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
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I start by paying tribute to Stephen Neil Heaney, who tragically died while taking part in the Belfast city marathon a few days ago? I think that the whole House will join me in conveying our deepest sympathies and condolences to his family and friends.
The implementation process for child tax credit is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. To protect claimant confidentiality, the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland has established an exceptions team to handle any applications for benefit payments for a third child under an exemption to the two-child tax credit cap on the ground of non-consensual conception. The Department has advised that, to date, the team has received no applications for an exemption on the ground of non-consensual conception.
Danielle Rowley
Many women say that they are put off applying for this abhorrent exception under the rape clause due to shame, trauma or perhaps fear. In Northern Ireland, women and those who assist with and endorse their applications, such as GPs, social workers and midwives, face an extra hurdle, as they risk prosecution under section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 for failing to report details of a crime. What is the Secretary of State doing to support women in Northern Ireland and protect them from that risk?
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady raises a sensitive issue, which is being treated sensitively by all concerned. She will appreciate that criminal law is a devolved matter, but I can assure her that in the 50 years since 1967, when section 5 was introduced, no prosecutions for failing to report a rape case took place. The outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions has said that it would be highly unlikely that one would happen in the future.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the tragic death at the Belfast marathon in my constituency on Monday.
The Minister is right to indicate that this is a devolved matter, but we are implementing national policy in Northern Ireland. May I invite him to ensure that we operate this policy in the most compassionate and caring way possible? Will he meet a range of stakeholders including me, Women’s Aid, the Royal College of Midwives and others?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The benefits charity helpline Turn2us has evidence that women are choosing to abort and terminate their pregnancies as a result of this Government’s despicable two-child cap. The Northern Ireland Association of Social Workers says, despite the Minister’s assurances, that the law is the law and that women and those who support them in their applications could find themselves prosecuted under section 5 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967. Will he accept that the two-child policy, and the rape clause of which it stands part, is abhorrent and unacceptable, and will he support its abolition?
Mr Vara
I repeat what I said earlier: this is a devolved matter. We have to respect—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady in particular, given that she is a Scottish National party Member, will want to respect the rights of the devolved Assemblies. Criminal law is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland. I say again that there have been no prosecutions at all as regards the rape issue in the 50 years since 1967 when section 5 was introduced, and that the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions has said that it is highly unlikely that there will be any.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
This Government have a strong track record of supporting equality and human rights across the whole United Kingdom.
Stella Creasy
“Cruel, inhumane and degrading”—not my words, but those of the United Nations on our treatment of women in Northern Ireland. Given the absence of an Assembly, why does the Secretary of State choose to recognise the importance of a free vote in this place on same-sex marriage while refusing to extend the same protection to Northern Irish women’s fundamental right not to be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady knows that abortion is a very sensitive issue, and there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate. It is also a devolved matter, as she has said. She refers to the fact that I am on record as saying that a vote on same-sex marriage, among Government Members, is a matter of conscience, and that is also true for abortion. But it would not be right for the UK Government to undermine the devolution settlement by trying to force on the people of Northern Ireland something that we in Westminster think is right; the people of Northern Ireland have to make that decision.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On equality, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real danger that the Stormont House agreement institutions might act against the interests of servicemen and former members of the security services, and give an unfair advantage to former paramilitaries? In particular, does she share my concern that, without checks and balances, those institutions might create a form of historical revisionism that casts members of the security services in an unfairly poor light?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend, who of course was instrumental in the Stormont House talks that led to the agreement on those institutions, will know that the current status quo involves a disproportionate emphasis on the actions of the military and law-enforcement bodies during the troubles, and really very little emphasis on the actions of paramilitary terrorists, who were responsible for 90% of the killings. That is why I want a consultation on the institutions so that they are set up in a way that addresses the concerns that my hon. Friend raises and deals with the issues of the past.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
With regard to equality, there appears to be one law for Members of the Legislative Assembly and another for everyone else. What excuses will the Secretary of State offer today for continuing to allow MLAs to receive their full salary when they have not been doing their full job for over a year?
Karen Bradley
I am offering no excuses; I intend to act on this issue. As the hon. Lady will know, I legislated on MLA pay at the beginning of the year to stop the £500 increase. I have been considering what to do with the Trevor Reaney recommendations and other representations, and I will make announcements in due course.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I would like to ask a question about the human rights of our brave servicemen who served in Northern Ireland for so many years, without whom there would be no peace in Northern Ireland today. May I make an early submission to the consultation? May I tell the Secretary of State, in all candour, that many of us on the Government Benches would not be prepared to traipse blithely through the Lobby to support setting up any institution that would scapegoat our military veterans in order to pander to Sinn Féin?
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—I agree with him. There is no way that I, as Secretary of State, am prepared to do anything that makes the situation more difficult for our veterans. We owe them thanks for the relative peace that we see today in Northern Ireland. They served with incredible dignity and duty, and I respect that, which is why I want to ensure that we deal with the situation. The status quo is not good enough. The only people getting knocks on the door from the police to tell them that they face inquests are the military. We need to change that, which is why we need to issue a consultation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
When veterans living in England, Wales or Scotland apply for a post with Border Force, their former service in the armed forces is taken into account, but that is not so for veterans in Northern Ireland. That is based on advice given to the Home Office by the so-called Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which claims that equality laws in Northern Ireland do not undermine the military covenant. Well, it has been caught out well on that one.
Karen Bradley
I am well aware of the matter and have taken it up with the Home Office. I hope to be able to report back shortly.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)
With support from this Government, Northern Ireland stands among the UK’s most popular inward investment destinations. We have increased the block grant in real terms, proposed a city deal for Belfast, with more to follow, and created business opportunities through our industrial strategy. Ultimately, however, political stability is key to economic growth, and that means a restored Executive delivering for the Northern Ireland economy. That remains my overriding priority.
James Cleverly
I am sure that my hon. Friend and the rest of the House welcome the news of Bombardier’s investment in Northern Ireland. My constituency is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises, and I am sure that the economy of Northern Ireland reflects that. What is his Department doing to ensure that SMEs also benefit from inward investment in Northern Ireland?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right to point out the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, which do a fantastic job in Northern Ireland and contribute a huge amount to the local economy. I have met many of those small businesses, and I have nothing but praise for them. They have contributed to the 52,000 more jobs and 12,300 more businesses since 2010. The Government will continue to engage with organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and Invest Northern Ireland so that those small businesses can fulfil their maximum potential.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
There is no progress on the border’s status after Brexit, which will crunch inward investment badly unless Northern Ireland remains part of the customs union. The alternative is a border in the Irish sea. Which is more likely: customs union or sea border?
Mr Vara
I am afraid that the hon. Lady should deal with facts rather than what analyses say. If she took an interest in what the Belfast Telegraph has to say, she would have read on Wednesday 2 May the inside-page headline, “Top US software firm to create 50 new jobs in Belfast investment”. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) has welcomed the new Bombardier contract, which is worth more than £500 million. I am afraid the facts are that business is continuing, and continuing to prosper.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
One of the reasons why there is so much inward investment in Northern Ireland is the peace created by our soldiers, policemen and special forces, with whom I had the honour of serving in the 1970s. If we are to honour the bravery of people such as Robert Nairac and my other colleagues who lost their lives in the Province, the consultation should flatly say, “We are not having a conversation. We will protect our soldiers, putting them first and the terrorists second.”
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
If we are to maintain a stable economic environment for inward investment, if we are to have democratic oversight of decisions such as that of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to recall neurology patients and, indeed, if we are to have a legislature in Northern Ireland that is capable of changing the law for victims of rape who may fall foul of the UK Government’s foolish two-child policy, we need the Stormont Assembly back in action. Can we have a very clear road map from the Minister today setting out how the Government intend to get that Assembly back in operation?
Mr Vara
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. Both the Secretary of State and I very much look forward to working with him constructively. He raises a good point about the need to have the devolved Assembly up and running again, and I assure him that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I, and all those concerned, are very keen to do so.
We are doing an enormous amount. The hon. Gentleman will be aware there were intensive talks in February, when the two main parties in Northern Ireland got close but not close enough. We are not giving up. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having regular conversations with the parties. Only a couple of weeks ago she met the five main parties with a view to seeing how we can make progress and get the Assembly up and running.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The Government’s policy on future customs arrangements in Northern Ireland is very clear. We will not accept a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and we are committed to avoiding a hard border with Ireland, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
Peter Grant
The Good Friday agreement, which underpins the peace process in Northern Ireland, was not universally welcomed, although it was overwhelmingly welcomed on both sides of the border. One main pillar of the agreement is that there will be no border infrastructure between the north and the south of Ireland. Why can the Secretary of State not tell us categorically today that the answer to my question is that no additional customs officers will be needed for the Irish border? Is it because the Government are going soft on their commitment to the Good Friday agreement?
Karen Bradley
The Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement and to the joint report that was issued before Christmas is steadfast—we remain committed to all.
Alan Brown
The Home Office has pledged to recruit an extra 1,300 customs officials by December 2020. How many of them will be based in Northern Ireland, and how many will be based on the Irish border?
Karen Bradley
I repeat that we remain committed to what we set out in the joint report that was issued before Christmas, which means that there will be no new physical infrastructure between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and no border down the Irish sea.
John Mc Nally
The latest InterTradeIreland report said that only 8% of cross-border traders had made any plans for post-Brexit trading. How many of the Secretary of State’s new customs officers will be tasked with reassuring those businesses and helping them to prepare for the future?
Karen Bradley
The reassurance I can give to those businesses is that this Government are committed to leaving the customs union, and to doing so in a way that respects our commitments under the Belfast agreement and the joint report for no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Is it not the case that we cannot know what arrangements, if any, will be needed on the Irish border until we know what kind of deal we have got with the European Union? Is not the EU putting the cart before the horse when it insists on arrangements being made now?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point but, as I say, the Government are committed to no hard border, no new physical infrastructure at the border, and no related checks and controls at the border. I hope that that is clear enough.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Does the Secretary of State agree that with investment in technology, and investing now, we can be ready on day one for trade to continue on the island of Ireland as it has always done, and that there will never be any need for physical infrastructure or customs checks at the border?
Karen Bradley
It would not be right for me to comment on the work that is being done within government on customs arrangements, suffice it to say that we are committed to no hard border on the island of Ireland, no border down the Irish sea, no new physical infrastructure, and no new related checks and controls.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that as it is our policy that there will be no hard border between the Republic and the north, there is no need for any extra officials, but that if Brussels insists that the Republic puts in a hard border, the customs officials will be required in the Republic, not in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As I say, I do not want to be drawn on speculations regarding this matter. All I will say is that we are committed to no hard border.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I thank the Under-Secretary for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box earlier.
We strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s words today, which are consistent with those of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland when he warned that any physical infrastructure would be a potential target and could eventually put lives at risk, but if her Government are going to reject a customs union—a realistic proposal put forward by the Labour party—what proposals can she set out to the House today that will make it clear that she can make this “no hard border” work?
Karen Bradley
May I now welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post? I look forward to working with him over the next few weeks, months and, possibly, years—we never know how long each of us will last.
We have discussed this matter ourselves, and the Government are committed not only to no hard border, but to respecting the result of the referendum, which means that we are leaving the single market and the customs union. We set out possible alternative arrangements in our customs paper last summer and we are working towards them.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are committed to delivering a Brexit that upholds the commitments we have made to the people of Northern Ireland to uphold the Belfast agreement, and to avoid a hard border and any border down the Irish sea.
Alex Cunningham
The Department for Exiting the European Union’s own impact report predicts an 8% hit to economic growth in Northern Ireland—a part of the UK that has long been less economically developed than others—after we leave the EU. Why are the Secretary of State and the Minister prepared to let Northern Ireland suffer, when they could avoid that by following the Labour party’s lead and committing to a new customs union?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the economic analyses of the past have not always been exactly accurate. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, he might wish to reflect on the fact that as well as the huge economic benefits that I outlined in answer to earlier questions, over the past year exports are up by 9%.
Karin Smyth
Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the joint report identified the commitment to north-south and east-west co-operation. The Government have still not published the results of the mapping exercise on the 140 areas of cross-border co-operation. Will the Minister tell us when we can have the list demonstrating those 140 areas of co-operation?
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Is the truth not that we have seen record foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom as a whole despite Brexit, and that when we leave, Northern Ireland will continue to be a top destination of choice for investment? After all, we do have the fifth largest economy in the world.
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the good point that we have one of the leading economies in the world. Leaving the European Union will be an opportunity for the United Kingdom to pursue a new path and trade policies that benefit us, and us exclusively. I agree entirely that we have a positive future outside the European Union. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Can we have a little quiet so that I can hear the questions and the answers?
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am glad to hear what the Minister and the Secretary of State have said about the integrity of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm that whatever happens and whatever the effect of Brexit on Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom will remain together economically, politically and constitutionally?
Nigel Dodds
Every right-thinking person should welcome that commitment, not only on the political front but economically, given that the vast bulk of sales from Northern Ireland go to the Great Britain market. Those who advocate separating out Northern Ireland into the customs union while the rest of the United Kingdom leaves it would inflict economic misery on all our constituents. Will the Minister take the opportunity to remind Leo Varadkar that when he talks about not leaving Northern Ireland behind, what he means is sucking Northern Ireland into the institutions of the EU, which would be economically disastrous for all our citizens?
Mr Vara
Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that neither she nor any other Prime Minister would ever compromise the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. That means that Northern Ireland is very much a full part of the rest of the country, along with Scotland, Wales and England. There is no question whatsoever of having a border at the Irish sea—none whatsoever.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I think the House recognises that I am a beacon of stability in an ever-changing Opposition Northern Ireland team. Sadly, I am always the bridesmaid.
The European arrest warrant is vital to policing in Northern Ireland—we all accept that—and enables the Police Service of Northern Ireland to co-operate with colleagues in the south. Many have commented that no visible progress has been made on the replacement of the critical EU policing frameworks that enable vital cross-border co-operation. Will the Minister outline what discussions his Department has had with Home Office colleagues about this vital issue, and reassure not just the House but the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr Vara
It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is still in his place and that there is some continuity in the shadow Northern Ireland team.
As far as the withdrawal agreement is concerned, a huge amount of progress has been made. The hon. Gentleman raises the very important issue of the European arrest warrant. The various Departments are all working together to ensure that we achieve the very best deal possible. Yes, the Northern Ireland Office is speaking with the Home Office to make sure that we get the very best deal in terms of protection and of the replacement framework that we will have when we leave the EU.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Speaker is attending the funeral of the late Michael Martin, who was Speaker of this House and a true family man who was committed to his community in Glasgow. I know that the House wants to pass on its prayers and condolences to his wife, Mary, and family.
There is important business to come in Prime Minister’s questions and we want to hear from as many colleagues as possible. May I remind all Members, Front and Back Benchers, to ask succinct questions? I trust that the replies will be as pithy.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
As I said last week, the condolences of the whole House are with the family and friends of Michael Martin.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Drew Hendry
Many highland businesses rely on EU national employees simply to operate. Given that the Prime Minister’s Government already make a charge of up to £1,000 per year per person for non-EU nationals, will she categorically rule out any such immigration skills charge for EU nationals after the UK leaves the EU?
The Prime Minister
We recognise that, after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, there will still be those in the EU who wish to come to work and study here in the UK, and that there will still be UK citizens who wish to work and study in the European Union. We will bring forward our proposals for those arrangements in due course.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Labour party, but I am sure that she will be able to respond appropriately.
The Prime Minister
I can say to my hon. Friend that she is right about votes that took place in this House where the Opposition did vote against the abolition of stamp duty for those young first-time buyers, which is proving so helpful. Last Thursday, when millions of people across England went to the polls to vote for their local councils, we saw that the real winners were ordinary people. More people are now able to get the benefit of Conservative councillors who keep their council tax lower and provide good local services.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
First, may I put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for attending the funeral of the late Michael Martin this morning in Glasgow on behalf of this House?
Does the Prime Minister agree with her Foreign Secretary that the plan for a customs partnership set out in her Lancaster House speech is, in fact, “crazy”?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are leaving the European Union and we are leaving the customs union, but, of course, for our future trade relationship with the European Union, we will need to agree customs arrangements, which will ensure that we leave the customs union, that we can have an independent free trade policy, that we can maintain no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and that we can have as frictionless trade with the European Union as possible. I will tell him what is crazy. What is crazy is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who for years opposed the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now has a policy that would mean Labour signing up to TTIP with no say in it whatsoever.
Jeremy Corbyn
Could the Prime Minister explain why she and her Cabinet wasted weeks working up proposals that the EU said were unworkable and that the Foreign Secretary described as “crazy”? Does she agree with her Business Secretary who apparently backs the “crazy” customs partnership proposal, but who made it clear that he did not back a technological alternative when he told the BBC that jobs would be at risk if we do not sort out a comprehensive customs deal?
The Prime Minister
What the Business Secretary said on Sunday was that it was absolutely right that we should be leaving the customs union. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about jobs, I am happy to do so: half a million jobs lost under the last Labour Government; record employment rate under this Conservative Government.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Government say that they have two options. The Foreign Secretary says that one is “crazy”, and Sir Ivan Rogers, our former EU ambassador, said that the technological alternative is a “fantasy island unicorn model”. They have two options, neither of which is workable. The case for a new customs union with the European Union is clear, to support jobs and living standards. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring all the major business organisations and all the major trade unions backing a customs union? Is it not time that she stood up to those described last night by the Father of the House as “wild, right-wing people”?
The Prime Minister
We are leaving the customs union. What we are doing is ensuring that we deliver customs arrangements but leave the customs union, ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, as frictionless trade with the EU as possible, and an independent trade policy. What would Labour give us? It wants to go into a customs union with the European Union, with no say over trade policy and with Brussels negotiating trade deals in its interests, not our own. The Labour manifesto said that it wanted to strike trade deals, but now it has gone back on that policy. Typical Labour—letting Britain down once again.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister presides over a divided Cabinet. She has had 23 months to negotiate an agreement and has not made any progress on it. The CBI says that
“a comprehensive customs union, after transition, is a practical, real-world answer”.
The TUC, on behalf of 6 million workers in this country, puts it simply:
“Ruling out a customs union risks jobs”.
The Government continue to reject a new customs union, but at the weekend the Business Secretary made it clear that neither of their options would be ready to be implemented by December 2020. Can the Prime Minister tell us her preferred option and the date on which it will be ready to be implemented?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the length of time in the negotiations. Of course, it was not until March and the agreement to move on to the next stage of negotiations that it was possible to have discussions with the European Commission on the customs arrangements. There were two options in my Mansion House speech. Questions have been raised about both of them and further work continues.
The right hon. Gentleman has spent an entire career opposing a customs union. Now that the British people want to come out, he wants to stay in. I know that he is Leader of the Opposition, but that is going a bit far.
Jeremy Corbyn
Due to divisions within the Government, these negotiations are a shambles, and this House is being denied the opportunity to debate crucial legislation affecting the future of our economy and communities all over Britain. Can the Prime Minister now tell the House when we will debate the Trade Bill and when we will debate the customs Bill? She has had 23 months to get ready for it.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the state of the negotiations. Before December, he was saying that the negotiations were not going to get anywhere, but what did we get? A joint report agreed by the European Council. He said before March that we would not get what we wanted in the negotiations, but what did we get? An implementation and an agreement with the European Union Council. We are now in negotiation for the best deal for the UK when we leave the EU, and we will get the best deal for the UK when we leave the European Union.
Jeremy Corbyn
I would have thought that after 23 months, we would have a better answer than that from the Prime Minister.
How can the Government negotiate in the future interests of people’s jobs and living standards when Cabinet members are more interested in putting their own futures first? Fundamentally, how can this Government negotiate a good deal for Britain to defend people’s jobs and living standards when they are unable to reach an agreement between themselves?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what this Government have been doing to defend jobs. We have had a balanced approach to the economy, opposed by the Labour party. We have introduced changes in legislation for more workers’ rights, often opposed by the Labour party. We have been ensuring that we see jobs being created in this country—employment is at its highest rate since records began, and unemployment is at its lowest rate for 40 years or more. This is a Government that are putting jobs first at every stage of what we are doing. Last week, what we saw up and down this country, whether in Barnet, Dudley or Peterborough, was the British people voting to reject the back-to-the-future economic policy of the Labour party and the broken promises of Labour. They do not trust Labour, and they do not trust its leader.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning hard to promote financial inclusion, which is very important. We are committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from unfair lending practices. I understand that the FCA is currently conducting a review of the high-cost credit market, including doorstep lending, and will publish an update later this month. Of course, we have also given the FCA new powers to cap the cost of credit, and it will do so if it believes that necessary to protect consumers.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
We all woke up this morning to a much more dangerous world. Donald Trump has undermined progress towards normalisation of relationships with Iran. In the Prime Minister’s representations to the President of the United States on Saturday, did she speak in the strongest terms on the lunacy of the actions that he is taking?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear in a number of conversations with the President of the United States about the belief of the United Kingdom that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the nuclear deal with Iran—should stay. That view is also shared by Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Macron of France, which was made clear in the joint statement that I issued last night with them. We accept that there are other issues in relation to the behaviour of Iran that need to be dealt with, such as ballistic missiles, the question of what will happen when we reach the sunset clause at the end of the nuclear deal and the destabilising activity of Iran in the region. Those issues need to be addressed, and we are working with our European and other allies to do just that.
Ian Blackford
The Prime Minister did not make any reference to sending her Foreign Secretary to appear on Fox News as part of his foreign policy initiative, pleading with the President through Fox News rather than direct intervention. The middle east is in need of stability. Conflicts are already raging in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary cannot deliver a message abroad in the correct manner, and at home, he undermines the Prime Minister on the customs union. Can the Prime Minister tell us when the Foreign Secretary will agree with his own Government’s position? If he does not, will she have the backbone to send him to the Back Benches?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that the Government, in addressing the issue of the Iran nuclear deal with the United States Government, have worked across all levels and made representations at a variety of levels and in a variety of ways. That is what the Foreign Secretary was doing in Washington. It is what he has done with his opposite number in the past, as I have done with President Trump and as has happened with our French and German colleagues as well. We continue to believe that the Iran nuclear deal was an important step forward in helping to keep the world safe. As I say, there are other issues that need to be worked on, and both the Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on those with our European and other allies.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It was indeed very good to see millions of people on the roads of Yorkshire, cheering on the Tour de Yorkshire as it took place this bank holiday weekend. As my hon. Friend says, not only are these events hugely enjoyable for sports fans, but they bring huge economic benefit to the area and they show off the best of Britain to the world. That is why I am delighted that in September next year we will see the cycling road world championships taking place in Yorkshire, bringing the world’s best cyclists to Yorkshire—we are providing financial support for these championships—and I am always happy to visit Yorkshire.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The former Home Secretary was absolutely clear about the offer that has been made to those people who were covered by the legislation—the Immigration Act 1971—who came to the United Kingdom before 1973. I am sure that the Home Secretary will ensure that the case the hon. Lady has raised is looked into carefully. Often, cases are raised in this House and there is sometimes a complexity to the cases that needs to be looked into very carefully, but I am sure the Home Secretary will ensure that that case is properly considered.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
My constituency of Aldershot is the home of the British Army and it has a very fine tradition of military service. I am delighted that the commander of the Aldershot garrison, Colonel Mac MacGregor, and his wife Deborah have joined us in the Gallery today. Next month, Colonel Mac will leave the Army after nearly 40 years’ service, so will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Colonel Mac for his service and the tremendous good works he does in the wider community of Rushmoor borough?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy not only to welcome the colonel and his wife to the Gallery to watch our proceedings today, but to thank him for the significant service he has shown our country in his time in our armed forces and for all the work he has done as commander of the garrison at Aldershot. We wish him all the very best in his retirement from the Army.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
As I made clear in my Mansion House speech, the European Medicines Agency is one of those that we wish to discuss with the European Union the possibility of having associate membership of. I and the Business Secretary, as well as others, spend time with the life sciences industry and with other industries to understand their concerns. We will be looking to ensure that we can provide the same level of interaction in the future to enable our life sciences industry not just to continue at the current level, but actually to be enhanced and to grow.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Bomber County Gateway Trust on the approval of its plans for a full-sized sculpture of a Lancaster bomber? In this centenary year of the RAF, does she agree that it will be a fitting tribute to the service personnel—past, present and future?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who are looking for an appropriate commemoration of the Lancaster bomber squad and to recognise all that was done by those who were involved with the Lancasters. As she says, this year is the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Royal Air Force and all of us across the House should show our gratitude and support for all those in the RAF who have contributed so bravely to the safety of our country over the years.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, there are two options for delivering on the objectives that we have set. We will leave the customs union, we want to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, we want to ensure that there is as frictionless trade as possible between the UK and the EU, and we want to ensure that we can have an independent trade policy. I say to the hon. Gentleman that what is not credible is a Labour party policy that wants us to be in a customs union, giving all the power for negotiating our trade deals to Brussels, with no say whatsoever for the UK.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend welcome the re-election of Bexley’s Conservative council, congratulate it on its good record locally, and look forward to its continuing to implement efficient and effective Conservative policies?
The Prime Minister
I am very, very pleased to welcome the re-election of Bexley’s Conservative council. I was pleased to speak to the leader of Bexley council shortly before the elections last week, and I am very pleased that the residents of Bexley will enjoy yet more years with a good Conservative council, delivering great local services at lower cost.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We recognise the important and valuable work that the White Helmets do. As the hon. Gentleman says, they do it in horrendously difficult conditions and are incredibly brave to continue that work. We do support them and we will continue to support them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will look at the level of that support for the future.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the four fantastic new Conservative councillors—[Interruption.] Their election takes the control of Redditch Borough Council from the Labour party to the Conservative party—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If her diary permits, I ask her to visit Redditch at the earliest possible opportunity to back our fantastic local campaign to unlock—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I call the Prime Minister. Let’s get on with it.
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the newly elected Conservative councillors. I gave a list of councils earlier where people had rejected Labour, like Barnet, Dudley and Peterborough. I can add Redditch to that list, and indeed other councils around the country. Many congratulations to her, to those councillors and to all the volunteers and activists who work so hard.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman knows that we do not want to see anybody having to use food banks. As we have rolled out universal credit, we have listened to the concerns raised and we have changed the arrangements as a result.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Congestion on the A40 in west Oxfordshire is a blight for residents. With developments, including the Cotswold garden village, set to increase demand, will the Prime Minister work with me so that upgrades to the A40, to buses and to the Cotswold railway line ensure that we have an integrated transport structure to keep west Oxfordshire moving?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue on behalf of his constituents. I recognise that he is absolutely right to do so and how important it is to them. At the Budget, we announced £1.7 billion for the transforming cities fund to deliver transport infrastructure for the future. We have also ensured that local authorities are able to bid in to over £1 billion of discounted lending to support high-value infrastructure projects, giving power back to local people and recognising the importance of such infrastructure. He raises specific issues and I know my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will be happy to discuss them with him.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The question of intergenerational fairness is one that we recognise and one I think the whole of society needs to recognise. We need to ensure, through Help to Buy and abolishing stamp duty for many first-time buyers, that we help young people to get their foot on the housing ladder and buy more homes. It is important that we make sure we have jobs for people, and that young people are skilled, trained and educated to take on the jobs of the future. That is what our modern industrial strategy is doing and that is the best thing we can do: ensure, as we are doing, that we have the policies, through our balanced approach to the economy, that provide the jobs and homes for those young people for the future.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Yesterday, the Scottish Affairs Committee heard from Royal Bank of Scotland executives. Given this publicly funded bank’s blatant disregard for the local communities it serves, will my right hon. Friend strengthen the access to banking standards to give local people more of a say when banks remove vital local services?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we put those access to banking standards in place and that there are alternative arrangements in place, which we have encouraged people to take up, to ensure that they are able to access the banking facilities they need.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are putting record investment into rail across the country and that includes investment in rail in the north. We are supporting Transport for the North, which is coming forward with proposals for the north. This Government recognise not just the importance of infrastructure but the importance of infrastructure across the whole of the country.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Yesterday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), we launched the One Britain One Nation all-party group, which will be working with schools to promote pride in our country, and respect, tolerance and inclusion regardless of one’s background. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the founder of One Britain One Nation, Kash Singh, for the hard work he is doing to promote unity in our communities and schools?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that we pay tribute to those like Kash Singh who are working to promote inclusion and unity in our communities, and it is important that we see that the values of respect and inclusion, regardless of one’s background, are ones that everybody recognises and practises. We have changed the law so that schools have to actively promote our fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs. I am absolutely clear that nobody’s path through life should be affected by their background or where they came from. How far they go should be based on how hard they work and their talents, and not their background.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No. The hon. Lady has raised a number of points. We have been clear about the support that we are giving in terms of the funds that have previously come from the European Union. We have also been clear about the issue of citizens’ rights for people who are currently here in the United Kingdom from the European Union, and for those who will come here during the implementation period up to the end of December 2020. If she wants to be worried about policies that will affect jobs in Newcastle and the north-east, I will tell her the policies that would affect jobs in Newcastle and the north-east: the policies of her Front Benchers and her party.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland suggested that the possibility of dealing with legacy cases through a statute of limitations coupled with a truth recovery process would be included as an option in the forthcoming consultation exercise? Does she accept that that is a legitimate option for consideration, and will she therefore ensure that it is not excluded from that consultation exercise?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. At its heart is the support and gratitude that we owe to all those who have served in our armed forces. Our armed forces personnel are willing to put their lives on the line for our safety day in and day out, as are our personnel who work in law enforcement. The peace we see today in Northern Ireland is very much due to the work of our armed forces and law enforcement in Northern Ireland, but we have an unfair situation at the moment, in that the only people being investigated for these issues that happened in the past are those in our armed forces or those who served in law enforcement in Northern Ireland. That is patently unfair—terrorists are not being investigated. Terrorists should be investigated and that is what the Government want to see.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, Members across this House raise issues about the PIP process, and the Department for Work and Pensions is consistently looking at the whole PIP process. One of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in his question was the health of the individual concerned. As he sits for a Welsh constituency, I would have thought that, if he wants to talk about health, he should talk to the Labour Government in Wales.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I recently visited a construction site for 85 affordable homes in Cotmanhay in my constituency, which is benefiting from a £3 million Homes England grant. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and the House that she will continue to work with the new Housing Secretary to ensure that more people, such as those in Cotmanhay, fulfil their dreams of home ownership?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment. This is an important issue. As I mentioned in response to an earlier question about intergenerational issues, there are young people today who worry they will never be able to get a home. The Government are committed to building more homes and helping young people to get their feet on the housing ladder. That is why we have abolished stamp duty for many first-time buyers and put more money into Help to Buy. Helping young people to get their feet on the housing ladder is a commitment of this Government and something we will continue to do in her constituency and elsewhere.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are making progress on plastic, but we need to work with the manufacturers on its production, which is why we are doing exactly that. The Business and Environment Secretaries and others are talking to manufacturers about how to ensure that plastic is recyclable and does not end up in our oceans, with all the problems that causes.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Afghan interpreters who served alongside British troops did so with skill and courage. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those who have made their homes in our country can remain and that the ordinary fees will be waived as a small sign of our gratitude?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point about Afghan interpreters, who served bravely alongside our armed forces, as he says. The Home Secretary has been looking at this issue, particularly in relation to the fees for those individuals. Some have wished and been able to return to Afghanistan and have been given opportunities by the Government to retrain and re-establish their lives there, but it is important that we recognise the debt that we owe them.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Since 2015, we have been protecting police funding. This year, we have made available £460 million extra to policing across the country, which is more than the Labour party was committed to in its election manifesto last year. As I have always said—and indeed as the shadow policing Minister has said—there is no direct link between the number of police officers, crime and funding.
Petition
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
No matter the spin from the senior management of the Royal Bank of Scotland or the silence from the Government over their 70% shareholding, the people of Aviemore, for whom I present this petition tonight, say that the closure of their branch is nothing less than a betrayal.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Inverness, Narin, Badenoch & Strathspey,
Declares that the proposed closure of the branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Narin, Grantown, Aviemore and Inverness will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty's Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002147]
Iran Nuclear Deal
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the future of the Iran nuclear agreement, officially known as the joint comprehensive plan of action.
The Government regret the decision of the United States Administration to withdraw from the deal and reimpose American sanctions on Iran. We did our utmost to prevent this outcome: from the moment that President Trump’s Administration took office, we made the case for keeping the JCPOA at every level. Last Sunday, I travelled to Washington and repeated this country’s support for the nuclear agreement in meetings with Secretary of State Pompeo, Vice-President Pence, national security adviser Bolton and others, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Trump last Saturday.
The US decision makes no difference to the British assessment that the constraints imposed on Iran’s nuclear ambitions by the JCPOA remain vital for our national security and the stability of the middle east. Under the agreement, Iran has relinquished 95% of its low-enriched uranium, placed two thirds of its centrifuges in storage, removed the core of its heavy water reactor—thus closing off the plutonium route to a bomb—and allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to mount the most intrusive and rigorous inspection regime ever devised, an obligation on Iran that lasts until 2040. The House should not underestimate the impact of those measures. The interval needed for Iran to make enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb is known as the breakout time. Under the deal, Iran’s breakout time has trebled, or even quadrupled, from a few months to at least a year, and the plutonium pathway to a weapon has been blocked completely.
For as long as Iran abides by the agreement—and the IAEA has publicly reported its compliance nine times so far—Britain will remain a party to the JCPOA. I remind the House that the JCPOA is an international agreement, painstakingly negotiated over 13 years under both Republican and Democratic Administrations, and enshrined in United Nations resolution 2231. Britain has no intention of walking away; instead, we will co-operate with the other parties to ensure that while Iran continues to restrict its nuclear programme, its people will benefit from sanctions relief in accordance with the central bargain of the deal. I cannot yet go into detail about the steps that we propose to take, but I hope to make that information available as soon as possible, and I spoke yesterday to my French and German counterparts.
In his statement on 12 January, President Trump highlighted important limitations of the JCPOA, including the fact that some constraints on Iran’s nuclear capacity will expire in 2025. Britain worked alongside France and Germany to find a way forward that would have addressed the President’s concerns and allowed the US to stay in the JCPOA, but without reopening the terms of the agreement. I still believe that that would have been the better course. Now that our efforts on this side of the Atlantic have not succeeded, it falls to the US Administration to spell out their view of the way ahead. In the meantime, I urge the US to avoid taking any action that would hinder other parties from continuing to make the agreement work in the interests of our collective national security. I urge Iran to respond to the US decision with restraint and to continue to observe its commitments under the JCPOA.
We have always been at one with the United States in our profound concern about Iran’s missile tests and Iran’s disruptive role in the middle east, particularly in Yemen and Syria. The UK has acted to counter Iran’s destabilising behaviour in the region, and we will continue to do so. We remain adamant that a nuclear-armed Iran would never be acceptable to the United Kingdom. Indeed, Iran’s obligation not to “seek, develop or acquire” nuclear weapons appears—without any time limit—on the first page of the preamble to the JCPOA.
Yesterday, President Trump promised to work
“with our allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.”
I have no difficulty whatever with that goal; the question is, how does the US propose to achieve it? Now that the Trump Administration have left the JCPOA, the responsibility falls on them to describe how they, in Washington, will build a new negotiated solution to our shared concerns—a settlement that must necessarily include Iran, China and Russia, as well as countries in the region. Britain stands ready to support that task, but in the meantime, we will strive to preserve the gains made by the JCPOA. I commend the statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
I am sure that there will come a time to debate whether the Government’s approach to Donald Trump since his election in 2016 has been the right one, but today is not the time, because instead I believe that the whole House, and indeed the whole world, should stand united in condemning Donald Trump for the reckless, senseless and immoral act of diplomatic sabotage that he has committed. Every independent inspection has confirmed—even the US Defence Secretary James Mattis admitted this last month—that the nuclear deal is working and Iran is complying with it in full.
Yes, there are other important matters that must be addressed with Iran—its regional activities, its ballistic missile programme, and its record on human rights—but the platform for that dialogue, and the foundation on which future arrangements could be reached, was the nuclear deal. Instead, by seeking to scupper the nuclear deal, Donald Trump has destroyed the platform for future progress and risked triggering a nuclear arms race in the middle east, handing power to the hard-line theocrats in Tehran and pushing Iran back into isolation. Donald Trump is taking all those risks without a single care, without the slightest justification and without the simplest rational thought about what will come next; and in doing so he is sending a message to North Korea that any agreement it reaches with the US will be worthless.
While we could talk all day about the recklessness and idiocy of what Donald Trump has done, the key question is this: how should the world react? And here I believe there are three challenges. First, there is the challenge for the other signatories of how to best preserve the deal. For Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia that means providing urgent legal and financial protection for companies and banks in our countries engaged in trade and financial transactions with Iran so they can continue doing so. As for Iran, it must have the patience and resolve not to respond in kind to this act of belligerence, but to continue working with the other signatories to try to keep the deal alive.
The second challenge is equally serious: how to stop a descent into conflict. Iran is a country nine times the size of Syria with a population as big as Germany’s. The idea of Iran racing to develop a nuclear weapon and the US Administration seeking to stop it through military means does not bear thinking about. Yet we know that that is exactly what the Trump Administration are thinking about. In February, The New York Times published an important comment piece accusing the Trump Administration of employing exactly the same playbook used before the Iraq war to manufacture a pretext for war with Iran. The article was written by Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, and he warned simply:
“I helped sell the false choice of war once. It’s happening again.”
And that was before the appointment of John Bolton. So while we rightly focus our efforts now on trying to salvage the nuclear deal, we must also be alert to stop any further steps the US may take to escalate its confrontation with Iran.
The third and final challenge I want to mention today is equally profound: if we did not know it beforehand, what yesterday’s announcement confirmed is that as long as Donald Trump remains President we must get used to a world without American leadership—a world where efforts to secure peace and progress on the great challenges facing the planet must be made not just without American co-operation but often in the face of the Administration’s active opposition. That is the challenge we now face in relation to Iran, as it has been on climate change, the refugee crisis and the Israel-Palestine peace process. But starting with the consensus in this House today, I hope we can all play our part in ensuring Britain rises to that challenge.
Boris Johnson
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s point that there is no merit in any reckless and counterproductive attacks on the United States today, and I am sure that she will continue that spirit when the President makes his visit in July and trust, too, that she will communicate that to the rest of those on the Labour Benches and, indeed, to the Labour party in London. She made a good point when she said that the Iranian Government and the Iranian people have not walked away from the deal. They remain in compliance, and it is our duty, as the UK Government with our European partners, to help them to remain in compliance and to assist in the survival of the JCPOA.
To be fair to the US Administration, they have decided that there is another way forward. They have decided that the limitations that they see in the deal—the sunset clauses, Iran’s malign behaviour in the region and the problem of the intended Iranian acquisition of intercontinental ballistic missiles—can be met by bringing all the problems together and having a big negotiation. The UK Government have long taken a different view that the essence of the JCPOA was to compartmentalise—to take the nuclear deal and solve that—but the President has taken another view. It is now up to Washington to come forward with concrete proposals on how exactly it intends to bring the problems together and address them collectively. Our posture should be one of support in that endeavour, although, as I say, we have been sceptical about how that is to be done.
As for North Korea, the whole House will want to wish the President of the United States every possible success in his endeavours and convey to him our admiration for the vigour with which he has tackled the matter.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know from his work that US leadership has often been a force for good in the world, and although many of us still support the leadership that the United States shows around the world, many of us are worried by their withdrawal from this deal. We are perhaps, however, a little more concerned by the malign activity of the Iranian regime, its theocrats, its acolytes and its useful idiots around the world, who have encouraged it and supported it in the media and in the region. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on us, as good Europeans and good internationalists, to work with partners around the world and around the region not just to encourage a new approach to a peace process in Iran, but to encourage the Iranian regime to change, to become a good neighbour, not a malign influence, and to cease threatening our friends and allies, such as the other countries in the region and, of course, Israel?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend is entirely right to point out that, as Members on both sides of the House will agree, Iran is a malign actor in the region. There is no question but that Iran has been a seriously disruptive force in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. He is also right to point out the cardinal importance of the Iranian people in the discussions. Ultimately, the effort behind the JCPOA was to give them the prospect of the economic benefits of participating in the global economy in exchange for denuclearisation. That is still the fundamental bargain to be struck.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and all Members a very happy Europe Day?
The JCPOA has illustrated the importance of our relationship with our European partners, who are after all our closest allies. This work illustrates the painstaking effort that goes into seeking a diplomatic way forward. The Foreign Secretary was right to mention the reduction in low-enriched uranium and some of the other achievements of the Iran deal, and the shadow Foreign Secretary was right to talk about the false choice of war. The process has been long and painstaking, and I pay due credit to officials and to Ministers from both sides of the House for their work over the years. This is a much more effective way to deal with concerns about weapons of mass destruction than that deployed by Iran’s neighbours, for example.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this move by President Trump is deeply reckless and irresponsible and has undermined the importance of the diplomatic process? Given what appears to be the UK’s lack of influence and the Foreign Secretary’s appeal on the President’s favourite TV show, does that not illustrate even more why we have such an important relationship with the EU in tackling the issue? Will he tell me when he next plans to meet Federica Mogherini, who has shown such leadership on this?
Boris Johnson
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we work not only hand in glove with the United States, but with our allies, friends and partners in continental Europe. Indeed, that work has intensified over the past few months because, as the Prime Minister has said many times, we may be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe. As for Federica Mogherini, I expect that I shall probably see her next week.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
While many across the House will want to continue to give the benefit of the doubt to the Foreign Secretary on the Iran deal, does he nevertheless acknowledge that there remain serious questions about what our wider policy of engagement with the Iranian regime is achieving? Has my right hon. Friend seen anything over the past two years to indicate that Iran is taking steps towards becoming a more responsible member of the international community, instead of remaining the force for chaos and terror that it continues to be?
Boris Johnson
As my right hon. Friend knows, the UK is in the lead in trying to disrupt malign Iranian behaviour in the region. Whether trying to stop Iranian missiles going to Yemen or to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the UK is doing that. Indeed, this country maintains sanctions on the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We are determined to bear down on Iranian malign activity, but we can do that while retaining the core achievement of the JCPOA.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the most serious consequences of President Trump’s decision, which the special relationship was unable to prevent, is that it will result in hard-liners in Iran and elsewhere saying, “There is no point in doing deals on security with the United States of America, because it does not keep its word.”?
Boris Johnson
If the right hon. Gentleman is correct, that is all the more reason for the UK to work to preserve the essentials of the deal. I just remind the House, which may be getting into a mood of undue pessimism, that President Trump said last night that he is committed to finding a new solution, and we should hold him to his word.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
One of the deal’s essential elements for Iran is the restoration of commercial banking relationships in return for adherence to the JCPOA—indeed, it is mentioned in the JCPOA—and Iran has adhered to the JCPOA, but we have still seen no sight of any restoration. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on Iran, which has already met the deputy governor of the Bank of England to discuss the matter, to find a way to produce a non-dollar financial arrangement that works, so that Iran can retain some credence in the other partners to the JCPOA?
Boris Johnson
We have seen that deals can be done without conflicting with the extra-territorial aspects of US sanctions. As I said in my statement earlier on, we will be announcing further steps in due course.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Now that the Government have discovered the limits of sycophancy in dealing with President Trump, will the Foreign Secretary spell out some of the economic implications? Do the Government have any contingency plans to protect British industry and motorists if the withdrawal of 4 million barrels a day of Iranian oil results in an inevitable oil shock?
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UK remains a party to the JCPOA, and we will do our utmost to protect UK commercial interests.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his unswerving loyalty to collective Government policy at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. Does he agree that one of the many dangers following the President’s decision is that the so-called moderates in Iran—although they are not very moderate by our standards—will be undermined by the decision, which will strengthen even more hard-line people? While the Foreign Secretary may take steps to try to reduce Iran’s malign behaviour in some areas, will he give an unswerving guarantee that Britain will stick to its commitments under the agreement so long as the Iranians are fully compliant with the commitments that they entered into and that we will not modify that in any way?
Boris Johnson
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, and I remember getting a lot of wonderful copy when I was a political journalist from his own displays of unswerving loyalty to Government policy. By the way, I am completely in conformity with Government policy on the matters to which I believe he is referring, since that policy has yet to be decided. On his wider point, it is absolutely vital that we continue to get the message over to the moderates in Iran—I include President Rouhani in their number—that the UK remains committed to this agreement.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both praised the joint efforts that have been made with our French and German partners. In the light of the impetuous, destructive, unilateralist behaviour of the US President, is this not the worst possible time for us to be leaving the European Union?
Boris Johnson
No. On the contrary, what this shows to the meanest intelligence is that we do not have to be a member of the European Union in order to co-operate in the most productive way with our European friends and partners.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
But is not the President right in his analysis of this rather flimsy agreement, which should never have been called comprehensive, in that it does not include missiles and that, far from constraining Iranian behaviour, it has enabled the regime to use its new financial freedom to interfere in Syria, in Iraq, and above all in Yemen, and to sponsor further Houthi attacks on our friends in Saudi Arabia?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I do not recall him making those points when he was serving so well as Secretary of State for Defence when the deal was done, and I disagree with him. Of course the JCPOA has its limitations, as I have readily conceded, but its advantage is that it has at its heart the idea of preventing the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear weapon in exchange for limited economic benefits. I still think that that idea has validity, and the Iranians are still in compliance with that agreement, limited though it is.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I am disappointed with today’s statement, because it was not a big surprise when this happened, yet the Foreign Secretary has said that he will come back with some details later on. I do not know why that should be the case, because this was even signposted during the American election. The statement is also light on what we are going to do about the Iranians’ behaviour in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary needs to tell us now when he intends to come back to the House.
Boris Johnson
As I have said at least twice, I will be informing the House in due course about what further economic steps we will be taking, and I have been very clear about the many things we are doing in the wider middle east to constrain the activities of Iran.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
There is no doubt that Iranian interference in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Bahrain and elsewhere is a legitimate cause for concern, but does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very poor decision by the President, which flies in the face of the advice of his own people and of America’s most loyal allies? In trying to sustain this agreement, will he work to ensure that the inspection regime—which is, at the end of the day, the crown jewels of the agreement—will still apply?
Boris Johnson
Yes, of course we will work to ensure that the inspection regime continues. I think there have been about 400 inspections since the JCPOA began, and they have all found that Iran was in compliance. As I have said, it is now up to the United States to come forward with a plan, and if it has military options, frankly I have yet to see them.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
What discussions will the Foreign Secretary and the other members of the E3 be having with NATO allies? Clearly, they also will be feeling greatly disturbed by this unilateral action by the United States, which will impact on their relationships with Iran.
Boris Johnson
I am sure that the issue will figure largely at the next meeting of the North Atlantic Council.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
In the same way as a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to the UK, so is Iran’s record on human rights. The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that the UK will continue to “counter Iran’s destabilising behaviour in the region”. What can he do to bring to an end the continuous persecution of the people of the Baha’i state, which has now spread to Yemen, where a prominent Houthi leader has placed a message on social media, threatening to butcher every Baha’i in the country? Surely we should be able to help bring that terrible persecution to an end.
Boris Johnson
I can assure my right hon. Friend that we repeatedly raise the issues of human rights, the treatment of the Baha’i and other frankly disgusting aspects, not least the death penalty—there are many disgusting aspects of the behaviour of the Iranian regime—whenever we meet our Iranian counterparts.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Israeli Government do not believe that Iran is abiding by the terms of the agreement. Iranian opposition groups are saying that the Iranian regime is using revenue from the lifting of sanctions to finance terrorism across the middle east, and of course Iran has played an important part in the conflict in Syria and Yemen. In the light of that behaviour, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the decision by the American President has some validity, and that it will send an important message to a regime that is out of control?
Boris Johnson
On the contrary—I thought that the most powerful point about Benjamin Netanyahu’s slideshow was that it showed that Iran did indeed have a nuclear weapons ambition up to 2003, and it showed, therefore, the importance of beginning a process of negotiation to get Iran to stop that ambition, and that is what the JCPOA did. I remind the hon. Gentleman and others in the House that many sanctions on Iran are currently in place, and they will abide.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was surely absolutely right to go to America to seek to stop the President dismissing this agreement, in the same way as he is absolutely right to meet Nelson Chamisa, the Leader of the Opposition in Zimbabwe, today on his visit to London. In respect of Iran, surely British foreign policy should be to try and bring Iran into the comity of nations and build on the existing agreement, rather than can it.
