the year.(2) The person must—(a) lay the report before the Scottish Parliament, and(b) once laid—(i) send a copy of it to the Scottish Ministers, and(ii) publish it in such manner as the person considers appropriate.(3) In this paragraph—“relevant sub-delegated power” has the same meaning as in paragraph 22AA;“relevant year” means—(a) in the case of a person who prepares an annual report, the year by reference to which the report is prepared, and(b) in any other case, the calendar year.”
“Further explanatory statements in urgency cases
22C(1) This paragraph applies where a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is to be made by virtue of paragraph 4(2) or 14(2).(2) The Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument must make a statement in writing explaining the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft of the instrument containing them being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) must be published before, or at the same time as, the instrument as made is laid before each House of Parliament.(4) If the Minister—(a) fails to make the statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the instrument is made, or (b) fails to publish it as required by sub-paragraph (3),a Minister of the Crown must make a statement explaining the failure.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, where an instrument is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.”
“22D(1) This paragraph applies where regulations are to be made by the Scottish Ministers under this Act by virtue of paragraph 4A(2) (whether or not as applied by paragraph 14(6A)).(2) The Scottish Ministers must make a statement in writing explaining the reasons for the Scottish Ministers’ opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without them being subject to the affirmative procedure.(3) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) must be published before, or at the same time as, the regulations as made are laid before the Scottish Parliament.(4) If the Scottish Ministers—(a) fail to make the statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the regulations are made, or(b) fail to publish it as required by sub-paragraph (3),they must make a statement explaining the failure.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”
“24(1) A power to make regulations which, under this Schedule, is capable of being exercised subject to different procedures may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be exercised, when revoking, amending or re-enacting an instrument made under the power, subject to a different procedure from the procedure to which the instrument was subject.(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) in its application to regulations under section 17(5) no procedure is also a procedure.”
Lord Callanan
“3A(1) Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which—(a) was conferred before the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) is capable of being exercised to amend or repeal (or, as the case may be, result in the amendment or repeal of) an enactment contained in primary legislation,is to be read, so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4. (2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation is only capable of being exercised to amend or repeal (or, as the case may be, result in the amendment or repeal of) an enactment contained in Northern Ireland legislation which is an Order in Council.3B_(1) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) amends or revokes any retained direct principal EU legislation,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or repealing an enactment contained in primary legislation.(2) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) either—(i) modifies (otherwise than as a connected modification and otherwise than by way of amending or revoking it) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(ii) modifies (otherwise than as a connected modification) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 ,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or repealing an enactment contained in primary legislation.(3) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) amends or revokes any retained direct minor EU legislation,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or revoking an enactment contained in subordinate legislation made under a different power.(4) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) modifies (otherwise than as a connected modification and otherwise than by way of amending or revoking it) any retained direct minor EU legislation,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or revoking an enactment contained in subordinate legislation made under a different power.(5) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) modifies as a connected modification any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to the modification to which it is connected. (6) Any provision which may be made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A may be included in the same instrument as any other provision which may be so made, confirmed or approved.(7) Where more than one procedure of a kind falling within sub-paragraph (8) would otherwise apply in the same legislature for an instrument falling within sub-paragraph (6), the higher procedure is to apply in the legislature concerned.(8) The order of procedures is as follows (the highest first)—(a) a procedure which requires a statement of urgency before the instrument is made and the approval of the instrument after it is made to enable it to remain in force,(b) a procedure which requires the approval of the instrument in draft before it is made,(c) a procedure not falling within paragraph (a) which requires the approval of the instrument after it is made to enable it to come into, or remain in, force,(d) a procedure which provides for the annulment of the instrument after it is made,(e) a procedure not falling within any of the above paragraphs which provides for the laying of the instrument after it is made,(f) no procedure.(9) The references in this paragraph to amending or repealing an enactment contained in primary legislation or amending or revoking an enactment contained in subordinate legislation do not include references to amending or repealing or (as the case may be) amending or revoking an enactment contained in any Northern Ireland legislation which is an Order in Council.(10) In this paragraph “connected modification” means a modification which is supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or transitory, or a saving, in connection with—(a) another modification under the power of retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, or(b) anything else done under the power.3C_(1) This paragraph applies to any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation—(a) which was conferred before the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) is not capable of being exercised as mentioned in paragraph 3A(1)(b) or is only capable of being so exercised in relation to Northern Ireland legislation which is an Order in Council.(2) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) is to be read—(a) so far as is consistent with any retained direct principal EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, and(b) so far as the context permits or requires,as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) any retained direct minor EU legislation.