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is not just the UK’s ambition but the ambition of our European friends and partners, and it remains the ambition—and, by the way, I believe that eventually we will pull it off.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Will this unilateral decision in effect mean that the United States—a country that we are setting great store by in terms of trade—will be introducing sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, against UK companies that continue to trade with Iran?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the extraterritorial impact of US sanctions. There may be a staggered period of either 90 or 180 days before that extraterritorial impact is felt. We will have to see exactly how it plays out, but we will do our utmost to protect UK commercial interests.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the UK tell the US that we would of course be very happy to work with them to try and limit the abuses of the Iranian regime and to control the missile programme better? May I also say how much I support my right hon. Friend on the UK’s need for an independent trade policy with functioning borders?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for shoehorning in that very important point at this juncture.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
We all agree that Trump’s reckless decision has made the world a more dangerous place, but does the Foreign Secretary also agree that that makes the rule of international law even more important? Does he recognise the rank hypocrisy of Britain’s lecturing other countries that are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, while we keep our own—and indeed enhance them—in direct contravention of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Is it not time that we joined those 122 countries that have been negotiating a nuclear-ban treaty at the UN and sought some world leadership on the world stage?
Boris Johnson
I think most people in the House understand that the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent keeps the peace that other countries would want to threaten.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I cannot say that President Trump is my cup of tea, but Iran’s actions in the middle east go down like a cup of cold sick. They support terrorism, Hamas and Hezbollah, they suppress their own people at home with the death penalty, as the Foreign Secretary mentioned, and they are supporters of President Assad. I think that rather than appeasing Iran, we should be supporting our oldest ally, the United States, and recognising that it has taken this decision because the Iranians are backing down on the agreement and are continuing with ballistic missiles.
Boris Johnson
There was not a word that I could disagree with in the first half of my right hon. Friend’s question, and of course it is true that Iran is up to all sorts of bad behaviour in the region; but the Iranians are not in violation of the JCPOA—on their ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, they are obeying the letter of that agreement. Yes, it is perfectly true that they are not in conformity with UN resolution 2231 in respect of ballistic missiles, but there we are holding them to account and there is the prospect of extra sanctions to bring them into line.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Further to that question, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran’s appalling destabilising behaviour in the wider region, including its support of terrorism, would be even more dangerous if its nuclear programme goes unchecked, and that it is therefore not just in Britain’s national interests, but in the interests of America and the world that the JCPOA remains in place?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
While the signing of treaties of this sort can lead to political advance, does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of the biological weapons convention of 1972, which was exposed in 1992 as having been broken from day one for 20 years by the then Soviet Union, shows that in reality our security depends on the twin pillars of the independent strategic nuclear deterrent and our alliance, through NATO, with the United States of America?
Boris Johnson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would also say that the JCPOA has depended not on trust—not on believing the Iranians—but on independent verification, which has been carried out countless times.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Many of us who do not support the President’s decision would argue that the JCPOA contains some very serious flaws, including the lack of a clear plan—what happens when the agreement ends in 2025?—the weak inspection regime, the absence of any restraint on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, and the failure to address its pernicious influence in the middle east, not least its repeated threats to annihilate Israel. I hope that the Foreign Secretary is not playing down these flaws. I urge the Government not only to stick with the agreement, but to push to mend it.
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Lady speaks a good deal of sense. It is a limitation that there is no agreement on the ballistic missile programme, or indeed on Iran’s wider behaviour in the region, but it would have been impossible to get an agreement on the nuclear dossier if those had been brought in. The United States thinks differently, and the President has a global vision of bringing these dossiers together and solving the problem as one. We have yet to see the detail on how he intends to do it, but we will certainly be as supportive as we can.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
We should not underestimate the importance of maintaining a positive direction of travel in the region, particularly given that it will take a series of steps to reach desired outcomes. Given that all the evidence suggests that Iran has adhered to the agreement, has the time come for the international community to act in concert in pursuing and maintaining this agreement, even if that means isolating the US for the time being, not just diplomatically but when it comes to sanctions against Iran, where possible?
Boris Johnson
I must say that, speaking as somebody who was born in New York, now I come to think of it, I see absolutely no advantage in isolating the United States, our closest and most important ally. Our job of work on the Government side of the House is to bring the United States back into agreement and to get a successor deal that the President wants to achieve.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is well aware of the case of my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has now been in prison in Iran for two years, one month and seven days. Nazanin has been told explicitly by sources in the judiciary that her imprisonment is linked to the unpaid debt that our country owes Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that when he is negotiating with Iran in the coming days he will talk about paying back that debt and bringing my constituent back home to West Hampstead?
Boris Johnson
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done for her constituent. As I have said to her many times, we have a number of very tough consular cases with Iran—alas, the number is growing—and they do not necessarily benefit from day-to-day discussions, as she knows.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The economic advantages of the agreement have been used by the hard-liners to project malign power throughout the region, so will my right hon. Friend agree to support proportionate measures brought forward by the President to constrain that power?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
This very worrying decision by President Trump could lead to at least three cataclysmic scenarios: first, the takeover of the Iranian regime by hard-liners; secondly, the eventual development of an Iranian nuclear bomb; and thirdly, ultimately, another war in the middle east. Which scenarios does the Foreign Secretary consider to be most likely?
Boris Johnson
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Iran remains in compliance. Iran has not elected to proceed to enrichment or to break out of the agreement, and the UK will be working to ensure that remains the case.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The agreement has unfortunately enabled Iran to spend over $100 billion over the past five years on its operations in Syria, and it is spending even more on its intercontinental ballistic missile programme. Many people believe that a country does not spend billions on an ICBM programme merely to put a $100 TNT warhead on it. Can my right hon. Friend not at least understand the motivation of the United States Administration and perhaps work with them on this?
Boris Johnson
We are of course working hand-in-glove with the United States, but we do believe that there were advantages in maintaining the discrete deal at the heart of the JCPOA and stopping Iranian breakout. We thought that was a good idea. We certainly share the general ambition across the House to constrain Iran’s malignant activity.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
France, Germany and the United Kingdom have stood shoulder to shoulder in supporting the nuclear peace deal, and the US has walked away. Does that not show that it is not the customs union that is crazy, but the idea that we can instead have a trade deal with the United States that we think will put mutual interests before Trump’s and the US’s self-interest?
Boris Johnson
I am sure that in due course we will get a great trade deal with the United States, so I am not quite sure what that has to do with the JCPOA.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The truth is that there are no moderates in the Iranian regime, and the use of the word “moderates” leads to conclusions that are simply not the case. It is a regime that murders its own people, including minorities, that is an exporter of terrorism, and that is destabilising the middle east. Perhaps the fact that none of that is covered under the JCPOA explains why Iran may indeed be compliant with it. I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to work with the United States on a replacement to the deal, that deals with Iran’s increasingly malign and dangerous influences elsewhere in the middle east.
Boris Johnson
I hope that my hon. Friend will use his good offices to encourage the United States to come forward with detail on such plans at its earliest convenience.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In terms of practicalities, what is the Department’s assessment of a successor trade deal with the United States when that country might punish UK companies that are legitimately conducting business in Iran under international agreements?
Boris Johnson
As I have said several times, we will do everything that we can to protect legitimate commercial activity by UK concerns.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Is it the case that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are still being denied access to key sites across Iran? If so, how can we have any confidence at all that Iran is honouring its commitments?
Boris Johnson
Mr Amano has told me that the IAEA is getting all the access it needs. Indeed Mike Pompeo, the head of US intelligence, has confirmed that Iran is now in compliance with the JCPOA.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary said that he has no difficulty with President Trump’s goal of working with our allies to find a real, comprehensive and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. The Foreign Secretary then asked how the US proposes to achieve that. What suggestions does he have for the United States President?
Boris Johnson
I thought that we made a series of very fruitful suggestions, and we will continue to make such suggestions. The central idea is that, around the core of the JCPOA, we build a superstructure—a follow-on agreement—that addresses the problems of the sunset clauses and the issues of the ICBMs, and satisfies the anxieties of the President and of many colleagues in the House today.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is obviously much better briefed than I am but, as I understand it, Iran is not in compliance with all the letter of the agreement. Can he assure me that Israel, which the Iranians have sworn to wipe off the earth, will not now strike Iran in a counter-attack to prevent any further escalation in building nuclear missiles?
Boris Johnson
As I have said several times, to the best of my knowledge Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. It would be rash of me to seek to pronounce on behalf of the Israeli Government at this stage.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What assessment has the Foreign Office made of Mr Trump’s announcement in February 2018 that the US will develop a batch of new smaller nuclear weapons? Mr Trump reportedly asked his foreign policy advisers why the US does not use nuclear weapons. Will the Foreign Secretary please make it clear to the House that it is never in any country’s interest to use nuclear weapons?
Boris Johnson
I think that the President of the United States understands the logic of nuclear deterrence as well as anyone, and that logic is to avoid the use of nuclear weapons.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The JCPOA was rushed and flawed, and it was never ratified by Congress, which is one of the reasons why it was vulnerable to being changed by President Trump. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whatever structure replaces the JCPOA is built on firmer foundations and goes through Congress, and is therefore sustainable, to ensure that Iran does not continue to flout international laws and norms and does not abuse its own people and others, and to minimise the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran?
Boris Johnson
The JCPOA took 13 years to negotiate, so to say it was rushed is perhaps a slight exaggeration. I want the House to remember the crucial point that the JCPOA has not gone. The JCPOA is there, and the UK is a party to it, as are France, Germany, Russia, China, the EU and Iran, and that will continue. We will do our level best, around that core, to build a superstructure or entablature—whatever we want to call it—to allay my hon. Friend’s understandable concerns.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Although I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot go into detail here, can he assure us that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be briefed on what reassessments now need to be done of the global threat to United Kingdom citizens so that this Parliament can be assured that our security services are taking cognisance of the increased risk we now face as a result of the premature and stupid actions of our so-called closest ally?
Boris Johnson
For the hon. Gentleman’s reassurance, I refer him to the answer I have given several times today. Iran has decided, for the time being at least, to remain in compliance with the JCPOA, and the UK will work to try to perpetuate that agreement.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the problems faced under the agreement is that Iran has continued to develop nuclear facilities, such as the one discovered at Fordow and that recently discovered at Natanz—Natanz was discovered only by opposition groups in Iran. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that those facilities, which were not included in the original agreement, have been inspected and are in conformance with the deal? Is not one of the problems that the deal does not constrain Iran from developing further nuclear facilities?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend speaks on this matter with a great deal of interest and authority. The IAEA has conducted 400 inspections and confirmed nine times that Iran is in compliance. Iran has reduced its number of centrifuges by two thirds and its stock of enriched uranium by 95%. On that basis alone, the agreement must be counted a success.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
First the Paris agreement and now the Iran deal—does this show that the USA’s signature is not worth the paper it is written on? Our Government must show that we honour our agreements. We must particularly protect British interests and British companies against forthcoming US sanctions that will affect us. Will the Secretary of State build an alliance with the remaining partners in the Iran deal, whose collective GDP is twice the USA’s, and use the EU sanctions-blocking regulations that were first used in 1996? Just as we have on the Paris agreement, will we strengthen our resolve to thwart this retrograde step by the Trump Administration?
Boris Johnson
We will certainly work with our friends and partners to keep the deal going and to protect the interests of UK companies and people.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The nuclear deal with Iran does not end Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. At best, it just pauses the programme until 2025. By the Foreign Secretary’s own admission, Iran will then be capable of developing a deliverable nuclear weapon within a year. The price for all that, in the meantime, is that the sanctions relief is funding a campaign of terror throughout the region. We complain frequently in the House about the fact that millions of people are living in misery in Yemen. Well, that is because of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion, which is funded by this sanctions relief. There are hundreds of thousands of rockets on Israel’s northern border. Appeasement did not work in the 1930s, and it will not work now.
Boris Johnson
I am absolutely at one with my hon. Friend in his desire to be tough on Iran. The question is whether we can achieve that by getting rid of the JCPOA. If we get rid of the JCPOA, what would our subsequent plans be? What would be the options, really, for being tough on Iran in the way he wants? The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) suggested bombing but, after closely interrogating everybody I could find in the White House, I would say that there is no enthusiasm in the United States for a military option, and there is no such plan. What we want to hear now is the successor plan.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I refer the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister’s statement at the Gulf Co-operation Council summit in 2016:
“I am clear-eyed about the threat that Iran poses to the Gulf and the wider Middle East.”
She said that we will work with our GCC partners to “counter that threat.” Can the Secretary of State clarify what tangibly has been done to counter that threat? Apart from all the countries named today, another country, Morocco, expelled the Iranian ambassador this May in relation to Iran’s aggressive behaviour in Morocco. The deal was defective, so do we carry on with a defective deal, or do we stand by our principles and say that enough is enough?
Boris Johnson
What we do is recognise that the deal itself is not defective, but that we have other challenges in countering Iranian malign behaviour. As my hon. Friend knows, we have 214 separate sanctions regimes, and the UK is in the lead in trying to halt the distribution of Iranian missiles and other malign activity across the region. That is the way to do it.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The breadth and scope of the Iranian nuclear programme indicates that it is not exclusively for civilian use. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Prime Minister of Israel’s comments that Iran has already taken steps to revive its nuclear programme and is very likely to do so, particularly in 2025?
Boris Johnson
As I say, the show and tell by Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that Iran did have a nuclear ambition in the run-up to 2003. I thought that his logic indicated that it was a good idea to have a JCPOA and to stop Iran going ahead with a nuclear weapon. I must say to all those who have alternative ideas for restraining Iran in its acquisition of a nuclear weapon that if they have a military solution and if they have alternative ideas, now is the time for them to come forward with those ideas.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he believes that the agreement is being upheld by Iran. What is his view on encouraging legitimate trade between it and our country to help to foster good relations?
Boris Johnson
It is important that we continue to do that, in the spirit of the agreement and to support legitimate UK business activity.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Nobody is in any doubt that the Iranian regime is responsible for great terror and often war, certainly in the region and in other areas of the world. My right hon. Friend, as a scholar of Churchill, will recognise the phrase, “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war,” so may I congratulate him on going out to Washington? He will also recognise that this is about not just the White House, but Capitol Hill. As we try to lead America to work on the deal and see how it can be adjusted, he should therefore also give attention to the House of Representatives.
Boris Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in building our relationships with Capitol Hill. As he knows, in Congress there is a very wide measure of support for the JCPOA and a great deal of confusion about the exact motives of the White House in choosing to walk away from it.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
My right hon. Friend would have preferred America to stay in the nuclear agreement, but given that it has not, will he say what scope he sees in working with the US to constrain Iran’s wider activities, which are destabilising the region?
Boris Johnson
America is our No. 1 friend, ally and partner, and we will continue to work with it to constrain Iran’s malign behaviour in the region in every possible way.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has my support for the line he has taken, but he probably has less support from the Israelis, Saudis, Emiratis and other key partners in the region. What steps has he taken over the weekend to reassure those friends of ours in the region of our commitment to supporting them against the malign threat of Iran?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We have made it very clear to our good friends in the Gulf that we do not share entirely their perspective on this matter and that we do think there are merits in the nuclear deal—they understand that. I must say to all those who want an alternative future in the Gulf and elsewhere that it is incumbent on them to show us a better way of constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions, specifically.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas some may disagree with what the President has done, it is a mistake to indulge in any anti-American rhetoric, as the US is, and remains by a country mile, our most important ally?
Boris Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend, salute his sentiments, and wish that they were more widely shared across the House.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
When the House considered this deal a couple of years ago, I said that it was about one issue and not about taking our eye off the range of appalling issues the Iranian regime is responsible for, not least its appalling human rights record. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is regrettable that the US has pulled out, Iran still needs to stick to this deal and, ultimately, it will be up to Iran whether it has a nuclear programme or not?
Boris Johnson
That is completely right and, as all hon. Members will recall, it is in the preamble of the JCPOA that Iran forswears nuclear weapons and Iran is still a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
From Beirut to Basra, Iran is a malign influence in the region, with its destabilising activities and its hegemonic ambitions. I agree with, and welcome, the statement from my right hon. Friend at the weekend that there are flaws in the deal. What reassurance can he give the House about steps he will be taking, alongside our ambassador in Iran, to cover those flaws? What tangible progress is being made to curtail Iran’s activities?
Boris Johnson
The most important thing we can do, as I have said several times, is to deal with the problem of the sunset clauses, which has been identified repeatedly across the House, and with the ICBMs—I think we have dealt with the issue of inspection—and then to constrain Iran’s wider activity in the region. As I have said repeatedly, we are working closely with the Americans and others to do so.
Points of Order
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Plastics Bill 2017-19 View all Plastics Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice, after trying to raise this matter with the Prime Minister today. A constituent of mine’s wife and seven-year-old daughter are facing a deportation order next Tuesday. Having fled Saddam’s Iraq in 1998, Sarbast Hussain has served this country loyally and is a British citizen, but he has been waiting for a new passport since last summer. In view of the extreme urgency of this case, what recourse is there for me to help them urgently to turn this around?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The matter that the hon. Lady raises is not a point of order, but I understand her concerns. She has put them on the record and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard them. I suggest she raises this matter directly with Ministers or through other channels, and I am sure she will do so.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notification that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will come to the House to explain to me and my constituents why my local urgent care centre, which looks after my community, was closed at night 18 months ago without consultation, and now board papers have gone forward to permanently close it following a bogus consultation. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is around. Might you let us know when he will be here so that we can ask that question?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have not received any notification that the Secretary of State is about to make an appearance but, again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I am absolutely convinced that he will find ways of raising them with Ministers directly.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Committee to consider my Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill met this morning, but it could not consider any clauses as they all require a money resolution. During the sitting, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) made it clear that the Government had no intention of bringing one forward. She said, “It would not be appropriate to proceed with the Bill at this time by providing it with a money resolution. The Government will keep this Bill under review, but we believe it is right that we allow the Boundary Commission to report its recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed.”
Members gave the Bill its Second Reading almost unanimously—by 229 votes to 44—but it appears that the Government are trying to frustrate the will of the House and circumvent democracy by preventing the Bill’s consideration in Committee. What is the best way to ensure that the Government table a money resolution before the Committee next meets on Monday?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter. When to bring forward a money resolution is in the hands of the Government. I appreciate that on this particular occasion the situation is rather unsatisfactory for the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he encourages his Front-Bench colleagues to pursue this matter through the usual channels, and he might also raise it himself at business questions on Thursday.
Bill Presented
Plastics Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Zac Goldsmith, John Mc Nally, Layla Moran, Mary Creagh, Steve Double, Chris Williamson, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Yasmin Qureshi, Daniel Zeichner, Susan Elan Jones and Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set, measure, enforce and report on targets for the reduction and recycling of plastic packaging; to require that such targets following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union at least match such targets set by the European Union; to establish enforcement mechanisms in respect of such targets and associated provisions; to make provision for support for the development of sustainable alternatives to plastic packaging; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed (Bill 207).
European Union Withdrawal Agreement (Public Vote)
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union Withdrawal Agreement (Public Vote) Bill 2017-19 View all European Union Withdrawal Agreement (Public Vote) 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
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union shall not have effect without a vote by the electorate of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar to that effect; to make arrangements for the holding of such a public vote; and for connected purposes.
There should be a democratic public vote on whether to accept the deal that the Government achieve to leave the European Union. A people’s vote would allow the public, rather than just us in the House of Commons, to make the final decision about whether to accept the Brexit deal. The 2016 referendum determined that Britain should negotiate the country’s departure from the European Union, and I have always respected that decision—I voted for article 50 to be triggered—but the terms on which we leave and on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union were never clearly defined or put to the public in 2016.
New facts about Brexit have emerged that could never have been known at the time of the referendum. We now know that the promises made about Brexit—such as £350 million a week extra for the NHS and a deal with the exact same benefits—will not be kept. Who knew that Brexit negotiators would be willing to hand over £40 billion to leave the European Union, and for a much worse relationship? With negotiations obviously not going well and the Cabinet not able to agree among itself, even on future customs arrangements and what to do about the Northern Ireland border, it is more and more likely that the Government will present us with a poor deal. In those circumstances, why should our country—our fellow citizens—have to accept it without having had any chance to influence the hard Brexit that the Government look like they are going to deliver?
We have gone from being the fastest-growing economy in the G7 to the slowest. Indeed, according to the Bank of England, Brexit has cost us more than £200 million a week in lost growth. The pound has plummeted, investment is down, inflation is higher and wages have stagnated—and we have not even left yet. Even the Government agree that Brexit will damage the economy: their own leaked impact analysis shows that we will be worse off under every possible Brexit deal. On immigration, fishing and new trade deals, we were told a series of statements that, two years on, are looking distinctly threadbare.
On immigration, how are the Government going to secure access to the single market without accepting freedom of movement? Why would the European Union sign off a trade deal that does not include the right for EU nationals to come back and forth? There has been not a single sign that EU Ministers are willing to shift on this issue or—tellingly—that the Government really, deep down, want them to. There are various measures that the Government could bring in now, but strikingly they have chosen not to ensure that free movement is not a free for all.
It is now clear that it is Ministers, and not the European Union, holding back our fishermen from expanding their operations. As a former trade Minister, I know that many of the much-heralded new trade deals that Ministers want to negotiate will involve significant immigration to the UK—a truth that Ministers have been reluctant to explain. It is already clear that when big trading nations like the US sit down to negotiate with us on our own, they will expect us to lower the environmental, health and safety standards that we have in the UK. Chlorinated chicken would be just the start; of course, it is well known that private American healthcare chains have ambitions to be allowed to expand into our NHS.
The Prime Minister has said emphatically that the country will have full details about the deal that has been negotiated before we leave the European Union, and I take her at her word. We already know the details of the divorce deal and the transition. We know some key parts of the deal that the Government are negotiating—notably that they want to leave the customs union and the single market. The Government decided that only after the referendum was held; it was not on the ballot paper. If, despite what the Prime Minister has promised, the Government try to fob the country off with only vague plans about leaving—if much of our future relationship remains unclear—it will be even more important to have a people’s vote, because of the danger that we will be charging off into the unknown.
This is the greatest country in the world, and I want it to be greater still. The Brexit deal is bigger than any piece of legislation, more significant than any budget, and will have more impact than any current Government Minister on the future of our country. On something as big as the Brexit deal, why should it be only us, here in this House, who get to decide what is good enough? Why cannot my neighbours—the people in my community who shop in the supermarkets that I use, and who walk the same streets as I do—have a vote on the deal, too? Why am I set to be the only person living in Harrow who will get a say on whether the Brexit deal is any good? Why will people in Belfast, Shropshire, Lincoln, Stirling or Aberystwyth not get a vote on the deal that will have such a big impact on their lives and those of their children?
Whatever we think of Brexit—whether we voted remain or leave; whether we think we will get a good deal or a bad deal—we can all surely agree that it is a huge deal. That means that it is much too important to be left to the 650 of us here is Westminster to decide on our own. The 65 million people of this great country deserve to have their voices heard on the Brexit deal as well. That is why I support a people’s vote on the terms of Brexit, and that is what I will be campaigning on over the coming months. That is also why I urge the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Thomas, Stephen Timms, Dr Rupa Huq, Andy Slaughter, Stephen Doughty, Anna Turley, Susan Elan Jones, Tom Brake, Jonathan Edwards, Caroline Lucas, Daniel Zeichner and Paul Flynn present the Bill.
Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July, and to be printed (Bill 208).
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please inform us about the timing of today’s proceedings? I am trying to get my head around whether there is a 90-minute —[Interruption.] I think I have confirmed my own assumptions on the timing, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for the indulgence of the House. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism 4.00 pm, or two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later. Remaining proceedings on Consideration 6.00 pm.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 5 March 2018 (Data Protection Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
(4) Proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm.—(Nigel Adams.)
Data Protection Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 May 2018 - (9 May 2018)
16:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
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:
Government new clause 22—Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism.
Government new clause 23—Data protection and journalism code.
New clause 18—Data protection breaches by national news publishers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations.
(2) Before setting the terms of reference of and other arrangements for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Scotland;
(b) consult Northern Ireland Ministers and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Northern Ireland;
(c) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims of data protection breaches committed by, on behalf of or in relation to, national news publishers and other media organisations; and
(d) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of news publishers and other media organisations (having regard in particular to organisations representing journalists).
(3) The terms of reference for the inquiry must include requirements—
(e) to inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct by or on behalf of national news publishers and other organisations within the media in respect of personal data;
(f) to inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to failures to investigate wrongdoing at media organisations within the scope of the inquiry;
(g) to review the protections and provisions around media coverage of individuals subject to police inquiries, including the policy and practice of naming suspects of crime prior to any relevant charge or conviction;
(h) to investigate the dissemination of information and news, including false news stories, by social media organisations using personal data;
(i) to consider the adequacy of the current regulatory arrangements and the resources, powers and approach of the Information Commissioner and any other relevant authorities in relation to—
(i) the news publishing industry (except in relation to entities regulated by Ofcom) across all platforms and in the light of experience since 2012;
(ii) social media companies;
(j) to make such recommendations as appear to the inquiry to be appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals are balanced with the right to freedom of expression.
(4) In setting the terms of reference for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(k) have regard to the current context of the news, publishing and general media industry;
(l) must set appropriate parameters for determining which allegations are to be considered;
(m) determine the meaning and scope of references to national news publishers and other media organisations for the purposes of the inquiry.
(5) Before complying with subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the judge or other person who is likely to be invited to chair the inquiry.
(6) The inquiry may, so far as it considers appropriate—
(n) consider evidence given to previous public inquiries; and
(o) take account of the findings of and evidence given to previous public inquiries (and the inquiry must consider using this power for the purpose of avoiding the waste of public resources).
(7) This section comes into force on Royal Assent.”
This new clause would require the establishment of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson for Part two of his Inquiry.
New clause 20—Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs (No. 2)—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a relevant claim for breach of the data protection legislation is made against a person (‘the defendant’),
(b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and
(c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.
(2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the claimant unless satisfied that—
(d) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
(e) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case, including, for the avoidance of doubt—
(i) the conduct of the defendant, and
(ii) whether the defendant pleaded a reasonably arguable defence, to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
(3) If the defendant was not an exempt relevant publisher and was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(f) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
(g) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case, including, for the avoidance of doubt—
(i) the conduct of the claimant, and
(ii) whether the claimant had a reasonably arguable claim, to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
(4) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.
(5) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.”
This new clause would provide that court costs of non-abusive, non-vexatious, and non-trivial libel and intrusion claims would be awarded against a newspaper choosing not to join a Royal Charter-approved regulator offering low-cost arbitration, but that newspapers who do join such a regulator would be protected from costs awards even if they lose a claim.
New clause 21—Publishers of news-related material: interpretive provisions (No. 2)—
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of section (Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs (No. 2)).
(2) “Approved regulator” means a body recognised as a regulator of relevant publishers.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a body is “recognised” as a regulator of relevant publishers if it is so recognised by any body established by Royal Charter (whether established before or after the coming into force of this section) with the purpose of carrying on activities relating to the recognition of independent regulators of relevant publishers.
(4) “Relevant claim” means a civil claim made in respect of data protection under the data protection legislation, brought in England or Wales by a claimant domiciled anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(5) The “material time”, in relation to a relevant claim, is the time of the events giving rise to the claim.
(6) “News-related material” means—
(a) news or information about current affairs,
(b) opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs, or
(c) gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.
(7) A relevant claim is related to the publication of news-related material if the claim results from—
(d) the publication of news-related material, or
(e) activities carried on in connection with the publication of such material (whether or not the material is in fact published).
(8) A reference to the “publication” of material is a reference to publication—
(f) on a website,
(g) in hard copy, or
(h) by any other means,
and references to a person who “publishes” material are to be read accordingly.
(9) A reference to “conduct” includes a reference to omissions; and a reference to a person’s conduct includes a reference to a person’s conduct after the events giving rise to the claim concerned.
(10) “Relevant publisher” has the same meaning as in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
(11) A relevant publisher is exempt if it satisfies Condition A or B.
(12) Condition A is that the publisher has a constitution which—
(a) requires any surplus income or gains to be reinvested in the publisher, and
(b) does not allow the distribution of any of its profits or assets (in cash or in kind) to members or third parties.
(13) Condition B is that the publisher—
(a) publishes predominantly in Scotland, or predominantly in Wales, or predominantly in Northern Ireland or predominantly in specific regions or localities; and
(b) has had an average annual turnover not exceeding £100 million over the last five complete financial years.”
This new clause would provide that the penalty incentives in New Clause 20 would not apply to companies which publish only on a regional or local basis and have an annual turnover of less than £100m. It sets out that only data protection claims are eligible, and provides further interpretive provisions.
Amendment (a), line 33 leave out subsection (10) and insert—
“(10) ‘Relevant publisher’ has the same meaning as in section 41 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, subject to subsection (10A).
(10A) For the purposes of this Act, a publisher shall only be a ‘relevant publisher’ if—
(a) it has a registered address in England or Wales; and
(b) its publications are published in, or in any part of, England or Wales.
(10B) A relevant claim may be made under the data protection legislation only in respect of material which is published by a relevant publisher (as defined by subsections (10) and (10A)) and which is read or accessed in England or Wales.”
Government amendments 146 to 150 and 145.
Amendment 144, page 122, line 10, in clause 205, leave out “Section 190 extends” and insert—
“Sections (Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs (Amendment 2)), (Publishers of news-related material: interpretive provisions (Amendment 2)) and 190 extend”.
Amendment 14, page 156, line 4, in schedule 2, at end insert—
“(d) any code which is adopted by an approved regulator as defined by section 42(2) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.”
This amendment would give the Standards Code of an approved press regulator the same status as the other journalism codes recognised in the Bill (The BBC and Ofcom Codes, and the Editors’ Code observed by members of IPSO).
Matt Hancock
The Data Protection Bill sets out a full new data protection regime for Britain, giving people more control over their data.
First, I wish to address new clauses 20 and 21, before turning to the other new clauses. These new clauses are essentially the provisions contained in sections 40 and 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, although they would apply only to breaches of data protection law and only in England and Wales.
Let me first set out exactly what these new clauses would mean and then our approach to them. They would set new cost provisions for complaints against the press, which means that any publication not regulated by IMPRESS would have to pay the legal costs for any complaint against it, whether it won or lost. Many would object to that and say that it goes against natural justice. It is grounds enough to reject these new clauses on the basis that the courts would punish a publication that has done no wrong, but that is not the only reason. Let us consider the impact of these new clauses on an editor. Faced with any criticism, of any article, by anyone with the means to go to court, a publication would risk having to pay costs, even if every single fact in a story was true and even if there was a strong public interest in publishing. Let us take, for example, Andrew Norfolk, the admirable journalist who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal. He said that section 40 would have made it “near impossible” to do his job. He went on to say that it would have been “inconceivable” to run the front page story naming one of the abusers in a scandal that had ruined the lives of 1,400 innocent young people with disgusting crimes that had gone on for years and years and years. Without Andrew Norfolk’s story, the scandal would have gone on for years and years more.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is so opposed to section 40, why did he support it?
Matt Hancock
I will come on to what has changed in the many years since 2013, not least of which is the fact that we now have a full-blown independent press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which did not exist back then.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. First, IPSO is not a press regulator, because it does not comply with the requirements to be a regulator; it is merely a complaints handler. Secondly, he may have inadvertently misled the House, because it is not necessary to join IMPRESS as he said earlier on. It is necessary for regulators to comply with the rules, which is slightly different.
Matt Hancock
There is no recognised press regulator other than IMPRESS. As many journalists have pointed out, the truth is that these new clauses would have made it near impossible to uncover some of the stories of abuse, including the abuse of all those children in Rotherham. Another example is that of Mark Stephens, who represented phone hacking victims. He wrote today that the new clauses would
“return Britain to the legal Dark Ages and make it easier for wealthy people to suppress negative stories.”
The impact on local newspapers, too, risks being catastrophic. I say do not just take my word for it. The editor of the Express & Star, well known to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), said that the new clauses could spell the end of newspaper printing in this country on a large scale and are a
“ludicrous and patently unfair…piece of legislation.”
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the BBC, Channel 4 and every other broadcaster operates under much more stringent rules, and yet nothing seems to have got in the way of their powers of interrogation and investigation? Does he think that they are operating second-class investigations today?
Matt Hancock
We have three separate systems of media regulation in this country: a separate system for broadcasters; an essentially self-regulated system under IPSO for newspapers; and then there is the issue of how we make sure that what happens online is properly regulated as well. I will come on to that last point, because it is a very important part of the debate. The impact of the new clauses on the local press should not be underestimated. Two hundred local newspapers have already closed since 2005, and these new clauses would accelerate that decline. However, there is one national newspaper that is carved out in the small print of the new clauses as it only covers newspapers run for profit. Which newspaper is exempted? It is The Guardian. If those who tabled these new clauses thought that they were making friends with The Guardian, they were wrong. The Guardian has said that
“the Data Protection Bill should not be used as a vehicle for imposing an unfair and partial system on publishers.”
It did not ask for the measures, and it, too, opposes them. Indeed, in a recent consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal of section 40, compared with just 7% who favoured full commencement.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Secretary of State quoted The Guardian. In fact, its statement released this morning went even further. The Guardian News and Media said that these new clauses would
“further erode press freedom and have a chilling effect on the news media.”
Matt Hancock
It did, yes. I am trying to ensure that we have a debate on these measures that takes into account the fact that, yes, we want a free press that can hold the powerful to account, but also that it is fair. I know—as does everyone in this House—that there has been irresponsible behaviour by the press. Although I want to see a press that is free to report without fear or favour, to uncover wrongdoing and to hold the powerful to account, I also want to see a press that is fair and accurate. I am determined that we have a strengthened system so that people have recourse to justice when things go wrong.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many ways, there are two forms of media already operating in this country? One is printed, published and broadcast from reputable sources, which have assets in this country that we can take action against, or not, and the other form is websites that have either very low assets or no assets in this country with very different accountability. Bizarrely, could we not find ourselves in a position under this system where the only people who can get justice are those who are rich enough, such as Peter Thiel, to destroy the website Gawker, in this case, because it was acting against him, rather than those of us on more modest means who would have absolutely no recourse against these organisations, but yet all the news would have gone online because these regulations would force out our newspapers?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is completely right about the gap between online and print in terms of standards of regulation. That is because IPSO was brought into force—I was glad to see it being introduced in 2014. He is also right that tackling the problems online is critical. Our internet safety strategy, which will be published in the next couple of weeks, will address that matter directly. I know that there are many Members who have concerns about the impact of content online, of abuse online, and of the ability to get redress online, and we will not let that rest. We will ensure that we take action to tackle the problems online in the same way that IPSO deals with the press and indeed that these new clauses deal with publications in the press.
I am glad that IPSO now has the power to require front page corrections as it did, for instance, just a couple of weeks ago with The Times. As the House knows, I have pushed IPSO to bring in further measures. It recently introduced a system of compulsory low-cost arbitration. This means that ordinary people who do not have large sums of money can take claims to newspapers for as little as £50. Almost all of the major national newspapers have signed up to it. That means that anyone who has been wronged by a national newspaper can, for the first time, ask for arbitration and the newspaper cannot refuse. The scheme applies not just to words, but to images. This must be the start of a tougher regime, and not the conclusion.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is not one of the problems that the scheme does not include everyone? It is compulsory, but does not include everyone. When MailOnline is excluded, does that not leave a whacking great hole in it?
Matt Hancock
I have a lot of sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend. MailOnline is, of course, an online publication, and we are looking at that as part of our internet safety strategy. I am very happy to talk to him about how that can be done. Only in the past week, however, many publications have joined the IPSO low-cost arbitration scheme, which is binding on them, and I very much hope that more will join in the future.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the new scheme will allow for a higher maximum level of damages of up to £60,000 and that it can be run for as little as £100?
Matt Hancock
That is absolutely right. The minimum access cost will be £50, which means that everybody has access to justice at low cost. There is more to it than that, however. Some people argue that the £60,000 limit on damages is too low, but the arbitration scheme does not stop somebody going to court, so there is access to justice where damages should be higher. The arbitration scheme is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, going to court. It introduces a robust and fair system that is easy for everybody to access, so everyone can have access to justice.
The section 40 amendments would, ironically, have the opposite effect, because anybody with the means to take small newspapers to court could stop them publishing stories for fear of having to pay the costs, even if they get everything right.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it not the case that IPSO proposed its arbitration scheme only when a number of colleagues had tabled amendments that were distinctly unhelpful to the print media? Can we trust that organisation? Will my right hon. Friend be extremely careful about removing the boot from the neck of IPSO, particularly in relation to the review period? I know that he will come on to talk about that shortly, but will he consider tightening the review period, because at the moment it gives IPSO the best part of a decade before there is any prospect of further change if the industry does not behave itself?
Matt Hancock
I agree with the sentiment, which is that we have to ensure that the press remains free but also fair and reasonable, and that is the purpose of the amendment proposing a review period of four years. We will not let matters lie.
Some have asked, “What happens if newspapers pull out of the IPSO scheme?” I think that would send a terrible signal of the newspaper industry’s attitude to the standards that it rightly ought to sign up to. The review is there precisely to address my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to a low-cost scheme. People have told me about their concern that £60,000 may be too low because there needs to be a deterrent. Will the four-year review also cover that £60,000 cap?
Matt Hancock
Given that this is a Data Protection Bill, the review will consider data protection issues, but I would expect it to be as broad as necessary, to ensure that all those matters are considered.
We have listened to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill, including in this debate.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way just before he moves off the subject of IPSO. He has set out arguments in IPSO’s defence. It is not just MailOnline that is outside the arbitration scheme; that is also true of Newsquest and Archant, so a significant chunk of the press is outside it. Brian Leveson said that the regulator needed to have independent board members, independence of operation, fair remedy for complaints, the ability to carry out investigations, the ability to issue fines, and universal arbitration. None of those conditions is put in place by IPSO, so which of those principles does the Secretary of State think should be retired?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary, the scheme introduces new, compulsory, low-cost arbitration to ensure that people can have exactly the recourse to justice mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In order to address some of the concerns, we have tabled two new clauses. First, new clause 19 requires the Information Commissioner to publish information on how people can get redress. The point is to ensure that there is a plain English guide to help anyone with a complaint to navigate the system. Secondly, new clause 22 requires the Information Commissioner to create a statutory code of practice, setting out standards on data protection. The point is that, when investigating a breach of data protection law, the commissioner has to decide whether a journalist acted reasonably. When making that judgment, a failure to comply with the statutory code will weigh heavily against the journalist.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
How binding is the arbitration, and how binding is the code of practice?
Matt Hancock
The arbitration is binding on the newspapers, meaning that anybody who wants to get redress from a newspaper in the scheme can do so up to a limit of £60,000, and then the recourse is through the courts. The Information Commissioner’s statutory code of practice is binding with respect to data protection standards; after all, this is a Data Protection Bill, so that is what is in scope.
Taken together, the changes from IPSO and the new clauses mean that Britain will have the most robust system we have ever had of redress for press intrusion and it will be accessible to all. It will achieve that and the benefits of high-quality journalism, without the negative effect that section 40 would have.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous in taking interventions. Before he finishes his peroration on the new clauses, will he confirm that they are purely procedural and will give members of the public, including our constituents, absolutely no new rights whatsoever?
Matt Hancock
No, that is not right. The statutory code of practice for journalists must be a consideration in the Information Commissioner’s judgments, and a failure to comply with the statutory code will weigh against the journalist in law. It has precisely the impact that we are trying to bring about.
New clause 18, tabled by the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), requires the Government to, in effect, reopen the Leveson inquiry, but only in relation to data protection. I want to say something specific and technical about the new clause. Even on its own terms, it would not deliver Leveson 2 as envisaged. It focuses on data protection breaches, not the broad question of the future of the press. The new clause, therefore, is not appropriate for those who want to vote for Leveson 2.
The first Leveson inquiry lasted more than a year and heard the evidence of more than 300 people, including journalists, editors and victims. The inquiry was a diligent and thorough examination of the culture, practices and ethics of our press, in response to illegal and improper press intrusion. There were far too many cases of terrible behaviour, and having met some of the victims, I understand the impact that had. The inquiry was followed by three major police investigations, leading to more than 40 criminal convictions. More than £48 million was spent on the police investigations and the inquiry.
Liam Byrne
This is probably a good point for the Secretary of State to remind the House about Brian Leveson’s view of the future of the inquiry. Will he set that out for us?
Matt Hancock
Sir Brian was very clear in his letter to me. He stated that he wanted the inquiry to continue on a different basis. I think, having considered his view and others, that the best approach is to ensure that we do the work necessary to improve the standards of the press, but we do it based on what is needed now to improve things in the future. I will come back to that.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am glad that my right hon. Friend acknowledges the diligence and hard work of Sir Brian Leveson in the inquiry. He highlighted the particular vice of corrupt police officers giving the names of persons—perhaps whose premises are being searched—to corrupt journalists who publish them before charge, and very often those people are never charged. No amount of redress can undo that damage. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other concerned Members to consider revisions and what additional legal protection can be given to people post-charge to prevent this trade in muck and dirt, sometimes without anybody ever coming before a criminal court, which undermines the presumption in favour of innocence?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are discussing the rules around the disclosure of the names of people who are under investigation before arrest. This is a sensitive area, and we have got to get it right. I want to work with colleagues and others to explore the reporting restriction rules further, and I look forward to meeting him and any others who share those concerns.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; it is very generous of him. Some years ago, I put forward a private Member’s Bill calling for anyone who was accused to keep their anonymity until they were charged. It is all there—it is effectively good to go. I too would very much like to meet the Secretary of State, because this is the right thing to do. People should not be named before they are even charged, unless a judge orders otherwise.
Matt Hancock
I am aware of my right hon. Friend’s proposals, and I look forward to meeting her. Getting the details of this right is incredibly important, and I am happy to take that forward.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
To go back to the key question of holding an inquiry, the Secretary of State rather implies that the first Leveson inquiry is closed and we now face the possibility of starting a new one. Does he not accept that, from the moment it was set up, the Leveson inquiry was always going to be in two parts? That was the commitment of the Government in which he and I served. It was only suspended so that police operations could take place, and it was quite clearly agreed that part 2 of the inquiry would then resume. The case he has to make is: why is he cancelling a previously promised inquiry endorsed by Leveson? What on earth is the reason for stopping investigations into the kind of things we are all talking about? No one would stop investigations of this kind against any other body in this country.
Matt Hancock
I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. and learned Friend. I was about to come on to precisely the reason for that. The reason is that inquiries are not costless, and not just in terms of taxpayers’ money; that is one consideration, but inquiries also take hours of official time and ministerial time. They divert energy and public attention—[Interruption.] Hold on. The question for the House is this: given all the other challenges facing the press, is this inquiry the right use of resources?
There is something in the calls to reopen the inquiry that implies that the problem is that we do not know what happened, but we do know what happened, and then we had police investigations and the convictions. It is fundamental that we get to the bottom of the challenges that the press face today. I want to divert our attention and resources to tackling and rising to the problems of today and ensuring we have a press that is both free and fair.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In answer to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), surely the question here is not that further issues should not be settled, such as those that have been raised, but how one should go about it. An open-ended continuation of this inquiry will not necessarily resolve those issues but could travel into all sorts of areas, which would take time. Will the Secretary of State commit to dealing with all these issues raised in a more effective way, rather than just opening a further point in the inquiry? That is the point.
Matt Hancock
Yes, and my right hon. Friend has pre-empted what I was about to say, which is that the choice is not between doing something and doing nothing, but between doing something and doing something better. New clause 18 calls on us to go into a backward-looking inquiry when what we need to do is ensure that we allow the press to rise to the challenges we face today.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, not least in view of what I am going to say. Is the truth not that he has broken promises to the victims, ignored the opinions of Sir Brian Leveson and ridden roughshod over the cross-party, unanimous opinion of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee? Much has happened since Leveson 1, and one thing that Leveson 2 could establish is who told Sir Brian the truth and nothing but the truth the first time round. Why is the Secretary of State afraid of establishing the truth?
Matt Hancock
I want to focus on the challenges we face now. That is my job as Secretary of State, and it is my judgment as to what the proposals I have put forward do, and do in a better way than re-establishing the inquiry.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Has this not been decided in the jewel of our legal system—that is to say, in front of a jury? Some people accused of things that would have been part of Leveson 2 have been acquitted, and a very few have been convicted, but once someone has been tried in front of a jury, it is fundamentally unfair, unjust and a question of double jeopardy if they are then brought before another tribunal and put once more on oath to repeat evidence that they have given before and then been acquitted for. It would be against British justice to proceed in that way.
Matt Hancock
The police inquiries and the prosecutions that followed were exhaustive, so much so that in 2015, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that the end had been reached of the need to inquire further into those criminal acts. Of course, the criminal acts were punished, and people were convicted and went to prison.
Crucially, the arrival of the internet has fundamentally changed the landscape. That was not addressed at the core of the first Leveson inquiry, but it must be addressed. Later this month we will publish our internet safety strategy, as I mentioned, in which we will set out the action we need to take to ensure that the online world is better policed. Many colleagues have raised with me huge concerns about online abuse and the inability to get redress. That is a significant challenge for the future, and we must address it.
However, the internet has also fundamentally undermined the business model of our printed press. Today’s core challenge is how to ensure a sustainable future for high-quality journalism that can hold the powerful to account. The rise of clickbait, disinformation and fake news is putting our whole democratic discourse at risk. This is an urgent problem that is shaking the foundations of democracies worldwide. Liberal democracies such as Britain cannot survive without the fourth estate, and the fourth estate is under threat like never before. These amendments would exacerbate that threat and undermine the work we are doing through the Cairncross review and elsewhere to support sustainable journalism.
The terms of reference of part 2 of the inquiry have already largely been met. Where action is needed, I do not back down from taking it. The culture that allowed phone hacking to become the norm has changed fundamentally and must stay that way. We have already seen reforms of police practices, with a new code of conduct for the College of Policing. As I said, we are discussing rules around disclosure. I can confirm that we have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake a new review of how police forces are adhering to new media relations guidance, as recommended by Sir Brian, and we will not hesitate to strengthen the rules further if that is needed.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has talked about victims of abuse, but he seems to have forgotten that Leveson was set up because of the victims of press harassment and abuse in the first place. Many of those victims have written to Members on both sides of the House, rejecting the ridiculous IPSO scheme and asking for part 2 of Leveson to proceed. He has heard concerns from Members on both sides of the House today, so why will he not think again? What has changed his mind about those victims over the last three or four years?
Matt Hancock
In the period in which people have raised concerns and said that they must be looked into in Leveson 2, every one that has been raised with me was covered in Leveson 1. Leveson 1 was exhaustive, and there were then police investigations, which went further. My judgment is about what is right now, and the challenges the press face now are fundamentally different.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State accept that many of the challenges that the press face now are the result of the behaviour that led to Leveson 1 and undermined public confidence? The fact that the victims are not perceived as having had justice further undermines the press, and we would be helping the future of the press in this country if we continued along the lines of Leveson 2 and looked at how best to implement the recommendations of Leveson 1.
Matt Hancock
I think the representations from the press themselves show that they are not looking for help of that sort. Let us, however, look at the public: there is not a great public cry for this. In response to the consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured the full repeal of section 40. It is my job to address what we face now and the needs of the country now.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has made the very interesting point that he will try to address some of the grievances and outcomes by way of a review. Doing so specifically in relation to Northern Ireland was in effect precluded by the first part of Mr Leveson’s inquiry. Will the Secretary of State tell us how he will try to resolve this problem in Northern Ireland?
Matt Hancock
Through new clause 23, as I have mentioned, we will require the Information Commissioner to conduct a statutory review of media compliance with the new law over the next four years. Alongside that review, we propose to have a named person review the standards of the press in Northern Ireland, and we will take that forward as part of and alongside new clause 23.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Secretary of State for his generosity. Would it be fair for me to characterise that review as a Leveson for Northern Ireland?
Matt Hancock
I would characterise it as a review aligned with new clause 23, which we are bringing in for the whole country, specifically to look at the effects in Northern Ireland. The crucial point is that we will make sure, through the review in new clause 23, that the future of the press is both free and reasonable, that its behaviour is reasonable, and yet that it is not subject to statutory regulation. I want to see a press that is both free and fair.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
This is an extraordinary way to make policy. Will the Secretary of State explain to us why there can be a Leveson for Northern Ireland, but not for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Matt Hancock
I have explained that new clause 23, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports, will in the future bring in a review of behaviour following the new system that we are putting into place. That is true here, and it is true right across the country.
Ian C. Lucas
May I bring the Secretary of State back to the United Kingdom and to Manchester last year? The Kerslake review said:
“The panel was shocked and dismayed by the accounts of the families of their experiences with some of the media.”
That happened last year, so the Secretary of State should not represent the threats posed by press misbehaviour as being from the past; this is a real and pressing problem now. Will he keep his promise to the victims who have suffered from this in the past and are continuing to suffer from it?
Matt Hancock
New clause 23 is for the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I have read the Kerslake review, and we asked to see all the evidence that fed into it, but we have not received specific allegations. The crucial point is that the low-cost IPSO arbitration is precisely to make sure that everybody has access to justice and that the press improves the way in which it behaves so that it is both free and fair, and that is what we want to achieve.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Secretary of State may not be aware of this, but my daughter, aged seven, was spoken to and recorded by a journalist in 2016. The incident, which was in our own garden, traumatised her greatly, as has been stated by her school and by her doctor, but it was ignored by IPSO. Will he meet me and my daughter to explain how children like her will be protected by his amendments and what he is trying to do, because she has no faith in the system?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. This is the sort of thing that I am trying to put right. It is about making sure that the system is right now: rather than going over the past—there is an enormous amount of evidence of what happened in the past—this is about making sure that we look to the future.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned Northern Ireland and the review I have committed to in Northern Ireland will take place at the same time as the review under new clause 23 for the UK that is before the House.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about the special review for Northern Ireland, may I ask the Secretary of State in reference to the Hurst case—the former Army intelligence officer whose computers were hacked by newspaper journalists working for newspapers in England about his activities protecting our state in Northern Ireland—whether his review will also examine such criminal activity?
Matt Hancock
If there are allegations of criminal activity—the hon. Gentleman has just made such an allegation—then that is a matter for the courts.
Tom Watson
A newspaper group has admitted liability for criminally hacking the computers of a former Army intelligence officer.
Matt Hancock
In a way, the hon. Gentleman has summed up my case. My case is that we want a press that is free and that is fair. Statutes already exist to ensure that, when there are cases of wrongdoing, people can be brought to account through the courts. That already exists, and we now also have a system of compulsory, low-cost arbitration to make sure everybody can get recourse.
I am focused on ensuring that we have high-quality political discourse and a press that can survive and thrive, with high-quality journalists who can hold the powerful to account, and on ensuring that we face the challenges of today rather than those of yesterday. That is what we want to work towards, and new clauses 18, 20 and 21 would make it harder to find solutions to today’s real problems.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but new clause 23, to which he has referred at the Dispatch Box, looks at cases going forward; it is not retrospective—I hope I am correct. Therefore, it addresses some of the deficiencies in the other new clauses before the House about having just a consultation process on what has happened previously.
Matt Hancock
New clause 23 is about ensuring that in the future there is a review of activity from now onwards, and alongside it we will ensure that there is a named person to ensure that the issues in Northern Ireland are looked into properly.
Overall, I want to ensure that the law that applies to the press is applied fairly, and that we have a free press and one that is responsible. I therefore oppose new clauses 18, 20 and 21, which would make that more difficult, not easier, and I urge every Member of the House to do the same.
Liam Byrne
I rise to support in particular new clause 18, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and indeed our new clause 20 and the consequential amendments.
The background to this is fairly well rehearsed, but it is worth remembering the level of shock we all felt when the revelations about phone hacking first became public. It is worth remembering the shock we felt when we heard that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked. It does not often happen in this House that Members on both sides unite to try to construct a shared way forward through an extremely difficult problem, yet that is exactly what we managed to do with the Leveson inquiry.
That was very difficult, but it was always going to be a game of two halves. There were too many cases coming to court at the time; there was too much evidence still under wraps; and there was too much that had to be left in the dark. As the Father of the House so rightly pointed out, it was never a question of opening a new inquiry; this is about letting the existing inquiry actually finish its work.
When the previous Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, having spoken to victims, made a statement, the point he wanted to impress on Members on both sides of the House was the need for Leveson to finish the job:
“One of the things that the victims have been most concerned about is that part 2 of the investigation should go ahead—because of the concerns about that first police investigation and about improper relationships between journalists and police officers. It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 458.]
The then Prime Minister was not speaking simply on his own behalf; he was speaking on behalf of Government Members, including members of today’s Government Front Bench such as the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who wrote not too long ago to one of his constituents:
“The Government has been clear all along that the status quo is not an option and I, personally, am determined to see Lord Justice Leveson’s principles implemented.”
Where has that commitment gone this afternoon?
Paul Farrelly
May I add another voice? There is no journalist more respected on these shores than Sir Harold Evans, the former editor of The Sunday Times. He wrote to everybody today in support of the previous Government’s promises:
“Whatever your party, I and many of my associates, look to you to honour that commitment. To renege would be an affront to every citizen who suffered intrusion, but also the many independently-minded journalists of talent and integrity.”
Is it not time today for fair and independently minded MPs to vote as Sir Harry advises?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What strengthens his argument is the way in which the Secretary of State has sought to bring forward one argument after another, all of which have been knocked down.
When we were first told that Leveson 2 could not proceed, we were told that there had been a day, sometime in about 2010, when magically, all of a sudden, all the abuse that we had ever heard about before categorically, unequivocally and without doubt ceased. We were all quite surprised about that. We were even more surprised, therefore, when John Ford presented his evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 13 March. It is worth setting out what Mr Ford said, because not everyone luxuriates in membership of that Committee:
“I illegally accessed phone accounts, bank accounts, credit cards, and other personal data of public figures… My targets included politicians of all parties. In most cases, this was done without any legitimate public interest justification.”
Mr Ford goes on to reflect on whether the practice had magically ended, as the Secretary of State asserted, or whether it was ongoing. He was asked directly to reflect on the Secretary of State’s assertion that it was all over—nothing more to see; time to walk on by. Mr Ford writes in his letter:
“I am sorry to inform you that Mr Hancock is totally wrong”.
Who can imagine such a thing? He goes on to say that
“having spent 15 years in the business, it is no surprise…that I still know people in the illegal data theft industry, and specifically,”—
this is the nub of the argument—
“that I know individuals who are still engaged in these activities on behalf of newspapers.”
The idea that magically this bad behaviour suddenly stopped and is not ongoing is argument one that has been knocked down.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
As reprehensible as those activities are, the fundamental point is that they are criminal acts. They are against the law. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to conflate that point with the question of press regulation. Those are criminal acts to be dealt with by the courts.
Liam Byrne
Actually, it is not wrong to conflate press regulation with these matters, because the purpose of press regulation, in case the hon. Gentleman has not spotted it, is to try to stop such offences happening again. That is how public policy tends to be made in this country.
Ian C. Lucas
Is it not extremely relevant that one of the main aims of Leveson 2 was to investigate the relationship between the police and the press, because the police are the people who look into illegal acts and there has been evidence in the past of corruption involving the exchange of information between the police and the press, some of which has affected how Government Members have been presented? Independent-minded Members of the House should be looking into that, not suppressing it. Is it not right that that is looked into?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is precisely right. We heard a couple of different arguments from the Secretary of State this afternoon, but they boil down to this: “Inquiries are expensive and time consuming, and officials have a lot of better work to do, unless you live in Northern Ireland, in which case we will crack on with the job now.”
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Are not culture and criminality very closely linked in these matters and the changes proposed by Opposition Members fair and proportionate? I was disappointed to hear the Secretary of State’s very loose sense of history—of what is more recent and what is in the past. The families of Kirsty Maxwell and Julie Pearson, two of my constituents who were both killed abroad, were harassed by the press. In the case of Kirsty Maxwell, a particular tabloid harassed the family to the detriment of other good and decent journalists, because the family were too scared to speak to the press. Any fair-minded and decent journalist will support these changes.
Liam Byrne
That point is well put by the hon. Lady. If there is one ambition that we share in this House, it should be not only for a free press, but for a clean press. The idea that there is nothing to see and that we should all walk on by has collapsed.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am following what the right hon. Gentleman is saying with great interest. I think he is saying that he appreciates that a lot of the activities that he is talking about are illegal, but that they have still been done by journalists and others. Where I am not joining the dots, as he clearly is, is on why Leveson 2, were it to reopen, would make journalists and others more cognisant of those things that are already illegal and change their behaviours.
Liam Byrne
For a very simple reason: we have evidence that bad behaviour is still ongoing. When the Secretary of State originally decided to cancel Leveson 2, he said that the bad behaviour was in the past. Actually, the evidence is that it is ongoing. What is more, there was much evidence that could not be considered by Lord Leveson because of the court cases that were ongoing. Crucially, that evidence included allegations of collusion between the press and the police. I would have thought that we should scrutinise that to bits in this House, not just walk on by.
Simon Hoare
It is obviously me; I still do not get why the reopening of Leveson—
Simon Hoare
Sorry, the reconvening. I do not get why the reconvening of Leveson would make things that are currently illegal any more illegal than they already are. The courts and the prosecution services have the power to bring those cases when illegality takes place. We do not need Leveson 2 to achieve that, surely.
Liam Byrne
The point of inquiries is to get to the nub of the truth. There was much that the first half of the Leveson inquiry could not consider because of the courts cases that were ongoing. As a Member of this House, I want to know whether the press regulation system that we are setting up takes account of what we have learned about the sins of the past. I do not think that those sins should be buried and forgotten, and that we should walk on by—unless, of course, people are lucky enough to live in Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that people in Northern Ireland can be treated with the back of his hand with comments like that, but I should make it clear that the Northern Ireland press were exempt from proper scrutiny by Leveson. That is why people feel aggrieved. Many Members whose phones were hacked, like myself, were completely ignored by that process. Now, perhaps, we will have the chance of fairness. Quite frankly, there has been no fairness up until this point.
Liam Byrne
I am listening very jealously to the hon. Gentleman. I would like the privileges he has just secured for Northern Ireland for the rest of the country, because the victims who live in England and Wales deserve the same rights.
Ian Paisley
I understand that new clause 23 applies to the whole United Kingdom. I live in the United Kingdom.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman may be assured by the process that he has been offered by the Secretary of State this afternoon, but the Opposition are not. We want Lord Leveson to be given the right to finish the job and do the work that he was commissioned to do by the last Prime Minister.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. I want to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). What I do not understand about the Labour new clauses is what he and those in his party who want phase 2 of Leveson, if we want to call it that, think they will learn that they have not learned and could not learn from the court cases and all the evidence that is already in the open. Is there not enough evidence for us to make the necessary changes, without going through the interminable process of opening it up? Is there some specific area of the criminal law he does not understand that Lord Leveson may be able to explain to him?
Liam Byrne
What I want to learn is the truth. I want to learn the truth about police-press collusion and I want to know how we improve our press regulation in the future, so that we have not just a free press but a clean press.
Let me make some progress. The Secretary of State offered us a second line of argument that has now collapsed. I am not quite sure of the exact words he used when he came to the House, but most of us walked away thinking that Lord Leveson was pretty content that the whole thing was going to be shuttered. The House can therefore imagine our surprise when Sir Brian Leveson said that he “fundamentally disagreed” with the Government’s decision to end part two of the inquiry. When Lord Leveson said that he wanted the terms to be revised, he meant that he wanted them to be expanded, not cancelled all together. The Secretary of State says that malpractice is in the past and that there is nothing more to see, officials are busy, inquiries are expensive and so we must move on. He intimated that Lord Leveson agreed with him when that was not in fact the case.
A third line of attack from the Secretary of State was that the review looked to the past and ignored the challenges for the press in the future. That was a legitimate challenge and if he studies carefully the words of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), he will see that there is a new ambition to get into some of the challenges around fake news that were looked at by Brian Leveson. That was not enough to satisfy the Secretary of State, however. In a letter to Conservative Members—I did not receive a copy—he offered some more objections, each one of which we can knock down.
The Secretary of State, in his letter to his colleagues, says that the first half of Leveson was “full and broad” when in fact it was partial and incomplete. He says that newspaper margins are under pressure, as if economic hardship is now some sort of defence against the full glare of justice. He says that the effect of the proposals will be “chilling”, when he knows that our fine broadcasters in this country operate under far more rigorous regulation than newspapers and that does not stop them pursuing the most extraordinarily brilliant investigations. He says that Sir Joe Pilling has “cleared” the IPSO scheme, but Joe Pilling was appointed by IPSO and IPSO itself says it does not comply with Leveson. He says that IPSO now has a low-cost arbitration scheme, but as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) pointed out, MailOnline, Newsquest and Archant are all outside it, so it is not a universal scheme in the way the Secretary of State has tried to present it to the House this afternoon.
The final line of argument is that officials are very busy and inquiries are very expensive, and we should therefore just walk on by. I just do not think that that is good enough.
Liam Byrne
I am happy to hear from the Secretary of State why he thinks I am wrong.
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman is not making much progress. He is implying that broadcasters are under regulation but there is no chilling effect. The description of a chilling effect, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is the expected impact of section 40, under which anybody would be able to take a newspaper to court and get costs awarded against the newspaper even if they did not have anything in their case. The broadcasters do not have to deal with anything like that. On the point about things being brought to light, will he confirm that the case of Mr Ford, which he raised and was raised in an argument for Leveson 2, was in fact raised in the original Leveson inquiry and was therefore covered?
Liam Byrne
Mr Ford’s activity was, but not Mr Ford’s allegations that the activity is already under way.
Let me come on to the point the Secretary of State made about the future of press regulation. The scheme he voted for—it was elegantly designed, I think, by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—was a good scheme. There have been a couple of important objections to it made by many of our constituents, but more importantly by many journalists in our local media. The first objection is that a royal charter is somehow tantamount to a state authorised, state-operated regulator, which will somehow impede free speech. Royal charters have for centuries been the basis by which we have given stature to universities and learning societies like the Royal Society. None of them confront restrictions on free speech in any way whatever. That argument, frankly, is fanciful.
Liam Byrne
The point is that this was well debated at the time and the argument presented by those on the Treasury Bench was that there was no point in setting up a new regulator and then doing nothing to create incentives to join that regulator. That was the proposal the Secretary of State voted for the first time around.
Joanna Cherry
I was not in the House at the time, so correct me if I am wrong. Am I right in thinking that Brian Leveson recommended that incentivisation to encourage the publishers to sign up to an independent regulator?
Liam Byrne
Absolutely. It was a very delicate job. The structure put in place was designed to minimise any dangers to free speech but create incentives for the press to move to a scheme that gave low-cost arbitration and access to justice for victims. That is at the core of this debate.
I want to conclude with two points. The first is, I suppose, a plea to the House. If we have learned one thing from the scandals of the past 10 to 12 years—whether the expenses scandal, Hillsborough or Orgreave—it is that it is never the right thing to look at a scandal and decide that it is too expensive or that we are too busy to get to the bottom of what happened. That is the core of the argument to let Brian Leveson finish his job.
I want to give the last word to the father of Madeleine McCann. When Gerry McCann found out that the Government were proposing to scrap the second half of the Leveson inquiry, he said:
“This Government has abandoned its commitments to the victims of press abuse to satisfy the corporate interests of large newspaper groups… This Government has lost all integrity when it comes to policy affecting the press.”
I hope that we can reflect on those harsh words this afternoon and rescue the integrity that is currently endangered by the Government’s determination to sweep aside the lessons of history.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind colleagues that this debate has to end at four o’clock and I know a lot of people want to speak.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take heed of your reminder about the time limit.
It is now over 10 years since the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I was Chair at the time, first conducted an inquiry into phone hacking. We conducted several subsequent inquiries, which helped to bring out the truth about the extent of phone hacking and other illegal practices. Without the work of the Committee, those would not have been revealed, although I pay tribute to The Guardian’s brilliant piece of investigative journalism. A lot of this debate concerns investigative journalism.
I think all of us were shocked by the revelation of phone hacking and we were determined that action should be taken to prevent anything like that happening again. In the 10 years that have passed, however, a lot has changed. The News of the World closed down as a result of the revelations. There were prosecutions, with 10 journalists convicted for illegal practices, although it is worth bearing in mind that 57 were cleared.
Obviously, we had the Leveson inquiry. Even if it did not complete all that it originally wanted to complete because of the ongoing criminal cases, it still took over a year and cost £49 million. It produced a swathe of recommendations, although the royal charter was not one of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) had the brainchild of the royal charter and, accompanying that, sanctions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 for newspapers that did not sign up to a regulator recognised under the royal charter.
Since that time, two major changes have taken place. When the royal charter was designed and the recognition panel was established, I do not think anybody in Parliament ever expected that not a single newspaper—certainly no national newspaper and virtually no local newspaper—would be willing to sign up to a regulator that applied for recognition under the royal charter. It was not just the usual whipping boys; the News International papers, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror. The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent and all the local newspapers refused. I have met the publications that have agreed to join IMPRESS, but they are micro-publishers. No major publisher was willing to go along with the royal charter. We originally invented the idea of sanctions with the view that one newspaper, or perhaps two, might stand out against the rest. We never intended to bring in a sanction that would punish, in what seems an incredibly unjust way, every single publisher. Their refusal to join is on a matter of principle, and we have to respect that.
What did happen was that they created a new regulator called IPSO, which has steadily evolved. To begin with, it was deficient in some ways. I had talks with IPSO and pointed out to it the areas where I felt that it needed to make changes, particularly through the introduction of an arbitration scheme, which was one of the key requirements under Leveson and which did not exist. However, IPSO has now made a lot of changes, including, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the inclusion of an arbitration scheme, which is compulsory for members who sign up to it. Those that are outside it are the local newspapers, against which virtually no complaint has ever been made, and which face the greatest peril from the economic situation that exists for newspapers.
Paul Farrelly
The Select Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a wonderful Chair, recently recommended unanimously, cross-party, the partial commencement of section 40 to give those publications protections—to protect investigative journalism—if they joined the approved regulator. That was one of the options in the consultation. What is wrong with that course?
Mr Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman is an old friend—we sat together on the Committee for 10 years—and I have some sympathy with what he says. When I talked to the publications that had joined IMPRESS, they said that one reason they had done so was the possible protection offered if they were part of a recognised regulator, in that they would not have to pay costs even if they lost. That is a separate matter, but in this debate we are talking about the introduction of an amendment to provide not the carrot, but the stick—the punishment for newspapers that do not wish to sign up to a Government-approved regulator.
Mr Whittingdale
Deep in my heart, yes I do. As I was about to say, I believe that there is a different climate. Of course, it does not mean that no newspaper ever does something that is a cause for complaint or invades people’s private lives—I have suffered at the hands of the press, but that is the price we pay in this place. However, I believe that the imposition of sanctions of the type that are proposed under the amendments would be deeply damaging to a free press.
In terms of what has changed, I challenge those who criticise IPSO to say where it now fails to meet the requirements under the royal charter. I have been through the royal charter, and there are perhaps three tiny sections where we could say that the wording of the IPSO codes is not precisely in line with the royal charter, but those are incredibly minor. They make no substantial difference whatever. IPSO has not applied for recognition under the royal charter, not because it does not comply, but because there is an objection in principle on the part of every single newspaper to a Government-imposed system, which this represents.
Peter Heaton-Jones
The fundamentally worrying thing is that this seeks to make a connection between local media organisations having to join the state regulator and their facing, if they do not, the awful costs that they might have to pay even if they win a court case. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) described that as an incentive, but it is not—it is coercion. It is only an incentive inasmuch as a condemned man on the gallows has an incentive not to stand on the trapdoor.
Mr Whittingdale
Of course, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he focused on local newspapers, because I referred to two changes. The first is the establishment of IPSO, which I believe in all serious respects is now compliant with what Lord Leveson wanted. The second is the complete change in the media landscape that has taken place in the last 10 years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the number of local newspapers that have gone out of business. We are seeing more continue to do so. There is likely to be further consolidation within the newspaper industry and the economics are steadily moving against newspapers. That is a real threat to democracy, because newspapers employ journalists who cover proceedings in courts, council chambers and, indeed, in this place. The big media giants who now have the power and influence—Google, Facebook and Twitter—do not employ a single journalist, so my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to have established the examination into the funding and future of the press. It is about looking forward, and that is where the House should be concentrating its efforts. It should not be looking backwards and going over again the events of more than 10 years ago; the world has changed almost beyond recognition.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—I call him my hon. Friend—raised the recommendations of the Committee last year. One was that for IPSO to be considered compliant in any way with the spirit of Leveson, it should have a compulsory industry-funded arbitration scheme. While IPSO might not be perfect, does my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) agree that this is one of the most significant areas where IPSO has responded to pressure to try to make itself more compliant?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I would have found it far harder to make the argument that IPSO was basically now compliant with Lord Leveson had it not introduced the scheme that is now in place. That was the biggest difference between the system as designed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset in the royal charter and IPSO, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, has rightly been removed.
What we do in this debate is being watched around the world. This country is seen as a bastion of freedom and liberty, and a free press is an absolutely essential component of that. I say to those who are proposing these amendments: do not just listen to the newspaper industry, which is, as I say, united against this—that includes The Guardian, despite the efforts of Labour Front Benchers to somehow exclude them. Listen to the Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists—campaigning organisations that are fighting oppression of the press around the world. They say that if this House brings in this kind of measure, it would send a terrible signal to those who believe in a free press. I therefore hope that the amendments will be rejected.
Edward Miliband
I shall speak in support of new clause 18, which stands in my name and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and four Members from four other parties across the House. I have tabled the new clause for one overriding reason: to keep a promise that everyone in this House made to the victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct.
I well remember the day when I, David Cameron and Nick Clegg went to meet the victims—the McCanns, the Dowlers and all the others. You know what we said to them? We said, “This time it will be different. This time we won’t flinch. We promise you we’ll see this process through.” Painstakingly, with the victims, we designed a two-part Leveson process—let us be under no illusions about that. The first part was to look at the general issues around the culture and ethics of the press and the relationship with politicians, and the second part, promised back then, was to look, after the criminal trials were over, at, in the words of Sir Brian, who did what to whom and why it happened. Who covered it up? Did the police? Did politicians? Did other public servants?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman mentions what David Cameron, Nick Clegg and he did. It seems to have escaped his attention that David Cameron is no longer Prime Minister, that Nick Clegg is no longer Deputy Prime Minister, and that two former MPs and one still-existing MP cannot bind their successors. A new Parliament has the right to consider these matters afresh, and that is what is rightly being done today after countless police investigations and prosecutions, many of which ended in acquittal.
Edward Miliband
I give way to the hon. Gentleman’s constitutional knowledge, but I do not give way to him on morality—and this is a question of morality and of promises we made. Remember the furore about all these events? Remember how people looked at us? Remember how all of us—Labour Governments too—were too close to the press, and how we said we would learn lessons? I take my responsibility too. We should have acted earlier. All Governments should take responsibility. To break this promise would be contemptible.
Anna Soubry
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and he is right about morality and the promises made, most importantly, to victims. I am struggling to support him, however, because while those are powerful arguments, I am actually more interested in the outcome. Is there a genuine purpose that can be achieved other than—and it is a strong argument—keeping a promise to victims? It will be a hollow promise if it is nothing more than a talking shop.
Edward Miliband
Other people have asked, “Why can’t the police just do it?” That suggests that whenever there is a police inquiry there cannot be a public inquiry. My answer is this: there is no substitute for the breadth of a public inquiry and its ability to see what happened. A lot has emerged even since Leveson 1. At that time, people said the hacking and improper behaviour were just at the News of the World. There have now been revelations at The Sun, allegations about The Sunday Times and a decade of blagging by John Ford—a whole range of allegations that we need to get to the bottom of. Crucially, we need to learn lessons for the future. The useful thing that can come out of this is to prevent there being future victims like the McCanns and the Dowlers. That is why so many victims have written to the Prime Minister, saying it is important to get to the truth—not just for them but to prevent it from ever happening again.
Ian Paisley
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very compelling argument—one that I am not turned off by—but when I read new clause 18 dispassionately, I see that it offers me a consultation process with parties in Northern Ireland and an Assembly that is not functioning. It offers me very little, although it promises me something. In new clause 23, the Government from the Dispatch Box today have offered me an actual inquiry. I ask him, then, to put himself in my shoes: should we take what we have or a promise of what we might get?
Edward Miliband
If the new clause was agreed today, the Secretary of State would within three months have to trigger an inquiry covering Northern Ireland. The point about consultation is precisely to consult with Members of the Assembly, Ministers, if they are in place, and those in Scotland as well. That is simply a point about consultation. I know the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about these issues.
I believe that the case is stronger, not weaker, than it was when a two-part inquiry was envisaged. Sir Brian says we should go ahead. When else do we put a presiding judge in charge of an inquiry and then ignore his advice? Frankly, it is extraordinary. As I said to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the wrongdoing turned out to be more widespread than we thought. I urge hon. Members, in the time left before the vote, to look at the Kerslake report on what happened in Manchester, because it is a shocking indictment of what a minority—I emphasise that it is a minority besmirching the good name of the whole press—did. I quote from it briefly:
“One mother, who was herself seriously injured as was her daughter, spoke of the press ringing her on her mobile whilst she was recovering in hospital…The child of one family was given condolences on the doorstep before official notification of the death of her mother.”
This is what some of the relatives of the victims said:
“By far the worst thing was the press”,
“They...are a disgrace, they don’t take no for an answer, they have a lack of standards and ethics,”
“The press were not respectful of grief.”
It is all very well people saying, “Everything’s changed”, but to my mind, I’m afraid, that report is proof that not enough has changed, because the same intrusion into the lives of innocent people is carrying on.
Mr Bone
I remember David Cameron, as I do the right hon. Gentleman, on this subject. It was one of David Cameron’s best moments. I have not yet heard an argument from the Government to explain why we cannot have Leveson 2. If it is money, that argument is ridiculous. Why does he think the Government do not want Leveson 2?
Edward Miliband
That is a very good point, and I will come to it in a moment, because it is important to answer it.
I want to make another point about the case for carrying on with Leveson 2. I do not believe, I am afraid, that the regulator we have, IPSO, is nearly good enough. It bears too much resemblance to its predecessor, the Press Complaints Commission. Just think about this regulator: it has not imposed a single fine, demanded a single equal-prominence front page correction or launched a single systematic inquiry, as it has the power to do. The Home Affairs Select Committee heard testimony in February on Islamophobia, and I think I am right in saying that under section 12 of the editors code, on discrimination, hate speech and so on, IPSO has received 8,000 complaints and upheld one. The Chair of the Committee and its members seemed rather shocked by that.
I return now to the very pertinent question from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Why might the Government not be going ahead with Leveson 2? Let us look at their issues briefly. They say it is about press freedom. I believe that a free critical press is an essential part of our society, and that includes being critical of politicians, but, as everyone agreed after Milly Dowler, that freedom does not include the ability to barge into the lives of innocent people. The press themselves said that was wrong. On press freedom and Leveson 2, the National Union of Journalists said in March that the decision not to allow Lord Leveson to complete his task was
“bad for politics, bad for journalism and bad for the public.”
The NUJ says it is not an attack on press freedom!
The Government have also said that the inquiry would go over ground already coved by the police, but as I said, it was always understood that Leveson 2 could only start after the police inquiries had been completed, and that there was no substitute for a broad public inquiry. It is claimed that it misses the big important issues of Facebook and fake news, but those are in the terms of reference as recommended by Sir Brian Leveson. It is said that local papers will be affected, but we have specifically written the terms of reference to exclude local papers, so that there can be no question of their being affected. It is said that this is all backward- looking, but in any other area of public life, would the press really be saying that the truth is time-limited, and that we do not need to get to the truth because it was all a few years ago? Lastly, there is the argument about cost, which I think is a terrible argument. Leveson 1 cost £5 million. That is a substantial sum, but I have to say that, given decades of abuse and broken promises in relation to the press, I think that it is worth spending such a sum to get to the truth.
Now I will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. I set out the reasons adduced by the press and, indeed, the Government for the cancellation of this inquiry, but let us be absolutely honest: there is one overriding reason for the Government’s decision to abandon it, and that needs to be discussed. It is quite simple. It is fear: fear about the wrath of the press. That is why the Government have made this decision. The press do not want the inquiry to go ahead, and the Government fear attacks on them by the press. That is why the last Labour Government did not take action against the press: they too feared the consequences. But what did we also say after 2011? We said, “Never again will we succumb to fear and make the wrong decisions, which are not in the public interest.”
Fear of the powerful is not a good reason to allow them to trample on the powerless when we have it in our hands to do something about it. It goes against everything that we promised in 2011. It goes against everything that we said to the victims and everything that we told the public. We should remember the words of the current Prime Minister—the current Prime Minister—who said on the steps of Downing Street:
“When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you.”
I say, “Think of the public, not the powerful, today.” There is still a chance that this time it will be different. We can learn the lessons of failed reform and no change. We can keep our promises to the victims and make change happen, and the way to do that is by voting for new clause 18.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I rise to support new clause 18, and I shall try to do so as briefly as possible as we are running out of time. I have also put my name to amendment 14, which I hope the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) will press to a Division if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, new clause 18 and Leveson 2 are my main concern because, as the then Justice Secretary, I was personally involved in setting up the Leveson inquiry.
I have the highest regard for Sir Brian Leveson, and I share his indignation that the House is going back on previous commitments about the completion of that inquiry. Sir Brian is now the president of the Queen’s Bench division. He is the head of criminal justice in this country. He does not think that his inquiry completed its work or inquired into all the matters into which it was supposed to be inquiring. He said in his public letter that he “fundamentally” disagreed with the proposal to cancel the inquiry now and prevent it from going any further. I share his views, and I do not think that the House should lightly set them aside.
It was always clear when the inquiry was established that there would have to be a second part. In his statement when the inquiry was first announced, the then Prime Minister said:
“The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers, and the way in which management failures may have allowed it to happen. That part of the inquiry will also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and will consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 312.]
Those are the things that we are saying that we perhaps do not want to inquire into any further, for what seem to me—with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who made a valiant effort to put forward the case on behalf of the Government— to be quite inadequate reasons.
When the first part of Leveson was completed, the then Government recommitted to holding the second part. I cannot recall anyone in the House objecting to the idea that we were waiting for the inquiry to be completed once the police inquiries were over. On 29 November 2012, the then Prime Minister said:
“When I set up the inquiry, I also said that there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the conduct of the first police investigation. That second stage cannot go ahead until the current criminal proceedings have concluded, but we remain committed to the inquiry as it was first established.”
That was the commitment of the Government of which I was a member, of which my right hon. Friend was a member, and of which half the present Government were members. No one objected to that in the House. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend took pride in rebutting what was eloquently described by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) as the fear—the craven fear—that most Governments have felt of Her Majesty’s press during much of the time that I have been in Parliament.
Mr Bone
What my right hon. and learned Friend has said was the crux of David Cameron’s point. Political parties have got too close to the press. The only reason I can see for abandoning Leveson 2 would be if that had stopped. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it has stopped?
Paul Farrelly
The Government also asked the public what they thought. When they announced the results of the consultation, it quickly became clear that the Secretary of State had set aside two petitions signed by more than 200,000 people who were in favour of Leveson 2, but counted 62,000 pro forma newspaper coupons that were against it, just because they had been returned in envelopes. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that that is a rather odd way in which to judge the outcome of a consultation, and perhaps a little biased?
Mr Clarke
I personally will give my right hon. and hon. Friends the benefit of the doubt—I am sure that every representation was considered extremely carefully—but, in the end, it is for the House to decide what goes on.
The first argument that seems to be raised is about the lapse of time and the fact that we are talking about such a long time ago—2012; 2011—that we cannot spend public money on reopening former issues. It has already been said that quite a lot has happened since then. At the time of Leveson 1, I do not think that anyone knew that The Sun was involved in hacking. I do not think that anyone realised that Trinity Mirror was as mired in criminality as News International, and that it had gone in for hacking. They have tried to cover up the details since then by settling every civil claim that has been brought against them because they do not wish to give any evidence in public, or to have any evidence heard in public against them.
The other issue that has not gone away, about which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, the former Leader of the Opposition, spoke very eloquently, is the treatment of the victims. There have been other incidents since that time. The Manchester bombing is a plain and obvious example. Victims of tragic occasions such as terrorist outrages still find, far too often, that their gardens fill with photographers. Weeping relatives find that their doors are being knocked on so that they can be asked for comment. They are interviewed when they are plainly still badly shaken up, and probably not yet able to cope with the pressures.
I think that quite a lot has happened, but it has taken some time. It is not actually that long, in my aged recollection, since 2012. This consideration has never been applied to any other public inquiry, and we have lots of public inquiries. When trying to refute the moves against them, the press go back to 1961 in order to attack Mr Mosley and resurrect his activities as a student—they were fairly startling—with his notorious father.
The sexual offences inquiry—a very important inquiry—is making very slow progress. It is inquiring into allegations against public figures now dead, going back for decades. In any other context, shock would be expressed about a scandal of the scale we had in the case of the behaviour of the press. To say, “Oh, that’s too late now; it’s all gone by and we do not wish to know any more about it,” would be greeted with outrage and treated as a ridiculous argument, and I really do not think that we should accept it.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation is a big improvement on what we had before, but it is plainly not an independent regulator. If we had a group of people with the authority of those involved in part one of the Leveson inquiry recommending a new independent regulator, no other public body—none of the utilities, for instance—would be allowed to turn around and say, “We refuse to comply. We will be regulated, but only by a regulator whom we appoint and can change at any stage.” That would be dismissed.
The Government can address all the unworthy suspicions we have that their decision is motivated by a combination of fear and desire to curry favour. They should recover their courage and let the process go ahead, and we will see whether the press really have anything much to fear. I do not think that legitimate journalism and the very many honest journalists have anything to fear. As has been said—I am sure this is true in the House of Commons—everybody in public life in this country thinks that a free and fearless press is a key part of our liberties, and it is a joke to start presenting any moves to investigate as a threat to the freedom of the press.
The final argument that has been used against the proposal is that as the press are under great commercial pressures and face lots of challenges, we should not allow this to go ahead. I cannot think of any other body of organisations of such public importance that could claim, “We are under a bit of pressure, and there is a lot of competition; it is worse than it was a few years ago.” We should certainly tackle the digital market. I think it is quite obvious that Facebook and others are publishers. We should get away from the fiction that they are not publishers, and they should be subject to the same regulation as publishers, but that is another issue.
I supported Leveson when it was set up and I believe it should be completed. Leveson should not be cancelled. There are probably policemen still serving who are hoping that their corrupt relationship with the media will not be investigated further because they have got away with it so far. There are probably journalists still working—editors, even, still in post—who knew perfectly well that they were acting illegally in sourcing private information about public figures not just in politics, but in sport and theatre—anybody who achieves B-list celebrity status in this country. It is still the case that nothing sells newspapers like celebrity sex and scandal—no doubt long may that continue—but we must have a look at the ethical standards that should be applied to every possible sort of story.
This is not just about the law; it is also about ethics. We want more respect for our free press, and a proper Leveson 2 could eventually lead to that being achieved.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), with whom I agree entirely on Leveson 2. I shall address my remarks to amendment 14, which stands in my name and those of colleagues.
First, let us consider the situation now. We have two self-regulatory bodies for the British press and news publishers: IPSO and IMPRESS. These regulators each have standards codes that apply to their members in the news publishing industry. One of the standards codes is listed in the Bill. The Government are happy to give publishers following that code a qualified exemption from the laws that apply to most other professions and industries. Those publishers are, in short, more free to process people’s personal data. That is right, and it allows for, and supports, investigative journalism in the public interest. The other code is not in the Bill, and publishers following that code are less free to process personal data, to conduct investigations and to hold the powerful to account.
People might be surprised to learn which regulator has that statutory recognition. It is not IMPRESS, the new regulator that meets all the requirements of the royal charter on press regulation in the way that this Parliament hoped for after Leveson. The regulator to which the Government are giving these privileges is IPSO, the regulator that has set its face against Parliament and will have nothing to do with statutes or charters.
The cross-party amendment 14 has been tabled in the spirit of the consensus in the House five years ago. It simply says that there must be fair and equal rights for members of IMPRESS. As the first and only regulator approved under the framework that Parliament supported, IMPRESS has worked hard to meet the standards that Leveson set. It has an independently appointed board. It wrote its own code, after extensive public consultation, and it receives funding from a charity, the Independent Press Regulation Trust. IPSO’s arrangements have been subject to no such scrutiny.
IMPRESS is open to the world. Its funding arrangements, appointments, code and regulatory scheme have been published and pored over. In October 2016, the Press Recognition Panel, an arm’s length public body established by royal charter, confirmed that IMPRESS does indeed meet the Leveson standards. That decision was challenged in the courts by the News Media Association, and every single objection that it made was thrown out. That was not widely reported, because most national newspapers choose only to publish bad news, smears and innuendoes about IMPRESS. I believe that the Government have been influenced by those news reports and have chosen to adopt a non-co-operation attitude to IMPRESS.
Julie Elliott
No; there is not enough time.
It is because of the Government’s intransigence that we are debating the amendment. I wish that we did not need to take up parliamentary time with this issue. I wish that the Government had dealt with it long before now. However, as the Secretary of State says, we are where we are: the odd situation in which IPSO, the regulator that turns its back on Parliament and the public, is listed in the Data Protection Bill, but IMPRESS, the regulator that is publicly accountable, is not. The Government have stonewalled every attempt by IMPRESS for inclusion in the list of journalism codes in schedule 2 or existing legislation since 2016. For a long time, they refused even to consider the issue. Last September, they finally accepted IMPRESS’s application. Since then, they have simply said that the issue is “under consideration”. I now ask the Government to give the case that has been made in this debate proper consideration. I will not press amendment 14 to a Division, but I would be grateful for a full response from the Minister.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to make a few general comments, particularly on new clause 18, where the House faces a fine judgment on which way to proceed.
The arguments in favour of new clause 18 are strong. David Cameron promised what it proposes. I was in the Cabinet at the time and remember him making that promise and it was unequivocal, which is reflected in the new clause. Brian Leveson has confirmed his belief that another inquiry should go ahead. In the House of Lords, Lady Hollins set out persuasively the three reasons why the inquiry should proceed. There was also Lord Kerslake’s powerful testimony following the Manchester tragedy that lessons have still not been learned about press intrusion. While Lord Kerslake appears to have found a new role adjacent to the Labour Front-Bench team, he remains one of Britain’s most senior and distinguished former civil servants and his views cannot be idly dismissed. In addition, as has been alluded to by several Members, the victims affected by what we are trying to address today may find it, frankly, rather distasteful that a bunch of politicians appear to be rushing to ingratiate ourselves with the media for fear that they will persistently trawl through our dustbins.
Christine Jardine
I rise to speak in support of new clause 18, which my friend the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has so eloquently described. I would like to bring three words to the House’s attention: fairness, justice and honour. I say this not as a politician—although I hope that we would all hold those things in high regard—but because they were the things that originally attracted me to a career in journalism. That career involved challenging the establishment, questioning power and holding politicians, big business and powerful vested interests in the media to account. Standing here today, I do not believe that any good ethical journalist or publication in this country has anything to fear from revisiting the Leveson 2 inquiry. Indeed, I feel that they have much to gain.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North talked about going with David Cameron and Nick Clegg to speak to the victims of hacking, and about the promise that was made to them. I respect the fact that this Parliament should not be held by promises made by another Parliament, but it would say a lot about this House if we were to hold to that promise. It would disappoint the public who are watching us today, hoping that we will live up to those standards of fairness, justice and honour, if we did not do so. That promise was about redressing the balance of power between the vested interests of the press and the ordinary public in this country. The ordinary public deserve the right of redress, and they deserve to have the confidence that everything has been done to safeguard their rights.
We have heard from the Secretary of State that time has moved on and that we live in a different culture, but the fact that we have moved on should not prevent us from learning the lessons of the past. If history teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that if we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will repeat our mistakes in the future. Today, we have an opportunity to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that led to the hacking of phones, to the intrusion into the lives of innocent members of the public and to the hounding of people who were already suffering, such as the family of Madeleine McCann.
More than that, this is an opportunity to reassure members of the public who, as we have heard time and again over the past few years, feel detached from politics. They feel that we have somehow let them down and that we are not listening to them, but this is an opportunity to tell them that we are listening and that we hear their outrage at the way in which members of the public have been treated by the press—not all the press, but certain elements of it. I also understand the pressures on the press, as a former journalist and the wife of a journalist. I lived through my late husband’s employer announcing redundancies five years in a row, every year at Christmas. That is the reality of life in the modern media, but that is an economic pressure. It is not a pressure brought about by any ethical standard. It is the modern reality of the changes in technology that the industry is learning to deal with.
The Secretary of State said that we had moved on and that the culture had changed, but I would like to remind him of the Kerslake inquiry, and of the behaviour in Manchester that we have heard about. Unfortunately, the truth is that there are unethical individuals in every walk of life and in every profession. However, every other profession in this country—dentistry, medicine, the law—has a regulatory body that is underpinned by statute and that holds its members to a standard. Why should newspapers be exempt? I say that not as somebody who wants any restriction on freedom of the press; I believe that the fourth estate is a fundamental pillar of a free and democratic society. But it also has to be answerable, because freedom of the press should not mean freedom to intrude, to harass or to manufacture stories about individuals; it should mean freedom to be responsible and to be held to account, by the law and by the politicians who make the law.
Friends, the victims of the hacking scandal will be watching today to see whether we live up to the promise that was made to them by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, by David Cameron and by Nick Clegg. I appeal to Members, please do not be found wanting.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
May I say what a sad day this is? I pay tribute to the Government Chief Whip, who has worked exceptionally hard to try to protect the Government, which is particularly difficult, given that in 2013, 530 MPs voted for section 40 and only 13 voted against it. That vote was for the Courts and Crime Act 2013, which enshrined in law the low-cost access to justice that Lord Justice Leveson had agreed was necessary. That was first suggested by Lord Justice Leveson and then agreed to almost unanimously by all parties in Parliament. However, it was never commenced. Successive Secretaries of State have refused to commence the cost-shifting provisions that are so necessary for access to justice.
Section 40 is not about punishing newspapers that do not sign up to IMPRESS; it is about ensuring low-cost access to justice for vulnerable victims of press abuse. The first part of the Leveson inquiry uncovered the horrific scale of abuse, which was endemic in the press, and there have been many court cases and convictions since. Section 40 ensures that publishers that are members of an independently approved regulator that provides low-cost arbitration do not face expensive court costs. It also ensures that victims of press abuse who have been attacked by publications that are not members of an independently approved regulator can access justice via the courts without having to be extremely wealthy.
There are myths about section 40. The first myth is that it would damage the freedom of the press. That is not true. The press recognition panel is independent and was created by royal charter. The charter enshrines press freedom in law. Criterion 8 states that any regulator
“must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public… the need for journalists to protect confidential sources of information, and the rights of individuals.”
Criterion 17 states that such a regulator’s board
“should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, or at any time”.
The only way to change the charter would be by a 66% super-majority in both Houses, plus the unanimous agreement of the press recognition panel’s board. This is not state regulation of the press, or even state regulation of the press regulators; it is the creation of an independent body that will apply Leveson’s criteria for a press regulator to potential self-funded press regulators.
The second myth is that it would threaten the existence of local newspapers. Again, that is not true. New clause 20 would protect all local newspapers that have a turnover of less than £100 million and exempt them from section 40. Local newspapers were generally omitted from the criticisms of Leveson 1, and they are rightly protected from costs shifting, which they might be unable to afford.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that condition B would still leave 85% of local newspapers covered by the cost-shifting provisions, directly threatening their ability to conduct the investigative journalism that so many of them do so well?
Bill Wiggin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he is saying is that businesses with a turnover of over £100 million should be protected, which I think is probably not quite right.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend find it odd that the lesser-off papers, as I think he phrased it, get away with some things and the better-off papers do not? Is that not discriminatory and completely against British justice?
Bill Wiggin
No, it is not, because it is designed to ensure that victims get access to justice. My hon. Friend will find the local papers that may come under section 40 are owned by large companies. The exemption is designed for the charitable sector, which I will come to in just a moment.
One myth is that The Guardian would not be covered. The Daily Mail claimed that The Guardian would be exempt from the section 40 provisions, which is not true. The Guardian would not be covered by condition A, which is necessary to protect the not-for-profit publications that cannot afford cost-shifting—that is the sector my hon. Friend is interested in protecting. The Guardian would be covered because it declares dividends to its members, so it would not be exempted as the Daily Mail suggested.
The next myth about section 40 is that newspapers would have to sign up to IMPRESS, which again is simply not true. The press are at liberty to create their own regulator, which would simply have to fulfil all 29 of Leveson’s criteria in order to become approved. Becoming approved does not require any sort of Government or political approval. It is entirely independent, and there is nothing to stop IPSO applying to become an approved regulator, except that it does not want to provide the low-cost access to justice that is so necessary. IPSO is a press protector, not a press regulator. I say that because it has introduced what it calls a compulsory low-cost arbitration scheme, but that is not right. IPSO’s scheme is voluntary, and the Financial Times, MailOnline and other newspapers not regulated by IPSO have not signed up. Newspapers may leave the scheme whenever they choose. Although I am delighted that IPSO has admitted that low-cost arbitration is necessary, to add to the express view of both Houses and the recommendation of Lord Leveson, this version of it is not right.
If we choose not to vote for section 40 today, we will once again be trusting the newspapers to reform themselves. They say we should trust them and that IPSO is reforming, coincidentally at exactly the same time as we vote on this important new clause. The newspapers have shown again and again that they cannot be trusted, and we must vote to ensure that all victims have access to low-cost justice, which is so necessary. Lord Leveson, both Houses of Parliament and, now, IPSO have all agreed this is necessary. Section 40 has been on the statute book for five years, and it is now time it was commenced.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Time is tight, so I will be brief. I rise to speak in support of new clause 18 because the Scottish National party has been clear throughout that all individuals should be able to seek redress when they feel they have been the victim of press malpractice. It benefits each and every one of us to have a media that is both transparent and accountable.
The Scottish National party is committed to ensuring that the practices that led to the Leveson inquiry never happen again. We have been equally clear, however, that if there is to be a second part of the Leveson inquiry, the distinct Scottish legal context must be taken into account and the Scottish Government must be consulted on the scope and scale of any future inquiry.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and I raised that on Second Reading and again in Committee, and we put on record our dismay at the wholly inappropriate, indeed lazy, amendments made in the other place that sought to impose a blanket, one-size-fits-all, Truro-to-Thurso policy without any cognisance of the devolution settlement or of the fact that matters of press regulation and criminal justice are wholly devolved to the Parliament in Holyrood. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the House of Lords to know that both criminal justice and press regulation, and all the associated issues of the culture, practice and ethics of the press, fall under devolved competence, and that any blanket UK-wide proposal could only negatively impact on devolution.
Scottish National party Members have said repeatedly that, as long as the Scottish Government are consulted and the Scottish legal system is taken into account, we would be happy to support a Leveson inquiry.
Liam Byrne
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. He is right to say that we need to ensure the sins of the past are not repeated, which is why we need new clause 20. Can he confirm whether his party’s position is to support new clause 20 today or, as I have heard, to abstain on it?
Brendan O'Hara
The right hon. Gentleman may push that to the vote, but new clause 20 seeks to impose on Scotland a system of press regulation from Westminster, even though this is wholly devolved. I appreciate the work that he and others in Hacked Off have tried to do to square that circle, but it has not been squared. Therefore, we cannot support a system of press regulation that will be imposed from Westminster on Holyrood. That is why I am so pleased that new clause 18 is presented in such a way that it takes on board all of our concerns. I am extremely grateful for the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in fashioning the new clause in a way that allows the second part of the Leveson inquiry to take place while recognising the devolution settlement and the distinct position in Scotland. I commend the passion with which he put across his argument this afternoon.
There will be some who will say that part 2 of Leveson is now out of date—indeed, the Secretary of State said as much when he announced his plans to scrap it. People are right to say that much has changed since 2011, which was before Brexit or the fake news agenda dominated the newspapers, but we need to ask ourselves how much has really changed since the height of the phone hacking scandal. The Government are convinced that a step change has taken place, but I question whether it really has. The Secretary of State has pointed out that the world has changed, but these concerns are as relevant now as they were then.
We have seen how social media is now part and parcel of everyday life. Surely the time is right, with this second part of Leveson, to investigate the role of social media companies—Facebook, Twitter and others—in spreading fake news and disinformation. I would like to think that this inquiry would look to build on the outstanding work being done by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and his Select Committee in pursuing fake news and the spread of disinformation.