(3) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) is to be read, so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)—(a) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, so far as the modification is supplementary, incidental or consequential in connection with any modification of any retained direct minor EU legislation by virtue of sub-paragraph (2).(4) Any power to which this paragraph applies so far as it is a power to make, confirm or approve transitional, transitory or saving provision is to be read, so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)—(a) any retained direct EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4.3D_ Any subordinate legislation which is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3C(2), (3) or (4) is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were doing anything else under the power.3E_ Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which, immediately before exit day, is subject to an implied restriction that it is exercisable only compatibly with EU law is to be read on or after exit day without that restriction or any corresponding restriction in relation to compatibility with retained EU law.3F_(1) Paragraphs 3A to 3E and this paragraph—(a) do not prevent the conferral of wider powers,(b) do not apply so far as section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or section 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies (or would apply when in force on and after exit day), and(c) are subject to any other provision made by or under this Act or any other enactment.(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 3A and 3C—(a) a power is conferred whether or not it is in force, and(b) a power in retained direct EU legislation is not conferred before the day on which this Act is passed.(3) A power which, by virtue of paragraph 3A or 3C or any Act of Parliament passed before, and in the same Session as, this Act, is capable of being exercised to modify any retained EU law is capable of being so exercised before exit day so as to come into force on or after exit day.”
“5A(1) This paragraph applies to any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which is conferred on or after the day on which this Act is passed.(2) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) may—(a) so far as is consistent with any retained direct principal EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, and(b) so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears,be exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) any retained direct minor EU legislation.(3) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) may, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)— (a) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,so far as the modification is supplementary, incidental or consequential in connection with any modification of any retained direct minor EU legislation by virtue of sub-paragraph (2).(4) Any power to which this paragraph applies so far as it is a power to make, confirm or approve transitional, transitory or saving provision may, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)—(a) any retained direct EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4.5B(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which—(a) is conferred on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) is capable of being exercised to amend or revoke (or, as the case may be, result in the amendment or revocation of) any retained direct principal EU legislation.(2) The power may, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised—(a) to modify otherwise than by way of amendment or revocation (or, as the case may be, result in such modification of) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(b) to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4.5C(1) Paragraphs 5A and 5B and this paragraph—(a) do not prevent the conferral of wider powers,(b) do not apply so far as section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or section 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies (or would apply when in force on and after exit day), and(c) are subject to any other provision made by or under this Act or any other enactment.(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 5A and 5B—(a) a power is conferred whether or not it is in force,(b) a power in retained direct EU legislation is conferred on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and(c) the references to powers conferred include powers conferred by regulations under this Act (but not powers conferred by this Act).(3) A power which, by virtue of paragraph 5A or 5B or any Act of Parliament passed after, and in the same Session as, this Act, is capable of being exercised to modify any retained EU law is capable of being so exercised before exit day so as to come into force on or after exit day.”
“Explanatory statements for instruments amending or revoking regulations etc. under section 2(2) of the ECA
5D(1) This paragraph applies where, on or after exit day—(a) a statutory instrument which amends or revokes any subordinate legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before each House of Parliament or before the House of Commons only. (2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement as to why, in the opinion of the relevant authority, there are good reasons for the amendment or revocation.(3) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement otherwise explaining—(a) the law which is relevant to the amendment or revocation, and(b) the effect of the amendment or revocation on retained EU law.(4) If the relevant authority fails to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) or (3) before the instrument or draft is laid—(a) a Minister of the Crown, or(b) where the relevant authority is not a Minister of the Crown, the relevant authority,must make a statement explaining why the relevant authority has failed to make the statement as so required.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the person making it considers appropriate.(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, where an instrument or draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(7) This paragraph applies in relation to instruments whether the power to make them is conferred before, on or after exit day including where the power is conferred by regulations under this Act (but not where it is conferred by this Act).(8) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any laying before each House of Parliament, or before the House of Commons only, of an instrument or draft instrument where an equivalent draft instrument (ignoring any differences relating to procedure) has previously been laid before both Houses or before the House of Commons only.(9) In this paragraph “the relevant authority” means—(a) in the case of an Order in Council or Order of Council, the Minister of the Crown who has responsibility in relation to the instrument,(b) in the case of any other statutory instrument which is not made by a Minister of the Crown, the person who makes, or is to make, the instrument, and(c) in any other case, the Minister of the Crown who makes, or is to make, the instrument.”