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I am delighted to have added my name to new clause 18 because I believe any reasonable person would agree that the terms of reference for this part of the Leveson inquiry have not yet been met.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The freedom of the press is so overwhelmingly precious that we should preserve it even if sometimes the press upsets us. It is amazing how many people who have had run-ins with the press have suddenly found that they think it should be more tightly regulated. Fascinatingly, the Daily Mail carried out a survey of their lordships House and discovered that more than a third of those who voted to shackle the press had been embarrassed by the press. May I therefore pay all the greater tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his impressive speech? He has suffered at the hands of the press, yet he recognises that the value of the free press is one of the great jewels in the crown of our constitutional settlement. But it is a jewel that has become tarnished because of actions taken by us; in four years, we have fallen in the rank of free nations from 30th to 40th, so that now we are behind Trinidad and Tobago, and, perhaps most insultingly, even below the French in freedom of the press. The clauses before us today should fill us with shame because they go to the heart of what we should believe in, in terms of our liberties, our freedoms and the rule of law.
New clause 18 seeks to have double jeopardy. Why did Leveson 2 not go ahead in the first place? It was because of a fear that trials could be made unfair by an inquiry going ahead at the same time. But those trials have now gone ahead and juries have returned verdicts. Interestingly, what verdicts did they return? It was not the ones the establishment expected. By and large, the journalists were found not guilty—not guilty of misusing any public office—but the police who gave them information were found guilty.
Was that not proper justice at work? The receiving of information as a journalist is your job, but the giving of information as a policeman is against the law. They have had justice, they have had the inquiry and they have been through the process, but now people want to put those found innocent through it again. They want to call them in front of a tribunal, to put them on oath, to put them in the stocks, and to let them be quizzed, questioned and interrogated so that the freedom of the press can be undermined and pressurised by those who have sometimes had the sharp lash of the press’s tongue against them. It reeks of self-interest.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will not because time is so short.
Let me move on to new clause 20, the Max Mosley amendment. A man more cynical than I am might think that £540,000 donated to a certain political party might have had some influence on the desire to support IMPRESS—on the desire to support the creation of a known racist, a man who went on anti-Semitic rallies with his father. A party suffering from accusations of anti-Semitism wishes to be in bed with a man who gave it £540,000 to pursue his cause, which is to make IMPRESS the regulator of our free press, in the pocket of one of the most disreputable figures in this nation. IPSO has made leaps and bounds to ensure that it is a proper self-regulator. It is a self-regulator free from the taint of state approval, state authorisation and state regulation—
Mr Rees-Mogg
The freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear should be preserved, even when they are inconvenient to us. The House may not have heard what my hon. Friend next to me just said. Baldwin’s line was that the press had the “prerogative of the harlot”—power without responsibility. That was his line, but I would rather have a free press in that condition than a Government-approved, propagandised press that took away all our ancient liberties. These new clauses must be wiped out and cut from the legislative book. We must preserve our freedoms.
Ian C. Lucas
This has been an excellent debate. I wish to tell the House about a victim of press intrusion. Twenty-one years ago, I represented the bodyguard who survived the crash that killed the Princess of Wales. I made it clear to the press at the time that neither he nor his family wished to be pressured, followed or traced by journalists. They completely disregarded my advice and treated someone who was gravely ill, and his family, appallingly.
When I saw the statements in the Kerslake inquiry last year, I saw that, contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, the situation has not changed. Individuals who were the victims of grave crimes were abused, their privacy invaded and their lives turned around by press intrusion. That was after Sir Brian Leveson had conducted his inquiry, and after he, a greatly respected judge, had told the Government that he fundamentally disagreed with their decision not to proceed with the second part of the Leveson inquiry.
Earlier, I intervened on the Secretary of State and asked him why the Conservative party previously supported the terms of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which it now opposes. For all the eloquence we have just heard, the position is that the Conservative party is breaking a promise that was made to victims of crime by a Prime Minister of this great country, the United Kingdom. Anyone who supports the Government today should be ashamed of themselves, because those victims of crime are the powerless who need protection from the powerful. The powerful are the people who are too close to those who have governmental power.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, we know why this decision is being made—why the Conservative party is backing away from the promise made by a Conservative Prime Minister: it is frightened of the press and its influence. It is a shameful step that it is taking. I appeal to all individual and independent Members of this House to stand up for the powerless against the powerful and to support new clause 18. I implore the Secretary of State to be straightforward with the House.
Question agreed to.
New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 14—Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc.
Government new clause 15—Applications in respect of urgent notices.
Government new clause 16—Post-review powers to make provision about representation of data subjects.
Government new clause 17—Reserve forces: data-sharing by HMRC.
New clause 3—Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment—
‘Schedule [Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment] shall have effect.’
This new clause would introduce a Schedule containing a Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment.
New clause 4—Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment (No. 2)—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, establish a Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment.
(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall—
(a) consult—
(i) the Commissioner,
(ii) trade associations,
(iii) data subjects, and
(iv) persons who appear to the Commissioner or the Secretary of State to represent the interests of data subjects; and
(b) publish a draft of the Bill of Data Rights.
(3) The Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment shall enshrine—
(a) a right for a data subject to have privacy from commercial or personal intrusion,
(b) a right for a data subject to own, curate, move, revise or review their identity as founded upon personal data (whether directly or as a result of processing of that data),
(c) a right for a data subject to have their access to their data profiles or personal data protected, and
(d) a right for a data subject to object to any decision made solely on automated decision-making, including a decision relating to education and employment of the data subject.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to introduce a Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment.
New clause 6—Targeted dissemination disclosure notice for third parties and others (No. 2)—
‘In Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Power to require disclosure), after paragraph 10 (documents in electronic form) insert—
‘10A (1) This paragraph applies to the following organisations and individuals—
(a) a recognised third party (within the meaning of Part 6);
(b) a permitted participant (within the meaning of Part 7);
(c) a regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7);
(d) a regulated participant (within the meaning of Schedule 7A);
(e) a candidate at an election (other than a local government election in Scotland);
(f) the election agent for such a candidate;
(g) an organisation or individual formerly falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f); or
(h) the treasurer, director, or another officer of an organisation to which this paragraph applies, or has been at any time in the period of five years ending with the day on which the notice is given.
(2) The Commission may under this paragraph issue at any time a targeted dissemination disclosure notice, requiring disclosure of any settings used to disseminate material which it believes were intended to have the effect, or were likely to have the effect, of influencing public opinion in any part of the United Kingdom, ahead of a specific election or referendum, where the platform for dissemination allows for targeting based on demographic or other information about individuals, including information gathered by information society services.
(3) This power shall not be available in respect of registered parties or their officers, save where they separately and independently fall into one or more of categories (a) to (h) of sub-paragraph (1).
(4) A person or organisation to whom such a targeted dissemination disclosure notice is given shall comply with it within such time as is specified in the notice.’’
This new clause would amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to allow the Electoral Commission to require disclosure of settings used to disseminate material where the platform for dissemination allows for targeting based on demographic or other information about individuals.
New clause 10—Automated decision-making concerning a child—
‘(1) Where a data controller expects to take a significant decision based solely on automated processing which may concern a child, the controller must, before such processing is undertaken—
(a) deposit a data protection impact assessment with the Commissioner, and
(b) consult the Commissioner (within the meaning of Article 36 of the GDPR), regardless of measures taken by the controller to mitigate any risk.
(2) Where, following prior consultation, the Commissioner does not choose to prevent processing on the basis of Article 58(2)(f) of the GDPR, the Commissioner must publish the part or parts of the data protection impact assessment provided under subsection (1), relevant to the reaching of that decision.
(3) The Commissioner must produce and publish a list of safeguards to be applied by data controllers where any significant decision based solely on automated processing may concern a child.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the meaning of “child” is determined by the age of lawful processing under Article 8 of the GDPR and section 9 of this Act.’
New clause 11—Education: safe use of personal data—
‘(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 35 (other personal, social, health and economic education), after subsection (1)(b) insert—
‘(1A) In this section, “personal, social, health and economic education” shall include education relating to the safe use of personal data.’’
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to require that personal information safety be taught as a mandatory part of the national PSHE curriculum.
New clause 12—Health bodies: disclosure of personal data—
‘(1) In section 261 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Health and Social Care Information Centre: dissemination of information) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) A disclosure of personal data may be made under subsection (5)(e) only if it is made—
(a) to and at the request of a member of a police force, and
(b) for the purpose of investigating a serious offence.
(5B) In subsection (5A)—
“personal data” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018;
“police force” means—
(a) a police force within the meaning of section 101 of the Police Act 1996, and
(b) an equivalent force operating under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country; and
“serious offence” means—
(a) a serious offence within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007,
(b) an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Explosive Substances Act 1883, the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Terrorism Act 2006, and
(c) the equivalent of any of those offences under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country.’
(2) In section 13Z3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 () at the end insert—
‘(3) A disclosure of personal data may be made under subsection (1)(g) only if it is made—
(a) to and at the request of a member of a police force, and
(b) for the purpose of investigating a serious offence.
(4) In subsection (3)—
“personal data” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018;
“police force” means—
(a) a police force within the meaning of section 101 of the Police Act 1996, and
(b) an equivalent force operating under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country; and
“serious offence” means—
(a) a serious offence within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007,
(b) an offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Explosive Substances Act 1883, the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Terrorism Act 2006, and
(c) the equivalent of any of those offences under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country.’
(3) In section 14Z23 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (clinical commissioning groups: permitted disclosure of information) at the end insert—
‘(3) A disclosure of personal data may be made under subsection (1)(g) only if it is made—
(a) to and at the request of a member of a police force, and
(b) for the purpose of investigating a serious offence.
(4) In subsection (3)—
“personal data” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018;
“police force” means—
(a) a police force within the meaning of section 101 of the Police Act 1996, and
(b) an equivalent force operating under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country; and
“serious offence” means—
(a) a serious offence within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007,
(b) an offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Explosive Substances Act 1883, the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Terrorism Act 2006, and
(c) the equivalent of any of those offences under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country.’
(4) In section 79 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Care Quality Commission: permitted disclosures) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) A disclosure of personal data may be made under subsection (3)(g) only if it is made—
(a) to and at the request of a member of a police force, and
(b) for the purpose of investigating a serious offence.
(3B) In subsection (3A)—
“personal data” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018;
“police force” means—
(a) a police force within the meaning of section 101 of the Police Act 1996, and
(b) an equivalent force operating under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country; and
“serious offence” means—
(a) a serious offence within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007,
(b) an offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Explosive Substances Act 1883, the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Terrorism Act 2006, and
(c) the equivalent of any of those offences under the law of any Part of the United Kingdom or of another country.’’
This new clause would prevent personal data held by the NHS from being disclosed for the purpose of the investigation of a criminal offence unless the offence concerned is serious, which is consistent with the NHS Code of Confidentiality and GMC guidance on confidentiality. It would also mean that any such disclosure could only be made to the police, and not, for example, to Home Office immigration enforcement officials.
New clause 24—Safeguards on the transfer of data for lethal force operations overseas—
‘(1) A transferring controller may not make any transfer of personal data outside the United Kingdom under Part 4 of this Act where—
(a) the transferring controller knows, or should know, that the data will be used in an operation or activity that may involve the use of lethal force, and
(b) there is a real risk that the transfer would amount to a breach of domestic law or an internationally wrongful act under international law.
(2) Where the transferring controller determines that there is no real risk under subsection (1)(b), the transfer is not lawful unless—
(a) the transferring controller documents the determination, providing reasons, and
(b) the Secretary of State has approved the transfer in writing.
(3) Any documentation created under subsection (2) shall be provided to the Information Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner within 90 days of the transfer.
(4) A “transferring controller” is a controller who makes a transfer of personal data outside the United Kingdom under Part 4 of this Act.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b),
(c) “domestic law” includes, but is not limited to,
(i) soliciting, encouraging, persuading or proposing a murder contrary to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861,
(ii) conspiracy to commit murder contrary to section 1 or 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977,
(iii) aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring murder contrary to section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861,
(iv) offences contrary to section 44, 45 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007,
(v) offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
(d) “International law” includes, but is not limited to, Article 16 of the 2001 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, within six months of the coming into force of this Act, guidance for intelligence officers on subsections (1) and (2).
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any subsequent changes made to the guidance reported under subsection (6) within 90 days of any changes being made.’
Amendment 18, in clause 7, page 5, line 24, after “subsections” insert “(1A),”.
Government amendment 22.
Amendment 19, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
‘(1A) A primary care service provider is not a “public authority” or “public body” for the purposes of the GDPR merely by virtue of the fact that it is defined as a public authority by either—
(a) any of paragraphs 43A to 45A or paragraph 51 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or
(b) any of paragraphs 33 to 35 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 13).’
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 4, in clause 10, page 6, line 37, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
This amendment would remove delegated powers that would allow the Secretary of State to vary the conditions and safeguards governing the general processing of sensitive personal data.
Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
‘(2A) A decision that engages an individual’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 does not fall within Article 22(2)(b) of the GDPR (exception from prohibition on taking significant decisions based solely on automated processing for decisions that are authorised by law and subject to safeguards for the data subject’s rights, freedoms and legitimate interests).
(2B) A decision is “based solely on automated processing” for the purposes of this section if, in relation to a data subject, there is no meaningful input by a natural person in the decision-making process.’
This amendment would ensure that where human rights are engaged by automated decisions these are human decisions and provides clarification that purely administrative human approval of an automated decision does make an automated decision a ‘human’ one.
Amendment 6, page 9, line 36, leave out clause 16.
This amendment would remove delegated powers that would allow the Secretary of State to add further exemptions.
Government amendment 143.
Amendment 7, in clause 35, page 22, line 14, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
This amendment would remove delegated powers that would allow the Secretary of State to vary the conditions and safeguards governing the general processing of sensitive personal data.
Amendment 151, in clause 49, page 30, line 19, at end insert—
‘(1A) A controller may not take a significant decision based solely on automated processing if that decision affects the rights of the data subject under the Human Rights Act 1998.’
Amendment 2, in clause 50, page 30, line 28, at end insert—‘and
(c) it does not engage the rights of the data subject under the Human Rights Act 1998.’
This amendment would ensure that automated decisions should not be authorised by law if they engage an individual’s human rights.
Amendment 8, in clause 86, page 51, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment would remove delegated powers that would allow the Secretary of State to vary the conditions and safeguards governing the general processing of sensitive personal data.
Amendment 3, in clause 96, page 56, line 38, after “law” insert—
‘unless the decision engages an individual’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.’
This amendment would ensure that automated decisions should not be authorised by law if they engage an individual’s human rights.
Amendment 9, page 63, line 27, leave out clause 113.
This amendment would remove delegated powers that would allow the Secretary of State to create new exemptions to Part 4 of the Bill.
Government amendments 25 to 37.
Amendment 20, in clause 144, page 81, line 11, leave out “7 days” and insert “24 hours”.
This amendment would reduce from 7 days to 24 hours the minimum period which must elapse before a controller or processor has to comply with an assessment notice which has been issued by the Commissioner and which the Commissioner has stated should be complied with urgently.
Government amendments 38 to 71.
Government new schedule 3—Transitional provision etc.
New schedule 1—Bill of Data Rights in the Digital Environment—
‘The UK recognises the following Data Rights:
Article 1—Equality of Treatment
Every data subject has the right to fair and equal treatment in the processing of his or her personal data.
Article 2—Security
Every data subject has the right to security and protection of their personal data and information systems.
Access requests by government must be for the purpose of combating serious crime and subject to independent authorisation.
Article 3—Free Expression
Every data subject has the right to deploy his or her personal data in pursuit of their fundamental rights to freedom of expression, thought and conscience.
Article 4—Equality of Access
Every data subject has the right to access and participate in the digital environment on equal terms.
Internet access should be open.
Article 5—Privacy
Every data subject has the right to respect for their personal data and information systems and as part of his or her fundamental right to private and family life, home and communications.
Article 6—Ownership
Every data subject has the right to own and control his or her personal data.
Every data subject is entitled to proportionate share of income or other benefit derived from his or her personal data as part of the right to own.
Article 7—Control
Every data subject is entitled to know the purpose for which personal data is being processed. Data controllers should not deliberately extend the gathering of personal data solely for their own purposes. Government, corporations, public authorities and other data controllers must obtain meaningful consent for the use of people’s personal data. Every data subject has the right to own curate, move, revise or review their personal data.
Article 8—Algorithms
Every data subject has the right to transparent and equal treatment in the processing of his or her personal data by an algorithm or automated system.
Every data subject is entitled to meaningful human control in making significant decisions – algorithms and automated systems must not be deployed to make significant decisions.
Article 9—Participation
Every data subject has the right to deploy his or her personal data and information systems to communicate in pursuit of the fundamental right to freedom of association.
Article 10—Protection
Every data subject has the right to safety and protection from harassment and other targeting through use of personal data whether sexual, social or commercial.
Article 11—Removal
Every data subject is entitled to revise and remove their personal data.
Compensation
Breach of any right in this Bill will entitle the data subject to fair and equitable compensation under existing enforcement provisions. If none apply, the Centre for Data Ethics will establish and administer a compensation scheme to ensure just remedy for any breaches.
Application to Children
The application of these rights to a person less than 18 years of age must be read in conjunction with the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Where an information society service processes data of persons less than 18 years of age it must do so under the age appropriate design code set out in section 123 of this Act.’
Government amendments 72 and 73.
Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 140, line 15, at end insert—
‘(1A) The exemption in sub-paragraph (1) may not be invoked in relation to offences under—
(a) sections 24, 24A, 24B or 24C of the Immigration Act 1971,
(b) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, or
(c) sections 33A and 33B of the Immigration Act 2014.’
Amendment 15, page 141, line 17, leave out paragraph 4.
Government amendments 141 and 142.
Amendment 10, page 152, line 24, leave out paragraph 19 and insert—
‘19 The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of information which is protected by legal professional privilege or the duty of confidentiality.’
This amendment would ensure that both legal professional privilege and confidentiality are recognised within the legislation.
Government amendments 139, 74 and 75.
Amendment 11, in schedule 11, page 196, line 39, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
‘9 The listed provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of information which is protected by legal professional privilege or the duty of confidentiality.’
This amendment would ensure that both legal professional privilege and confidentiality are recognised within the legislation.
Government amendments 140 and 76 to 80.
Amendment 21, in schedule 15, page 206, line 11, at end insert—
‘(1A) A warrant issued under subparagraph (1)(b) or (1)(c) of this paragraph does not require any notice to be given to the controller or processor, or to the occupier of the premises.’
This amendment would make it clear that a judge can issue a warrant to enter premises under subparagraphs 4(1)(b) or 4(1)(c) without the Commissioner having given prior notice to the data controller, data processor or occupier of premises.
Government amendments 81 to 85.
Amendment 12, page 208, line 13, leave out
“with respect to obligations, liabilities or rights under the data protection legislation”.
This amendment would ensure that both legal professional privilege and confidentiality are recognised within the legislation.
Amendment 13, page 208, line 21, leave out from “proceedings” to the end of line 23.
This amendment would ensure that both legal professional privilege and confidentiality are recognised within the legislation.
Government amendments 86 to 138.
Margot James
I shall start by addressing the Government amendments—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will people who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? The Minister is making an important speech and people want to hear it. It is just rude to make a noise—unless you happen to be in the Chair.
Margot James
I propose to start my remarks by addressing the Government amendments to strengthen the powers of the Information Commissioner.
The investigation of the Information Commissioner’s Office into Cambridge Analytica is unprecedented in its scale and complexity. It has, necessarily, pushed the boundaries of what the drafters of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the parliamentarians who scrutinised it could have envisaged. Although we recognise that the Bill already expands and enhances the commissioner’s ability to enforce the requirements of the data protection legislation in such circumstances, the Government undertook to consider whether further provision was desirable in the light of the commissioner’s experience. Following extensive discussions with the commissioner and in Committee, we concluded that such provision is desirable. Our amendments will strengthen the commissioner’s ability to enforce the law, while ensuring that she operates within a clear and accountable structure. I will give a few examples.
First, amendments 27 and 28 will allow the commissioner to require any person who might have knowledge about suspected breaches of the data protection legislation to provide information. Previously, information could be sought only from a data controller or a data processor. That might be important where, for example, a former employee has information about the organisation’s processing activities.
Secondly, new clause 13 will allow the commissioner to apply to the court for an order to force compliance when a person fails to comply with a requirement to provide information. Organisations that might previously have been tempted to pay a fine for non-compliance instead of handing over the information will find themselves at risk of being in contempt of court if they do not comply.
Thirdly, amendments 30 and 45 will allow the commissioner to require controllers to comply with information or enforcement notices within 24 hours in some very urgent cases, rather than the seven days provided for in the existing law. Amendment 38 will allow the commissioner, in certain circumstances, to issue an assessment notice that can have immediate effect. Those amendments will allow the commissioner to obtain information about a suspected breach or put a stop to high-risk processing activities in a prompt and effective way. They will also allow her to carry out no-notice inspections without a warrant in certain circumstances.
Fourthly, new clause 14 will criminalise the behaviour of any person who seeks to frustrate an information or assessment notice by deliberately destroying, falsifying, blocking or concealing evidence that has been identified as relevant to the commissioner’s investigation.
Finally, we have taken this opportunity to modernise the commissioner’s powers. Storing files on an office server is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Amendment 79 will enable the commissioner to apply for a warrant to access material that can be viewed via computers on the premises but that is held in the cloud.
When strengthening the commissioner’s enforcement powers, we have been mindful of the need to provide appropriate safeguards and remedies for those who find themselves under investigation. For example, when an information, assessment or enforcement notice containing an urgency statement is served on a person, new clause 15 will allow them to apply to the court to disapply the urgency statement. In effect, they will have a right to apply to the court to vary the timetable for compliance with the order. A court considering an application from the commissioner for an information order will be able to take into account all the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether an application has been brought by the person concerned under new clause 15 and whether the person has brought an appeal against the notice itself in the tribunal. These amendments have been developed in close liaison with the Information Commissioner. We are confident that they will give her the powers she needs to ensure that those who flout the law in our increasingly digital age are held to account for their actions.
I now turn to the representation of data subjects. I am very grateful to Baroness Kidron for her continued engagement on this subject. In particular, we agree that children merit special protection in relation to their personal data and that the review the Government will undertake shall look accordingly at the specific barriers young people and children face in enforcing their rights. Government new clause 16, as well as amendments 61, 62, 63, 70 and 75, ensures that they will.
Government new clause 17 concerns maintaining contact with ex-regular reserve forces. This will allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to share contact detail information with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the MOD is better able to locate and contact members of the ex-regular reserve.
New clause 12, on data sharing by health bodies, is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee. I know she and the Committee have significant and legitimate concerns about the operation of the memorandum of understanding between NHS Digital and the Home Office, which currently allows the sharing of non-clinical information, principally address information, for immigration purposes. The Select Committee has argued for the suspension of the MOU pending the outcome of a review of its impact by Public Health England. New clause 12 seeks to adopt a more long-term approach by narrowing the ability of NHS Digital to disclose information in connection with the investigation of criminal offences. The aim is to narrow the MOU’s scope, so that it only facilitates the exchange of personal data in cases involving serious criminality.
The Government have reflected further on the concerns put forward by my hon. Friend and her Committee. As a result, and with immediate effect, the data sharing arrangements between the Home Office and the NHS have been amended. This is a new step and it supersedes the position set out in previous correspondence between the Home Office, the Department for Health and Social Care and the Select Committee.
I know my hon. Friend and her colleagues have been particularly exercised by the contents of a letter dated 23 February from both the above-mentioned Departments to her Select Committee, in which it is stated that
“a person using the NHS can have a reasonable expectation when using this taxpayer-funded service that their non-medical data, which lies at the lower end of the privacy spectrum, will not be shared securely between other officers within government in exercise of their lawful powers”.
The bar for sharing data will now be set significantly higher. By sharing, I mean sharing between the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office and, in future, possibly other Departments. No longer will the names of overstayers and illegal entrants be sought against health service records to find current address details. The data sharing, relying on powers under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the National Health Service Act 2006 and the Health and Social Care Act 2008, will only be used to trace an individual who is being considered for deportation action having been investigated for, or convicted of, a serious criminal offence that results in a minimum sentence of at least 12 months in prison.
The Government have a long-held policy on what level of serious criminality is deserving of deportation, given statutory force by the UK Borders Act 2007. When a custodial sentence of more than 12 months has been given, consideration for deportation must therefore follow. Henceforth, the Home Office will only be able to use the memorandum of understanding to trace an individual who is being considered for deportation action having been convicted of a serious criminal offence, or when their presence is considered non-conducive to the public good—for example, when they present a risk to public security but have yet to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Can the Minister give me more reassurance about the Home Office and its activity in this regard? At the moment, I have constituents who, under paragraph 322(5) of the immigration rules, face being deported for making legitimate changes to their tax return through HMRC data being accessed. Will she reassure me about what the Home Office can do to make sure that this is not abused and misused for the purposes of meeting immigration targets?
Margot James
I will write to the hon. Lady and I hope to give her reassurance. This new higher bar concerns NHS data and that would obviously not catch within it errors on a tax return.
As now, the memorandum of understanding would also continue to operate when there are concerns about the welfare and safety of a missing individual—for example, vulnerable children and adults. That has always been the case. Personal information will only be disclosed to the Home Office or agencies under the purview of the Home Office. This is a significant restriction on the Home Office’s ability to use data held by the NHS. It is estimated that the change will exclude over 90% of the requests that have been satisfied to date.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Minister talks about a memorandum of understanding giving reassurance to the House. I refer her to part 2 of schedule 2, which talks about exemptions from the general data protection regulation in respect of crime and taxation. Surely, the rights of individuals to have their data protected under that provision would address all these issues, and it would potentially supersede the memorandum of understanding.
Margot James
I will come on to the exemptions in terms of criminal activity and immigration in a wider context than NHS information in due course.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is committed to sending a copy of an updated MOU to the Health and Social Care Committee shortly, but as I have indicated, the significant narrowing of the MOU will have immediate effect. This commitment is consistent with the intention underpinning new clause 12. I trust that on that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and her colleagues will not press new clause 12. I am sure that if she has any questions, she will intervene on me, or that when she makes her remarks later, I might be invited to intervene on her. I thank my hon. Friend and all her Committee members for their work to establish higher principles in this area.
I turn to Opposition amendments 16 and 15 and Government amendments 141 and 142, on immigration. Amendment 15 would remove the provisions relating to effective immigration control in schedule 2. In responding to the amendment, I want to address some of the continued misunderstandings that have arisen around the purpose and scope of the provision, and I hope to persuade the House that this is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the integrity of our immigration system. It has been suggested that the provisions have no basis in the GDPR, but article 23 expressly allows member states to restrict certain specified rights for the purpose of safeguarding
“other important objectives of general public interest of a…Member State”.
The maintenance of effective immigration control is one such objective.
Sir Edward Davey
Will the Minister confirm that article 23 of the GDPR does not specify immigration?
Margot James
It does not rule out immigration and it does allow the restriction of certain specified rights—not wholesale restrictions—for the purpose of safeguarding
“other important objectives of general public interest”.
The purpose is to provide a derogation for member states wide enough that they can pursue an overall Government policy in the general public interest. I would conclude that immigration is one such example. It has been suggested that the provisions represent a blanket carve-out of all a data subject’s rights. That is certainly not the case. I would like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are being very selective about the rights that could be disapplied. The exemption will be applied only on a case-by-case basis and only where it is necessary and proportionate.
Liam Byrne
Has the Minister learnt nothing from the Windrush scandal? Here we have a Department of State that is not fantastic at keeping records. The idea of selectively carving out particular rights of particular people who need this information to fight tribunal cases strikes me as lunacy, given what we have learnt about the dysfunction at the Home Office.
Margot James
Perhaps if I continue my remarks, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that of course lessons have been learnt, not least by the Home Office itself, as both the former Home Secretary and the current Home Secretary have made abundantly clear to the House.
The exemption in the amendment is to be applied only on a case-by-case basis and only where it is necessary and proportionate. It cannot and will not be used to target any group of people. Nor does the application of the exemption set aside all a data subject’s rights; it sets aside only those expressly listed. A further limitation is that it can be applied only where compliance with the relevant rights would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control.
Liam Byrne
Effective safeguards for crime prevention are already written into the Bill, which gives the Minister the power she is seeking to fulfil the purpose she is setting out for the House. If we selectively discard rights for selected people, we come pretty close to arbitrary decision making, and it is practically impossible to do that consistently and in way make it defendable in a judicial review. These provisions will result in injustice and cases that the Home Office loses, so just dump them now!
Margot James
The right hon. Gentleman should know that different structures govern crime and immigration. I reiterate that we are disapplying these rights selectively—the data subjects will hang on to the majority of their rights—but it cannot be right for the Home Office to have to furnish someone who is in contravention of immigration law with information it has been given.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I am shocked by what the Minister is saying. These provisions were drafted before the Windrush scandal broke, and she is not learning the lessons at all. She says she wants these decisions made on an individual basis and in a way that is necessary and proportionate, but necessary and proportionate to achieve what? None of us knows what her definition of immigration control is. Does it mean meeting the net migration target, which is what we normally hear Ministers say? Necessary and proportionate to meet the net migration target could mean anything.
Margot James
I understand that it is a matter of interpretation. I also understand that the Home Office is considering these matters in the fallout from the Windrush case. I am sure that, as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Lady will have ample opportunity to question the new Home Secretary on exactly what he might mean by “necessary and proportionate”. When someone is seeking access to data from the Home Office to prove their immigration history, such as in the Windrush cases, there will be no basis for invoking the immigration exemption in the Bill. I trust that that provides the right hon. Lady with some comfort.
Margot James
I will give way for the last time to the right hon. Lady, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Yvette Cooper
That is not what the Bill says. That may be what the Minister intends, but if that is what she intends, she should change the Bill.
Margot James
I shall have to write to the right hon. Lady once I have communicated with Home Office Ministers. According to my understanding, the Bill says that the exemption applies—
Liam Byrne
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are being invited to pass an important piece of legislation which hands important new powers to Her Majesty’s Home Office, yet there is not a Home Office Minister on the Front Bench to respond to the points that we are making about the details of that legislation. What steps can we take to summon a Home Office Minister this afternoon, so that our questions can be answered?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but the fact is that the Minister, who is a very capable Minister, speaks for the Government, who are seamless. The Minister who is currently at the Dispatch Box is in a position to speak for all Ministers on this matter, which is why she has this responsibility and is responding to the questions that are currently being asked of her.
Margot James
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might as well give way to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) now.
Sir Edward Davey
I am grateful to the Minister. To help other Members consider amendment 15, let me point out that one of the data protection provisions that are being exempted for immigration purposes is the right to make subject access requests. It is critical to the rule of law for people and their representatives to know on the basis of what information the Home Office has made its decisions. The Bill provides no safeguards, no balance, and no restrictions to the use of that law by Home Office officials. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), those are simply not in the Bill. It is entirely wrong for the House to be asked to pass a Bill that does not contain real safeguards for the people involved, given what happened in the Windrush cases.
Margot James
I will continue to make some progress, as I feel that those points have already been made.
The application of the exemption does not set aside all data subjects’ rights, but only those expressly listed. A further limitation is that exemptions can be applied only where compliance with the relevant rights would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control.
Margot James
It is an established term. It is used in the Immigration Act 2014 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 uses a similar term, namely “operation of immigration controls”.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Without this immigration exemption, might not the Home Office have to disclose sources of tip-offs, which would not be conducive to ensuring that illegal immigration is properly controlled?
Margot James
I think it highly likely that if, for example, someone were to undertake a full data subject review of whatever information the Home Office held about them—as was posited earlier by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—the review would contain sources of information as well as the information itself. A further limitation is that exemptions can be applied only where compliance with the relevant rights would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of immigration control. This “prejudice” test must be applied first, and as a result the situations in which the exemption can be used are limited. The Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed in this debate.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Can the Minister give us a couple of examples to illustrate why these additional powers are necessary, and where the other powers in the Bill—in relation to criminal offences and investigations, for example—would not already suffice to do everything that the Home Office wishes?
Margot James
We are permitted under GDPR to make these exemptions and are doing so in a very selective way and on a case-by-case basis, so it will not result in a widespread denial of people’s data rights.
The exemption should be as limited as possible, which is why we have brought forward amendments 141 and 142. These amendments will ensure that migrants enjoy the rights afforded under all of the data protection principles, except where a restriction on those principles is a consequence of restricting one of the other rights coming within the scope of the exemption.
I now turn to Opposition amendments 18 and 19 on primary care providers, and Government amendments 22 to 24 on parish councils. Parish and community councils are not exempt from the new law. None the less, by describing parish and community councils as “public authorities” the Bill gives these councils additional obligations above and beyond those placed on other small organisations, including that they must appoint a data protection officer. We have been working to minimise the impact of this requirement, and have concluded that as parish and community councils process very little personal data, the burden they would face would be disproportionate. Amendments 22, 23 and 24 therefore take these councils out of the definition of “public authorities” for data protection purposes.
Mr Jayawardena
I commend my hon. Friend the Minister on amendment 24, which recognises that councils are often so tiny—indeed, some are not even parish councils, and some do not employ any staff—that it would be wholly disproportionate to treat them in the way originally intended. I commend the Minister for listening to so many Members who made these points and recognising that parish councils must be treated separately.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He and other colleagues across the House made these arguments, and given that such organisations are often very small and process only small amounts of personal data, we have decided to take parish councils out of the definition of “public authorities” for data protection purposes. Their status in respect of other legislation, including the Freedom of Information Act, is unaffected, however.
Similar arguments have been advanced in respect of primary care providers, but although I have sympathy with amendments 18 and 19, primary care providers are different from parish councils in that they process sizeable quantities of sensitive health data, whether that be an individual’s mental health status, the fact that they are pregnant, or details of their prescription for a terminal illness. All of these matters are highly personal, and in the world of health, data protection is rightly paramount.
The Dean Street Express case in 2015 illustrates the potential harm that even a single data breach can cause. In that incident, the names and email addresses of almost 800 people, many living with HIV, were disclosed to other recipients. It does not seem unreasonable that bodies who process that kind of data should have a single point of contact on data protection matters.
Government amendments 139 and 140 relate to legal professional privilege. We recognise the importance of protecting legal professional privilege and that is why in the Bill we have replicated the existing measures and exemptions for legal professional privilege found in the Data Protection Act 1998, which have worked well for many years.
Amendments 10 and 11 seek to widen the legal professional privilege exemptions found in schedules 2 and 11. They offer some thoughtful changes that are intended to recognise the broader range of material covered by a lawyer’s ethical duty of confidentiality. We agree that the Bill could be clearer, and have tabled amendments 139 and 140 in response.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It is interesting that we are making lots of exemptions for the Government, parish councils, lawyers and so on. I spoke to some lawyers this morning, and they were not convinced by the measures either. However, small businesses seem to be disproportionately affected, and there is real confusion out there. As I say, a lot of work has been done to protect the Government, parish councils and lawyers, but what about the little people—the people who make this country grow? There is even confusion in the Information Commissioner’s Office, which gave the wrong advice in briefings here to MPs’ staff only the other week. What are we going to do to protect the small people? They think that they are doing the right thing, but they have probably been ill advised. They are spending a lot of money trying to get things right, but there is real confusion out there.
Margot James
My right hon. Friend raises several important points. As for the effect on small businesses, he will be reassured to learn that the issues with the processing of highly personal data that I was discussing do not apply to the majority of SMEs. They will not have to appoint a data protection officer, so that is one comfort.
As for training and guidance, I am sorry that colleagues and their research staff attended courses that were put together before the Bill was even in Committee, and thus did not take numerous amendments into account—not least the amendment clarifying the rights of Members of Parliament and other elected individuals. I apologise for that confusion.
I draw businesses’ attention to the excellent ICO website, which contains good sources of guidance for SMEs, including frequently asked questions. The ICO also provides an advice line for any follow-up questions on subjects that businesses might not be clear about. Ultimately, there is a need for better data protection, and that is not just what is set out in the GDPR. Dreadful examples, such as the case of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, have demonstrated the need for more rigorous data rights and for greater security of data.
Sir Mike Penning
The Minister is being ever so generous in giving way not just to me, but to Members from across the House, and I thank her. Returning to the parliamentary stuff—we are only a small part of all this—some of the staff present at the briefing I mentioned left in tears, and I know that for a fact, because a member of my staff was there. Believe it or not, even though the ICO knew that the briefing was completely flawed, it has today issued certificates of attendance saying that it was the right thing for staff to have done.
More important, however, are the SMEs. Small businesses have approached me today to tell me that they have been told to delete all their data unless they get permission from the relevant people. Companies that did work for people three, four or five years ago—even last year—must get permission to hold their addresses so that they can fulfil, for example, warranty agreements. Other companies are getting completely different advice, and the lawyers are getting different advice. There seems to be a rush to protect Government agencies, local government, parish councils and lawyers, but not enough is being done to protect the small people of this country—the people who account for so much of our money.
Margot James
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. I want to reassure the small businesses that he mentions. I sympathise with businesses that are getting conflicting advice, and with those that are approached by firms of consultants who appear to be exaggerating the scale of the task of complying with the legislation. I am afraid that that always happens when there is change; people think that they can exaggerate the impact and the implications of a change and—who knows?—perhaps they will be remunerated for helping businesses to comply.
I also want to reassure my right hon. Friend about the specific case that he mentioned, in which companies were being advised that they needed to delete all the data for which they did not have consent. I want to reassure him that the vast majority of businesses will not have to delete the personal data that they hold. If they have gained the personal data lawfully, there are five, if not six, lawful bases on which they can process that personal data, of which consent is only one. I draw his attention particularly to legitimate interests, which is a lawful basis for processing data. For example, if a small firm has been supplying a much-needed service to people for a number of years, it is in the pursuit of its legitimate interests to communicate with its database of customers or new prospects, and it does not need to have consent. I would advise people not to delete their data without very careful consideration, or without consultation with the ICO website in particular.
Margot James
I will give way to my right hon. Friend in a second. I want to respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on the alleged discrimination involved in our taking steps to protect lawyers, parliamentarians, local councillors and so on but not to protect small businesses. The reason is that small businesses are less affected, in the sense that most of them do not process huge quantities of personal data. They therefore come under the purview of the ICO to a lesser extent, and enforcement is less likely to focus on organisations that do not process highly personal data. Those organisations do not need to appoint a data protection officer. I hope that I have gone some way towards allaying my right hon. Friend’s—
Margot James
I will come back to my right hon. Friend in a moment, but I did say that I would give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
Anna Soubry
I thank my hon. Friend for that information, but it was mainly complete news to me, as I suspect it was to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead too. We have a really serious problem here. I just cannot overestimate the amount of concern among small businesses. Medium-sized businesses with more than 250 employees have the benefit of a team of people, but this is a real crisis for small businesses and I am afraid that the lack of information is truly troubling. There are solutions, and perhaps we should discuss them in a different debate, but as a Government we have an absolute duty to get this right. There are devices available—HMRC sends out tax returns, for example—and there are many opportunities to get this information out there. At the moment, however, there is a lot of disinformation, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead says, these businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They do not know what is happening, and they are worried.
Margot James
I sympathise with the points that my right hon. Friend has raised. In fact, we have secured almost £500,000 to launch an information campaign to bolster what the Information Commissioner’s Office is already doing for small businesses. I also draw her attention to the need for this legislation, and to the need for businesses and all of us in public life to respect people’s data rights. The landscape has changed. We now live in a digital world, and there is so much abuse of people’s privacy and data that I must bring her attention back to the need for the Bill. Of course she is right, however, to say that people need to be properly informed, and that is what the ICO is doing and what the Government campaign that we are about to launch will also do.
Sir Mike Penning
What the Minister said at the Dispatch Box a moment ago was also news to me. I have been campaigning and pushing on this for months—I spoke to the Secretary of State over the bank holiday weekend—and I was going to vote against the Bill this evening. Yes, we need data protection, but we do not want to destroy or frighten our businesses in the process. However, I take my hon. Friend at her word, and I will vote for the legislation this evening.
Margot James
I quite agree. In fact, both the Secretary of State and I were small business owners before entering this place, so I feel what my right hon. Friend says very deeply. I must commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on the excellent advice that his office has put together on what it will be doing in this respect. For the benefit of my staff, I have set out exactly what my office will be doing to comply with the legislation. If my right hon. Friend has any concerns about his own situation—
Sir Mike Penning
I am not worried about us; I am worried about small businesses.
Margot James
In that case, I will proceed no further down that path. I am glad that I have been able to reassure my right hon. Friend and thank him for raising those important points.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I am not sure that it is clear enough. She will undoubtedly be aware that the Windrush documents were supposedly destroyed as a result of data protection requirements. There remains a significant possibility that there will be a wholesale destruction of data, some of which might be important, useful and legitimately kept, unless the Government take further action.
Margot James
I commend the hon. Lady for that observation, because she has a fair point. I will raise her concern with the Information Commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said that some businesses have been advised that they should delete their data, so I can see where the hon. Lady is going on that. It raises the prospect that some organisations might use this as an excuse to delete data that it would be in the data subject’s interests to preserve.
I have not been able to address every amendment in the time available, but I am mindful of the number of colleagues who wish to contribute, and we have less than 60 minutes remaining. I have addressed most of the matters that came up in the Public Bill Committee, and the Government’s position will remain the same on many of them.
In short, we have enhanced the ICO’s enforcement powers, we have changed the way we share data, we have reached out to parish councils, we have narrowed the immigration exemption and we have responded to calls to better protect lawyer-client confidentiality. We have also dealt—effectively, I hope—with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes about the sharing of data between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office.
Liam Byrne
May I start by welcoming the new powers for the Information Commissioner, which we called for in Committee? Nobody who observed the debacle of the investigation into Cambridge Analytica will have needed persuading that that those powers are necessary—it took the court five or six days to issue the requisite search warrants, and that time might well have been used by Cambridge Analytica to destroy evidence—so I am glad that the Minister has heeded our calls and introduced the proposals this afternoon. We are happy to give them our support.
I will speak to a number of new clauses and amendments in the group, particularly new clause 4, which is our enabling clause for creating a bold and imaginative Bill of data rights for the 21st century. I want to make the case for universal application of those rights, including their application to newcomers, who need rights in order to challenge bad decisions made by Governments, which is why our amendment 15 would strike out the immigration provisions that have so unwisely been put into the Bill. I will also say a few words about new measures that are needed in the Bill to defend the integrity of our democracy in the digital age.
The Minister took the time to make a comprehensive speech, which included an excellent explanation of the Government amendments, so I will be brief. Let me start with the argument for a Bill of data rights. Every so often we have to try to democratise both progress and protections. In this country we are the great writers of rights—we have been doing it since Magna Carta. Over the years, the universal declaration of human rights, the UN convention on the rights of the child, the charter of fundamental rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and, indeed, the original Data Protection Act have all been good examples of how good and wise people in this country have enshrined into charters and other legal instruments a set of rights that we can all enjoy, that give us all a set of protections, and that help us to democratise progress.
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he share my astonishment that the Government are not taking the opportunity to update our rights for the digital age? Does he think that that is because they are too captured by the tech giants, because they are too confused by Brexit to invest in change, or because they are too ideologically constipated regarding the free market that they can do nothing about it?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The answer, of course, is that it is for all three of those reasons that we do not have before us an imaginative bill of digital rights, but the times do call for it.
In the early days, when we were writing great charters such as Magna Carta, the threats to ordinary citizens were from bad monarchs. We needed provisions such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and the Glorious Revolution to protect the citizens of this country and their wealth from bad monarchs who would seek to steal things that were not theirs.
What we now confront is not a bad monarch—we have a fantastic monarch—but the risk of bad big tech. The big five companies now have a combined market capitalisation of some $2.5 trillion, and they are up to all sorts of things. They are often protected by the first amendment in the United States, but their business—their bad business—often hurts the data rights of citizens in this country.
That is why we need this new bill of rights. We have to accept that we are on the cusp of radical and rapid changes in legislation and regulation. I often make the point that over the course of the 19th century there was not one Factory Act but 17 Factory Acts. We had to legislate and re-legislate as technology, economics and methods of production changed, and that is the point we are at now. We will have to regulate and re-regulate, and legislate and re-legislate, again and again over the decades to come. Therefore, if we are to give people any certainty about what the new laws will look like, it would be a sensible precaution if we were to write down now the principles that will form the north star that guides us as we seek to keep legislation up to date.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has received correspondence from constituents who are worried about the use of personal data. My constituents have a lot of sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) about this. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) agree?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is right. We have been on the receiving end of a huge number of data breaches in this country—really serious infringements of basic 21st-century rights—which is why we need a bold declaration of those rights so that the citizens of this country know what they are entitled to. Unless we get this right, we will not be able to build the environment of trust that is the basis of trade in the digital economy. At the moment, trust in the online world is extremely weak—that trust is going down, not up—so we need to put in place measures now, as legislators, to fix this, turn it around and put in place preparations for the future.
The Government’s proposal of a digital charter is a bit like the cones hotline approach to public service reform. The contents of the charter are not really rights but guidelines. There are no good methods of redress or transparency. Frankly, if we try to introduce rights and redress mechanisms in that way, they will basically fail and will not lead to any kind of change. That is why we urge the Government to follow the approach that we are setting out.
I put on record my profound thanks to Baroness Kidron and the 5Rights movement. Her work forms the basis of the bill of rights we are proposing to the House: the right to remove data, as enshrined in the GDPR—that right is very important to children—the right to know; the right to safety and support; the right to informed and conscious use; and the right to digital literacy. Those are the kinds of rights we should now be talking about as the rights of every child and every citizen.
Margot James
The right hon. Gentleman makes some good points. I agree with the rights he is talking about, but those rights exist under the GDPR and are intrinsic to the Bill, so I see no need for his amendment.
Liam Byrne
There is no right to digital literacy under the Bill, which is why we propose the five rights as the core of new schedule 1 in which, as the Minister knows, we go much further. The provision sets out rights to equality of treatment, security, free expression, access, privacy, ownership and control, the right not to be discriminated against as a result of automated decision making, and rights on participation, protection and removal.
Rights are sometimes scattered through thousands and thousands of pages of legislation, which is where we are on data protection today. That is why from time to time, as a country, we decide to make bold declaratory statements of what principles should guide us. These are methods of simplification and consolidation, and we are pretty good at that in this country. When we press our proposal to enable the creation of such a bill of rights to a Division a little later, we hope that it will be the call that the Government need to begin the process of consultation, thought, argument and debate about the digital rights that we need in this century and what they need to look like. Rights should not be imposed from the top down; they should come from the grassroots up, and the process of conversation and consultation is long overdue. To help the Government, we will accelerate that debate during this year.
The second point I wish to make is about amendment 15, which would ensure that the rights set out in the GDPR would stretch to everyone in this country. It would mean that the Government would not be permitted to knock out selective rights for certain people who just happen to be newcomers to this country. The proposal to withhold data rights from migrants and newcomers is a disgrace and does not deserve to be in the Bill. In Committee, Ministers were unable to tell us why the Bill’s crime prevention provisions could not be stretched to accommodate their ambitions for immigration control. The Minister has not been able to give us a succinct definition of “immigration control” today, and we have not been able to hear about the lessons learned from Windrush. Frankly, the debate has been left poorly informed, and we have had promises that letters will be sent to hon. Members long after tonight’s vote.
Sir Edward Davey
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He says that this is about newcomers and immigrants, and I am sure he will agree that it also applies to British citizens’ ability to get their immigration file. Can he confirm that that is the case?
Liam Byrne
I am not sure that that is the case. British citizens have confirmed rights under the GDPR—that is safeguarded under EU legislation—but the risks I am worried about are the same ones as the right hon. Gentleman. I spent two and a half years in the Home Office. I recognised many of the errors that were made by the former Home Secretary in the situation that we inherited back in 2006, so I do not think that lessons have been learnt from Windrush, or that many lessons have been learnt from errors over the past eight to 10 years. The Home Office is a great Department of State, with tremendous strengths. It has fantastic civil servants who do an amazing job, without the resources to do it properly and very often without the level of support they need from their Ministers, but it is a human institution and such institutions make mistakes. To correct those, we have tribunals and courts through which people can test decisions made by officials without the disinfectant of sunlight. Unless we equip those individuals with everything they need to make their case effectively, we risk injustice. After our debates over the past month, we must do everything we can so that we never run that risk again.
Mr Jim Cunningham
To pursue those rights, people also need legal aid, and in some circumstances, they are denied legal aid. The state should not have the right to give private information about its citizens to anybody, or even to sell it to organisations.
Liam Byrne
Correct. In my first months at the Home Office, I spent a lot of time in immigration tribunals. I used to go to the courts up in Islington to sit, watch and listen so that I could learn the basic mechanisms of justice in this country. The thing that struck me was the inequality of arms that comes to bear in these tribunals. On the one side, there is a Home Office lawyer, who is sometimes there, sometimes not. Home Office lawyers are backed by teams and have well-constructed cases and all the information they need. On the other side of the argument are people without money or access to lawyers, but now the Government propose to deny some of them the information that they need to argue and win their cases. It is a recipe for injustice.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I very much agree with the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that we ought to consider the way in which the crime exemption in the Bill will be invoked in respect of low-level offences under immigration law? Is it really acceptable for data rights to be suspended in relation to normal activities such as driving—just being here—that are currently criminalised under immigration law?
Liam Byrne
Those are real risks, which is why amendment 15 would delete such an important chunk of the Bill and therefore improve it.
I know that when I was a Home Office Minister, I took decisions that sometimes were wrong, and those decisions were corrected through the tribunal system. Tribunal cases were often successfully prosecuted by those who had rights that we were seeking to deny because subject access requests had been used to get the information necessary to win the argument. If we switch off that access, injustice will follow, so I urge the Government to think again and I urge Members from all parties to support amendment 15.
The last measure to which I shall speak is new clause 6, which is our proposal for a UK version of the Honest Ads Act that is currently being debated in the United States Congress. I do not want to rehearse the background to the debate for long, because for six months now a hardy group of us has been seeking to raise and unpack the new risks that we confront from countries such as Russia that are aiming at us a new panoply of active measures, including all kinds of bad behaviour online. Right now, we do not have good measures to defend the integrity of our democracy. Indeed, the most recent edition of the national security strategy did not even include the defence of the integrity of democracy among its core strategic aims.
We have to bring our election law into the 21st century as it is hopelessly out of date. We have an Electoral Commission that is unable effectively to investigate donations and money coming from abroad. The Information Commissioner has only this afternoon been given the powers that it needs. Ofcom will not investigate videos on social media and the Advertising Standards Authority does not investigate political advertising. We have a massive lacuna in which there should be good, robust legislation to police elections in the 21st century.
If we look at what is going on throughout the west, we see that we have to wake up to this risk. Giving the Electoral Commission new powers to require information about money that is used to run campaigns that try to influence votes is now a de minimis provision for a modern democracy in the digital age. We hope that the Minister will listen to us and take our ideas on board.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have only 40 minutes left to debate this group and around 10 Members wish to speak. If everybody speaks for four to five minutes, everybody will get in; if not, some people will not get to speak at all.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 12, which was tabled in my name, that of my colleague, the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), and those of other members of the Health and Social Care Committee and Members from all parties.
I wish to speak about the importance of medical confidentiality, because it lies at the heart of the trust between clinicians and their patients, and we mess with that at our peril. If people do not have that trust, they are less likely to come forward and seek the care that they need. There were many unintended consequences as a result of the decision enshrined in a memorandum of understanding between the Home Office, the Department of Health and NHS Digital, which allowed the sharing of addresses at a much lower crime threshold than serious crime. That was permitted under the terms of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but patients were always protected, in effect, because the terms of the NHS constitution, the guidance from the General Medical Council and a raft of guidance from across the NHS and voluntary agencies protected the sharing of data in practice.
This shift was therefore particularly worrying. There were many unintended consequences for the individuals concerned. The Health and Social Care Committee was also deeply concerned about the wider implications that this might represent a shift to data sharing much more widely across Government Departments. There was a risk, for example, that the Department for Work and Pensions might take an interest in patients’ addresses to see whether people were co-habiting for the purpose of investigating benefit fraud. There was a really serious risk of that.
I am afraid that the letter that we received from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office declining to withdraw from the memorandum of understanding made the risk quite explicit. I would just like to quote from the letter, because it is very important. I also seek further clarification from the Minister on this. The letter states that
“it is also important to consider the expectations of anybody using the NHS—a state provided national resource. We do not consider that a person using the NHS can have a reasonable expectation when using this taxpayer-funded service that their non-medical data, which lies at the lower end of the privacy spectrum, will not be shared securely between other officers within government in the exercise of their lawful powers in cases such as these.”
I profoundly object to that statement. There was no such contract in the founding principles of the NHS. As I have said, it is vital that we preserve that fundamental principle of confidentiality, including for address data. I was delighted to hear the Minister’s words at the Dispatch Box, but can she just confirm for me absolutely that that statement has now been superseded?
Margot James
Yes, I can confirm absolutely that the statement that my hon. Friend quoted from the letter of 23 February has been superseded by today’s announcements.
Dr Wollaston
I thank the Minister for that reassurance. There is much more that I could say, but I know that there are very many other colleagues who wish to speak. With that reassurance, I am happy not to press my amendment to a vote.
I would like to make one further comment on protecting patients. At a time when confidence in data sharing is so important, especially around issues such as research, we all rely on the role of NHS Digital. Set up under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as a non-departmental public body at arm’s length from Government, NHS Digital has the specific duty robustly to stand up for the interests of patients and for the principles of confidentiality. As a Committee, we were deeply disappointed that, despite the clear concern set out from a range of bodies, including Public Health England, all the medical royal colleges, very many voluntary agencies, the National Data Guardian and others, the organisation seemed to have just the dimmest grasp of the principles of underpinning confidentiality. I wish to put it on the record that we expect the leadership of NHS Digital to take its responsibilities seriously, to understand the ethical underpinnings and to stand up for patients. With that, I will close my remarks. I thank the Minister for the time that she has taken to listen to our concerns and for her response.
Yvette Cooper
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 15 and to say to those on the Front Bench that this is their opportunity to actually do something as Ministers. I urge them to make a late change and not just to drift on with legislation that was drawn up before the Windrush scandal. They can go and talk to the Secretary of State—have a discussion with him—and decide now to accept amendment 15. I really urge Ministers to do that, because what the Bill is doing is immensely serious. The Bill is incredibly widely drawn. This exemption allows the Home Office to refuse subject access requests in immigration cases and to put in place data sharing without proper accountability in any case where it meets the maintenance of effective immigration control or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective control, and yet, repeatedly, we have had no explanation from Ministers as to what effective immigration control means. That is because, in truth, it is immensely broad. It could mean meeting the net migration target, sustaining the hostile environment and enabling a deportation that the Home Office thinks is justified, even if in practice it has made a mistake. It could mean decisions being taken by immigration removal centres, G4S, Serco or any of the many private companies contracted by the Home Office to deliver its so-called effective immigration control.
The Home Office has made an objective of reducing the number of appeals and removing the right to appeal in immigration cases. If a subject access request makes an appeal more likely, why does preventing that SAR in order to prevent a potential appeal not count as immigration control under the Home Office’s definition? That would be unjustified and wrong, but it is made possible by the Bill. If the Government do not want that to be the case, they should change their proposed legislation and accept amendment 15.
Ministers do not have to go ahead with this right now. An immigration Bill is going to come down the track at some future point and it will give them and the Home Secretary the opportunity to reflect on the Windrush scandal. The Immigration Minister told the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that the culture of the Home Office, including that of casework and decision making, needs to change. The Home Secretary and the former Home Secretary recognise that substantial changes need to be made. We are told that huge lessons have been learned and we have been promised inquiries that will report back and have independent oversight. None of them have yet taken place, but the Windrush scandal has had shocking and devastating consequences for individual lives, as so many Members on both sides of the House acknowledge. I therefore ask Ministers to not make future Windrush scandals more likely and to not deny people the information they need about their case in order to prove their circumstances and ensure that a Home Office mistake or error can be overturned.
Michael Braithwaite came here from Barbados in 1961. He is a special needs teacher who has lived here for more than 50 years, and yet he was sacked from his job because the Home Office got it wrong. His lawyer’s application for a subject access request formed part of the process for clearing up and sorting out his case, but the Bill will make it much more difficult to make such a request. Subject access requests are already often resisted by the Home Office. Whether inadvertently or intentionally, the Home Office has a bad record in complying swiftly and fully with subject access requests, so why on earth does this Bill make that more likely and further allow the Home Office to simply not give people the information they need to make sure that justice is done?
There are huge concerns about the way in which targets have operated. The Home Secretary and other Ministers will have to look into that in depth. In the meantime, however, they should not allow a situation to develop whereby the operation of those targets could end up with subject access requests being denied because meeting those targets is seen as part of effective immigration control.
The Home Office does get things wrong. There are huge strengths and skills within the Home Office. There are people who work immensely hard to try to get things right, but we know that a Department that size gets things wrong and we have seen the evidence, to terrible effect, in the Windrush cases. There have been 60 cases of unlawful detention in the past few years, even before the Windrush cases. Nearly half of the cases that go to appeal go against the Home Office because it got those decisions wrong. Sampling by the immigration inspectorate found that 10% of the data that the Home Office gave to banks, telling them to close people’s accounts because they were here illegally, was in fact wrong and that those people should not have had their bank accounts closed. Given that level of errors and mistakes, why on earth would we prevent the kind of transparency that subject access requests deliver? Some 39,000 people were wrongly sent texts telling them that they were here unlawfully. The Home Office makes mistakes, and we need transparency and subject access requests to be able to challenge those mistakes.
Damian Collins
The significance of the Bill and the importance of data and data protection to the economy and the whole of society is reflected in this debate. The fact that amendments have been tabled on Report through the work of three different departmental Select Committees shows how wide-ranging this issue is.
I principally want to talk about amendments 20 and 21, which stand in my name and those of other members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and which are addressed by Government amendments, too. Before I do so, I want to add that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), made a very important point about the fact that some people—particularly those involved in immigration cases—may not have full access to the data rights enjoyed by others. If the Minister can provide any further clarification, I will be happy to give way before I move on.
Margot James
After the exchange I had with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), I wanted to confirm that the Home Office will certainly not destroy any data for which there is still a legitimate and ongoing need not just for the Home Office but for data subjects.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the Minister for that further clarification.
Amendments 20 and 21 get to the heart of an issue that has been raised by a number of Members, which is the power of the Information Commissioner to act in data investigations. The Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and others have referenced the Cambridge Analytica data breach scandal, which is a very good example of why these additional powers are needed. We raised that in the Select Committee with the Secretary of State. The Information Commissioner raised it with us and it was raised on the Floor of the House on Second Reading.
The ability to fine companies for being in breach of data rules is important, but what is most significant is that we get hold of the data needed by investigators, so that we understand who is doing what, how they are doing it and how wide-ranging this is. It is crucial that the Information Commissioner has the enforcement powers she needs to complete those investigations.
In the case of Cambridge Analytica, an information notice was issued by the Information Commissioner to that company to comply with requests for data and information. Not only did Cambridge Analytica not comply, but Cambridge Analytica and Facebook knew that. That information notice expired at 5 o’clock on the evening of the day when that deadline was set; it was the beginning of the week. Before the notice had expired and a warrant could even be applied for, Facebook had sent in its own lawyers and data experts to try to recover data that was relevant to the Information Commissioner’s request.
The Information Commissioner found out about that live on “Channel 4 News” and then effectively sent a cease and desist note to Facebook, telling it to withdraw its people. She might very well not have been made aware of what Facebook was doing that evening, and data vital for her investigation could have been taken out of her grasp by parties to the investigation, which would have been completely wrong. Not only did that happen—thankfully, Facebook stood down—but a further five days expired before a warrant could be issued—before the right judge in the right court had the time to grant the warrant to enable her to complete her work. We live in a fast-moving world, and data is the fuel of that fast-moving world, so we cannot have 19th or even 20th-century legal responses. We must give our investigatory authorities the powers they need to be effective, which means seizing data on demand, without notice, as part of an investigation, and having the ability to see how data is used in the workplace or wider environment.
The Government are bringing forward amendments, which I think have the support of the House, that will give us one of the most effective enforcement regimes in the world. They will give us the power to do something we have not been able to do before, which is to go behind the curtain to see what tech companies, even major tech companies, are doing and make sure they comply with our data rules and regulations. Without that or an effective power to inspect, we would largely be in the position of having to take their word for it when they said they were complying with the GDPR. Particularly with companies such as Facebook that run closed systems—they have closed algorithms and their data is not open in any way—there are very good commercial reasons for doing so, but there are also consumer safety reasons. We must have the power to go in and check what they are doing, so the amendments are absolutely vital.
There are further concerns. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, was right to raise concerns about honesty and transparency in political advertising. Both the Information Commissioner and the Electoral Commission are examining the use of data in politics, as well as looking at who places the ads. It is already a breach of the law in the UK, as it is in other countries, for people outside our jurisdiction to run political advertising during election campaigns in this country.
In the case of Facebook, it is unacceptable that its ad check teams have not spotted such advertising and stopped it happening when someone is breaking the law. If this were about the financial services sector, we would not let a company say, “Well, we thought someone was breaking the law, but we weren’t told to do anything about it, so we didn’t”. We would expect such a company to spot it and to take effective action. We need to see a lot more progress on this, particularly in relation to the placement of micro-targeting ads and dark ads. The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising has called for a moratorium on the micro-targeting of political ads, which may be seen only by the person who receives an ad and the person who places it.
When the chief technology officer of Facebook, Mike Schroepfer, gave evidence to the Select Committee, I asked him whether, if someone set up a Facebook page to run ads during a campaign and micro-targeted individual voters before taking down the page at the end of the campaign and destroying the adverts, Facebook would have any record that that advertising had ever run, he said that he did not know. We have written to him and Mark Zuckerberg saying that we need to know, because unless we know, a bad actor could run ads in huge volumes, investing a huge amount of money in breach of electoral law, and if they did not declare it, there would be no record of that advertising ever having been placed.
Liam Byrne
The Chair of the Select Committee is doing a brilliant job with his investigation, but the argument must stretch further than simply political advertising. For example, when Voter Consultancy Ltd ran attack ads against Conservative Members, accusing some of them of being Brexit mutineers, it was running an imprint for a company that was actually filing dormant accounts at Companies House. There are real questions not just about political ads in the narrow traditional sense, but about how to get to the bottom of who is literally writing the cheques.
Damian Collins
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that throws up two really important points.
The first point is that the Information Commissioner is also currently investigating this, which links to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about where the money comes from and who the data controllers are in these campaigns. Although Facebook is saying that it will in future change its guidelines so that people running political ads must have their identity and location verified, we know that it is very easy for bad actors to fake those things. It would be pretty easy for anyone in the House to set up a Facebook page or account using a dummy email address they have created that is not linked to a real person, but is a fake account. This is not necessarily as robust as it seems, so we need to know who is running these ads and what their motivation is for doing so.
Secondly, the Information Commissioner is also looking at the holding of political data. It is already an offence for people to harvest and collect data about people’s political opinions or to target them using it without their consent, and it is an offence for organisations that are not registered political parties even to hold such data. If political consultancies are scraping data off social media sites such as Facebook, combining it with other data that helps them to target voters and micro-targeting them with messaging during a political campaign or at any time, there is a question as to whether that is legal now, let alone under the protection of GDPR.
As a country and a society, we have been on a journey over the past few months and we now understand much more readily how much data is collected about us, how that data is used and how vulnerable that data can be to bad actors. Many Facebook users would not have understood that Facebook not only keeps information about what they do on Facebook, but gathers evidence about what non-Facebook users do on the internet and about what Facebook users do on other sites around the internet. It cannot even tell us what proportion of internet sites around the world it gathers such data from. Developers who create games and tools that people use on Facebook harvest data about those users, and it is then largely outside the control of Facebook and there is little it can do to monitor what happens to it. It can end up in the hands of a discredited and disgraced company like Cambridge Analytica.
These are serious issues. The Bill goes a long way towards providing the sort of enforcement powers we need to act against the bad actors, but they will not stop and neither will we. No doubt there will be further challenges in the future that will require a response from this House.
Brendan O'Hara
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are incredibly tight for time.
There is so much in the Bill that I would like to talk about, such as effective immigration control, delegated powers and collective redress, not to mention the achievement of adequacy, but I will concentrate on amendment 5, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The amendment seeks to provide protection for individuals where automated decision making could have an adverse impact on their fundamental rights. It would require that, where human rights are or could be impacted by automated decisions, ultimately, there will always be a human decision maker at the end of the process. It would instil that vital protection of human rights in respect of the general processing of personal data. We believe strongly that automated decision making without human intervention should be subject to strict limitations to promote fairness, transparency and accountability, and to prevent discrimination. As it stands, the Bill provides insufficient safeguards.
I am talking about decisions that are made without human oversight, but that can have long-term, serious consequences for an individual’s health or financial, employment, residential or legal status. As it stands, the Bill will allow law enforcement agencies to make purely automated decisions. That is fraught with danger and we believe it to be at odds not just with the Data Protection Act 1998, but with article 22 of the GDPR, which gives individuals the right not to be subject to a purely automated decision. We understand that there is provision within the GDPR for states to opt out, but that opt-out does not apply if the data subject’s rights, freedoms or legitimate interests are undermined.
I urge the House to support amendment 5 and to make it explicit in the Bill that, where automated processing that could have long-term consequences for an individual’s health or financial, employment or legal status is carried out, a human being will have to decide whether it is reasonable and appropriate to continue. Not only will that human intervention provide transparency and accountability; it will ensure that the state does not infringe an individual’s fundamental rights and privacy—issues that are often subjective and are beyond the scope of an algorithm. We shall press the amendment to the vote this evening.
Brendan O'Hara
I would give way, Minister, but I am very pushed for time.
I would like to voice my support and that of the SNP for amendment 15 on effective immigration control. We believe that the exemption is fundamentally wrong, disproportionate and grossly unfair, and we call on the Government to stop it.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not take too long.
This country is committed to remaining a global leader on data protection. The fundamental principle behind the Bill is to bring our data protection and information laws up to speed in the digital age. If we are to keep pace with technology and restore accountability in this area, we need a strong Information Commissioner’s Office. I am therefore pleased that the Government have brought forward new clauses 13 and 14. Remarkably, 11.5% of global data flows through the UK. It is vital that the UK plays a key role in ensuring compliance.
Sir Edward Davey
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a very powerful speech in favour of amendment 15, and I would like to associate myself and my party with all the comments she made. In particular, I underline the point she made that the Home Office powers in the Bill have no limit and are completely subjective.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is sitting on the Government Back Benches, talking to a colleague. She is a respected lawyer who has practised law. Imagine if she had a client who was being denied reunification with their family, was not allowed to work, was being deported from this country and was not able to have access to the information on which that decision was made. That would go against all the principles of the rule of law of which this country is proud and which this House has upheld century after century, yet she, as a Home Office Minister, is allowing that to happen.
I urge the hon. Lady to think about that and, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, go to the new Home Secretary, who said he would take a new approach and sweep away some of the past, and ask him to think again and allow amendment 15 to proceed tonight. As the right hon. Lady said, there will be another opportunity with another immigration Bill coming up soon. The Home Office Minister and the Home Secretary can rest assured that the powers under paragraph 2 in schedule 2 relating to criminal actions would cover all the examples that Ministers in Committee, on Second Reading and in the other place have given for why they think this proposed legislation is required.
Yvette Cooper
The Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is now back in his place. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would simply take a phone call between him and the Home Secretary to agree that this measure could be suspended? The whole issue could be revisited in the immigration Bill coming down the track in due course. It could be removed from this Bill now for the sake of the Windrush generation.
Sir Edward Davey
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is the Windrush generation who should be in our minds above all.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the need—this will be dependent on the EU negotiations—to ensure that we have access to data for national security and for fighting crime. That is in the Government’s interests as they negotiate Brexit, in particular with respect to the rights of EU citizens. I am fairly convinced that when the Commission really wakes up to the implications of paragraph 4 in schedule 2, it will say that this is acting in bad faith. The Government have agreed a settlement for the 3 million EU citizens in this country and the EU citizens who may wish to come to this country in the years ahead. The Bill will take away the rights they thought they would have. I therefore say to Ministers on the Front Bench and those on the Back Benches that they have just a few minutes or so to think again before it is too late.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I want to endorse new clause 4, which was so ably set out my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) from the Opposition Front Bench. I went on the Bill Committee with a sense of optimism and excitement, perhaps naively, because it seemed that so much needed to be done at the moment. Almost every day new issues arise—I hardly need to say that for me, “Cambridge” and “analytics” is an unfortunate combination. In the past few days, there have been facial recognition issues in the Welsh police and Amnesty International has raised the issue of gang lists. I hoped that we could rise to the challenge. However, I fear that although the Bill is hundreds and hundreds of pages long—in the pre-digital age, it would probably have been described as being the size of a telephone book—as Members have observed, does anyone really know what it means? That is why we needed a simple set of rights that people could understand. The sad thing is that people in the wider world are doing such good work and we should be looking at it. Look at what Tim Berners-Lee and Nigel Shadbolt are doing to try to transfer the data away from the big tech companies to make it our data. That is key, and it is the underlying principle of the GDPR, but I am not sure that we have been able to translate it into legislation.
I make two final observations. First, the golden thread running through much of this is data adequacy, which was referred to by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. In too many places there are genuine concerns, not just from Opposition Members but from Members in the other place, about our being tripped up on data adequacy, which is so important.
Finally, on the Information Commissioner’s role, a huge amount is being passed to her. We can have every confidence in her, but does she really have the resources, power and expertise? Most importantly, we are outsourcing some huge, really important judgments to the Information Commissioner, but I think it should be the role of this place to make those judgements in future, and I fear that we will come back to those points later in the day.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is an extremely capable Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and has shown real resolution and persistence on new clause 12.
In the sanctity of the consulting room, patients tell doctors, nurses and NHS staff all kinds of things. I have had all kinds of private and confidential issues disclosed to me in the 22 years that I have worked as a doctor, but the protection that the NHS gives to this information is absolutely fundamental. For years, the NHS has, on request from the Home Office, been sharing the address details of some patients that have ultimately been used to deport an unknown number of people over many years.
I recently visited a clinic run by the excellent charity, Doctors of the World, in Bethnal Green. I heard stories there of vulnerable people being afraid to approach NHS services because they cannot be certain that the information that they are asked to give will be treated confidentially. I heard about pregnant women not going for antenatal care, people with HIV not getting treatment and people who are afraid to take their children to the GP. The bond of trust between the NHS and its patients relies on the truth being told in both directions. Sadly, people have been avoiding the NHS because they do not trust it. That is bad for the reputation of the NHS, bad for the health of individual patients and bad for public health.
Doctors, nurses and other health professionals do not want information that is given to the NHS by patients to be shared except in the most extreme cases, when there is a significant risk to individuals or to the public. I am pleased that the Government have found a way to assure the House this evening that NHS information will be shared only in the event of a conviction or an investigation for a serious crime. This is the only way to preserve the integrity of the NHS and the immeasurable, vital and precious bond of trust between NHS staff and their patients.
Caroline Lucas
Like others, I would like to associate myself with the very powerful arguments that have been made in favour of amendment 15, but I want to speak briefly to amendment 16 to extend the debate about the conditions under which someone’s rights can be breached. It would prevent the crime exemption in the Bill being invoked in relation to low-level offences under immigration law.
Few of us would dispute the overall principle that data might be shared in some circumstances—for example, to prevent a serious crime or to apprehend an offender—but when the crimes in question are not serious and arise simply because of someone’s immigration status, we have to question whether the grounds for suspending data protection rights really do stack up. It is clear that the majority of offences under immigration law are not serious crimes. Most result only in a custodial sentence of two years or less, or a fine. Rather, they are the mundane activities of people doing what they must to survive. The effect is already forcing undocumented migrants to avoid sending their children to school, visiting the GP, presenting to homelessness services and seeking social support, for fear they might risk detention and removal by doing so.
Last year, a woman who was five months pregnant went to report being repeatedly raped to the police but was subsequently arrested at a rape crisis centre on immigration grounds. My amendment 16 seeks to better protect her and all others like her whose data protection rights are routinely being breached just because they are undocumented migrants and who are therefore being automatically criminalised just for leading their lives. There must be a firewall between Home Office immigration control and other Departments if we are serious about ending the current hostile immigration environment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I echo the criticisms of the outrageous immigration exemption in the Bill and am pleased to add my name to amendment 15.
Little has been said today about international transfers of personal data by intelligence services, despite the serious concerns raised in Committee. I will therefore speak briefly to new clause 24, which it is all the more important we debate, given the moves by the Trump Administration in the USA to roll back on safeguards on the targeting of drone strikes and the significant increase in their use of lethal force outside armed conflict zones. These developments mean an increased risk of strikes being in breach of international human rights law, and we know that UK intelligence personnel are involved in the transfer of data that could be used in such drone strikes, so it is all the more important that there be safeguards and accountability on when and how information can be transferred and that legal certainty be provided for our personnel.
As the Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its 2016 report,
“we owe it to all those involved in the chain of command for such uses of lethal force…to provide them with absolute clarity about the circumstances in which they will have a defence against any possible future criminal prosecution, including those which might originate from outside the UK.”
The Bill fails to provide those safeguards and clarity. Clause 109 places no realistic restriction on such transfers, referring simply to necessity and proportionality in pursuit of statutory goals. The new clause would provide a clear bar on transfers for use in unlawful operations and introduce accountability and transparency by requiring that written reasons be provided for any transfer thought to be lawful, that there be ministerial sign-off, that certain information be provided to the Information Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and that guidance on transfers be laid before Parliament. The new clause would not hinder but help our personnel working in this area and ensure that the UK is seen as complying with the rule of law and its international obligations. This is an important debate to which we will have to return in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc
“(1) This section applies where a person—
(a) has been given an information notice requiring the person to provide the Commissioner with information, or
(b) has been given an assessment notice requiring the person to direct the Commissioner to a document, equipment or other material or to assist the Commissioner to view information.
(2) It is an offence for the person—
(a) to destroy or otherwise dispose of, conceal, block or (where relevant) falsify all or part of the information, document, equipment or material, or
“(b) to cause or permit the destruction, disposal, concealment, blocking or (where relevant) falsification of all or part of the information, document, equipment or material,
with the intention of preventing the Commissioner from viewing, or being provided with or directed to, all or part of the information, document, equipment or material.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that the destruction, disposal, concealment, blocking or falsification would have occurred in the absence of the person being given the notice.”—(Margot James.)
This new clause would be inserted after Clause 145. It provides that, where the Information Commissioner has given an information notice (see Clause 141) or an assessment notice (see Clause 144) requiring access to information, a document, equipment or material, it is an offence to destroy or otherwise dispose of, conceal, block or (where relevant) falsify it.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Applications in respect of urgent notices
“(1) This section applies where an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice given to a person contains an urgency statement.
(2) The person may apply to the court for either or both of the following—
(a) the disapplication of the urgency statement in relation to some or all of the requirements of the notice;
(b) a change to the time at which, or the period within which, a requirement of the notice must be complied with.
(3) On an application under subsection (2), the court may do any of the following—
(a) direct that the notice is to have effect as if it did not contain the urgency statement;
(b) direct that the inclusion of the urgency statement is not to have effect in relation to a requirement of the notice;
(c) vary the notice by changing the time at which, or the period within which, a requirement of the notice must be complied with;
(d) vary the notice by making other changes required to give effect to a direction under paragraph (a) or (b) or in consequence of a variation under paragraph (c).
(4) The decision of the court on an application under this section is final.
(5) In this section, “urgency statement” means—
(a) in relation to an information notice, a statement under section141(7)(a),
(b) in relation to an assessment notice, a statement under section144(8)(a) or (8A)(d), and
(c) in relation to an enforcement notice, a statement under section147(8)(a).”—(Margot James.)
This new clause would be inserted after Clause 160. It enables a person who is given an information notice, assessment notice or enforcement which requires the person to comply with it urgently to apply to the court for variation of the timetable for compliance. It replaces the provision in Clauses 159(2) and 160(5) for appeals to the Tribunal. See also Amendments 54, 56 and 60.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Post-review powers to make provision about representation of data subjects
“(1) After the report under section 182(1) is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) exercise the powers under Article 80(2) of the GDPR in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland,
(b) make provision enabling a body or other organisation which meets the conditions in Article 80(1) of the GDPR to exercise a data subject’s rights under Article 82 of the GDPR in England and Wales and Northern Ireland without being authorised to do so by the data subject, and
(c) make provision described in section182(2)(e) in relation to the exercise in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of the rights of a data subject who is a child.
(2) The powers under subsection (1) include power—
(a) to make provision enabling a data subject to prevent a body or other organisation from exercising, or continuing to exercise, the data subject’s rights;
(b) to make provision about proceedings before a court or tribunal where a body or organisation exercises a data subject’s rights;
(c) to make provision for bodies or other organisations to bring proceedings before a court or tribunal combining two or more claims in respect of a right of a data subject;
(d) to confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion;
(e) to amend sections162 to164,173,180,194,196 and197;
(f) to insert new sections and Schedules into Part 6 or 7;
(g) to make different provision in relation to England and Wales and in relation to Northern Ireland.
(3) The powers under subsection (1)(a) and (b) include power to make provision in relation to data subjects who are children or data subjects who are not children or both.
(4) The provision mentioned in subsection (2)(b) and (c) includes provision about—
(a) the effect of judgments and orders;
(b) agreements to settle claims;
(c) the assessment of the amount of compensation;
(d) the persons to whom compensation may or must be paid, including compensation not claimed by the data subject;
(e) costs.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Margot James.)
This new clause would be inserted after Clause 182. It contains the provisions currently in subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 182, modified to take account of the changes made to that Clause by Amendments 61 and 62 (see subsections (1)(c) and (3) of this new Clause).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Reserve forces: data-sharing by HMRC
“(1) The Reserve Forces Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 125 insert—
“125A Supply of contact details by HMRC
(1) This subsection applies to contact details for—
(a) a member of an ex-regular reserve force, or
(b) a person to whom section 66 (officers and former servicemen liable to recall) applies,
which are held by HMRC in connection with a function of HMRC.
(2) HMRC may supply contact details to which subsection (1) applies to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State—
(a) to contact a member of an ex-regular reserve force in connection with the person’s liability, or potential liability, to be called out for service under Part 6;
(b) to contact a person to whom section 66 applies in connection with the person’s liability, or potential liability, to be recalled for service under Part 7.
(3) Where a person’s contact details are supplied under subsection (2) for a purpose described in that subsection, they may also be used for defence purposes connected with the person’s service (whether past, present or future) in the reserve forces or regular services.
(4) In this section, “HMRC” means Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
125B Prohibition on disclosure of contact details supplied under section 125A
‘(1) A person who receives information supplied under section 125A may not disclose it except with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (which may be general or specific).
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person reasonably believed—
(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or
(b) that the information had already lawfully been made available to the public.
(4) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 apply to an offence under this section as they apply to an offence under that section.
(5) Nothing in section 107 or 108 (institution of proceedings and evidence) applies in relation to an offence under this section.
125C Data protection
‘(1) Nothing in section 125A or 125B authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the data protection legislation.
(2) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”—(Margot James.)
This new clause would be inserted after Clause 186. It provides for HMRC to supply the Secretary of State with the contact details of members of the ex-regular reserve force and former members of the armed forces so that they may be contacted regarding their liability to be called out or recalled for service under the Reserved Forces Act 1996. The details supplied may also be used for defence purposes connected with their service in the forces (whether past, present or future). It is an offence for the details supplied to be disclosed without the consent of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
“Section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) | Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc” |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following certification, a Minister will move the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in the Speaker’s provisional certificate issued on 8 May. Copies of the final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Margot James
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (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 and Wales may vote. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Data Protection Bill [Lords]
Clauses certified under SO No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clause 190 of the Bill, as amended in Public Bill Committee (Bill 190).—(Margot James.)
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.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope the House takes the time to consider very seriously the fact that once again English Members have not had the opportunity to debate the critical issues in clause 190, which has been certified. What can you do, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that English Members in the English Parliament get the opportunity to debate those critical English-only issues?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That is not a point of order.
Third Reading
Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
Matt Hancock
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
What a great pleasure this is. The Bill gives people more power and control over their lives online while supporting innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital age. It will deliver real benefits across the country and help our businesses to compete and trade abroad. Strong data protection laws give customers confidence in the products and services that they buy, and that is good for business. The Bill provides a full data protection framework as we leave the EU, consistent with the general data protection regulation.
We have heard many things during our debates in the Chamber and in Committee, including concerns about small businesses. I reassure colleagues that the Information Commissioner’s Office has produced specific advice for them, as well as detailed advice for charities and local government.
The Bill provides a bespoke tech framework that is tailored to the needs of our criminal justice agencies and the intelligence services. That will protect the rights of victims, witnesses and suspects while making sure that we can tackle the changing nature of the global threats that the UK faces.
The Bill has received coverage from around the world, including Australia, the Philippines and, indeed, Suffolk. Let me be clear: the Bill is about preparing Britain for the future. As we leave the EU, the Bill sets out full spectrum data protection legislation, and I hope that the House will give it its Third Reading.
I am very grateful for the way in which the House has engaged with the Bill. I want to put on record my thanks to many people: my hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, in particular, for her sterling work day in, day out; my predecessor, who is now Northern Ireland Secretary, who worked hard with me on the Bill before her promotion; the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for grappling with the Bill in a brand new brief; the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, whose members made many contributions; the Public Bill Committee; the Information Commissioner herself, with whom we have worked very closely on the Bill and who is a great star; and the Whips, Clerks, Committee Chairs, Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. They have all been of great assistance. I also thank the Front-Bench teams of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Scottish National party and other parties for, on the whole, their highly constructive attitude to this important legislation.
The Bill that we send back to the other place has been improved in three key respects. First, we have made good on the promises made by Lord Ashton in the other place. For instance, we have delivered certainty for patient support groups—a cause passionately championed by my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones. We have provided reassurance for those on the frontline, safeguarding the emotional, physical and mental health of some of our most vulnerable citizens. We have legislated for a statutory review of the private enforcement provisions of the Bill, which will ensure that we leave no stone unturned in our search for strong and effective oversight of data controllers, particularly where children are concerned.
Secondly, the House has ensured that we have learned the lessons from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which exploded during the passage of the Bill. The ongoing investigation into that is unprecedented in its scale and importance. We have increased the powers of the Information Commissioner to ensure she has enough resources. Some say that that scandal put data protection at the top of the news. Some even say it made data protection sexy. With the Bill, we can be assured that the Information Commissioner will have the powers that she needs to ensure that those who flout the law are held to account for their actions. I want particularly to thank the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for its proposals, which we took on board to strengthen the Bill in response to that scandal. Finally, we have ensured that when it comes to the freedom of the press, we are prepared for the future, not stuck in the past.
The Bill will give people more control over their data, support businesses in their use of data and prepare Britain for Brexit. Over a generation, the Data Protection Act 1998, which this Bill replaces, has commanded broad public consensus and cross-party support. That has been one of its strengths. I hope that this Bill will gain cross-party support on Third Reading so that no matter the debate on some of the points of detail, we will have a broad consensus behind our data protection approach here in the UK for the years to come, because that is one of the strengths of our digital economy—a digital economy that is powering ahead. I hope that the Bill can add to the fundamental underpinnings of the strength of our economy and our society for the future. I commend it to the House.
Tom Watson
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to thank all the individuals and organisations that submitted evidence and participated in the discussions about what we all know to be a fiendishly complicated Bill. I am grateful to the Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for making the passage of the Bill possible.
Given that this is a fiendishly complicated Bill, we put forward our best team on the Public Bill Committee. I particularly thank my Labour Front-Bench colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—who are both the brightest of their generation. I would also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and Members of other Opposition parties, who made great contributions to the Bill. The contributions in today’s debate from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) were intelligent, wise and moving.
Our position has always been that we do not oppose the Bill. We recognise that it contains a number of measures that need to be passed into law by the end of this month, and we have never had any interest in standing in the way of the broad thrust of the Bill or most of its contents. However, we have had a number of specific concerns, and we have sought to improve some parts of the Bill. We have little time to dwell on those issues, but I would like to mention a couple.
We believe that the proposals for a data bill of rights were strong and had merit. They would have created a statutory code of enforceable rights, including the right of the individual to access all their data held or controlled by organisations and large social media companies. With our SNP colleagues, we have also debated how the Home Office will receive a wide exemption when processing the data of newcomers to this country. Given its recent record, the Home Office is not a Department to which we want to give new sweeping powers over personal data. Keeping this exemption is a continuation of the hostile environment, and we should be ashamed that it remains in the Bill.
Our biggest disappointment, however, is that we did not convince enough Members to commence part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. The victims were solemnly promised that this inquiry would be completed, and today this House has let them down. However, we consider this unfinished business, and I have to say to the Secretary of State that when he is in the twilight of his political career—careers in this place always end in such a way—he will come to regret his decision to side so stridently with the press barons against the victims.
To conclude, the Bill is necessary, but there have been missed opportunities. There has been a missed opportunity to correct the sins of the past on Leveson, and also a failure to look at how we should begin to deal with the future of data capitalism and its impact on people in the new digital age. I hope that the Government will continue to engage on these issues in the coming weeks and months, and we will continue to press them on the subject of citizens’ data rights.
Peter Heaton-Jones
It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Bill. I have followed it with interest throughout all its stages, and I had the pleasure of sitting on the Public Bill Committee. I echo what has been said about the fine contributions made by Members on both sides of the House at all stages, and I thought that the Committee was extraordinarily well conducted. I particular enjoyed my light-hearted sparring with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and the people at BBC Radio Essex will have been delighted that they got a disproportionate amount of airtime as a result.
This is a good Bill. Data protection is incredibly important—and increasingly so. The Bill has successfully navigated the choppy waters that are coming towards us, created by the need for the GDPR to be implemented in only about 14 days’ time. If I may say so, the Secretary of State and his entire team have navigated those waters with skill and elegance to ensure that we in the UK now have legislation that does what it needs to do as far as the GDPR is concerned, on which I congratulate them. The Government, the House and the other place have looked into this matter very carefully and rigorously, and they have arrived at what I think is a good package of measures that will do what it needs to do as far as data protection is concerned.
My interest has been in the amendments concerning press regulation, as Members on both sides of the House will remember. I believe that the House has reached the right decision on what started off as an amendment in the other place and what was set out in new clause 18 today. Not to go ahead with Leveson 2 is the right decision. However, I agree with the sentiment that we must keep the victims of what will undoubtedly still be a difficult press environment at the centre of our thinking. It is important that we have not lost the opportunity to do that, and I know the Secretary of State and his team will continue to do so, but I think we have got the balance right today.
I congratulate the whole ministerial team and all those who have taken part in these deliberations. I have followed with interest the arguments made by Members on both sides.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend mentioned some people he wanted to thank, and there is one other person I want to thank: my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). She was involved with the development of the GDPR in the European Parliament right from the start, and I want to put on the record our thanks, and my personal thanks, for her guidance. She has lived with the Bill for far longer than anybody else in the Chamber.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Yet another mention for Essex, where people will be absolutely delighted.
This is the Government getting on with business. We promised that we would do this in our manifesto, on which we were elected, and we have got on with and delivered it. I will be delighted to see the Bill reaching the statute book. This is the Government delivering what they need to deliver, and doing it in a very rigorous, elegant and clever way. This is a digital Bill for the digital age, and I am pleased to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to Education (Student Support).—(Jo Churchill.)
Question agreed to.
Education (Student Support)
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:14 - divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that the Speaker has certified the instrument as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence. The motion is therefore subject to double majority voting of the whole House and those representing constituencies in England.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 443), dated 28 March 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 March, be annulled.
I thank the Leader of the House for scheduling this debate, which marks an important moment. In this Parliament, Members have had to assert our right to decide the law of the land—a right that some Ministers have tried to avoid by denying us votes on statutory instruments. In this case, the Government let the 40-day period lapse without providing time. They have now agreed to the step, which I think may be unprecedented, of revoking their own regulations and relaying them to allow us a binding vote. Whatever the decision tonight, I hope that we have established the right of the Opposition to secure votes on the Floor of the House. The Government cannot simply legislate by the back door.
On the regulations, the Government’s actions once again seem to defy basic sense. Just last week, they rejected our motion to implement their own guarantee and manifesto commitment on school funding. Now, they are ploughing ahead with their plan to scrap bursaries for yet more nursing students, despite knowing full well the disastrous consequences that will follow.
Two years ago, the Government ignored the Opposition and those who work in the health sector when they scrapped the undergraduate bursary. The results were predictable. In 2016, before the abolition, there were more than 47,000 nursing applicants in England. In 2018, the figure fell to about 31,000—a fall of over 15,000. It is clear that this is the reason why we have seen the sharpest ever decline in nursing applications. I know what the Minister will say. He will say that the number of applications is less important than the number of acceptances; he will say that the Government have committed to create more trainee places for nurses. They promised an increase of 5,000 nursing places and said that the nursing bursary had to be scrapped to make that possible, but what have they delivered? Seven hundred fewer students training to be nurses.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that what is important is that we train more nurses and that there are more applicants than the number we need to train, so that there is good competition that ensures we get the best candidates? It is not necessary to have masses more than we need; we just need enough.
Angela Rayner
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to ensure that we have not only more applicants, but more people in training. However, 700 fewer students have been training to be nurses since 2017.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Once again it is women who are being hurt, particularly adult women who have brought up a family and want to take up a new career in nursing. They are being denied that opportunity or being forced into debt.
Angela Rayner
Forced debt for students and nurses of whatever gender is a really important issue, which I will come on to. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that we need to encourage both genders to see nursing as a legitimate career.
I mentioned that there are 700 fewer students training to be nurses. That is the first fall in close to a decade.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the bottom line is that without applications we cannot train nurses? That is just all there is to it.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I congratulate her on her outstanding dedication to nursing.
The Government said that they can fill the gap with nursing apprentices. They promised 1,000 of them, yet it has now been revealed that just 30 apprentice nurses have started the course. To miss a target may be unfortunate, but to miss it by 97% and carry on regardless just seems reckless. The shortfall is not the only problem with relying entirely on apprenticeships. A nursing apprentice will take four years to become a registered nurse. Even if there is a miraculous surge in apprentices starting this summer, we would not see any new qualified nurses on our wards until 2022.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I am not sure the hon. Lady understands what life is like on a bursary as a student nurse. There is just £400 a month to live on. Apprentice nurses are paid. They are a member of a team and they have a guaranteed job at the end of it. That is a very different system, which is a step forward in progress towards getting more nurses into the profession.
Angela Rayner
I respect the hon. Lady and I pay tribute to her for her work in the NHS as a nurse, but the figures show that not only is this change making it difficult for trainee nurses, who do an excellent job on our wards, it is contrary to what we need. Applications fell by 33%, with a 42% drop in mature students. In contrast, an undergraduate nursing course can take three years and postgraduate courses, referred to in the regulations, can take two years, making them some of the quickest ways to tackle the shortfall in numbers.
The same is true with the nursing associates suggested by the Government as another solution. The Government’s policy is not only unfair, it is failing completely on their own terms. They have pushed ahead with a policy that has reduced the number of people training to work in our NHS and now they are trying to do it again. I should add that trainee nurses in any of these routes have to do the day job as well. I pay tribute to our nurses for the fantastic job they do every single day in our NHS. Trainee nurses do not get paid the going rate. Those affected by the regulations actually have to borrow money for the privilege.
I hope the Government are clear that simply having more trainees on wards is not a solution to staff shortages. They are there to learn their job, not to do someone else’s. There is clear evidence that using support workers or trainees as replacements for qualified nurses has potentially disastrous consequences for care. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the Government’s intention.
This measure does not make any financial sense. Tuition and a bursary for a postgraduate or diploma student could cost less than the average premium the NHS pays for an agency nurse for a single year. Providers have suggested that they could expand their courses by up to 50% if funding was available. This comes at a time when there are 40,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS. The Government’s failure to fill vacancies is so severe that the Migration Advisory Committee has placed nursing on the shortage occupation list, even as potential recruits in our constituencies are denied the support that they need to serve in the NHS.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that in the end, the only people we must care about are the patients? In Oxfordshire, in the John Radcliffe Hospital, 170 beds were closed primarily because there was a staff nursing shortage. These measures are not going to fix the immediate problem. Why are the Government continuing to do something that is not evidence-based and will not work?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right to point out that all our focus has to be on making sure that the jewel in Britain’s crown—the national health service—has the qualified staff to do the job and keep our patients and loved ones safe.
I have talked about the failure to fill the vacancies in the NHS at the moment, and that is even before we consider the impact of Brexit on the 21,000 brilliant nurses who have come from EU countries to serve in our national health service. Only two months ago, the Health Secretary said that the winter crisis in our NHS was “probably…the worst ever”, but if he carries on like this, there will be worse to come.
It is one thing for Ministers to push ahead with policies against the warning of the Opposition. It is quite another for them to ignore their Departments’ impact assessments, yet that is precisely what Ministers have done. The Department for Education’s assessment of the changes to the bursary said that it would disproportionately affect women and ethnic minority students, yet Ministers have wilfully pressed ahead. Then the Department of Health and Social Care found that the change could make women, older students and students with lower incomes less likely to participate in postgraduate nursing courses. Again, Ministers pressed ahead, and we have seen the consequences not just in the number of applications, but in who has applied. Just as they were warned, the profile of our future nurses has become less representative. In particular, there has been a 42% fall in applications from mature students.
This is not simply a matter of fairness or even just about the benefit of a diverse workforce providing frontline care to a diverse population. Older nursing graduates are more likely to stay longer in the NHS and are more likely to choose areas such as mental health or learning disability nursing, which are facing severe staff shortages. Just yesterday, campaigners warned of the impact that the abolition of the bursary has had on those areas.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful point, but we need to be very focused with our intervention. I represent an area that has a nursing school. Although applications have dropped, we still have five applicants for every place and 30% more qualified applicants for every place, so if we are to take measures, we need to make sure that they are very targeted in the areas in which we intervene.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree that we have to make sure that we target interventions and make sure that they work, but part of the reason I have brought the motion before the House today is that the interventions are simply not working. Since 2017, we have 700 fewer students training to be nurses, so the impact is absolutely clear, and I hope that Government Members will support our motion.
Some universities are even looking at closing down specialist courses entirely. If today’s regulations pass, there is every reason to believe that this will get worse. Nearly two thirds of postgraduate nursing students are over 25, more than a quarter are from ethnic minorities and 80% are women, so the impact of today’s regulations will surely be even worse than the previous cuts. Even if the Government are determined to make the change, there are good reasons not to make it now. This policy would move postgraduate nursing students over to the main student finance system, which means dealing with the Student Loans Company.
There is every reason to believe that the Student Loans Company is not yet ready. In recent weeks, the Government have been dealing with an error by the company that has led to 793 nurses being hit with unexpected demands to repay accidental overpayments they were unaware of. The Government’s response was a hardship fund of up to £1,000 per student, yet the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), admitted in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) that the majority of students were overpaid by more than £1,000 and will be left short. Perhaps when he responds, the Minister will tell us how he can possibly expect nursing students affected by this policy to have any faith in the system they will be stuck in.
With the Government finally embarking on their flagship review of higher education, they could have allowed this issue to be considered as part of the review before going ahead with this change today. Ministers have insisted that this change is necessary now to make how we fund training sustainable, yet there is little reason to believe that it will achieve this. The average NHS nurse earns just over £31,000 a year and the average graduate now leaves university with £50,000 of debt. A new nurse with a postgraduate qualification will take 86 years to repay their undergraduate debt on the average NHS salary—that is before we add interest—which is nearly triple the current repayment period before debt is written off, meaning they will not even begin to repay the debt. How many postgraduate students affected by this policy will repay any of, let alone all, their additional loan, and how much of that debt will simply be written off by the taxpayer in decades to come?
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree it is completely wrong to talk about debt in the way she is—in this place—as though it is some sort of credit card debt? It completely misrepresents the situation for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds thinking about going to university. Her words will be putting them off.
Angela Rayner
I am not sure it is my words that are putting people off; I would say the thought of having £50,000 of debt hanging over them for a very long time is putting people off going into education.
Karen Lee
I started my nurse training in 2000 as a single mum. When I finished, I had £15,000 of debt—and that was with a bursary. It took me five years to pay it off. People say we should not talk about debt, but we have to talk about it—debt is debt. Students come out with debate. I came out with debt. I sit here listening to people who know nothing about this talking as if they do. It simply is not true.
Angela Rayner
The passion from my hon. Friend reflects how people feel up and down the country. It is funny because we all know what happened at the general election—and the verdict was clear on the Government’s position on education and student debt and tuition. [Hon. Members: “You lost!”] And of course the Government lost their majority at the same time, and the weak and wobbly Prime Minister has done nothing to make anyone in the country feel more confident about her future—but I digress.