“5E(1) This paragraph applies where, on or after exit day—(a) a Scottish statutory instrument which amends or revokes any subordinate legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement as to why, in the opinion of the relevant authority, there are good reasons for the amendment or revocation.(3) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement otherwise explaining—(a) the law which is relevant to the amendment or revocation, and(b) the effect of the amendment or revocation on retained EU law. (4) If the relevant authority fails to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) or (3) before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement explaining why the relevant authority has failed to make the statement as so required.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the relevant authority considers appropriate.(6) This paragraph applies in relation to instruments whether the power to make them is conferred before, on or after exit day including where the power is conferred by regulations under this Act (but not where it is conferred by this Act).(7) In this paragraph “the relevant authority” means—(a) in the case of a Scottish statutory instrument which is not made by the Scottish Ministers, other than an Order in Council, the person who makes, or is to make, the instrument, and(b) in any other case, the Scottish Ministers.”
Lord Callanan
“( ) Any retained direct principal EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation.( ) Any retained direct minor EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation so far as it amends any primary legislation but otherwise is to be treated as subordinate legislation.”
“21A_ In section 30 (other instruments laid before the Scottish Parliament), after subsection (6) insert—“(7) This section does not apply in relation to any regulations made in accordance with paragraph 4A of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (including that paragraph as applied by paragraph 14(6A) of that Schedule).””
Lord Keen of Elie
“(7) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 does not apply in relation to any proceedings begun within the period of two years beginning with exit day so far as the proceedings relate to anything which occurred before exit day.”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I rise to move the Government’s Amendment 117. The Bill’s approach to certain EU rights of challenge and associated remedies has already been scrutinised closely. We have debated at length the substantive provisions in the Bill covering this area and this House has made clear its views. I do not intend to go over old ground again in this speech. The amendment deals with the approach to transitional cases in one important area, where Francovich damages are being sought. I will say a little about the particular substantive provisions that this relates to.
Francovich damages are a specific form of remedy that exists in EU law. They are available in certain strictly limited circumstances where member states have breached EU law, for example where a member state has failed to properly transpose a directive. The Government remain firmly of the view that, after we leave the EU, Francovich damages will no longer be relevant when we cease to be bound to follow obligations that apply to member states. This is for the simple reason that the majority of Francovich cases in the UK have been brought on the grounds of non-implementation or insufficient implementation of a directive. The UK will no longer be under an obligation to implement directives after exit and the directives will not form part of our domestic law as retained EU law, so the ability to claim Francovich damages would not be possible for a post-exit cause of action. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 therefore removes the right to Francovich damages after exit day. The Government consider this outcome to be a natural consequence of the decision to leave the EU, while ensuring Parliament is sovereign.
The impact of these provisions on transitional cases is one area that the House urged us to think again on when we debated the matter in Committee. I concede that the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Carlile, made powerful arguments, in particular on the need to look again at cases where an individual’s course of action accrued before we left the EU. The amendment responds directly to that concern.