How many postgraduate students affected by this policy repay any of, let alone all, their additional loan? Will the Minister explain how this is sustainable? How much will really be saved in the long run? Or is this another example of what the Treasury Select Committee has called the fiscal illusion—in this case, of a student finance system that allows the Government to pretend they have made a saving when they are simply passing the bill down to the next generation? It is no wonder that all the devolved nations have maintained their own NHS bursaries.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The hon. Lady talked about the general election and promises on education and education funding. Will the Labour party be keeping its education promises to repay the debts of students who have already incurred them?
Angela Rayner
I should have thought that Conservative Members would have read what was a great manifesto. They have hidden theirs now—I cannot see it, because it is hard to find—but ours was absolutely clear, and we continue to be clear about the fact that we would abolish tuition fees. The debt that our students face at the moment is the result of a tripling of student debt on the Conservatives’ watch.
I hope that Conservative Members will support our motion, not least given the financial consequences of Government cuts for their own budgets, but also because I believe that we should welcome nursing students from all over the United Kingdom. If we do so, the whole country will benefit. If the House votes for the motion, that vote will be a clear call for the Government to rethink the cuts, restore the bursary, and respect the will of the House.
A few months ago, the Health Secretary said that the NHS was “nothing without its nurses”. I support that sentiment tonight, but the sentiment without substance is not enough. I am sure that there is not a single Member in the Chamber who would not acknowledge the urgent need for us to recruit more nurses, so I ask all Members to put their votes where their voices are. I commend the motion to the House.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay)
I join the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) in welcoming the opportunity to discuss the increase in the number of postgraduate places that will be unlocked as a consequence of the statutory instrument. She ended her speech by saying that there was an “urgent need” to recruit more. The central premise of her opposition to a change that will remove the arbitrary cap imposed by the bursary, and hence unlock additional places for postgraduate students, seems a strange one on which to base her speech, given that we are ensuring that we can continue to increase the number of nurses that the Government have delivered through the postgraduate route, as we have through the undergraduate route.
At present, about 2,500 students gain access to nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare professions through the postgraduate route, a number that is constrained by the cap. The policy that we are discussing has already been applied to the much larger population of about 28,000 undergraduates studying the same subject. The statutory instrument will ensure consistency in the approach to both populations, while enabling both to increase their number by 25%.
This is part of a much wider package of Government measures. We are, for instance, increasing the number of apprenticeships. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), as Chair of the Education Committee, has repeatedly championed their importance as a route into nursing for those who do not want to go to university. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) has campaigned repeatedly in respect of medical school places. There are five new medical schools and 1,500 new medical places, again as part of the increase in the number of nurses. We have made a commitment through “Agenda for Change”, working with the trade unions, to deliver pay increases and we have programmes such as the return to work programme, which has seen more than 4,000 former nursing staff applying to return to the profession.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I will be supporting my hon. Friend this evening. I welcome what he said about apprentices. I think this squares the circle. We need to rocket-boost apprenticeship programmes in the NHS. I intend to say more about that in my speech, but may I ask whether he is committed to that today?
Stephen Barclay
I was just taking inspiration. Let me explain the route into nursing through apprenticeships. A four-year package will enable people who do not want to go to university—this is a point that my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made in the Education Committee—to progress to nursing roles by means of what he has often referred to as a ladder. Healthcare assistants tend to feel trapped in roles that do not give them an opportunity to progress. This is at the heart of what the Government stand for: giving people an opportunity to progress at different stages in their lives through the apprenticeship route.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend address the allegation that there are 700 fewer nurses in training?
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that that is a selective picking of the facts because it does not include direct entrants, to cite just one example that was not included. I could go on, but I know the—[Hon. Members: “Go on”.] It does not take account of direct entrants; that is one population that was not included. It also—
Stephen Barclay
I am happy to confirm that. We now have 13,100 more nurses on wards since 2010 and we have a commitment to expand the numbers—[Interruption.] It is a new programme and we are expanding the number of apprenticeships. We have committed to 5,000 this year, expanding to 7,500.
It is interesting, is it not? Having routes that give people opportunities to progress—having different choices for people and empowering individuals, not all of whom want to go to university—so that people from different backgrounds can go into the profession is the very essence of what our party stands for. It is shame—
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the Minister therefore challenge the figure of only 30 apprentices and does he recognise that with a four-year course they will not be ready until 2022, and there is a need for nurses now?
Stephen Barclay
I absolutely recognise that the apprenticeship route will take four years, but the Government have given a clear commitment to that and that is backed up by significant—[Interruption.] The UCAS figures are embargoed, so I do not have the latest figure. The point is that it is a four-year programme and it will take time to roll out, but it is backed by significant funding: the NHS is contributing £200 million to the apprenticeship levy. That is a signal of this Government’s commitment. The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills is here, championing the apprenticeship route, as are other Members through the Select Committees. It is a shame that some Opposition Members are not reflecting on the benefits offered by apprenticeships as an alternative route into the nursing profession that will deliver more nurses. That should be welcomed.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend the Minister has forgotten that the Minister for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), is also here, which reinforces the point that the starting point for promoting nursing is at school. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Stephen Barclay
I do agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed we have three Ministers from the Department for Education here, which again shows the Government’s joined-up approach. The NHS, as the employer of 1.5 million people, is a standard setter that can provide leadership in the apprenticeships market and looks at doing so not just for nursing apprenticeships, but across a range of apprenticeship routes. The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who is a former Minister in the Department of Health, understands that issue extremely well.
Layla Moran
Does the Minister really think that this needs to be an either/or? Could we not do the very good work that is going on with apprenticeships and also maintain this important bursary? Does he have something to say to the chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, who says these changes are short-sighted? Has the RCN’s position changed?
Stephen Barclay
I agree with the hon. Lady that we can do both: we can have the apprenticeship route, but we can also increase the number who do postgraduate training as an entry point into the profession. It is also why we are looking to expand the number of undergraduates. This is also empowering for students because it means that, while they are undertaking their course, they will receive more funding than they would under the existing system. Under the move to the loan system, depending on the circumstances of the course, health students will typically receive up to 25% more in the financial resources available to them for living costs during the time they are at university. For example, a student without dependants living away from home could access £9,256 under the loans system, compared with £6,975 under the NHS bursary system.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is being typically gracious in giving way. He said in his opening remarks that he wanted to unlock additional places but, according to the RCN, far from unlocking additional places, the removal of the bursary has led to a fall of 700 places on nursing degrees and a 3% decline in the number of people starting nursing courses since 2016. Is it his view that the RCN is lying?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is quoting selectively. He is right to point to 2016, because the number of nurses in training was at a record high—an achievement by this Government for which little credit was given by the Opposition. The new system will take time to bed in, but it is important to ensure that more places are available and that there are more applicants, and that is our approach.
Maria Caulfield
Opposition Members seem to be portraying the bursary system as a panacea, but it was not a well-functioning system. There were more applicants than available places, and it was a real struggle for students from poorer backgrounds, such as myself, to live on £400 a month with no alternative income. The system also only catered for students with an academic background. The new apprenticeship system allows degree-entry nursing, but not necessarily through the academic route.
Stephen Barclay
As a nurse, my hon. Friend speaks with great authority and she is right. This is about empowering those who want to be a nurse, not all of whom want to go to university. She is also right to remind the House that many people’s ambitions are choked off by the existing system. Under the bursary system, over 30,000 people who applied to be a nurse were rejected. Too many people were being rejected, and we need more nurses, so we have a package of measures to increase the number of nursing places. Nothing has been said about those who were thwarted in that ambition. Universities, too, have consistently argued that healthcare postgraduate courses were an area prime for growth if we offered suitable loan products.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister is right to highlight the university sector but has he, like me, recently visited his local further education college? If he has, I am sure that staff will have expressed the same view that I heard in Trowbridge recently: the new apprenticeship route into nursing is good for FE colleges that want to offer nurse training. Some colleges currently feel constrained because they are frozen out by universities but, in setting up such courses, colleges will be able to offer nursing to a much greater range of people than is currently the case.
Stephen Barclay
As a medic, my hon. Friend alights on an important point that I am happy to pick up. A number of the professions are degree entry, which precludes the further education college sector, so I will be happy to discuss that with him.
It is worth drawing to the House’s attention that it is not just universities that have been pushing for a change. Professor Dame Jessica Corner, the chair of the Council of Deans of Health, said:
“Our members report receiving a high number of good quality applications for most courses and they will continue to recruit through to the summer. Where courses have historically had a large number of applicants, fewer applicants might well not affect eventual student numbers”.
The key issue is not just how many people apply; it is ensuring that there are sufficient applicants for the places and then increasing the number of places on offer.
Stephen Barclay
I have given way quite a lot, so I will make a little progress.
In addressing the Opposition’s points, we have moved slightly outside the scope of the SI before the House, which concerns postgraduates, into a discussion about undergraduates, and the Chair of the Health Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), made the point that the postgraduate market has certain features that are distinct from the undergraduate market. In certain disciplines, such as mental health and learning and disability, some older applicants may be more risk averse about taking on a student loan, depending on when they did their first degree. If it was before 1998, they probably will not have a student loan, but let us not forget that the Labour party introduced tuition fees, so many who studied after 1998 will have a loan.
Working in conjunction with colleagues in the Department for Education, and taking some of the lessons about targeted support that have been learned in teaching, we intend to offer £10,000 golden hellos to postgraduate students in specific hard-to-recruit disciplines—mental health, learning and disability, and district nursing—to reflect the fact that those disciplines often have particular recruitment difficulties. That £9.1 million package will be supplemented by a further £900,000 to mitigate a particular challenge with recruiting in any geographical areas. For example, if an area such as Cornwall suddenly found itself having difficulty in recruiting speech and language therapy recruits, a targeted measure—perhaps at a different quantum from £10,000—could be implemented in order to reflect those geographical issues.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss the concerns raised by the Health Committee in our nursing workforce inquiry. As he has stated, applicants for learning disability and mental health nursing tend to be older, and those applicants are more likely to stay. They are particularly affected, so I am grateful to the Minister for listening to our concerns. Putting the needs of patients first by allowing for these targeted extra packages is very welcome.
Stephen Barclay
I am grateful for that support from the Chair of the Health Committee. Having spent four years on the Committee myself, I know the value that members of Select Committees bring to the House. The Health Committee, particularly under her chairmanship, is hugely valued in the Department. The mitigation package that has been put before the House tonight reflects the constructive engagement that we have had with the Committee. We realise the importance of having consistency between undergraduates and postgraduates, and of expanding the supply of places, but it is also important to recognise that there might be specific areas in which there are recruitment challenges, and that targeted action to mitigate those challenges is appropriate.
Vicky Ford
I thank the Minister for the announcement that he has just made. At the nursing college in Chelmsford, and also at Cambridge and Peterborough, we have 30% more qualified applicants, but there have been fewer applicants for mental health nursing. This targeted intervention will really help to address that need. Will he confirm that this will be locally based where necessary—that is, in the areas where we need the help most?
Stephen Barclay
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that there will be a local element to the targeting of the package. She has been a powerful advocate in helping to secure the new medical school at Chelmsford, which will be a huge boost to the local health economy.
The statutory instrument before the House tonight is part of package being brought forward by this Government, alongside the “Agenda for Change” increase in pay and alongside our ambitions to increase the number of apprenticeships and to encourage people to return to the profession. We have already made this change for the much bigger population of 28,000 undergraduates, and it is right that we should now apply that consistently to the 2,500 postgraduates. We have a targeted measure of support to address any hard-to-recruit areas, and I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As the Minister says, we are here to discuss removing the bursary from postgraduate nursing students, but it would be crazy not to learn from the experience of the past two years following the removal of the undergraduate bursary in 2016. Scotland maintained that bursary, as indeed did Northern Ireland and Wales. We provide £6,500 as a bursary and up to £2,500 carers allowance for those with caring commitments, and obviously there are no tuition fees, so that saves another £9,000 a year. Our students are therefore £18,000 a year better off. Only in England has the undergraduate bursary been removed and tuition fees introduced. So nurses in England will face coming out with debts of £50,000 to £60,000.
As has already been said, there has been a 33% fall in applications. Several Government Members have said that there are still plenty of applications, but what talent has been lost in that third? Exactly who are the people who are not applying for nursing because there is no longer a bursary? There has been an even bigger fall—42%—in the number of mature students applying, yet we know that mature nursing students have a much greater tendency to stay in the place where they start and to stay in nursing. We are discussing postgraduate students tonight, and the biggest advantage of postgraduate students is that they will be trained more quickly. The Minister mentioned the fact—although he did not expand on it—that postgraduates already have student loans. The idea of asking them to take on second student loan is likely to result not in a 33% or 42% drop but in an even bigger drop.
The Minister talks about the extra money that the NHS is investing, but why not invest it in attracting people to study nursing as a degree? It is fine to talk about nursing apprenticeships, but we hear that only 30 people have taken those up, and they will not be ready until 2022, so they are not a quick answer. I have nothing against the idea of nurse apprentices, but nurses are now leaders in the health service; we have advanced nurse practitioners and nurses who are managing and leading services. That requires them to be educated to degree level and to have the experience to act as leaders.
What we hear from the Royal College of Nursing is not that there are now 700 fewer nurses in total, but that 700 fewer nurses have started training through the degree course, yet all this change was meant to be about expanding that number. It has not expanded; it reduced last year. The danger is that that pattern will continue and be even more marked for postgraduate students.
In Scotland, obviously, we have maintained the bursary. Instead of a 3% fall in the number of people starting studying, we have seen an 8% rise. Indeed, we have already seen a 10% increase in the number of people signing up for nursing places this year. We all need nurses, because all four national health services are struggling with the workforce, but NHS Improvement reports that there are 36,000 vacancies in NHS England. That is catastrophic. Literally, one in 10 nursing jobs in England is empty. That is more than twice the vacancy rate we face in Scotland. This is safety issue. The Secretary of State talked about safety. This is part of what led to the junior doctors’ strike, because we are talking about avoidable deaths. Research shows that the only measure that reduces avoidable deaths in hospital is the ratio of registered nurses to patients—not healthcare assistants, auxiliaries, doctors or anyone else. This is about registered nurses actually looking after patients.
The extra places that we were told would be funded by removing the undergraduate bursary will start only this autumn, so they will not be ready until 2021. The apprentices will not be ready until 2022. Postgraduate students starting this autumn will at least be ready in 2020. This is urgent. The NHS in England is struggling for want of nurses. They are the people who make the difference to safety. The Government should be investing in whatever will produce high-quality nurse leaders as quickly as possible, and that is postgraduates.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
To achieve social justice and deal with the skills deficit, we need a skills revolution. In many sectors, we have a real skills shortage, particularly at level 4 and above. Young people are pushed towards traditional degrees, but only 52% are getting jobs after graduation that require a degree, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. On the flipside, degree apprenticeships are just not growing fast enough, and we need to invest more in further education and skills provision.
I welcome what the Minister has said today, and I thank him for meeting me to discuss this issue. We must go further on nursing apprenticeships, which I believe are the answer to this whole problem. We can square the circle and support nurses by rapidly expanding the apprenticeship programme. Hon. Members will know that I am a passionate advocate of apprenticeships, and I therefore support the introduction of new routes into nursing, through degree apprenticeships and the creation of the nursing associate role.
Nursing degree apprentices will not have to pay anything themselves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), a brilliant former nurse, explained. They will be able to become degree-registered nurses in four years. Similarly, the new nursing associate role will provide extra capacity in the workforce, and many of those who train as nursing associates may decide to continue to degree-level nursing.
The twin themes of the Education Committee in this Parliament are social justice and productivity. Nursing degree apprenticeships are key to both. They offer an attractive route both for mature students and for those with children, ensuring that all those who wish to train as nurses have the opportunity to do so. I am not suggesting that people should not have the choice of a three-year undergraduate course, but we must maximise the opportunities provided by degree apprenticeships. Doing so would mean that we have a sufficient nursing workforce and that aspiring nurses have options for training.
I have real worries about the fact only 30 people began training as a nurse through the nursing apprenticeship schemes this year, and we need to rapidly improve the number of people doing degree apprenticeships. There needs to be a taskforce involving the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, Health Ministers, the Institute for Apprenticeships and others to drive this forward and to encourage people with a proper advertising campaign, using the £200 million levy. Thirty is just not enough; we need many thousands of people. If people in my constituency and across the country knew about the schemes, they would want to take them up.
Dr Murrison
Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the way we might expand the numbers taking the apprenticeship route is to unleash the power of the further education sector? The sector now has degree-awarding powers and would be very attractive to a large number of people not just in the big urban centres but in the smaller regions, too.
Robert Halfon
Like me, my hon. Friend is a big champion of further education and understands it completely. This could be an incredible moment for our further education colleges because, along with some very good private providers, they could be leading the way in providing degree apprenticeships.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My wife was a renal nurse for 15 years, and she says that one of the key changes that happened in her time as a nurse was the university-fication of the nursing profession. Does my right hon. Friend agree that having this diverse route is a much better way to do things and brings in people from all backgrounds?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right. My hope is that, rather than 50% of all students just going to university, one day 50% of all students will be doing degree apprenticeships in all subjects, but especially in the subjects we need, particularly in coding, healthcare, science, engineering and nursing.
Dr Wollaston
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s work as Chair of the Select Committee on Education. Does he agree that we are losing too many healthcare assistants because in the past there have not been the opportunities for them to progress? These regulations are an important way to retain such a valued part of our workforce.
Robert Halfon
As so often, my hon. Friend is a mind reader. I will address her point, but of course she is right.
These jobs should not be limited to degree level; we should ensure there are apprenticeships in healthcare professions from level 3. We must have sufficient progression for those already working in the sector. The nursing associate role is a positive step that will provide opportunities for healthcare assistants to progress within the sector. From there, they could train to become registered nurses, if they wish.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Robert Halfon
This is the last intervention because I am conscious that other people want to speak.
Bambos Charalambous
In the light of the poor recruitment to the apprenticeship schemes, does the right hon. Gentleman agree it is best to keep both routes open—the bursaries and the apprenticeship schemes—to maximise the number of people coming into the system?
Robert Halfon
I thought that initially, but I have listened to my hon. Friend the Minister’s arguments. There was previously a cap, and not everybody was able to get into the system. If we can encourage people down the apprenticeship route, they earn while they learn, there is no debt and they get a lot more than they would get if they had a bursary.
Robert Halfon
This is genuinely the last time I give way. It is impossible to say no to my fellow member of the Education Committee.
Michelle Donelan
Further to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), my constituency neighbour, I, too, met Wiltshire College last week, and it is eager to take on nursing apprenticeships. The college shows we can get past the few roadblocks, because it is already affiliated with universities in offering degrees. That is one way in which we can look positively at increasing the number of apprenticeships, rather than looking at it negatively, as we hear from the Opposition.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is a remarkable member of our Committee and she is right in what she says. It is good that the Minister for Health, the Minister for School Standards, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation and the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills are here, because we need to unblock the roadblocks and bureaucracy and really make these things happen, so that thousands of people are doing this, not just 30.
We need to ensure that we are making the progression as smooth as possible. Our Committee is concluding its inquiries on value for money in higher education and the quality of apprenticeships and skills training. Nursing bursaries are relevant to both, so we decided last week to hold a one-off evidence session on the subject in the next few weeks. I hope that the Minister for Health will accept our invitation to discuss the matter in greater detail then. I urge him to carry on championing nursing apprenticeships for other healthcare professionals and to set out in detail, at a later date, what the Government will do on apprenticeships. Let us make that culture change, so that apprenticeships are not seen as the inferior option to traditional courses. The change must start in Whitehall, and only when it happens will we see nursing apprenticeships used to their full potential, contributing effectively to tackling the skills deficit and helping the most disadvantaged to have the careers that they and our country need.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
As Members probably know, I was a nurse until last June. I did 12 years in cardiology and almost three in out-patient gynaecology clinics. As an ex-nurse, I could not be any more in opposition to this amendment to nursing bursaries, as I am concerned that it will fail to address the problems with nursing recruitment and will intensify the fall in applications to nursing courses. Overall, applications have fallen by 33% since March 2016, when bursaries were withdrawn. At that time, the Royal College of Nursing, a much respected and non-political body, said the changes were unfair and risky, and the Royal College of Midwives argued that the move threatened the future of maternity services in England.
I hope that all of us in this Chamber acknowledge that there is a workforce crisis across the whole NHS. As the RCN has said,
“plans by the government to remove the NHS bursary for pre-registration students in England must be stopped immediately”.
It goes on to say that
“nurses need bespoke financial support if the government is to meet its commitment to grow the nursing workforce and meet the future population demand for health and care services”.
The National Audit Office has reported that the impact of the EU referendum appears to be driving EU nurses away, and both the Care Quality Commission and the NAO have raised safety concerns relating to nursing shortages—it is not just Opposition Members who are saying that.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend gave many years’ service as a nurse and I am sure she worked with many nurses who came here from abroad. The Migration Advisory Committee has placed nursing back on the shortage occupation list. In the light of that, is not this statutory instrument wrongheaded, as we need nurses to come through all routes if we have a nursing shortage?
Karen Lee
I completely agree with that.
There are 40,000 nursing vacancies across the NHS and, for the second year in a row, more nurses are leaving the profession than joining, with one in three expected to retire in the next 10 years. The Government have made much of the nursing associate role and apprenticeships for nurses. Nursing associates provide a support role for nurses, and the RCN feels that diluting and substituting registered nurses with associate nurses has potentially life-threatening consequences for patients. That is the RCN saying that, not me.
This Government also speak in glowing terms about the apprentice nurse role. I do take the points made by the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—he means well—but it takes four years to train as an apprentice nurse and our health service is, as the RCN says, in crisis right now. Furthermore, this route is not currently providing the 1,000 new nurses per year that the Government planned for, with RCN figures suggesting that there are just 30 apprentice nurses at present—I will give that answer.
I was a mature student. I was 41 when I started my training, and a single parent. We have heard a lot tonight about how we will encourage people who do not want to go down the university route. I worked in Tesco on a checkout. I had been to grammar school and it had failed me, so I had to go to night school to get my A-levels to become a nurse. That took me a year, three nights a week, on top of working. I then worked for three years as a nursing student to become a nurse. I could not have completed my training without a bursary. I also borrowed £5,000 a year from the Royal Bank of Scotland, so I came out hugely in debt, even though I had a bursary, and it took me five years to clear that debt.
Karen Lee
That is what I had to do to become a nurse. I think I got around £500 of bursary at that time, and I had myself and my 10-year-old daughter to keep.
My friend Ali was a wife and a mum, and she needed her bursary, and my friends Clare, Haley, Adele and Lisa were younger and single, but they still needed their bursaries, because everybody has bills to pay. None of us could have trained without our bursaries and none of those friends would have gone on to be the nurses they are today without them. Please, will no one on the Government Benches talk about encouraging disadvantaged people to train as nurses? When we had bursaries, we did—I did.
The bottom line is that more nurses equals better healthcare provision. We cannot go on with an NHS in the state it is currently in. The Government continue to ignore completely the wise words of those who are experts in their field—like the Royal College of Nursing—when it comes to the support available for future healthcare professionals. They seem to think that they know best, but the reality does not bear out that fantasy. The regulations must be scrapped and the Government should reinstate nursing bursaries immediately.
I stand in this Chamber time and again defending our NHS, and I hear people who have no idea what it is like on the ground. Sometimes they sit looking at their phones when people like me are talking. I despair. If the Government will not listen to me, I hope they will heed the wise words of the RCN, because it is right on this. Please listen to the RCN and please reinstate nursing bursaries.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
May I start by declaring that I still work as a nurse on the bank shift, mainly at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London? It is a pleasure to do so.
I have previously been very outspoken against the removal of bursaries and the move to a tuition fee-based system, for practical reasons: student nurses are different from most students. The course requires them to do a set number of practical hours, and the fact that those are often unsocial and irregular means that it is almost impossible for student nurses to get other part-time work to supplement their time on their courses. We have heard today that student nurses are often mature students who have come from other professions and so already have financial commitments, such as mortgages and loans, that they have to bear in mind when they start a nursing course. Postgraduates who have existing debt are often reluctant to take on more to become a student nurse.
However, since the changes were introduced a couple of years ago, the background has changed. We have seen the rise of the apprenticeship route for nursing and of the associate nurse. My difference with Opposition Members is that I have actually worked with some associate nurses who are in training, and with apprenticeship nurses in training, and the difference is phenomenal. They are enjoying their courses a huge amount more because they are working in a practical setting. It is not just about what they are learning on their nursing course; they are back to being part of the team. They are not students who just come to their placement from university; they are learning about being part of a hospital team and a clinical community.
Associate nurses and apprentice nurses are more than just students; they bring experience with them. Many have backgrounds as healthcare assistants. The experience that they bring from a variety of settings is phenomenal. I know about the support that they have given me on shifts as a bank nurse, and that would not have been available with student nurses previously. We are underestimating their power.
I echo some of the comments in the debate: we do need to ramp up the apprentice and associate routes, because that is the way forward. The bursary system was far from ideal. I lived on a bursary of £400 a month for the three years that it took me to train as a nurse, with little or no additional income. As the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) said, student nurses rack up significant debt during those three years. That shows that the bursary system was far from ideal. The statutory instrument took some of those points into account, establishing a hardship fund for struggling students and grants for childcare, travel and accommodation—none of which were available under the bursary system. They are there to support students who have financial pressures.
The bursary system has failed to achieve the number of students that we need. There was a cap on the number of places. Each and every year there were more applicants, but there were not more students coming through the system, because the cap did not allow those applying to secure the places. We need to embrace change, and use this as an opportunity to increase the number of nurses. We should also make student nurses feel valued, and give them a variety of routes into nursing. They have the associate nurse role, which means that they are healthcare assistants who want to do their associate training. They can then top up their training in the future to become registered nurses, or they can go down the apprenticeship route to qualify.
I see Opposition Members laughing. They seem to find it difficult to understand how a Conservative Member of Parliament can be a nurse—I am talking about someone who came from a deprived background and who took the route into nursing because she could not get into university. I will not apologise. I am not afraid to speak out for student nurses and for nurses. I worked with the RCN in the “Scrap the cap” campaign. I spoke out when there was a move away from the bursary system, but, with my hand on my heart, I can say that the associate and apprenticeship routes into nursing are the way forward. It is misleading to pretend that the bursary system was a panacea, that student nurses were happy and that we were fulfilling the numbers that we needed.
I am a member of the RCN and I fully respect everything that it does to support nurses, but its briefing has been slightly misleading. It lists only two routes into nursing: the two-year postgraduate route, and the three-year route into nursing. It does not even mention the associate route or the apprenticeship route, which we need to take into account. It also highlights the fact that applications into nursing have fallen, but it has not mentioned that 2017 saw the second-highest number of students ever accepted on to nursing courses—26,620 students—and that was despite an overall fall in the total number of applications.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As a member of the RCN, I, too, have had the briefing, and it does not mention the associate and apprenticeship routes into nursing.
The bursary system was not the panacea that Opposition Members claim it to be. I am happy to stand up to fight for nurses when I think that Labour Members may have a point, but I think they are now moving into the realm of scoring political points, which is their usual tactic. There is a better way to get nurses into training, and I urge Ministers to continue both the associate route and the apprenticeship route, to give student nurses alternative routes into nursing, to boost nursing numbers and to develop nursing into a degree-entry healthcare profession.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I just say to the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) that this is not about scoring political points? It is about debating in this House of Commons something that is of immense importance to our country. I agree with her that no one has a monopoly on these things, but it is only right and proper that we have an open and frank debate about the matter. That means that there will be a clash of views and a clash of opinions, but out of that will come better policy, and I hope that the Government, as they move forward, will listen to some of the concerns that have been raised, even if they do not change their policy. There is nothing wrong with that. That is not political point scoring; that is holding the Government to account for the policies they are pursuing.
Let me also say this: the only reason why the Government are being held to account is that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have obtained this debate. They deserve a great deal of credit for that, because the Government were not going to debate these regulations. Indeed, the House of Lords Committee, that scrutinises these secondary legislation reports said that it was unprecedented for the Government to be forced to hold a debate in this place when revoking one set of regulations and replacing them with another. So, it is quite right that we are actually saying this to the Government. We would not be able to get the Government to put forward their views as to why removing bursaries is a good thing, and we would not be able to explain why we are holding them to account, were it not for the fact that we raised this matter in the way that we have.
The hon. Member for Lewes criticised the Royal College of Nursing’s figures, but the RCN—a highly respected body in this country—has laid out the statistics, including for many of the routes that she says it has not, regarding the fall in the number of applications since NHS bursaries were got rid of two years ago. There has been a 33% fall in the number of applications for nursing degrees. It may be that that does not matter, but the Government still need to address and defend it and explain why the RCN is wrong to highlight that as a figure that should cause us concern.
Maria Caulfield
That is the point: despite the fall in the number of applications, the number of placements has actually increased to its second-highest level ever. If the bursary system was so great, why were the nursing student numbers not coming through it, and how come we had such a high drop-out rate of student nurses?
Vernon Coaker
Let us see where this goes. The hon. Lady’s point is that it does not matter that there has been a 33% fall in applications, because other things will happen, but that is not the view of the Royal College of Nursing. Applications from mature students have been disproportionately affected by the funding reform; the number of applicants aged over 25 has fallen by 42%. I do not know whether the Minister intends to respond—it would be a shame if he did not—but perhaps he can explain why that figure does not matter. That point needs to be addressed in debate. The hon. Lady disagrees, but I say that it does matter, and that it will cause problems for future nursing recruitment.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) asks why not enough nurses were coming through. Is that not simply because there was a cap on places? The Government keep linking the bursary with the cap. The issue was not the bursary; it was the cap. If the Government want to invest in nurses, they should lift the cap but not remove the bursary, because that will shrink the number of applications.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I say to the Minister that there is hard evidence from the Government’s own equality analysis that the reforms will
“increase the amount of student loan borrowing for postgraduate students and could lead to a fall in student numbers. The government has acknowledged that, due to the student intake, the impact will fall largely on women, older students and, to a lesser extent, students from ethnic minorities.”
Where is the Government’s defence of that, and what are they doing to mitigate it? I have no doubt that the Government would say, “We have done x, y and z.” Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Lewes has said, but where is the Minister’s explanation?
It is not just the Government equality analysis that says we should be concerned about the changes. A House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, published just a few days ago, also raised concerns. First it criticised the process and then it said:
“Our second, no less strongly felt concern is with the wider impact on recruitment to post-graduate nursing courses which may result from the switch from bursary to loan support”.
That is why this debate is so important. There is evidence from a highly respected Select Committees of this House, and from the Government’s own equality analysis, and were it not for the actions of my Front-Bench colleagues, we would not even be debating the issue and the House of Commons would not even be reflecting on a major change to the way in which we fund the postgraduate training of our nurses.
We all agree that the nurses of this country deserve our respect, and that they do a wonderful job, but the point of this debate is to ask whether we are going to address the shortage of nurses following the removal of nursing bursaries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, we have serious concerns and doubts about that, and it is quite right that those are debated.
Let us see whether the hon. Member for Lewes is right, or whether the Royal College of Nursing is right that the huge fall in applications we have seen at undergraduate level will be reflected at postgraduate level, and that down the track the Government will regret ignoring the professional bodies and their own equality analysis. The Government need to reflect on that and see what more can be done. Rhetoric about our nurses being brilliant is fine, and we all share that admiration, but at the end of the day, what this country needs is hard-nosed policy that works.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I will keep my remarks brief. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I agree with him that we need a new long-term system that works and removes the cap from people who wish to study as nurses. The vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, Alistair Fitt, has said that nursing bursaries “had to end” and were not a sustainable system. The cap on places was discouraging people who wished to enter the nursing profession, which is so important for all our constituencies.
In Worcestershire, we need more nurses, not fewer. I welcome the work that has been going on in a partnership between my NHS trust and the University of Worcester. I backed their calls for a medical school, and the work being done on the ground is already reducing nursing vacancy rates. They are down from 8.4% to 7.5%, and nursing turnover rates are down from 14% to 10% in the last year. That is a tribute to local professionals working hard to tackle the real problems in my area for the benefit of my constituents. I want to see more of that.
Under the new system under the regulations, postgraduate healthcare students will be 25% better off as they take part in their studies. These are new measures, and we need to back the Government. We should not vote for the Labour party’s motion to annul these Government regulations, which will help more people to enter the nursing profession at senior levels. We are talking about the senior leadership roles that we need in all our hospitals to deal with the needs of our population and their healthcare.
Finally—I said I would be brief, and I will be—we definitely need to stop the rhetoric about student debt, because it puts people off going to university. I refer Labour Members to the comments of Martin Lewis, a respected financial expert, who just last week said that it was completely wrong—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is making a serious speech. There should not be so much chuntering going on.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Martin Lewis’s comments were, it is true, aimed at politicians on both sides of the House, but we have all heard the Labour party’s recent claims about student debt. The idea that that is the same thing as a debt has, in reality, put people from different backgrounds off studying at university. Student debt is not the same thing as a credit card debt. It is a graduate tax that people pay only when their income reaches a certain level, and that is the same for nursing students. We have to go forward with a sustainable solution.
Rachel Maclean
I will not, because time is short.
Conservative Members will work to fight against the weaponisation for political ends of students and people who want to be students. We will open up more opportunities for everyone in this country to make a career in the NHS, if that is what they choose to do, and we will run the economy in a balanced way to support our precious NHS during this Parliament and in the years to come. I will not be voting for Labour’s motion tonight.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I remind the House that the motion is subject to double-majority voting of the House, and of Members representing constituencies in England.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Children and Young Persons
That the draft Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.
Constitutional Law
That the draft Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 28 March, be approved.—(Paul Maynard.)
Question agreed to.
Royal Bank of Scotland closure in Nairn, Grantown and Aviemore
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
No matter the spin from the senior management of the Royal Bank of Scotland or the silence from the Government over their 70% shareholding, the people of Aviemore, for whom I present this petition tonight, say that the closure of their branch is nothing less than a betrayal.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Inverness, Narin, Badenoch & Strathspey,
Declares that the proposed closure of the branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Narin, Grantown, Aviemore and Inverness will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty's Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002147]
Universal Credit and Terminal Illness
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
When I was elected in 2015, I had an early meeting with the Macmillan citizens advice bureau. I had lots of dealings with the citizens advice bureau before being elected and know that it dealt with hundreds of cases, some of which I brought to it as the then leader of the council. It dealt with people with chaotic lives—desperate people in difficult conditions—and it is fair to say that its staff were battle-hardened professionals helping people. I think it is very telling that, when they told me about the struggles of the terminally ill when they transfer to universal credit, it was the first time that I had ever seen them in tears.
Imagine the moment that a person hears from their doctor that they are terminally ill. In that instant, nothing for them or their families will ever be the same again. It is one fateful moment that changes everything—their entire world. Suddenly, priorities shift and they become acutely aware of every second as it passes. Terminal illness deeply affects families in our communities and the very least that they should expect, when asking for help from a Government, is that support is prompt and sympathetic to their situation. The trouble is that that is not what they are getting. It is not even close to that.
As I mentioned, my constituency was one of the first to experience universal credit. As the then leader of the Highland Council, I highlighted many issues that we experienced with the pilot. As a local authority, we fed back the countless issues that we encountered. All those concerns were ignored in the name of agile development and the Government recklessly proceeded to live service, causing unprecedented poverty to hundreds of single people in my constituency. We begged for mercy. We asked, we cajoled, we demanded that something be done, but, despite it all, we were ignored.
As I said, I was elected to this place in 2015, when the Government were pressing ahead with the roll-out of full service, leaving families, the disabled, single parents and children for months without money, and for no other reason than they had failed to listen and failed to act, and so failed the very people they were supposed to serve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his tenacity, his courage and his determination on this issue. We all admire him for his efforts. Does he not agree that charities such as Macmillan Cancer Support do a wonderful job helping terminally ill people to source benefits, that it is imperative they have up-to-date training to do this and, more importantly, that Government staff dealing with terminally ill people are taught how to deal with them with a compassion and respect that seems not to come naturally to at least some people?
Drew Hendry
I agree entirely that a change of pace is needed and that an attempt must be made to adopt towards people put in these positions a genuinely sympathetic approach and to demonstrate an empathy for what they are going through that has been sadly missing.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has described the situation on the Highland Council. Could he enlighten the House as to who is picking up the slack for universal credit? Is it local authorities, food banks and other charities?
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend rightly answers his own question. It is indeed the local authorities, the food banks and the local charities, as well as those serving the community by supporting people in these positions. During the transfer to full service, our constituency office was swamped with universal credit issues.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
We can trace this back to the Government’s talk of austerity in the last two general elections and their promise to cut £12 billion from the social budgets. That is why we are in this situation today. They can dress it up however they like, saying it is a wonderful thing, but we all know it is not. It is a cruelty being inflicted not only on terminally ill people but on ordinary people earning poverty wages today. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree?
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right in his description of the circumstances that have brought about this situation.
Since the roll-out of full service, I have stood here too many times to relay the devastation roll-out has caused for many of my constituents. I have supported hundreds of constituents with their universal credit issues, I have all the case studies, I have shared them and given voice to them as their MP, but, again, that has all been ignored. Such was the devastation we experienced from full-service roll-out that we even set up a universal credit roundtable group, which included the Highland Council, local Department for Work and Pensions staff, Citizens Advice, housing officers and others, to come up with local workarounds. We wrote to the Prime Minister, the previous Minister and anyone who would listen. We tried to be constructive. We shared real stories to back up our arguments. We offered process solutions. I even held a summit that included heartbreaking testimony from constituents and invited every Conservative Member to attend. Again, we were ignored.
For many, many months, I have campaigned alongside Macmillan CAB in my constituency, as well as Marie Curie, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and clinicians, on the specific issues facing people with a terminal illness.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I have a personal interest in this debate. I am very glad that, when my husband was declared terminally ill in December, he could only claim attendance allowance, which was not under universal credit. Some of these stories are horrendous. I speak from experience: people who are terminally ill want to do the best for their families, but under this system they cannot.
Drew Hendry
I thank my hon. Friend, not only for her intervention but for her fortitude and bravery in raising that particular matter. It hit home in showing why the whole issue is so important, and why it is so important for something to be done.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend mentioned working with groups such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association. As many Members know, my experience has been walking that journey with women with breast cancer. I always used to say to them, “Make sure that you put every day in your back pocket when you go to bed, and say, ‘That was a good day.’” In Scotland we are trying to extend the period so that we recognise people as terminally ill for a much longer period so they will receive their benefits. To waste the months that someone might have left by haggling about money while the days are ticking away is just cruel and uncivilised.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend has identified the nub of the issue. People literally do not have time for this.
I recently set up an all-party parliamentary group on these issues, which is supported by many of the organisations that I have mentioned, but the issues are still ignored. This evening, as I relay to the House the specific impact that universal credit is having on people with terminal illness, I ask the Minister not to follow the same path, but to listen carefully to the very real experiences of the families who face the prospect of losing loved ones, yet have to watch them fight for financial support.
Before the introduction of universal credit, terminally ill people with six months or less to live were able to fast-track their benefit claims to ensure that they could spend at least their last weeks and months with the support to which they were entitled. That has not been the experience of those who are unfortunate enough to be terminally ill in an area where universal credit has been rolled out. It is the worst kind of postcode lottery, and it will reach many more places if the Government proceed with the roll-out in its current form.
The first issue that I want to discuss is the Government’s legal definition of terminal illness. The Motor Neurone Disease Association and Marie Curie, among others, tell us that it seriously restricts access to benefits for those living with a terminal illness who do not fall into the “last six months of life” category specified in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. People with conditions such as terminal heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, MND and other terminal conditions who may live longer than 10 months, but equally may die in a shorter period, must apply for social security in the usual way, and will be subject to all the normal assessments, which—unbelievably—can include work assessments.
People living with such conditions, and their families, face a significant financial burden as a result. Some 82% of people with MND describe the financial impact of the disease as “very negative” or “moderately negative”. People of working age and people with children living at home are particularly vulnerable to negative financial consequences. I note that people with MND will once again be protesting outside the House on 16 May, and I look forward to supporting them there until there is movement on this issue.
The financial effect of MND on those living with the condition becomes more difficult to manage as the disease progresses and a person’s care, support and equipment needs increase. On average, the cost of living with MND is an extra £12,000 a year, not including loss of income. So why should an arbitrary time limit of six months be attached to the status of the terminally ill? It is a timescale that means nothing to people with degenerative conditions with no cure, who have no hope of improvement. There is no evidence-based reason why the Minister cannot choose a different path, as the Scottish Government have done with their new limited powers relating to disability benefits. They see support for people who are terminally ill as a complex, sensitive and difficult issue, but they have put dignity and respect at the heart of their Social Security (Scotland) Bill. Jeane Freeman, the Minister for Social Security, has said:
“We are very aware that behind the decisions that we make, are thousands of people who we put front and centre of our actions. The central principle is that terminally ill individuals should be provided with the support they need, quickly. ”
That is all that we ask of this Government. We ask them to see those people as people, and not as the number that they represent on a spreadsheet.
The Scottish Government’s amendment to the Bill was framed carefully to ensure that the sensitive and difficult conversations between an individual and their clinician, which are required in these difficult circumstances, are held when they are medically necessary to allow for optimal patient care. Providing for maximum clinical judgment is the best way to achieve that.
The Scottish Government have opted to set no arbitrary timeframe to the definition of terminal illness; instead they allow the chief medical officer, in consultation with the registered medical practitioners, to set a framework in guidance. It is this guidance that will decide when an individual has a progressive disease that can reasonably be expected to cause that individual’s death. Both the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer, and national experts, have reviewed and fully support the Scottish Government’s proposals as the best way to achieve timely support for those with terminal illness.
Also embedded in Scotland’s Social Security (Scotland) Bill—and therefore enshrined in legislation—are clear “special rules” for terminal illness cases. These guarantee terminally ill people quick access to disability assistance, ensuring that an individual does not have to satisfy a qualifying period in relation to their diagnosis and that they will not have to undergo further assessments to prove that they have a terminal illness. The awards will be calculated at the latest from the date of application and they will automatically get the highest rate of financial support to which they are entitled. That is in line with the Scottish Government’s commitment to the principle of providing support when it is needed. It maintains fast-tracking for the people with terminal illness to remove barriers to their receiving care as soon as possible.
Marie Curie has echoed its support of the Scottish Government and would like to see the UK Government follow their lead in setting a fairer definition of terminal illness. It asks that decisions around a terminal illness diagnosis be clinically made and supported through the issue of a DS1500 to a patient by their health professional. Ahead of this debate, Marie Curie told me:
“With the Scottish Government defining terminal illness on clinical judgement and Universal Credit remaining the purview of Westminster, we are concerned that differences between the two systems will create administrative problems. If Westminster were to follow suit and amend its definition of terminal illness to a clinical judgement, we could avoid a potentially harmful situation when Universal Credit is almost fully rolled out.”
Marie Curie is joined by 58 clinicians who signed a letter in support of changes to the Social Security (Scotland) Bill.
Similarly, MND told me:
“The UK Government should adopt the definition of terminal illness set out in the Social Security (Scotland) Bill 2018”,
and that
“The DWP should update its guidance to assessors and claim managers, to emphasise that the validity of a DS1500 signed by a health professional should not be challenged.”
I therefore have some asks for the Minister. I ask her to listen—to really listen—to what she is hearing from people suffering from these terminal conditions and really listen to the professionals and clinicians. I also ask her to scrap the arbitrary six-month definition. It means nothing to 90% of people with a condition medically classed as, or linked to, a terminal illness.
Even those who have been identified as terminally ill, as defined by this Government, with less than six months to live do not escape the nightmare of universal credit. That includes 65,900 people across all the nations of the UK. They continue to experience delays upon delays. I join MND and Marie Curie in their calls for cuts to those unreasonable delays.
Therefore, I have another ask for the Minister. The benefits for those with a terminal illness under universal credit should be fast-tracked, ideally paid in advance and within a calendar week of when the application has been made, and a DS1500 given to the DWP. The current wait of five weeks for “fast-track” support is simply unacceptable.
There are also those on universal credit who have lost the right not to know they are dying. Instead, they are forced to complete the forms, which force them to answer the question, effectively saying, “Yes, I am dying.” Before the introduction of universal credit, advocacy could do this for them. What possible reason could there be to remove this right? A completed DS1500 form should be considered sufficient evidence by the DWP that a person is terminally ill and will not get better, and that their condition will deteriorate from that point until their death. A DS1500 should be allowed to be issued on behalf of a person and accepted by the DWP in the same way as if submitted by the applicant themselves.
So I have another ask for the Minister: the DWP should immediately establish a process to ensure that DS1500s can be submitted by a third party without the explicit consent of the claimant.
Then there are those people left with a devastating cut to their income due to the removal of the severe disability premium. Without any change in their diagnosis, such people are left around £2,000 a year worse off, and the sad reality is that they will not even live a year as this Government’s definition of terminally ill means a predicted life expectancy of less than six months. I have another ask: the DWP should urgently review its policy on the inclusion of severe and enhanced disability premiums within universal credit to ensure that disabled adults do not experience a reduction in vital support. Perhaps one of the most shocking issues is that people with less than six months to live have been asked to meet a job coach to justify their unemployment because the guidelines around forms are unclear. Someone with a terminal illness, as evidenced by a DS1500, should not be required to undergo any face-to-face assessment for support under universal credit or undergo any further assessment or reassessment. I ask the Minister urgently to set out clear guidelines on that because the guidelines are not working.
These are just some of the issues that people with a terminal illness face because of this Government’s failure to put dignity and respect at the heart of their welfare policies. I ask the Minister to imagine what it must be like to face all this stress in the last months of life—a time when the person and their family should be cherishing every precious remaining moment together. People should not have to jump through welfare hoops and spend their final weeks and months dealing with a broken system. Getting financial support is not an option for them; it is a necessity to keep a roof over their head.
I fully expect the Minister to tell me that I am wrong and that all is well with the system, because that is all that I have heard whenever I have raised such issues. Perhaps we will even hear that, despite the evidence and the testimony of all the groups involved, that this is simply scaremongering, and I have heard that response on the many times I have raised this issue. I have raised it at Prime Minister’s questions three times in a row. I have raised it many more times in debates, and I have heard the claim that terminally ill people are being served well. Terminally ill people and their families watching this debate are seeking an answer.
The reality is that, because of this Government’s failing welfare system, people are spending their last days fighting a cruel and broken system. The Minister has the power to change that. She can do as the Scottish Government have done and think about the people concerned, about their debilitating illnesses, about their families and their children and about their final days. I believe that the Minister wants to do that, and this is her opportunity to prove it. She can make a start by making the changes that I have outlined.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate on an incredibly important subject, and I praise the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows)—I hope that I can call her my friend, because we were both Tuesday Whips for some time and we enjoyed our time together—for her bravery in speaking this evening at what is a terrible time for her, as it would be for anyone of us facing terminal illness. There will be no one in the House who has not had a member of their family or someone that they know receive the devastating news that their life is coming to an end. It is difficult for us to hear, and we all must do our best to treat everybody with the sensitivity, empathy, respect and dignity that has been requested this evening.
I want to reassure hon. Members that staff in the Department for Work and Pensions really do their utmost to support claimants and their families during this difficult period. The Department has significant experience in dealing with the legacy benefits system, and a lot of that learning has been transferred to universal credit.
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman has asked me to respond to a lot of questions, which I really want to do, and we have very little time left this evening, so let me say from the outset that I am happy to meet him face to face to go through anything that I have not covered to his satisfaction this evening. It is great that he has set up an all-party parliamentary group. I have worked directly with those stakeholders and charities myself, and I would be happy to meet him in his role as the chairman of the APPG to go through some of the issues. Inevitably, in the time left tonight, I am not going to be able to cover everything that I would like to cover.
I want to emphasise that, once we understand that someone has a terminal illness, we do not want them to have to fill in lots of different forms. We want them to be able to concentrate on what really matters to them in the time that they have left. I know from this debate and others that the hon. Gentleman has raised concerns about the DS1500, so it is important that I explain a little about the process to the House. Claimants and healthcare professionals use the form—it is not a claim form; it is a form—to tell us about a terminal condition. It is not mandatory for claimants to complete the form. It is an opportunity for them to tell us about their condition, and it helps us to ensure, as soon as we know that they are terminally ill, that we can waive all the requirements that are usually associated with universal credit relating to conversations with work coaches about employment. All that is waived. Right from that moment, there is a fast-track system. Once we receive the DS1500, people are immediately entitled to those benefits.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a lack of clarity in the DWP’s handling of these issues. He has raised this matter before, and we took it really seriously. We updated the guidance—a copy was put in the Library in February—to ensure that all the medical professionals and people in the DWP understand the processes, so that people can be fast-tracked.
Sarah Newton
I am not going to give way, because I only have a couple of minutes left and every moment I give way means that I cannot answer the questions that I have been asked. However, I sincerely want to carry on this conversation. I will answer as many questions as I can tonight, but I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will ask me to sit down shortly. We can carry on the conversation, however.
There was a conversation this evening about the definition of terminal illness. Our definition of someone who is terminally ill is that they have a progressive disease and a life expectancy of six months or less. We understand that this is not an exact science, and there is much debate among medical professionals about this. We do not ask claimants to give us evidence of their life expectancy, so terminally ill claimants may well remain on benefits for longer than six months. For example, with personal independence payments, around 40% of terminally ill claimants remain on benefits for longer than a year. We take a pragmatic, person-centred approach to these decisions. These rules were first introduced in 1990. We have regular conversations with the medical profession, and we want to ensure that people are given an absolute guarantee of the financial support that they and their families need and that their claims are handled swiftly to reduce the burden on individuals.
Having listened to the medical profession, we understand that six months strikes about the right balance between providing the support that people need and confidence in the prognosis, because the longer the prognosis, the less likely it is to be accurate. Making the period longer than six months would therefore make the diagnosis, and potentially the conversation between doctor and patient, that much more difficult. The Department works very closely with doctors and clinicians, and we are always looking for ways to improve the experience for any of our claimants and for any of our benefits.
We know that people need support with the DS1500 form. Our staff can offer support and we have consent arrangements in place so that third parties—excellent organisations such as Macmillan—can work directly with us. We have visiting services so that someone can go to a patient’s home to go through this, and the Department has well-established appointeeship arrangements for people who are unable to manage their own affairs.
With regard to how universal credit works in this situation, as soon as we know that someone is terminally ill, they will receive an additional £318.76 a month in their universal credit entitlement, paid from day one, and there are no work-related requirements at all.
I am out of time and have not been able to address all the work that we have been doing, listening carefully to our partners and making sure that the interface between universal credit and the legacy benefits of employment and support allowance and personal independence payment runs as smoothly as possible. It is incredibly important that we listen and learn and make improvements, so that this tragic situation that people find themselves in is dealt with as sensitively and swiftly as possible. I am absolutely determined to do that and will be very pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman and the all-party parliamentary group to go through their questions in more detail and provide further information and assurances.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft East Suffolk (Local GOvernment Changes) Order 2018
Draft East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change ENactments) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I note that the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell has started to take his clothes off. If anyone else wishes to take their jacket off and so on, within reason I am very happy for you to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018.
Rishi Sunak
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 19 March. If approved and made, they will provide for the abolition on 1 April 2019 of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney districts, together with their councils. They will provide for the new East Suffolk district to cover the same geographic area and for a new council for that district.
The Government are committed to support local authorities that wish to combine to serve their communities better. We shall consider any locally led proposals for district mergers that are put forward by the councils concerned, and that improve local government and service delivery, create structures with a credible geography and command a good deal of local support.
I shall describe briefly the area that we are considering. East Suffolk is the home of a multi-million pound industry and household names including EDF Energy and BT’s information and communications technology global research and development centre. East Suffolk sits on the major trade route of the A14, linked to the port of Felixstowe. It also has a diverse and beautiful environment, with 49 miles of coastline. Lowestoft sits on the northernmost part of the Suffolk coast and is famous for being the most easterly town and the first place to see the sunrise in the United Kingdom. Home to two piers, an award-winning theme park, museums and a theatre that is home to the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the town is a firm favourite with visitors. Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils cover the entire Suffolk coastline and share transport infrastructure that includes rail links, the A12, ports, market towns and beach resorts. Within the existing Suffolk Coastal district, Felixstowe is the largest and busiest container port in Britain.
The proposal that we are now considering re-creates the local government area of East Suffolk, which was originally created in 1888. Re-creating that area reflects the long shared history of its different parts. In local government terms, the two existing district councils have a history of shared service partnership, creating ongoing savings in excess of £20 million since 2010. Those savings will be safeguarded by implementing the merger proposal.
In proposing the merger, the two councils have undertaken an extensive engagement programme, actively engaging with residents and stakeholders from September to December last year. The programme included an independent and proportionally representative phone poll; a media campaign with press releases and promotional social media; information packs for town and parish councils; an open consultation via a dedicated webpage and an online survey to collect comments on the proposal; formal communications to all major stakeholders; presentations and talks at resident and business forums and public events; and finally a frequently asked questions document updated with commonly raised questions or concerns.
The independent phone poll commissioned to find out local residents’ views suggested that 72% of residents were in favour of the proposal to form a new single district council, once provided with further information on what the proposal would do. All the local institutional stakeholders such as the NHS, the county council, major business groups in Suffolk and all their neighbouring authorities were also in favour.
The councils submitted their joint proposal to merge their respective authorities to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 3 February 2017. The proposal set out that implementation of the merger would lead to a new district of East Suffolk with a population of almost 240,000 and would yield further savings of £2.2 million per year on top of the £20 million saved as a result of joint working since 2010.
On 7 November last year, the Secretary of State told the House that he was
“‘minded’ to implement the…proposal I received from Suffolk Coastal and Waveney district councils”.—[Official Report, 7 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 48WS.]
There then followed a period for representations, until 8 January. The Secretary of State received a number of representations; in total, there were 20 in favour, one neutral and four against. None of the representations against the proposal raised points that had not been raised in the consultation undertaken by the local authorities.
I will add that those representations include five further representations beyond the 20 received during the representation period and referred to in the explanatory memorandum. I will arrange for the explanatory memorandum to be updated if Parliament approves the order and the order is made.
On the basis of the proposal, the representations and all other relevant information available, the Secretary of State was satisfied that the previously announced merger criteria had been met. Therefore, on 8 February this year, he announced his intention to lay before Parliament the necessary secondary legislation to implement the proposal.
Finally, Members might find it helpful if I touch briefly on the statutory framework. The draft East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018 vary the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 in its application to Suffolk Coastal and Waveney during the period from when the regulations come into force until 31 March 2020. The regulations are made under section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 and provide that the Secretary of State may, by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, make provision about the structural and boundary arrangements in relation to local authorities, under part 1 of the 2007 Act.
I turn to the draft East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018. If approved, it would be made under section 10 of the 2007 Act and would make provision for a series of things: abolishing the existing local government areas for Suffolk Coastal and Waveney; establishing a new district coterminous with the previous areas of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney, named East Suffolk; winding up and dissolving the district councils of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney and establishing a new council of East Suffolk; providing appropriate transitional arrangements, such as a shadow authority and shadow executive; and, finally, establishing in agreement with the councils any necessary electoral arrangements. The Boundary Commission sees no difficulty with the approach that we are taking, and it is expected to undertake a full electoral review to re-ward both new areas before the elections in May 2019.
In conclusion, in considering the two draft instruments, we are assessing the merits of merging Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils to create East Suffolk District Council. In this instance, it is very clear that the two councils in East Suffolk have come together to work on a locally led proposal, which, if implemented, would improve local government service delivery in the area, command a good deal of local support, and ensure that the council area represents a credible geography.
The proposed new council of East Suffolk is widely supported, and both district councils have consented to the making of these instruments. I have full confidence in the local area to implement the district council merger by next April, to allow the good people of East Suffolk to elect their new council in May next year. On that basis, I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I start by thanking the Minister for setting out the proposals before us today. Local government reorganisations are often quite contentious issues. We often find that local populations are not in favour of local government reorganisations; more often than not, local councillors certainly are not in favour of them; and often in the past, Governments of all political persuasions have had to pursue local government reorganisations against the wishes of the elected members and the local populations. That has resulted in some very odd creations over the years, which have not always stood the test of time, whether that is Avon, Humberside or a number of other local authorities that have long since gone.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
In the 1974 local government reorganisation, the town of Wetherby was put into West Yorkshire. I was born in 1976, yet on the doorstep people still complain about not being in North Yorkshire.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, most of my constituency, being west of the River Tame and north of the River Mersey, is in the historic county of Lancashire. We are still very proud of our red rose associations, even though for the past 44 years we have been part of Greater Manchester. The little bit of my constituency on the other side of the Tame is of course still very proud of its Cheshire associations.
Andrew Gwynne
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I used a swear word.
Andrew Percy
I should make a point of order about whether the word “Humberside” is unparliamentary language—it should be. I do not want to join the fest of people with identity issues, but I can outdo both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell. Half of the poor village of Eastoft used to be in the West Riding of Yorkshire and half used to be in Lincolnshire. It was then all put into Humberside, and then all taken out and put into Lincolnshire—and hon. Members think their areas have identity crises. That demonstrates why local government reform is always an absolute nightmare and the Government should steer clear of it.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was not sure whether “Humberside” or “Lancashire” was the swear word I had used. He makes an absolutely reasonable point that where we live and the community we identify with matters. It matters for local government purposes and it matters for the populations we seek to represent.
I pay tribute to all the elected members of the two district councils that we seek to abolish, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney. We do so not because they have done a bad job—quite the contrary—but because the two authorities have come up with cross-party consensus on a sensible proposal to create a new East Suffolk district council. As the Minister said, that new authority has its roots in an old administrative county created in 1888. There was an East Suffolk and a West Suffolk, and people there clearly have an affinity with those old identities. That and the history of shared service partnerships between the two existing district councils, which the Minister also referred to, will stand the new authority in good stead.
When we bring two or more councils together in a new arrangement, there are often rivalries within the new district. Going back to 1974, Tameside, which is one of my two local authorities, was named after the River Tame because the nine towns could not agree which was the most important. Of course, I argue that it is Denton, but the authority is not called Denton metropolitan borough, because everyone disagreed. The point is that there are close working arrangements in the area we are considering. Where such arrangements exist, we should embrace them and allow a locally led proposal to come forward.
I welcome the fact that the merger will save money and that that additional saving can be put back into local service provision. That is absolutely right. However, it would be remiss of me as the shadow Secretary of State not to remind the Minister that that is not new money but existing money. The councils concerned still face significant funding pressures, so I urge him—I know he is a listening chap—when he goes back to speak to his new boss, the new Secretary of State, to keep plugging away at the fact that local government needs an increase in general funding.
Let me end on the point that there is cross-party consensus on the proposal. Ray Herring, the Conservative leader of Suffolk Coastal Council, said in support of the reduction in councillors under the new authority:
“We’re a cost-effective, outward-going, new local authority and you don’t need the number of councillors as you did in the past.”
Mark Bee, the Conservative leader of Waveney Council, said:
“It’s good that it’s been cross-party. We’ve not always agreed, but we’ve at least allowed everyone to have their say.”
Sonia Barker, the Labour leader in Waveney, who voted for the proposed new ward map, said:
“This is about practicalities now and people must respond to the consultation.”
I echo those words and that support. As the Minister said, there is clearly support among the wider public for this change. Now let us make it happen.
Andrew Percy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I do not wish to detain the Committee for long. This was the portfolio dumped on me when I was a Communities and Local Government Minister, so the Minister has my absolute sympathy on this file—I remember how horrendous and awful it was and how I could not wait to offload it after the 2017 general election. He is lucky to have it, however, in his privileged position.
I want to talk briefly about the principles behind where the Department is in terms of future reform of local government and future devolution deals. I shall detain the Committee only for a couple of moments, but the proposal before us is important to my area as well as to the councils concerned.
I am not against reform of local government—far from it—and it is good to hear that councillors in many parts of the country agree that there is a need for reform in some places. Such reform, however, must always be by consent. From some of what I hear about the future of devolution deals or local government reform more generally, one of the things that worries me is what exactly is meant by “consent”. My concern is not only about the consent behind this decision but about where consent comes from.
Worrying comments have come out, perhaps from the Department, about the future of devolution in Yorkshire, for example. In my area, we have a great fear that it will be forced on us. That is relevant to the proposal we are discussing purely because the principle behind the decision we take today in terms of what counts as consent is the same as the principle that will be applied to future devolution.
The Chair
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to direct his comments towards East Suffolk?
Andrew Percy
Indeed. My question to the Minister is this: what exactly are the principles on which consent is determined? If it is simply on the basis of people who happen to be in leadership positions on local councils at the time, that may not be sufficient in other parts of the country when looking at devolution deals and other changes to local government.
Will the Minister assure us that the Department will at all times ensure the maximum and broadest support for changes to local government structures or devolution, not only for the councils we are discussing, but for the future of where the Department is going on local government? Will he give us that assurance without referencing Yorkshire—I am sure he will want to assure me that nothing will be forced on my area against the consent of the people of the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire—because the debate is in the context of East Suffolk?
The Chair
I am very pleased to see that Sir Christopher Chope has joined us. You are not on the Committee, but I shall be very pleased to hear your words.
Sir Christopher Chope
Thank you very much, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I have come along this afternoon so that I can ask a few questions, because this topic is very relevant in my area. I shall not draw on my area at the moment, save to say that a proposal will come before the House shortly for Christchurch Borough Council to be merged with Bournemouth and Poole Borough Councils into one new unitary authority, against the wishes of the people of Christchurch.
Putting that to one side, I am concerned that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place has reported on the draft statutory instruments but that we have not yet had any reference to that report. I hope hon. Members will indulge me and allow me to bring to their attention what that Committee had to say. It expressed concerns about the instruments and asked, as a result, for them to be brought to the special attention of the House. The issue centres on local consent or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole said, consent itself.
The Lords Committee said that local support is deemed to have been accepted because a very large number of people abstained, but in the open consultation process in East Suffolk, 114 responses from the public were against the proposal and 17 were in favour. A recurring concern among objectors was that a single council covering a large geographic area would weaken local democracy, and that certain areas would be under-represented. In response, the Ministry said that
“following the consultation, a ‘myth-busting’ document was published on the councils’ shared website to address the principal concerns raised during the consultation process.”
The House of Lords Committee asked for additional information from the Ministry, and it is fair to say that it did not find that additional information satisfactory. In appendix 1 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, it asked:
“Have the councils published a summary of consultation responses?”
The Ministry responded:
“The councils have published the results of the consultation, which can be found via the following link”.
The second question was:
“Have the councils offered any evidence that the ‘“myth-busting” document’ was widely read by local residents, in particular by any of the 114 members of the public who were against the proposals?”
The answer from the Ministry was:
“The myth-busting document was provided to all respondents to the original consultation who provided details for further contact to be made”—
in other words, it was probably not provided to very many. It continued:
“Therefore, though it may not have been provided to all individuals who objected, it would have been made directly available to those that expressed an interest in further information. It was also freely available on the East Suffolk website. In short, the councils made every effort to ensure the information was available. It may be the case that one of the impacts of the myth-busting document was to result in few people feeling the need to make representations during the period for representations, see below.”
The third question was a reference to the explanatory memorandum:
“‘After the Secretary of State announced his initial decision that he was minded to implement the proposal, there was a period for representations lasting from 7 November 2017 until 8 January 2018. 20 representations were received. Of these 17 were supportive of the proposal, one was neutral and two were opposed.’ The EM makes it clear that only 2 of these 17 responses were from members of the public. Have the councils offered an explanation for why so few members of the public responded at this second stage?”
The answer was:
“These representations did not form part of the council-run consultation but were submitted as a result of the opportunity provided by the Secretary of State to any interested party to send to him directly any representation regarding his initial minded-to decision to proceed with the merger. The Council did make clear locally that there was a period of representations by informing local stakeholders, parish councils and other interested parties directly. As mentioned above, it may be that the intensive distribution of the myth-busting document reduced the need to make representations at that point.”
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that it was not convinced by that. Indeed, the means by which many of these orders are developed is by the Secretary of State not carrying out the consultation himself, which he is entitled to do under section 2 of the 2007 Act, but by relying on the councils to carry out that consultation. It has been made clear to me by officials in the Minister’s Department that the invitation for representations is a very different proposition from a formal consultation. A consultation is an active engagement by the Government with interested people, and an invitation to them to submit their reviews in response to consultation questions. To invite representations is a much more passive exercise. Unless people have it drawn specifically to their attention that they can make representations, they often fail to do so. The fact that so few representations were made following the Secretary of State’s “minded to” decision does not, in my submission, establish the consent that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole made clear is an important part of such a change.
May I draw the Committee’s attention to one or two of the observations that were made in response to the original consultation, which was carried out by the parties to this proposal? People said that they did not like the idea of boundary changes about which they had not been invited to make any submission. There will be fewer councillors, which means that each will be more remote from local people than they are. Part of one of the statutory instruments is designed to enable the Boundary Commission to make changes to boundaries to reflect the reduced number of wards. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister told us whether the proposals to reduce the number of wards that are set out in that statutory instrument were the subject of proper public consultation. In my submission, they should have been. The effect of that instrument would be to give him retrospective authority to invite the Boundary Commission to make changes. Reading between the lines, it seems that a lot of those changes have already been made and, indeed, will be implemented by the second of the statutory instruments.
I have those concerns about the boundaries, but a lot of concern has also been expressed about the need for local people to be properly consulted. “Why,” they ask, “couldn’t we have had a local referendum?” I understand the strength of that argument. Councils may hold local referendums, which are the best and surest way of establishing whether there is genuine local consent for a proposition. My council in Christchurch held a local referendum following a “minded to” decision by the Secretary of State. On a 54% turnout, 84% of people were against the proposition. That just shows the extent and strength of interest that can be generated in a local community when there is a proper consultation and, as was suggested by some of the respondents in this case, a local referendum.
The difficulty arises when there are two councils that both wish to change but are not necessarily in tune with the wishes of many of the residents of their areas. That is why we legislators have an important responsibility not to allow these statutory instruments to go through on the nod, without proper scrutiny. We have a responsibility to speak not just for the elected councils but for the people who live in the area.
That point was made strongly by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which states at paragraph 19 of its report:
“We would urge caution in deploying this argument”—
the argument that the councillors support the change. It adds that
“if the views of councillors are a sufficient indicator of local reactions, there would be no need for the programme of consultation and engagement described in the”
explanatory memorandum. It also states:
“Given the strength of concern about the proposal evidenced in the responses to the open consultation of 2016, we are also not convinced that the low level of responses to the late-2017 period for representations reflected widespread acceptance among local residents: it might equally well result from a sense that further objection was pointless.”
That attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of local residents by saying that further resistance is useless is something that many people in Dorset have seen first hand in recent months. That is another reason why we as legislators should be on the ball and alert to ensuring that democracy really does mean that we do not change the rules without proper consent.
In normal circumstances, it is not possible to abolish even a parish council without the consent of the parish councillors and the people living in that parish.
The Chair
Order. May I invite the hon. Gentleman to try to focus his comments on East Suffolk? I realise he is making some general principle points and that he has strong concern about Christchurch and Bournemouth, but I do not want a proxy conversation about that. If he could focus on East Suffolk, that would be appreciated.
Sir Christopher Chope
I was trying to do that, and I am sorry if I failed.
My last point was about the need for consent in relation to the powers being used to merge councils. Where there is consent, it can be a strong card. Indeed, that is why the Opposition support this measure. However, let us look at the consent of not just councils and councillors but the people whom they represent—the people who elect them. In that context, I was drawing an analogy for district councils. Under normal law, even a parish council cannot be abolished without the support not only of that council, but of the people who live in the parish. That is a potent point on which to end my short submission.
I hope hon. Members think carefully before they decide which way to vote. I also hope that they listen to what the Minister says in response to concerns expressed about boundary changes, and whether there has been sufficient consultation. Is the number of councillors, which will be significantly less than it is currently, right? Do people feel—we know they do from the representations of people from Lowestoft—that they will be under the cosh and taken for granted by those in the rest of the new local authority area?
Rishi Sunak
It has been wonderful to see hon. Members use the debate as an opportunity to display their extensive knowledge of local government restructuring, stretching back to the 1970s—some time before I was born—and to hear them emphasise and assert their strongly held regional identities. I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell that, as a North Yorkshire MP, I appreciate why any community would feel sad about not being included in God’s own county—and, if I might say so, the best part of Yorkshire.
I thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for his thoughtful and constructive comments. I appreciate his support. I will listen to what he says on local government funding and discuss it with the new Secretary of State. He will know that we may have some differences on that score, but I appreciate his commitment to local government in all of its aspects, and I enjoy our exchanges here and elsewhere.
I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. When I first came into Parliament, I had the job of filling the shoes of the previous Member for Richmond, which was an impossibly tall order, and now I have perhaps the even bigger task of filling my hon. Friend’s shoes—so great was he in his job that it now has to be split between two Ministers. Unfortunately, I cannot fully answer his questions about devolution, as they come under the portfolio of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who I know will engage fully with him on them. However, on unitarisations and mergers, the criteria laid out by the previous Secretary of State last year in a written ministerial statement, and further emphasised since, refer to
“a good deal of local support”.—[Official Report, 7 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 48WS.]
That is the test that the Secretary of State has to ensure is met, and he will judge each case on its merits. That is with regard to mergers and unitarisations, rather than devolutions, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pick up with my hon. Friend.
Turning finally to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it is a pleasure to see him after our discussion last week in the debate on West Suffolk. I will touch on the specific points that he made. Having debated the issue a couple of times with him, the Government simply do not agree with the view that there is not widespread local support for this merger.
As I laid out in my opening statement and then re-emphasised, an independently commissioned poll showed that 72% of local people supported the proposal. That was further supported by almost all locally elected representatives including Members of Parliament, the vast majority of councillors and all major stakeholders locally, including businesses, community groups, health trusts and chambers of commerce. On that point, we may have to agree to disagree.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Minister is not just disagreeing with me, he is disagreeing with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the other place, which drew the instrument to our attention on the grounds that there appeared to be “inadequacies” in the consultation processes.
Rishi Sunak
As my noble Friend Lord Bourne has said, we do not share the view of that Committee in reaching that conclusion. For the reasons that Lord Bourne and I have laid out, we think there is a substantial body of evidence to support the conclusion reached by the Secretary of State that there is considerable local support for these proposals. One test is clearly the extensive support from locally elected, democratically accountable councillors and Members of Parliament in East Suffolk.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s other point about democracy, I agree that people should feel that democracy is not too remote. He mentioned Lowestoft. I am pleased to tell him that, as a result of all the engagement that went on regarding the proposals we are considering today, new parishes have been created for Lowestoft and Alton. That was a result of the engagement that councils had with their communities, and was a response to their concerns. The creation of new parishes will ensure that the people in those communities have adequate representation.
On my hon. Friend’s point about warding and new boundary arrangements, there is a proposal to reduce the number of councillors by just over a third. That proposal was put forward by the councils themselves, which came to that number based on guidance from the Local Government Boundary Commission. Informal conversations have already been had with commission on the carrying out of a full re-warding should these statutory instruments be agreed to. As part of that process, there will be a full public consultation, as Members would expect from such a formal process.
In conclusion, I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in paying tribute to all the councillors and bodies involved locally for the hard work they have put in over the past year to bring these plans to fruition. They are to be commended for their diligence, innovation and desire to serve their communities to the best of their ability. I hope hon. Members will join me in commending them by supporting these orders today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018.
DRAFT EAST SUFFOLK (MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARY CHANGE ENACTMENTS) REGULATIONS 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018. —(Rishi Sunak.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Order 2018
Draft Double Taxation Relief (Switzerland) Order 2018
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Uzbekistan) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Order 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief (Switzerland) Order 2018 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Uzbekistan) Order 2018.
Mel Stride
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hosie. The base erosion and profit shifting—BEPS—order brings into effect the multilateral convention to implement tax treaty-related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, which is commonly and thankfully referred to simply as the multilateral instrument. The orders in respect to Switzerland and Uzbekistan amend our existing double taxation agreements with those countries. All the instruments bolster the UK’s network of international tax arrangements and deepen our commitment to avoiding double taxation while preventing tax evasion and avoidance.
Double taxation agreements—DTAs—are bilateral agreements between the UK and other countries that aim to ensure that profits, income and gains are taxed only once. They develop the UK’s economic relationship with other countries and vice versa. DTAs provide critical certainty for cross-border firms and enhance co-operation in tax matters to stimulate economic growth and prevent tax avoidance.
The OECD/G20 base erosion and profit shifting project recommends a number of changes to DTAs, including the introduction of minimum standards to prevent tax avoidance by those who abuse tax treaties, and measures to improve the resolution of tax disputes. In addition, it recommends action to prevent so-called hybrid mismatches and the avoidance of permanent establishment status.
To enable those enhancements to DTAs to be made as soon as possible, more than 100 countries in a group chaired by the UK drew up the multilateral instrument. The group adopted the text of the MLI in November 2016 and it has now been signed by 78 jurisdictions, including the UK. It is in the process of being ratified by those jurisdictions. Individual DTAs will be modified by the MLI only if both jurisdictions have signed it and have given notice that they wish the DTA to be covered by it. The UK intends the MLI to cover all our DTAs that are agreements under international law and that do not already include provisions that we want from the MLI.
Except in relation to certain minimum standards, parties implementing the MLI are also permitted to reserve against provisions. If either party to the DTA has reserved against an MLI provision, that provision cannot modify the DTA. Following consultation, the UK proposes to adopt those provisions that are a proportionate and effective defence against the abuse of tax treaties, in addition to the minimum standard provisions. We intend to reserve against provisions that have a disproportionate effect on commercial transactions or that are unnecessary in the light of other measures taken to address the misuse of the international tax framework.
At the time of signing the MLI, the UK submitted its list of reservations to the OECD, which was published on the OECD’s website. Some minor amendments to that list have also been published on gov.uk. Those amendments relate to bilateral arrangements that have been agreed since the submission of our original list of reservations.
To ensure complete clarity for taxpayers, HMRC will prepare consolidated versions of treaties showing how they have been modified by the MLI and will publish those in good time before the modifications take effect. Where possible, it is our intention to agree those texts with our treaty partners. The order ensures that the UK can use the MLI to implement our commitments under the BEPS project and that our DTAs contain robust and proportionate defences against tax avoidance to the benefit of the UK and our treaty partners.
Let me now turn to the other two orders, in respect of Switzerland and Uzbekistan. The Switzerland order amends our existing 1977 DTA. To give effect to DTAs, the Swiss Government transpose them directly into domestic law, so it is much more straightforward for them to amend their law by amending the existing DTA, rather than by adopting the MLI separately. As a result, we agreed with Switzerland to implement modifications that would have been made by the MLI through this order.
For Uzbekistan, the order implements many of the provisions available under the MLI, including minimum standards on preventing treaty abuse and improving dispute resolution. In addition, the order provides for a general update to the existing text to reflect changes to the OECD model tax treaty and the domestic laws of the UK and Uzbekistan. Importantly, the changes remove a barrier to UK companies claiming benefits in respect of dividends from Uzbekistan created by the introduction of a dividend exemption regime in the United Kingdom. That will enhance the investment climate for UK businesses in Uzbekistan, to the benefit of both countries.
The orders enhance our commitment to tackling international tax avoidance and evasion. They also strengthen the integrity of our network of DTAs and remove barriers to investment by UK businesses. I commend the orders to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Mr Hosie, for chairing today’s proceedings. I will focus my remarks on the MLI—I am grateful to the Minister for that shortening, for all our sakes—but I will also refer to the Swiss agreement in passing.
As the Minister rightly explained, the MLI is an innovative new way of effectively spreading, or leading to a convergence of, tax policy, developed by the OECD. Essentially, it is a set of different amendments to double tax agreements. All countries that have signed up to the MLI will implement all the amendments in all their double tax agreements, if the other country is also a signatory to the MLI.
As the Minister also explained, the OECD has promoted that approach to try to make all double tax treaties better at stopping base erosion and profit shifting. Given that Britain has a comparatively large number of double tax agreements—which are very varied in terms of how they prevent double taxation and, I would say, often facilitate double non-taxation—it appears sensible for the UK to adopt the MLI. As I noted in the discussion of the MLI in the Finance Bill Committee in January, it was encouraging to see the UK taking a leading role in defining and agreeing the MLI, marking—I would say—quite a contrast with its attempts to block international co-operation when it comes to improved transparency for trusts, for example.
None the less, three areas of the legislation raise significant concerns, all of which arise from a point I made on 16 January in the debate on the Finance Bill, when the UK’s adoption of the MLI was first mentioned in law. I expressed concern that we lacked sufficient information to understand why the Government had taken certain decisions, and not others, in relation to their implementation of the MLI. As the Minister explained very ably in his introductory remarks, countries that are adopting the MLI have a series of choices to make about how exactly they do so and which of its provisions they take on board.
Back in January, the Government did not provide much information about why certain choices had been made. We did not get a lot more information, to be honest, in the Minister’s otherwise illuminating introductory remarks. That is quite a big problem, because traditionally double tax treaties have often led to source countries in particular, which tend to be developing countries, being denied tax revenues, which then accrue to already profitable firms in richer countries—not necessarily even to the revenue of richer countries.
We need more information on three areas, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some. That is essential if we are properly to show that the Government are holding to the principle of policy coherence for development in more than just a rhetorical form.
My first question is, why did Britain decide to exclude some of its double tax agreements from the list of countries mentioned in its adoption document? As colleagues may know, when a country signs up to the MLI, it has to indicate the double tax agreements to which it will apply the MLI. The UK excluded double tax agreements with Austria, the Falklands, the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates.
The Minister explained why Switzerland is not included. Are there any other countries where DTAs are put into primary legislation or passed through national legislation? I would have thought there are quite a few, so that seems like a slightly peculiar explanation of why we have taken a different approach to Switzerland. Does the Swiss system have a unique approach to tax legislation? I did not know that it did. Perhaps the Minister could explain that, because otherwise we would expect to see a similar approach being adopted to lots of other countries. That does not seem to be the case.
Given that a number of the jurisdictions that I have mentioned have been referred to in investigations into tax avoidance and evasion, it seems rather peculiar that they are not included here. It would be interesting to hear what the Government’s reasoning was and whether the requirements of the MLI are likely to lead to amendments to the double tax agreements for those jurisdictions too. If they are, what is the timetable to do that?
There are a number of targeted anti-avoidance rules in the MLI that countries can choose to adopt, but our Government decided not to. In the explanation of the MLI that we had previously, it was stated that that was essentially because they were too stringent. The Government stated that
“the mechanical test introduced by those provisions”—
the excluded ones—
“could deny treaty benefits in circumstances that are not abusive and would not target any genuine avoidance structures more effectively than the PPT”,
which is the principal purpose test.
The Minister said that the provisions were excluded because it was believed that they would have a disproportionate effect on corporate transactions, or they would be otherwise unnecessary. I find that a rather peculiar assessment, as do a number of experts. The principal purpose test is a very wide test—it includes a lot of discretion. Often, it is quite difficult for tax authorities to use it without being challenged, and most authorities and experts agree that strict and tight rules are better, because they avoid such ambiguities.
It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why we did not adopt articles 8, 9, 10 and 14. They apply a minimum ownership threshold for reduced tax on dividends, which makes rules about capital gains from shares and entities owning immovable property more precise. Those articles apply an anti-abuse rule for permanent establishments situated in third jurisdictions, and prevent the splitting up of contracts where companies game the system and pretend, for example, that one building site is delivered through a whole bunch of different contracts, when really it is delivered by just one firm.
All those measures were designed to prevent the kind of abusive behaviour that is frequently adopted by firms trying to avoid tax, especially in developing countries, yet the British Government have decided not to adopt them. Incidentally, the other country that has done that is the Netherlands, which I do not think has a model that we should aspire to when it comes to policy coherence for development in tax practice.
We need illumination from the Government on the rules on permanent establishment. Indeed, the Minister referred to those in his introductory remarks. I am very confused about precisely where Government are when it comes to the taxation of digital companies and assessing where their permanent establishment is. In relation to this MLI, the Government decided they would not adopt article 12 on the artificial avoidance of permanent establishment status through commissionaire arrangements and similar strategies. That contrasts with two other policy positions from the Government, which themselves are contradictory.
We have a new position paper from the Government on corporate tax and the digital economy, which says that they want much more ambitious measures, which could be agreed as part of the overall EU package of change. But in April, at the informal ECOFIN meeting, the Chancellor seemed to suggest through a spokesperson that the UK would instead only aim in the long run for internationally agreed measures—in particular, only those that the United States would agree to. That could take a very long time because, as we know, the US is directly against any development in this area from the OECD and the EU.
It would be good for the Government to tell us what we will do. Will we take proactive action on permanent establishments, as with the Google tax? Will we co-ordinate that with the EU? Will we try to do that with the OECD? Will we wait for the US? Surely, we should be an example in this regard. It will be interesting to hear the Government’s assessment.
Finally, in contrast to previous areas that I just mentioned, where the UK Government should have opted in to certain measures but decided not to, it is very strange that the Government have opted in to so-called mandatory binding arbitration in their adoption of the MLI. That will mean that if a multinational taxpayer triggers a dispute with the UK’s interpretation of a treaty and the dispute is not resolved within two years, the ultimate decision about whether the UK or the multinational’s home country has the right to tax the income under dispute will be taken by a panel of tax professionals—not through ordinary routes.
There are many problems with adopting that procedure, and they are analogous to some of the concerns raised around the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlements in trade deals, which occasioned a lot of public debate. I am sure that all members of the Committee will have received a lot of correspondence from constituents on that matter. Why did the Government not provide an assessment of the impact of adopting mandatory binding arbitration on the extent to which our tax policy will be coherent with our development goals? I raised this issue in the Finance Bill Committee, and was grateful to the Minister for listening to me there, but we did not get that information before this statutory instrument came before the House, and we need it.
I am well aware that, as the Minister said during the Finance Bill Committee, countries have to agree to arbitration in their adoption of the MLI before it can be applied to them, but that does not detract from the fact that the resources available to developing countries, particularly very low-income countries, to devote to their case and to amassing the information that would need to be provided to those tax professionals are minuscule in comparison with those available to the sort of multinational companies that we might be talking about. It would be a David and Goliath-style contest, and I am very concerned that that would not comply with policy coherence for development.
Finally, it is unclear why the Government have failed to provide an indication of how Parliament will be able to scrutinise the operation of this mandatory binding arbitration. We have gone in the wrong direction on this—the Government have expressly adopted paragraph 23.5 of the MLI. That paragraph requires written agreement from companies and their advisers not to disclose any information they receive in the course of their proceedings, which goes further than the default, to try to prevent that information being publicised. It is not clear to me how that is consistent with ensuring appropriate scrutiny of tax policy by Parliament, which the Government have repeatedly told us they are committed to. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why that decision was taken.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East. It is not long since we jousted and debated, and it is good to be back doing exactly that. I welcome the overarching support for the MLI in her early remarks, particularly in respect of tax avoidance and the double taxation avoidance measures, although I understand that she has some issues around arbitration, which I will come to in a moment. I too have fond memories of clause 32 of the Finance Bill last year, which provided the powers under which the MLI is being brought forward for consideration.
The hon. Lady posed a large number of questions and I will attempt to answer as many as I can—I was busy thinking about the answers to some when the next two or three arrived in train, so if I do not cover everything, I would of course be very happy to take a representation from the hon. Lady after the Committee and look at them in more detail.
On advertising and the reservations that we might be seeking from the MLI, we have provided information on the OECD website and subsequent changes appeared on the gov.uk website, so the information is in the public domain. We will be required to provide that information to the OECD some four months before this measure comes into effect and it in turn will advertise the reserved elements that we decide on at that time.
The hon. Lady asked why we do not include all the DTAs. She is absolutely right that the UK has a large number—from memory, I think it is around 130—and about 121 will be potentially covered by this measure. The answer is that, in some cases, the DTAs largely conform to the changes that would be introduced were they to be subject to the MLI. In some cases, it is not necessary, as our treaty contains substantial provisions. Our first-time DTA with Colombia would be one example.
The hon. Lady asked whether Switzerland taking these tax changes directly into domestic law, rather than less efficiently through the MLI, was a unique circumstance. I believe that it is relatively unique—my officials have just nodded. It is something of an unusual situation. That is the reason that both countries have decided to approach the matter in this way.
The hon. Lady mentioned permanent establishments and various related issues, asking why we were reserving against those particular matters. The general response to that and like matters is that the Government do not believe that they would have any major material impact on what happens with the taxation of revenues from one country coming back into the United Kingdom. Of course, those measures would bring with them various administrative burdens on business, which the Government always seek to minimise where possible.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of consultation on digital taxation, slightly at a tangent to the matter at hand. I would welcome her intervention if I have misunderstood her, but I think she was referring to our consultation on the taxation of businesses making profits via digital platforms.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for seeking clarification. The reason I mentioned it was that, with the adoption of the MLI, we have what many would view as quite a lax approach to defining permanent establishments, compared with article 12, if we had adopted that. However, in that consultation, the Government seemed to suggest a stricter approach. There seems to be a contradiction, which in itself is contradicted by what the Chancellor said at the informal ECOFIN—he seemed to say that we need to have US agreement before we can have stricter rules.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. I take this in two parts. These are different situations. When it comes to taxation of profits derived from digital platforms, be they social media, search engines or online marketplaces, the critical thing is to ensure that we tax the value that accrues to the interaction of consumers with those marketplaces. We are working with the OECD and the European Union, as the hon. Lady pointed out, to come up with an appropriate way to address that particular challenge of the current international taxation regime. As to the Chancellor’s remarks about whether we might go it alone or have to wait for America, I am not entirely sure that he said what was reported. That is the information I received, although I did notice those comments in the press, as did the hon. Lady.
We have debated mandatory arbitration before. The essential point is that, in order to enter into a DTA, both sides have to agree that it is an appropriate treaty to enter. Both sides have to be comfortable in the round with it. There is no circumstance in which the United Kingdom could therefore force a country against its will to enter into agreement with mandatory binding arbitration.
Anneliese Dodds
Surely it would be helpful, given the differences in resource that could none the less be provided between developing and developed nations, for the Government to carry out that analysis into the use of mandatory binding arbitration, and whether it exemplifies policy clearance for development. It would be wonderful to hear a Treasury Minister say that the Government might consider adopting this and doing so explicitly.
Mel Stride
The Government’s view is that mandatory binding arbitration is a very useful element of these agreements. In the absence of that, the process undertaken might be ultimately inconclusive. In order to ensure that these agreements work efficiently, we believe there is great merit to that approach.
I lastly turn to parliamentary scrutiny. Matters reserved against will be for the Government to determine in time although, as I have indicated, we have already put out preliminary suggestions of what we will do. As time goes forward, this or any other Government may decide to remove some of those reserved powers. It is down to this Committee and this moment to take a decision on whether in the round all those possible changes are agreed to or not. On that basis, I urge that we move forward with the recommendations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Order 2018.
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (SWITZERLAND) ORDER 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation (Switzerland) Order 2018.—(Mel Stride.)
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (UZBEKISTAN) ORDER 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Uzbekistan) Order 2018.—(Mel Stride.)
Ministerial Corrections
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley
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.
Caroline Dinenage
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, 8 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 546.]
Letter of correction from Caroline Dinenage:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on 8 May 2018.
The correct answer should have been:
Caroline Dinenage
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 formally alert us to publication. We are investigating through NHS England and others why that happened.
The following is an extract from the Urgent Question answered by the Minister of State for Care on 8 May 2018.
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, 8 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 553.]
Letter of correction from Caroline Dinenage:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on 8 May 2018.
The correct answer should have been:
Caroline Dinenage
I completely hold my hands up. I am not trying to mislead the House in any way. It is an independent document. NHS England and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday, without permission or official 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 from the university. 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.
Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 View all Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we start, I advise people to switch electronic devices to silent. Teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings. Given the temperature today, if anyone wants to remove their jacket, please feel free to do so.
Clause 1
Interference with wireless telegraphy in prisons etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. Your wise guidance to us in our deliberations on the Bill will be much welcomed. I also welcome members of the Committee and thank them for their support in getting the Bill to this stage. It was clear on Second Reading that the Bill has cross-party support, so I hope that we will be able to complete our proceedings relatively swiftly, while still giving the Bill appropriate scrutiny.
As hon. Members know, mobile phone technology in particular is constantly evolving. The Bill is designed to ensure that legislation keeps pace with developments and provides the means to combat the serious problems posed by illicit mobile phones in prisons. Illicit mobile phone use is linked to the supply of drugs and other contraband, serious organised crime and evasion of public protection monitoring, bringing further harm to the victims of crime.
The scale of the issue faced in our prisons is stark. In 2016, nearly 20,000 mobile phone and SIM cards—54 a day—were found in prisons in England and Wales. Although it is not a new problem, the scale of it has been increasing steadily, as in 2013 only about 7,000 mobile phones and SIM cards were found. To help combat this increasing challenge more effectively, clause 1 and its associated schedule make several changes to the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012.
As technology has developed, public communications providers such as mobile phone operators have been at the forefront of those developments. The changes in this Bill are designed to ensure that their specialist knowledge and expertise can be used to improve the effectiveness of activity to combat the use of illegal mobiles in prisons, young offenders institutions, secure training centres and secure colleges. Importantly, the Bill will ensure that there is a clear line of accountability for the activity set down in primary legislation.
I believe that this change is necessary to ensure that public communications providers can take appropriate direct action to interfere with wireless telegraphy to prevent the illegal use of mobile phones in prisons. Under the 2012 Act, mobile phone operators can act only as agents of the governors of individual institutions, rather than in their own right. Making this change means that the latest technological advances will be available to combat illegal mobile phones, governed by a clear legal framework.
The changes in clause 1 provide for the Secretary of State to authorise a public communications provider to interfere with wireless telegraphy in prisons in England and Wales. That is in addition to the existing authorisation that can be given to governors under the 2012 Act to interfere with wireless telegraphy in their institutions. Of course, it is important to ensure that this activity is subject to the right safeguards to prevent inappropriate use. To that end, consequential changes are made in the schedule to the Bill, which amends sections 2 to 4 of the 2012 Act. Section 2 of that Act is amended so that the safeguards that already apply to authorised governors will also apply to authorised public communications providers.
Like an authorised governor, any authorised public communications provider will have to comply with the directions given to them by the Secretary of State. Those directions must include requirements to pass on information concerning interference activity, as well as circumstances in which the use of equipment must be modified or stopped. That will help to ensure that there will not be disproportionate interference with wireless telegraphy outside the relevant institution.
Section 3 of the 2012 Act governs the retention and disclosure of information obtained following interference. Section 3 provides that information must be destroyed after three months, unless the governor authorises its retention on specific grounds. Where that information is retained, the governor must review its continued retention at three-monthly intervals and must destroy the information if retention is no longer required. Responsibility for deciding about retention and disclosure will continue to rest with the governor of the relevant institution. Because relevant information may have been obtained by a public communications provider, section 3 of the 2012 Act will be amended to clarify which governor will be responsible for decisions about retention and disclosure in such cases.
Clause 2(1) sets out the short title of the Bill, and subsection (2) states:
“This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations made by statutory instrument.”
That is a standard procedure to provide for commencement by regulations if commencement provisions are not placed in a Bill. Clause 2(3) and (4) mirrors provisions in the 2012 Act concerning the Bill’s territorial extent, and the possibility of extending its provisions to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in the future. All those provisions are standard and, I hope, uncontroversial.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend in introducing this important Bill. Having had the privilege of being the Minister responsible for prisons, probation and rehabilitation for two years, I am particularly aware of how necessary these provisions are.
We very much want prisoners to use telephones legitimately, and to stay in touch with their families and children in the approved manner and under the control of the prison authorities. That is a good thing that we want to encourage, and nothing in the Bill will prevent that. However, we must also be aware that prisoners have used mobile phones to carry on a life of crime in a truly shocking and appalling way, to the extent that they may as well not even have been in prison. Murders have been arranged and organised from within prisons, and drugs rings and even arms importation schemes have carried on because prisoners have had the use of illegal mobile phones.
There is also the issue of the intimidation of victims by perpetrators who have been sent to prison. When someone has been sent to prison, at least for that period of time the victim should not be afraid of being confronted by the person who attacked or raped them or whatever. Such intimidation is truly shocking, and the Bill will go a long way towards preventing it.
I remember that there are some prisons—HMP Brixton, for example—where people live right next to the prison wall. If memory serves me right, HMP Cardiff is another example of a built-up area where people live right next to the prison. In the past, mobile phone companies were obviously wary about that, and Members of Parliament would not want their constituents who live lawfully next to a prison to have their mobile phone usage interfered with. I believe the Ministry of Justice and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes have come up with a solution that means that that will not be a problem, and that we will not affect the legal use of mobile phones by law-abiding constituents who happen to live next to but outside a prison. Perhaps my hon. Friend or the Minister will provide clarification on that point.
I offer my wholehearted support to this important Bill. We want phones to be used to help prisoners stay in touch with their families, because we know that that aids rehabilitation and helps to reduce crime, which is a good thing. However, phones are absolutely not to be used for ongoing criminal purposes, and that is why I support the Bill so strongly.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Lewes for bringing in this important Bill. I will not rehearse many of the points that other hon. Members have made, but I put on record that the Opposition have supported the Bill’s passage through Parliament and continue to support it. We think it is rather unfortunate that this change has to be made via a private Member’s Bill—it should have been forthcoming from the Government—and equally we must put on record that it is not a silver bullet that will resolve the issues in our prison system. I look forward to the Minister’s coming back with a more substantial plan for reform, but in essence, this Bill strengthens the 2012 Act, which we support.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has very powerfully explained the legal necessity for the Bill and exactly how it will work in law. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, my distinguished predecessor, has pointed out some of the challenges in balancing the need of prisoners to remain in contact with their families and retain a connection to broader society with the dangers posed by illegal phones. The hon. Member for Bradford East has pointed out that, of course, the Bill is just one element in what must be a much bigger strategy. As he says, it is not a silver bullet on its own.
We face an interesting and tricky problem. Those who remember reading “The Man in the Iron Mask” will remember that in 17th century France the only way of communicating out of a prison was to throw a silver plate, with some words scratched on it, out of the window. Today the prison walls are, in some senses, not really walls in the way they were in the 17th century. Modern mobile communication allows criminals, in the worst situations, to continue criminal activities from within those walls, to threaten or abuse people, to harass partners who do not wish to be harassed, or in the most dramatic cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire pointed out, even to organise drug importations or contract killings from a prison.
Dealing with that has been difficult for the Department, because there are very strong human rights protections in article 8 of the European convention on human rights around the right to a private life, which protect citizens’ rights to communication and prevent interference with communication. Ofcom polices that very strictly. Therefore there were two legal issues that needed to be dealt with. The first was whether a private prison governor could be exempt from the article 8 restrictions and the Ofcom regulations on interference. The Crown is usually exempt, but the question was whether a private prison governor could be exempt. That was largely dealt with in 2012.
Secondly, there was the question of instructing the mobile phone companies to work with the Government on interfering with communications out of a prison. The reason why that is important, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is that without the co-operation of the mobile telephone companies, we would get into a very strange war where we would end up broadcasting signals aggressively against those companies, which could potentially compromise the mobile phone signals of other citizens going about their normal life outside the prison walls.
This law will give much more certainty to the mobile phone companies and governors that there is proper, legal, proportionate and reasonable interference with illegal communication. However, we must bear in mind that we are now pushing ahead with in-cell telephony, which will allow controlled legal conversations between prisoners and their families. All of that is vital, because we face a big problem of violence and crime in prisons and driven from prisons. Tapping the almost 10,000 mobile phones that were seized in a single year and interfering with their ability to communicate is not a silver bullet, but it should help to make prisons a safer and more orderly place in which we can begin to address some of the underlying drivers of violence and crime.
I conclude with great thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes for bringing forward a very useful, practical step toward improving our prisons.
Maria Caulfield
On a point of order, Mrs Moon. Before we finish, I want to place on the record my thanks to you for chairing the Bill Committee, and to the Committee Clerks. This is my first private Member’s Bill, so it has been a steep learning curve, and although the Clerks never said that there is no such thing as a stupid question, I am sure that that is what they meant at heart.
I thank the team at the Ministry of Justice for all their support, and I thank all hon. Members here. This is a great example of cross-party working to make a difference in all our communities; many of us have prisons locally. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his support, and I thank former Ministers as well, because the Bill has taken a little while to reach Committee.
I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to join me in placing on the record our thanks to all prison officers, up and down the country, who each and every day have to deal with the problems that mobile phones cause in prisons. I particularly thank my local prison, HMP Lewes, where prison officers have told me at first hand what a difference the Bill will make. We place on the record our thanks to all prison officers in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 May 2018 - (9 May 2018)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to switch all mobile phones and electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. As it is impossible to switch the heating off in this room, hon. Members may remove their jackets.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That, if proceedings on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee shall meet on Monday 14 May at 4.00 pm and on Wednesday 16 May at 9.30 am.