We remain of the view that it would not be reasonable for there to be a long tail of cases based on outdated elements of EU law continuing to process through our courts, potentially for many years after we leave the EU. That would not be conducive to the legal certainty this Bill aims for. The Bill will therefore set what the Government believe to be a clear and sensible cut-off point. The amendment we have brought forward will therefore delay the prohibition in the Bill on seeking Francovich damages in domestic law for two years after exit day. This will provide individuals with a fair and sensible opportunity to seek damages for pre-exit breaches of EU law. It also ensures that we continue to have a clear and certain cut-off point after which such challenges would end. I hope that the House supports the proposals that we have put forward, which I think provide important reassurance to individuals and businesses. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Beith
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help the House, or those of us who were not following quickly enough, as to how Amendment 117 relates to Amendment 116, which, as I understand it, the Government did not move, and what the effect would be of having Amendment 117 without Amendment 116. Would that affect the Francovich damages time limitation?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the intention with respect to Amendment 117 is that there should be a two-year period after exit, during which it will be possible for a claim to be made in respect of a right of action that accrued up to the point of Brexit. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Lord Beith
What was not clear to me was why the Government did not move the preceding amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
That is probably attributable to a note that I have here saying, “Don’t move Amendment 116”.
Lord Goldsmith
I will try to help the noble and learned Lord. It might be because it is pre-empted by Amendment 19 on general principles of EU law, which the House passed at an earlier stage.
Lord Keen of Elie
It was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Because it was passed, Amendment 116 does not arise.
Lord Callanan
“(b) any subordinate legislation which is subject to confirmation or approval and is made and confirmed or approved before exit day, or(c) any other subordinate legislation made before exit day.”
“( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) to (8) assume that the restrictions relating to retained EU law in—(a) sections 30A(1) and 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) sections 80(8) and 109A(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and(c) sections 6A(1) and 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,come into force on exit day.”
“30A_ A consent decision of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly made before the day on which this Act is passed, or the commencement of the 40-day period before the day on which this Act is passed, is as effective for the purposes of—(a) section 30A(3) or 57(6) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) section 80(8C) or 109A(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or(c) section 6A(3) or 24(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,as a consent decision made, or (as the case may be) the commencement of that period, on or after that day.”
Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, it seems to fall to me to move the last amendment of Report, as in Committee. However, I am not going to detain the House for long because, having re-read the Committee proceedings earlier, I found myself fully persuaded by the compelling and eloquent arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. As his arguments rolled off the page about the intent of the European Union Act 2011 and how it was not intended to address a situation other than a significant accretion of powers to the European Union, I thought it would not be sensible to press this. I am entirely persuaded by the fact that if we are to have a referendum on the treaty that the Prime Minister is negotiating with the European Union, as I believe we will ultimately have, it needs to be on an explicit vote by Parliament and cannot take place as a consequence of the 2011 Act. So, at 10.38 pm, I can bring Report proceedings to a conclusion.
Lord Goldsmith
My noble friend was very anxious to bring proceedings to a close at 10.38 pm. Would he be clear as to whether litigation taking place relating to the argument about the 2011 Act has completed? He seems very knowledgeable about that.
Lord Adonis
I believe it is still ongoing. Presumably it is perfectly reasonable for it to be ongoing until the 2011 Act is repealed, which it has not been yet. That is a matter for the litigants, not for me.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful for that. Does it not therefore change my noble friend’s view as to how he wants to deal with this amendment?
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, there is nothing more I want to say about that, but it would be inappropriate to finish immediately without from these Benches thanking everybody for the part that they have played in this Report stage as we move towards the conclusion of this Bill at Third Reading—and towards 10.40, which I notice it now is.
Lord Callanan
The House will be pleased to know that I shall not repeat all the arguments against the amendment, but, following on from the questions that the noble Lord asked me in Committee, it would perhaps be helpful for him to know that the Government intend to commence this provision of the Bill shortly after Royal Assent. That was a question that the noble Lord asked me in Committee and I wanted to be up front with the House about it.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I had prepared an enormous speech on this amendment which your Lordships will be glad to hear I will not give, but after all that we have gone through so far on this Bill it is appropriate that some of us put on record our admiration for the endurance, patience, diligence and good manners of my noble friend Lord Callanan.
Lord Callanan
It is very kind of my noble friend to say so; I am very grateful for his comments. I look at the vast expanses of empty Benches on the other side; perhaps they do not share that sentiment, but it is nevertheless nice that we have finally reached the end of Report. I am sure that we will return to some of the issues in the future.