I am glad that the Committee is finally meeting this morning, but I am very disappointed to have wasted hon. Members’ time, as we cannot discuss a single issue of substance without a money resolution. It has already been five months since the Bill passed Second Reading, with 229 votes to 44. The House sent a strong message that it wants the Bill to be considered in Committee. The Government are defying the will of the House by refusing to bring a money resolution forward, which they have had ample time to do. This is an abuse of just the Executive power that the Bill is trying to keep in check.
At business questions on Thursday, Members from all three major parties raised the money resolution with the Leader of the House. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said:
“Money resolutions should follow Second Readings as night follows day.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 467.]
The Leader of the House said she would bring forward a money resolution in due course, but who knows what that means in practice?
The Speaker weighed in clearly on the topic, saying that unease on the issue of a money resolution
“should have been heard, and must be heard, on the Treasury Bench.”
He also said that
“it would be appreciated if colleagues felt confident that there was a logic and reasonableness to the decision-making process.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 477.]
The Speaker was referring to the extraordinary fact that the Government brought a money resolution for the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill on 1 May but did not bring one for this Bill. The prisons Bill came 13th in the private Member’s Bill ballot, as opposed to mine, which came third. The prisons Bill had its Second Reading on the same day as my Bill, and I believe its Committee is meeting down the corridor right now. It would have been entirely possible for both money resolutions to be introduced on the same day, in good time for us to consider my Bill fully today.
Finally, I stress that my Bill is time sensitive. The boundary commissions are due to submit their final recommendations in September 2018. A previous private Member’s Bill along the same lines was introduced in the last Parliament, but it ran out of time after the Government failed to bring forward a money resolution before the snap general election last year. If the Government continue to delay my Bill, there is a danger that the House will not have a chance to debate or pass it before the new boundary proposals are before the House.
I do not deny that my Bill is controversial, but it is also reasonable, and such an important constitutional question—how many Members of Parliament should represent the people of this country—should be fully considered by the House, not blocked by the Government using parliamentary procedure. I will press the Government to bring forward a money resolution ahead of our next meeting, and I hope other hon. Members here will join me.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton for his remarks about his Bill. We all recognise that the review is much needed. It presents an opportunity for cross-party agreement on new boundaries.
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that a money resolution has not been forthcoming from the Government, because in December this House sent a strong message that we wanted the Bill to be considered in Committee. It passed its Second Reading by 229 votes to 44. I am sure that the Government would not want there to be a perception that not providing for a money resolution might be an attempt to sabotage a private Member’s Bill and, after all, the will of the House. They would not want it to be presented as an attempt to seek political advantage.
It is widely accepted that the boundary review in its current form would be a disaster for our democracy for various reasons, the most important of which would be the cutting of the number of MPs without a reduction in the number of Ministers. That would only increase the power of the Executive and make it more difficult for Back Benchers such as my hon. Friend to challenge the Government. However, as we have seen, there is no money resolution, and that sends a dangerous message. It concerns the respect that should be accorded to Back Benchers who have had success in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and their ability to bring forward measures for us to consider.
Constitutional changes should be dealt with fairly, and everyone should have a voice. Sadly, that is not happening this morning. I urge the Government to see to the matter of a money resolution at the earliest opportunity so that the Committee can get on with the vital work that we intend to do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.
The Scottish National party’s perspective on the Bill, in outline, is that we support it. We should like to amend it in one or two areas and, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has explained, it is impossible for us to do so until the Government provide a money resolution. The Government regularly talk about Parliament taking back control. The Brexiteers in the Government talk about it. An hon. Member has now secured, through the ballot, the ability to introduce the Bill; the House voted fairly unanimously for it to go into Committee; and the Government are leaving it in political purgatory by not dealing with the money resolution.
I want to make it clear that the SNP will not accept a 10% cut in the number of Scotland’s MPs. We want to amend the Bill, but as we know, we can do that only after a money resolution. I do not want to spend endless weeks in a Committee talking shop. Parliament has spoken and it is up to the Government to respect that. If they do not, I think they will find that the consequences will be quite severe.
The situation brings us back to the fundamental point that Westminster is a place of limited democracy, which is exactly what the Government’s behaviour shows. That state of affairs should end immediately. There should be a money resolution, and we should get on with the job.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I will make an extremely brief contribution to this morning’s debate, and say simply that the Boundary Commission for England began the 2018 parliamentary boundary review in 2016. It is due to report its final recommendations later this year. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to continue with the boundary review and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to proceed with the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton at this time by providing it with a money resolution. The Government will keep the Bill under review, but we believe that it is right that the Boundary Commission be allowed to report its recommendations before careful consideration is given to how to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chair
As the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed to a money resolution, I call on Afzal Khan to move that the Committee now adjourn.
Afzal Khan
I beg to move, that the Committee do now adjourn.
I feel ashamed that no progress has been made today, but I am hopeful that we may be able to make progress when we meet next time.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Economies of the UK Islands
(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
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the economies of the UK islands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this debate, the Minister for coming to respond and all right hon. and hon. Members for joining me. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) for the important role he has played in instigating and securing this debate, and in launching the all-party parliamentary group for UK islands, of which I am proud to be a founding member.
Island geography has played a pivotal role in shaping Britain’s history, and has contributed to the culture, society, institutions and economy that we enjoy today. Similarly, the smaller islands that are part of the UK also have their unique history, communities and economic structures, stemming from their own geography. Nearly every aspect of life on these islands, including their economies, is impacted on in some way by their geography. The debate is about showcasing and celebrating the economic strengths of our islands, highlighting the challenges they face and exploring how central and local government can help our islands get fit for the future. We are all islanders in one form or another and we should work together to protect and enhance these extraordinary communities and their economies.
Within my constituency, Havant, I have the honour of representing more than 17,000 residents on Hayling Island, one of Britain’s most successful inhabited islands. The island has a fascinating history dating back to the iron age, stretching through the 11th century, the salt production industry and serving as a location for a mock invasion in preparation for the D-day landings. As important as Hayling’s remarkable past are the exciting possibilities for its economic future. Northney, West Town, Eastoke, Sea Front and Mengham all boast an array of strong, independent businesses. Some of these are small, such as the Hayling Island Bookshop, reputed to be the smallest independent bookshop in Britain. It was a finalist in the parliamentary best small shops awards. There are others, such as Bentley Walker, which started life as an electrical goods shop and has now diversified into a provider of satellite-based internet technologies, serving customers around the world. Others, such as Northney Ice Cream, the Coastguard Café and the Seaside Florist, are family-owned. All of these Hayling businesses and others have their own character. While owners and employers are always eager to help the local community, they also give the island its distinctive welcoming character and a strong sense of community, engendering a strong sense of loyalty among local residents.
That warmth has made Hayling a great place to visit and helped it to build a strong visitor economy. The tourism industry is worth more than £160 million to the Havant and Hayling area each year. Hayling’s beaches are award-winning; the three main beaches of the island have won both the European blue flag and the Keep Britain Tidy group’s seaside award flag for cleanliness and management. Eastoke Corner beach has been awarded a blue flag for more than two decades, attracting visitors from each of the three busy holiday parks across the island, which are also key employers.
Beyond the beaches, the island’s sailing clubs also bring in visitors who enjoy our natural environment. The annual Virgin kitesurfing festival also attracts thousands of water sports enthusiasts from around the world. The island’s remarkably low crime rate makes it a safe place for business to start and grow. The coastal and semi-rural nature of the island lends itself to the establishment of new businesses set up by local entrepreneurs such as John Geden, who established Sinah Common Honey. Each jar of honey is said to derive from nectar from more than 1 million flowers. Hayling’s rich rural environment provides a sustainable, natural dimension to Hayling’s economy. As of March 2018, only 115 of Hayling’s 17,573 residents were claiming unemployment benefits of any kind—just 1.2% of the population, compared with the English average of 2.1%.
Although Hayling’s unique geography is a source of economic strength and community spirit, the island and others around the UK also face unique challenges. There is a consistent need on Hayling Island and other islands across the UK to work harder to create sustainable and attractive employment opportunities for our residents, especially younger residents and school leavers. Any dip in opportunities for younger generations carries with it potentially destabilising knock-on effects for our wider economy. A brain drain, even a temporary one, can mean that our local businesses struggle to hire workers. The 2011 census indicated that there were 4,060 people living on Hayling Island who worked elsewhere, out of a working population of 9,934. Just under half our working residents commute off the island via a single road bridge most days of the week.
It is absolutely crucial that we equip all our islanders, especially our young people, with the skills to succeed in the economy of today and that of the future. I therefore welcome the fact that four of Hayling’s schools, Mill Rythe Infant School, Mengham Infant and Junior Schools and Hayling College are rated as good by Ofsted, with Mill Rythe Junior School rated as outstanding. As with many coastal communities, however, we still have pockets of deprivation and underachievement that hold back our economic potential and productivity.
Although schools across the whole Havant constituency, including Hayling Island, receive higher than the national average in per-pupil funding, I believe that the Government’s new national funding formula can do more to help pupils who suffer from the most extreme forms of deprivation, particularly in coastal communities. I have met the Minister for School Standards and the new Secretary of State for Education on several occasions to lobby them on this issue. I hope the Exchequer Secretary shares my desire to ensure that every young islander gets the best start in life, so that they can contribute effectively to our economy in the future.
The other challenge our island economy faces is the over-exposure of our business community to changes in the island’s service infrastructure. We live in an age of digitisation, as I have emphasised in my other work in this House on the economic opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution. As online banking increases, footfall in local banks will inevitably fall. This has led to the closure of Mengham’s NatWest and Barclays branches on Hayling, and I am sure other hon. Members face similar situations in their constituencies.
Although residents on the mainland can mitigate the closures by driving to a nearby branch that remains open, Hayling only had one branch of each main bank. In recent years, closures have forced many residents to travel to the mainland using the single road with increasing regularity. I am aware that this has been touched on and tackled elsewhere through the access to banking protocol, the Griggs review and the access to banking standard, and is ultimately a commercial decision beyond the Government’s control, but I want to raise it to emphasise the heightened sensitivity of the economies of the UK’s islands to changes in the economic infrastructure—they impact on us severely.
Public transport is key to a vibrant economy within an island as large as Hayling—transport between the island and the mainland, and in neighbouring areas, such as Portsmouth. Any diminution in service has a disproportionate impact on island communities for residents and visitors alike, especially on islands such as Hayling, which are both coastal and semi-rural. The Hayling ferry, for example, is a valued community resource that also helps the island economically. The ferry’s owners and operators are putting together a business plan to make it commercially viable in the long term, working with local councillors—something I support. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in wishing them every success as they seek to secure a long-term solution to ensure that we have a positive local impact from the ferry. Road infrastructure is equally vital. High-quality road networks are important, particularly as new housing is proposed on Hayling Island to meet local demands. Digital, structural and economic services are vital to the economic wellbeing of our island.
We live in a world of unparalleled opportunity thanks to technological innovation and a host of businesses are now footloose thanks to the advent of the internet and online shopping. On Hayling Island, 96.9% of premises can receive superfast broadband, set against a UK average of 93.5%. We are fortunate to be close to the mainland with a strong digital infrastructure, but I know that many islands are not so fortunate. With services such as banking increasingly moving online, fast download speeds are essential. That should be an area in which the Government can support island communities.
I commend the Government’s efforts to date to support island communities. In 2011, the Government established the coastal communities fund and since then, four funding rounds have been completed, awarding a combined total of £173 million. Only 9% of that funding, however, has been awarded to projects based on islands, and 70% of that has been allocated to islands in Scotland. I do not begrudge any of the funds that have gone to those recipients. Instead, I seek to highlight our collective and continued need for sustained development and support for the UK’s islands, including Hayling Island.
In March 2015, the then Department for Communities and Local Government established coastal community teams in order to encourage,
“sustainable economic development and regeneration in coastal towns.”
Each of the 146 coastal community teams that have been established were awarded £10,000, yet only three were exclusively based on islands. I am delighted that one, the South Hayling Island coastal community team, was based on Hayling Island.
Although the coastal communities fund was established with the aim of providing funding to create sustainable economic growth and jobs, it has become largely project-focused rather than addressing the structural, systemic and strategic challenges faced by UK islands. Consequently, I hope the Minister and the Government will consider expanding or complementing the coastal communities fund so that it can provide stronger strategic and structural support to the economies of UK islands. The reformed fund would be exclusively available to island communities, such as Hayling Island, to apply for.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I strongly support the proposal, and I am glad that he is raising it with the Minister, because one of the problems is that islands are sometimes too small for the Treasury to be interested in as economic enterprise zones, which we need on the Isle of Wight and in the Medina valley specifically. With an enlarged coastal communities fund, perhaps one that looked specifically at driving economic regeneration, relatively small sums of money could make a great deal of difference and would go down very well.
Alan Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for that sound intervention and again for his role in securing the debate. I entirely agree with his points. As I was saying, a reformed coastal communities fund would be incredibly important to coastal communities such as Hayling Island and his constituency. It would be exclusively available to island communities to apply for to help them to meet the specific and unique challenges they face as a result of their specific and unique geography. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, those challenges include an oversensitivity to changes in local infrastructure, expensive or sometimes congested transport connections to the mainland, a skills gap and a need to support local, independent businesses, all of which could hamper economic growth if not addressed.
In conclusion, we are all islanders. Britain and its satellite islands are a beacon to the world of how innovative, welcoming and economically successful islands can be. After all, the UK is one of the largest and most successful island economies in the world. However, to make our island economies sustainable and resilient, on Hayling Island and beyond, we must help to tackle the systemic and structural challenges they face. I hope that central and local government will play their part. By doing this, we can ensure that islanders across the UK enjoy the bright economic future they deserve, and that they not only are fit for the future, but get to the future first.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) on securing the debate. It is a rare and welcome opportunity to discuss island issues. The hon. Gentleman said that we are all islanders. I am doubly blessed in that regard, because I am an islander by birth—I was born and brought up on Islay, off the west coast—and I am an islander by choice, having raised my family with my wife in Orkney. I have represented Orkney and Shetland here since 2001.
It is worth reflecting on what it means to be an islander and to live in an island community. Island communities are special places. Being an islander changes the way people see the world. One of my great bugbears is hearing people talk about insularity, meaning that islanders are somehow inward-looking. In fact, islanders are much more outward-looking, because they are dependent on their links with the rest of the world in a way that people in the larger conurbations on the mainland take for granted. To be an islander is not to be insular, however much that might offend the classicists, but to lead a different sort of life in a modern and connected world.
We are often excluded. Hon. Members have heard me speak before on the subject of all too often being excluded from or charged extra for deliveries that people in towns and cities take for granted. However, I do not want this speech to be a constant litany of the problems that island communities face. If nothing else, I hope the Minister takes away from the debate an understanding that our island communities have challenges, as every community in the country does, but we offer opportunities for the Government as well. Island communities can contribute in a whole range of ways to the work of Government, be it in Westminster, Holyrood or wherever else.
Many of the issues that we face as island communities are shared in common with communities across the whole country. Brexit is probably the dominant issue that I hear about when I speak to businesses in my communities. Orkney is a predominantly agricultural community and Shetland is a predominantly fishing-based community, where fishing still makes up about one third of the local economy. The shape of our future relationship with Europe—particularly in relation to the fishing industry and whether we will continue to have a relationship with Brussels and a common policy on fisheries, and the shape of future agricultural support, which is guaranteed only to 2022—is a big issue for our economy.
That highlights one of the biggest problems. As can be seen from the number of hon. Members present, there are not that many island communities in this country and we do not have that high a level of population, so we often fall off the end of the table because we need a slightly different provision and our island needs are not always understood. We are the most vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences.
Post-Brexit, as we move to reformed agricultural and fisheries policies, there are real opportunities to design them in a way that will work for farmers and fisherman across the whole country, and to build into them the flexibility that we have been denied over the years, which has been enormously detrimental to our fleet and the fishing industry.
The economic profile of most island communities is not dissimilar from that of Orkney and Shetland. We have an economy of predominantly locally grown small and medium-sized enterprises. For islands, as for all small communities, that is a good thing with real opportunities. It allows us to keep a lot of the money that we raise and spend within the island community.
The modern economy in our island communities, however, is a lot more than the farmers and fishermen that hon. Members might instinctively think of. In my constituency, I have several growing and successful software engineering companies. They offer well-paid and attractive employment opportunities to younger people who may have been away for higher education and want to return.
There is a role for Government, not just in terms of the economic development and growth of those companies, but in terms of the provision of infrastructure. One of the main hindrances to the economy in my constituency is the continuing poor level of broadband and mobile phone connectivity. The latter is slowly improving, but as the rest of the country looks towards 5G, most of my constituents can still only dream of 3G or 4G.
A different approach from the Government to rolling out that sort of infrastructure could be transformative for us. If we said to the big corporates such as BT, “Of course you can get a licence to roll out the next generation in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, London, Birmingham or wherever else, but you have to start at the periphery and work your way in,” that would mean that, instead of constantly playing catch-up and always following on, as a community with the opportunity to benefit most from that sort of innovation, we could be at the cutting edge.
In recent years, one of the most important parts of our local economy, on both Orkney and Shetland, has been the growth of tourism. We have gone from the days when bed and breakfast was provided by a few farmers’ wives to supplement their farming income to a position now where tourism is a significant part of our local economy. Obviously, it is part of an economy that is enormously vulnerable to outside influences, for example currency fluctuations. Also, terrorism and the attractiveness of our country as a whole will have a very long tail by the time that they reach Orkney and Shetland.
Tourism is also an industry that has big seasonal variations. People work long hours during the summer months but will perhaps just keep their businesses ticking over in the winter. Now, if somebody is in receipt of tax credits, for example, such big fluctuations of income throughout the financial year can be occasionally enormously problematic. Again, that is another example of the way in which the decisions made at the centre, which might work very well for 95% of people, can cause real difficulties in the way that they affect the remainder. When we hear about something benefiting the 95%, those of us who are islanders know that we will inevitably be largely among the remaining 5%.
The biggest opportunity for islands to contribute to our future wealth and prosperity in this country comes from the development of renewable energy. The first generation of wind turbines was tested in a prototype on Burgar Hill in Evie, in Orkney. Ever since then, those of us within the isles have been enthusiastic in our promotion of the next generation of electricity and energy development.
The development of wave and tidal power brings another opportunity. It is still very much in its infancy, but again it would require just a little bit of tweaking to make the regulation and the development funding work. Development money for wave and tidal power sits in a pot for developing technologies, alongside offshore wind. It is pretty well accepted that offshore wind is no longer a developing technology but is now a fairly mature technology. However, as a consequence of that development and the way in which the price of offshore wind has fallen, the full funding for developing technologies is then scooped up by offshore wind and the money that should be there to help wave and tidal power to develop is simply taken by offshore wind.
I do not begrudge offshore wind a penny of that money, but some dedicated pot of development funding for wave and tidal power would be of transformative benefit to the industry, and it would certainly be of enormous economic benefit to the island communities that I represent. Predominantly, though, it would allow us to contribute to the rest of the country.
We are not looking for any special favours or special treatment. We are not even looking for extra money from the coastal communities fund, although people should remember that that money came from the Crown Estate’s marine estate, and so we have contributed plenty to that fund over the years, through our fish farms, marinas and piers. We just want the opportunity to be allowed to contribute to the rest of the country to the fullest extent that we possibly can, and in that way we can all understand that through good times and bad we will share the risks and the opportunities.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Rosindell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) for securing this debate and for being part of the all-party parliamentary group for UK islands. His presence here is very welcome and he spoke very eloquently about the needs of Hayling Island; once upon a time, when I was very young, I visited it and I remember how lovely it was. I also thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his contribution: it is always good to hear of the experiences of other islands.
As we know, this is not a debate about places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are Crown dependencies. This debate is about islands that are fully within the governance of the United Kingdom, but clearly they have physical characteristics that make them islands and give them distinct traits. Indeed, our islands are unique and special places, and to represent my island is a passion and a privilege, which I am incredibly grateful for. I love being here, but I would not want to represent anywhere other than the Isle of Wight.
Islands are, by definition, at the fringes of our nation, but they also help to define us, and they have a special place in our geography and culture. However, my argument to the Minister who is here today—I am very grateful for his presence—is that islands do not always get their fair share, because they are overlooked. In the case of my island and my constituency—the Isle of Wight—that is especially true.
By way of example, the Scottish islands get the Scottish islands needs allowance, or SINA, which comes from the Scottish Government. So they get the Barnett formula money, which is generous, and on top of that they get the SINA. If I remember correctly and have my facts right—I am sure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will correct me if I am wrong—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland get an extra £6 million a year through SINA, in acknowledgment of the fact that supplying Government services on islands tends to cost more than it does on the mainland. The Isle of Wight gets none of that money, despite the fact that we have a population four times bigger than that of the Western Isles, for example, and two, three or four times bigger than that of Orkney, Shetland and other islands.
So we do not get our fair share, and when it comes to “fair” funding we are unfairly funded. The central reason for that is simple: it is the Solent. Government funding systems are not designed to deal with isolation by water. The rural isolation grant and the rural farming grants are all predicated on a sense of isolation, but isolation on land and not isolation by water. One of the arguments that I am trying to make, and I have already made it to the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments, is that a fair funding formula needs to take into account isolation by water.
I have gone straight into the meat of my speech; I will now go backwards a little bit. We are very much open for business on the Isle of Wight; we are trying to attract new businesses to the island; and our regeneration team and our council have a very ambitious programme, which I absolutely support, and I will work hand in glove with them.
In fact, we have a unique scientific heritage. Marconi set up the first experimental wireless station off the south coast of the island, on St Catherine’s Down, which, by the way, is one of the sunniest places in Britain; seaplanes were built by Saunders-Roe in East Cowes; and we have major employers and a cluster of defence, composite and high-tech industries, including companies such as Gurit, BAE Systems, GKN, which is now part of Melrose, and Vestas. Indeed, a high percentage of the world’s large offshore turbine blades are made on the Isle of Wight at the Vestas factory. Vestas is doing great work on the island, and I thank it, as I do all employers, for its presence. So we are very much home to high-tech businesses that are at the cutting edge of their industries.
As I have said, however, there is a problem with providing Government services on the island. A University of Portsmouth 2015 study said that the extra costs of providing Government services on the Isle of Wight were £6.4 million a year, because of the costs of being an island. The university broke that figure down into three: first, the cost of self-sufficiency, because of the lack of spill-over of public goods provision; second, what it called an “island premium”, which is the additional cost of conducting business on and with islands, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know about; and thirdly, the sense of dislocation, which is the physical and perceived separation from the mainland and which could come from providing services to a smaller population and a smaller market.
I will give an example. At care homes, there was a clear mistake that we are rectifying. Elderly folks were put into care homes earlier than on the mainland, yet our care homes were costing more than the mainland because of the lack of competition between them. To some extent, another issue was their high quality. The cost was pushing additional burden on to our adult social care costs, which skewed our funding so that we could not spend the money on infrastructure to provide jobs and on a jobs agenda. That is absolutely vital in keeping our youngsters on the Island, which helps make us the vibrant and successful community that we are, and which we are building on as well.
In those three different ways—full self-sufficiency, the island premium and dislocation—there is an extra cost for Government services on the Isle of Wight. That has been estimated, in an academically rigid, peer-reviewed article, to be £6.4 million a year, and that does not include other factors that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. One of those is the Green Book estimate. Green Book estimates are the terms and references for Government investment, and they do not work for the Island because we are physically isolated. We cannot do the things that work for Southampton, Portsmouth or, indeed, for Havant, because we are physically separated. The Green Book estimates process counts against the Isle of Wight in providing infrastructure.
I have mentioned separation by water in terms of the rural isolation grant. For farming grants, things are prejudiced against us because we are in the wealthy south-east. In many ways, we get all the downside of being part of the wealthy south-east—we do not get that extra support as we are seen to be in the wealthiest area of the country—when in many ways our economy is similar to that of west Devon or Cornwall. There is some tourism, some culture, farming and little clusters of high-tech industry. Whereas lovely places such as Cornwall get money thrown at them through EU grants and Government support, we have had very little of that.
The amount of money we would ask for from central Government to make the Island even more of a success is really very small. I would love to sit down and have that conversation with the Minister in greater detail. The answer is not devolution, because the housing system sadly does not work for us, and we will be arguing why we are an exception. We want a modest, tailored package of support that recognises that we are an island. That £6 million extra in fair funding would be of benefit for the council, and would recognise that because we are an island, we need an A&E and a maternity unit, because someone cannot give birth on a helicopter going to the mainland, and the ambulance cannot wait for four hours to get the ferry overnight. Our funding in health services and many other things is skewed by the fact that we are an island, and that is not recognised.
We have many little clusters of excellence. Our tourism economy is significantly improving. We will very soon have one of the best broadband services in the world. Thanks to our wonderful local company, WightFibre, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—I thank them very much indeed—we are getting significant sums of money so that we will get ultra-superfast broadband for five out of six houses on the Island. If someone has a broadband business, the place they want to be is not London, Old Street, Moorgate or Brighton, but Cowes or Newport, where they will get broadband speeds comparable with Singapore. What I need to do, working with colleagues in the council, is determine how we get the other one sixth of houses in the more rural and very rural areas linked up to that as well, so that people can have Singapore broadband speeds in their little farmhouse in Newtown Creek, Brighstone, Chale or wherever.
Most importantly, education is critical to our future. It is improving and is becoming a success story. We probably need to work on restructuring our sixth forms, but most importantly, I would like to have a conversation with the Treasury and the relevant Ministers about getting significantly more higher education to the Isle of Wight, specifically a university campus. I would like that to be in Newport as part of our critical Newport harbour redevelopment. It may be that it goes elsewhere. Higher education would clearly lead to much higher levels of higher education, but it would also drive our software businesses, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about, and other key investments.
We have also won special status from the Arts Council, and we are building a much stronger cultural offer for tourism, education, aspiration and, critically, regeneration. It is important for the Minister to be aware of that. I would love to have a conversation with him about our farming and small businesses. I am having a conversation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), about mobile slaughtermen. Once we leave the European Union, we will be too small to have an abattoir, yet our field structure on the Island is perfectly suited to animal husbandry, and we are very keen to support local food production, which is good for multiple reasons, over and above employment.
Mr Carmichael
I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says when he talks about the Island being too small to have an abattoir—we have the same issue in the Northern Isles—but I suggest that is not actually the case. The Isle of Wight is surely too small to have an abattoir only in the way we regulate and manage abattoirs currently. A more sensitive system of regulation would surely allow a good business there.
Mr Seely
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am happy to take that correction. Post-Brexit, we need to change the rules for farming so that we have smaller abattoirs or mobile slaughtermen who can kill animals humanely on the farm to allow them to go into the human food chain in a way that does not exist at the moment.
Finally, I would like to have a conversation with the relevant Minister in due course about BAE and the need to have a complex radar technology demonstrator in Cowes. If we wish to keep radar technology in this country for the next 50 years—there is a critical national interest in doing so—the only realistic place to have it is where the aircraft carriers, the Type 45 and all the Royal Navy warships are made, which is in West Cowes at the BAE plant. I want to bring together BAE and Government to have that conversation. We are talking about small sums of money—£5 million, £10 million or £15 million—to secure a complex radar technology demonstrator, so that we can keep those high-tech jobs and that high-tech knowledge on the Island. I will wind-up now, Mr Rosindell. I apologise; I have taken a touch too long.
The Island is a success story, but I do not believe the Government have engaged with us enough over the past 10 to 20 years to maximise our success in building a new economy and an advanced education system, doing all the things we need to do regarding our infrastructure, such as our broadband and all the high-tech jobs, and making the Island the economic success story that it is. I reinforce the point about the coastal communities fund and the importance of the Treasury spending a little time and effort to understand islands, their unique circumstances and the amounts of money—very small in the great scheme of things—that could help drive enterprise and economic progress. More than anything, I want my constituency, the wonderful Isle of Wight, to contribute economically, rather than being a place that gets handouts from central Government because we say we are poor and do not have this or that. With a bit of help from the Treasury and the Government, and greater integration and support, we can drive our success story further.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) on securing this important debate on islands of the United Kingdom. Island economies are particularly important to Scotland, which boasts almost 800 islands around its coastline. In 2011, some 93 permanently inhabited islands were recorded, and between them they host almost 2% of the Scottish population. That gives Scotland by far the largest number of inhabited islands in the United Kingdom.
I had the privilege of being the senior fire officer in Argyll and Bute for some five years. I pay tribute to the islanders who provide the personnel for the volunteer units and retained fire stations that serve those communities. They are very much on their own; getting support to them can prove almost impossible. I commend the men and women who support their fire service. At the time I was there, the island populations varied from around 100-plus on Coll and Colonsay to more than 3,000 on the island of lslay, which was mentioned earlier. To complement the population, Islay has eight distilleries, which are a great employer. As somebody said, there are no bad whiskies; some are just better than others. A neighbouring island is Jura, where we also have a distillery that produces a lovely whisky that bears the name of the island.
Tourism, food and accommodation figure strongly in many island economies, along with traditional incomes from crofting, farming, fishing, and, in some cases, fish farming. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) suggested there might be opportunities post-Brexit to adjust the system to assist the communities further. They really need that assistance. Oil and gas are players in a number of island economies mainly to the north of Scotland. Tiree, which is quite breezy, off the west coast of Scotland, is the most fantastic place in the United Kingdom for windsurfers.
In my time visiting the west coast islands, the provision of fire cover, education and medical services was a constant challenge just to secure the right people for the posts. The additional cost of providing those services is recognised and factored into the Barnett formula under the sparsity factor. May I commend the Scottish Government for the introduction of the road equivalent tariff, which, in conjunction with the ferry operator, Caledonian MacBrayne, has generated additional tourist traffic that in most cases—although perhaps not in all cases—must be welcomed?
Mr Carmichael
My constituents would not forgive me if I were to allow this opportunity to pass. I must point out that in the Northern Isles, despite a raft of promises over the years, we are still to see the reduced fares promised by the road equivalent tariff.
Bill Grant
I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I hope that those endeavours will bear fruit and be recognised. I think that the NorthLink Ferries services do not attract the same support.
We also host the world’s last seagoing paddle steamer, the Waverley, based in Glasgow. She is a wonderful way to do what we say in Scotland is a trip “Doon the Watter” that takes people to various islands such as Arran and Cumbrae, which I am sure we will hear about later. It is a great opportunity to see the wonderful west coast. She also plies her trade off season down here in the Thames.
Bill Grant
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention. I am sorry for missing out the Isle of Wight. The Waverley is a wonderful asset to the nation and is the world’s last seagoing paddle steamer, supported by a charity and the nation.
Though uninhabited, Ailsa Craig is an island that sits off my constituency in the Firth of Clyde and plays host as a bird sanctuary to gulls, guillemots and puffins. Most importantly, it provides the granite for the best curling stones in the world, hand-crafted by Kays of Mauchline in Ayrshire. When we see curling on television, the curling stone almost certainly originated from the island of Ailsa Craig.
It is important to note in this debate that island communities in Scotland and across the United Kingdom are diverse. No two islands are the same, and although they often face a similar set of economic challenges, they each have their own unique circumstances: for example, population. Scotland has four islands with populations above the 10,000 mark, and those islands’ economies have different needs from the many Scottish islands with populations below 100. In the case of many of those smaller communities, probably the most pressing economic issue requires acting to prevent depopulation and working to secure the long-term future of those communities. Retaining young people on the islands to give them continued vibrancy is important.
The population of Scotland’s islands increased by about 4% between 2001 and 2011. That is a welcome development, which I hope will continue and even accelerate over the coming decades. In many cases it is very challenging to sustain island populations. Although Scotland’s four largest islands recorded an increase in that period, it is sad to note that communities of fewer than 50 inhabitants still experience, in general terms, the risk of a drop-off in population numbers. When we talk about the economies of the islands, therefore, we must be sure to include all the islands and not just the larger and identifiable ones such as the Isle of Wight.
Scotland’s small island communities are some of the most unique and beautiful places in the entire United Kingdom, and it is important that their future is secured as well as possible. Scottish islands of all sizes have great economic potential, and both the Scottish and UK Governments need to work together to ensure that that potential is fulfilled. The right level of investment and support, as mentioned earlier, is needed across the islands, but particularly in areas such as transport, fuel costs and maintaining the vital links that give islanders access to the basic services that people on the mainland simply take for granted.
Connectivity is vital for Scotland’s remote islands. For island communities as well as other rural and remote areas, broadband is necessary to ensure that the communities’ economies do not get left behind. I hope that the UK Government’s welcome intervention in the broadband roll-out in Scotland will deliver results sooner rather than later.
As was mentioned before, 4G and 5G connectivity are vital to local economies across the United Kingdom, and island communities are no different. If our islands keep pace in terms of mobile connectivity, they have a better chance of keeping pace economically, which is essential for a vibrant future for the islands. The Islands (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Scottish Parliament, will be judged on the outcomes it produces, and I hope that islanders will not be disappointed. Our islands, of all sizes, can and should have a bright future ahead of them.
Finally, if anyone is minded to secure a tranquil, peaceful holiday, they would do well to visit a Scottish island.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am very happy to speak in this debate today, and I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) for securing it. I also thank him for the celebratory tone with which he introduced the debate on our beautiful islands right across the United Kingdom and for recognising the unique challenges that our islands face, despite the many attractions that they offer both residents and visitors. Our islands are indeed beautiful but, as we have heard today, they can be quite fragile, too, and deserve special and separate consideration, so I am delighted to contribute today as I have the honour of representing the beautiful islands of Cumbrae and Arran.
Our islands not only face unique challenges, but share common challenges. I want to say a few words about the comments made so far. The hon. Member for Havant painted a beautiful picture of the island of Hayling, which he has made me think about visiting because he painted such an idyllic picture of it. We have also heard about the beautiful islands of Orkney and Shetland and the Isle of Wight. We had a round-up from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I took a photograph surreptitiously as he paid tribute to the Scottish Government. Although the photograph will not have sound on it, it will be a moment captured in time as he went out of his way to pay tribute to the Scottish Government.
I represent the isle of Cumbrae, whose main population centre is the town of Millport. There are few people who grow up in the west of Scotland who do not have a childhood memory of cycling round Millport and this lovely island just off the seaside town of Largs, which I also have the privilege of representing. Cumbrae is a mere hop, skip and a jump from Largs. It offers the beauty and tranquillity of island life while being extremely accessible and a short ferry ride away. In the height of summer there are 40 sailings each way per day to the Isle of Cumbrae. People flock there not only for the beautiful scenery, but to visit the £4.2 million education facility, the Field Studies Council, which was built in partnership with the Scottish Government and has attracted visitors and scholars from across Europe, if not the world.
The Isle of Arran is a little more remote and offers towering mountains and luscious rolling landscape that can, in the right light, simply take your breath away. I mention such things not only for the sake of it, because it is such a nice thing to discuss, but because both islands enjoy a huge influx of visitors, especially, although not only, in the high season.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock mentioned the road equivalent tariff, whereby ferry fares are set on the basis of the cost of travelling an equivalent distance by road, including a fixed element to keep fares sustainable and to cover fixed costs such as infrastructure. RET was introduced to the island of Arran in October 2014. I hope that my setting out the benefits of RET will help the Minister as he deliberates about how to stimulate island economies and help them to grow.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) expressed some disappointment that Orkney and Shetland appear not to benefit from those advantages. He will be aware that the Minister for Transport in Scotland announced that RET would be rolled out to Orkney and Shetland in the first half of 2018. That announcement was very much welcomed by his colleagues Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will also, when he has time to reflect, wish to welcome the announcement.
Mr Carmichael
I am on the record as welcoming the good intentions; I am just frustrated that, almost 11 years since the same opportunities were given to communities in the Western Isles, we still have not seen a single penny piece in the Northern Isles. Surely, the hon. Lady understands why our communities are so frustrated by the decisions taken by her Government in Edinburgh.
Patricia Gibson
As I said, I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration, because we all want to fight for our constituents and secure for them whatever advantages we can as soon as possible. He will also remember that I said that the Isle of Arran got RET in 2014. From what he said, that was a considerable distance behind the first roll-out. The fact is that the roll-out is a process and a programme. Obviously, the islands that are not at the front of the queue will be frustrated and impatient, as they should be. The fact is that RET—as I suppose his frustration suggests—is a huge benefit to island communities, and any island would be mad not to want to secure those advantages as soon as could be arranged.
The object of road equivalent tariff is to increase demand for ferry services by making ferry travel much more affordable and more accessible, to increase tourism and to enhance the local and wider national economy. That is why the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and I are so excited about it. In order to be as helpful to the Minister as I can—I always try to be helpful to my colleagues—I intend to paint a brief picture to show him the positive impact that road equivalent tariff can have, in case it is something that he wants to consider rolling out in the rest of the UK. It helps to offset some, though not all, of the challenges that are faced by island communities, which we have heard a wee bit about today.
In the case of Arran routes, such as the Brodick to Ardrossan route and the route between Claonaig and Lochranza, stimulation of the economy has certainly been achieved. Arran’s economy—if you can believe this, Mr Rosindell—has grown by 10%, which is a faster rate of growth even than China. That is something to prize, and it can perhaps be best explained by the price of the Ardrossan to Brodick route tumbling by a massive 46% for foot passengers, with a 64% reduction for cars being transported on that route. That comes at a cost of a mere £2.4 million a year to the Scottish Government.
I will set out the advantages that RET has brought in practical terms to the island. Analysis carried out by Transport Scotland has concluded that RET has significantly increased resident ferry travel across all journey purposes, and increased the demand for ferry services. In addition, the number of tourists has increased substantially, with the season extended from Easter and peak summer to the equivalent of the whole summer timetable. RET has enhanced the island-hopping tourist market with neighbouring islands. The Scottish Government are investing £1.8 million a year to support RET for the route between Cumbrae and Bute.
We know that job markets on islands can be challenging and fragile—we have heard a bit about that today. For Arran businesses, the impact of RET has been extremely positive, with increases cited in footfall and turnover. The tourism sector has accrued the greatest benefits, with hotels, guest-houses, campsites, golf courses and visitor attractions all highlighting the positive impact of RET.
Interestingly, RET has been particularly beneficial to the more remote areas of the island of Arran, particularly on the west coast. That is surely down to the increased numbers of visitors availing themselves of the opportunity to bring their cars on to the island at a much reduced cost, and exploring the farther reaches of the island, beyond Brodick and Lamlash. It is heartening to see a new £10 million distillery on Arran, and major expansion of the Auchrannie hotel and spa, which will enhance any visitor experience. RET has also allowed those who live outwith the island to take up jobs that have been challenging to fill, as students or seasonal workers can sometimes fill them. There is even a scarcity of staff to fill the increasing demand for workers in the hospitality industry, demonstrating the success of RET for the island.
Of course, there is no denying that RET has posed challenges for some businesses in the retail sector, because they are becoming increasingly exposed to competition with the mainland. However, studies show that the overwhelming consensus is that there has been a very positive impact on the island in terms of social, cultural and economic opportunities.
We know that connectivity is key, and that is very true of broadband connectivity for our islands. The Arran Economic Group reported last year that, based on cabinet installations, more than 90% of households and businesses now have access to superfast broadband, with take-up on Arran and Cumbrae at around 41%. There have been particular issues with the area of Machrie on Arran, but progress is being made.
We have heard some remarks about connectivity, regarding broadband and mobile phone signals. It is true that that is an issue, but as I always say to constituents when they raise such matters with me, the connectivity of broadband and mobile signal on this very estate sometimes compares to some of the difficulties that people have on the island of Arran and other outlying areas in our coastal communities. The broadband and mobile phone signal on this estate is sometimes, as you will be aware, Mr Rosindell, absolutely shocking. The fact that we have that problem in the middle of London, in the middle of the parliamentary estate, shows the scale of the challenges that our island communities face.
Arran also suffers from the lack of affordable housing. That is a challenge for future economic growth on the island, since it has an impact on the working-age population. One barrier is that 22% of homes on Arran are second homes, with a further 59 empty homes identified. We need to find ways of offsetting those issues, alongside plans to build new affordable homes on Arran. The Scottish Government have helped to fund 96 new homes in partnership working. That is a start, but clearly there is much more work to be done. The Scottish Government are investing £2.2 million on Cumbrae for amenity housing, but there is no room for complacency. Affordable housing remains a big challenge.
We know that there are pressures on Scotland’s budget. I was quite bewildered by the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). He is standing up for his constituents, which is exactly what he is supposed to do, but I flinched when he called the Barnett formula “generous”, given that Scotland’s resource budget was cut by £211 million this year and will be cut by £538 million next year. I am sure that he wants more resources for the Isle of Wight, but I do not think that describing the Barnett formula as generous is the way to do that.
Patricia Gibson
The islands do not benefit from the Barnett formula; Scotland is allocated funding through the Barnett formula. I cannot describe it as generous. I do not believe for one minute that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to fight for his constituents, but comparing their funding unfavourably with any funding formula for Scotland is the wrong way to go. One thing that the islands in Scotland benefit from that the Isle of Wight perhaps does not is the priority that the Government give them. That might be a way forward.
There are clear challenges. Our island communities matter to us, as of course they should. As the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock mentioned, the SNP Government in Scotland has brought forward the Islands (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to build better national and local economic frameworks for island development and their unique needs. It seeks to ensure that any legislation that is passed will be “island-proofed” to make sure that islands are taken into consideration and not forgotten about. That will help our island communities to become more sustainable and vibrant as they face the future—something that we all wish to see. I hope the Minister will reflect on the benefits of RET and will investigate the provisions of the Islands (Scotland) Bill, and perhaps use that as a way of improving the lives, experiences and economies of the islands across the UK.
I end by urging all Members who are here today—and those who are not, but who have the good fortune to listen to the debate—to pay a visit to the beautiful islands of Cumbrae and Arran, where they will find the scenery breathtaking and the communities warm and welcoming. Like so many previous visitors, they will find that they wish to return again and again.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your stewardship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) on securing this debate and bringing the issue to the House to chew over—it is very important. The contributions from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) indicate the complexity, diversity and multifaceted aspects that this issue throws up. It must be seen in the context of the type of islands that we have in this country—from the Isle of Wight, with its 140,000-odd population, right through to some of the inhabited Scottish islands, which have perhaps five or six inhabitants. It is not quite as simple as saying that an island is an island is an island.
There is also the diversity of economic activities on our islands. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock talked about windsurfing, and I also got the impression that he has tasted whisky. I look forward to hearing his experiences of windsurfing—if not seeing the photographs—next time we debate.
As the hon. Member for Havant mentioned, one of the greatest problems faced by the economies of UK islands is poor infrastructure. The rising cost of transport for people who live on UK islands clearly has a knock-on effect on jobs, suppliers and the population, as many young adults are choosing to leave their island homes in favour of finding work in the rest of the country.
Another challenge is the higher levels of unemployment; the unemployment rate on many islands is well above the national average. The Isle of Sheppey’s unemployment rate stands at 2.6%, while those on the Scottish islands of Arran and Bute are 3.8% and 4.1% respectively. As has been discussed, many islands are tourist destinations, which means that a large amount of the work is seasonal. In the past, that might have been less of a challenge, but with weather becoming increasingly unpredictable due to global warming, it is much harder for those economies to plan and scale. It is not necessarily a major factor at this point, but it is a factor. In relation to the grouse—I mean gross, though grouse is very appropriate for Scotland—the gross household disposable income on UK islands is lower for workers in the Orkney Islands, the Isle of Wight, the Western Isles and Anglesey than for those in much of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Given the increasingly technological nature of advanced economies, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) have quite rightly pointed out the vast differences in broadband connectivity and speeds between parts of the UK and the islands. That has a huge impact on island economies, particularly on the number of small businesses that operate remotely. Naturally, many UK island economies suffer from having less resources, which hon. Members have mentioned, and have a heavy reliance on a limited number of supply chains, which leads to the UK’s island populations paying more for goods and services. When combined with lower-than-average incomes, higher costs of household essentials are a key factor in driving poverty levels.
All those issues have been outlined with clarity by Members from across the House. We have had the analysis of the symptoms, but I am not sure we have had the practical things we can all do to help those communities—I hope the Minister will address that. It falls on me, as Opposition spokesperson, to refer to the elephant in the room: eight years of austerity. Many areas have suffered disproportionately from that because of the lack of investment in those communities, where they have struggled.
Let me take a couple of examples. I understand that Canvey Island has an independence party, with eight or nine councillors. I am not quite sure whether they are going to get to a referendum—but perhaps we should not go there, or talk about customs unions or single markets, as I am sure we have enough trouble with that at the moment. Canvey Island sits in the borough of Castle Point in Essex, a local authority that has seen nearly £1 million of Government grant disappear. Reports now suggest that Castle Point will be running a million-pound deficit in three years’ time.
Perhaps we should turn to Hayling Island, which the hon. Member for Havant mentioned and knows well, as it is in his constituency and covered by Havant Borough Council. A couple of months ago, his local paper, the Portsmouth News, reported that the local authority had been forced to increase council tax by the maximum of 3%. The local population will have to pay that—a population that, as the hon. Gentleman said, are already stressing and straining. Why might a Conservative council feel the need to increase taxes on the good people of Havant and the island of Hayling? It faces a £1.2 million reduction in central Government support as a direct result of the Government’s policies. There is no way to duck that particular issue. The council leader, when describing the measures being taken to try to rescue some services said:
“We didn’t want to go down this route but we had no option”.
The council faces a significant reduction in central Government funding through the revenue support grant, which in 2016-17 was £1.4 million, is now £290,000 and from 2019-20 will be zero. That is a factor in the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
These are not isolated examples. If we consider any of the local authorities of the islands mentioned in this debate, the story is the same—deep and pernicious cuts that threaten the very existence of some of them.
Mr Carmichael
Of course reductions in public expenditure are difficult for island communities, as they are everywhere. The real difficulty that they face is not just the amount of money that they have to spend, but the fact that so much of it comes with strings attached and local authorities are given so little discretion over how to spend the money that they have. What island communities need more than anything else is the ability to make decisions for themselves.
Peter Dowd
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and his point feeds into the whole question of devolution within nations. Whether we like it or not, there is centralisation down here in Whitehall and Westminster. That is not a criticism, as it happens in all parties. In the past, I have called it—forgive the phrase, Mr Rosindell—the anal retention down here. It is not particularly helpful or productive. Local communities know their areas best and it is best for communities to get on and use their discretion, within as wide a parameter as possible, to provide services in their areas. They tend to know best.
Given how these local economies are often heavily reliant upon the public sector, following major structural changes to the economy of the last four decades, it is little surprise that some communities are under stress. The hon. Member for Havant referred to commercial practicalities. Sometimes, they will close down banks, pubs and other services. Do we permit that to happen, or do we do something to ameliorate it? It is sometimes the Government’s job to help and to intervene—not to direct or do too much, but to go in and help communities where such services are the lifeblood. In 10 or 15 years’ time, we will all be concerned that such services have de facto closed down, and we will ask what we could have done to support them.
Some islands are getting increasingly desperate about the way things are. All joking aside, some people on Canvey Island want independence because they do not feel they are getting the deal they should be getting. That underlines the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about devolution and about local communities being able to run themselves where possible.
It is important that the Government begin to invest in the UK island economies and engage with their populations. Whether that means the Isle of Wight or a small island off the Scottish coast, that has to happen. It could mean investing to stimulate employment opportunities on UK islands, as the increasingly unpredictable cycle of seasonal work is clearly not enough to sustain island economies. Anglesey and Orkney have demonstrated that investment in renewable energy can deliver sustainable jobs and put the UK on the path to energy security, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The Government have to stop being blinkered; they must look at these issues and at how they can work with communities.
The Opposition have some transformative proposals, such as our plan for a coastal communities fund—a policy we have been consulting on since the election, and which we will begin to outline in due course. I believe it will address some of the issues that the hon. Member for Havant raised, deliver investment in a number of UK island economies and hopefully bring them back from the brink. In our grey book, “Funding Britain’s Future”, we set out an immediate increase in local government funding while we review council tax and business rates. That in itself will not prevent some communities from going over the edge, but we have to send them the message that we are here to help and support them, and that we will do everything we can to ensure they continue so that we maintain the diversity of our country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome that injection of investment into his community.
We need a radical rethink to help communities that feel under pressure, left behind and under threat. Tinkering at the edges is not good enough, and will not help island communities, in their diversity, to succeed.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
It is appropriate that you are in the Chair, Mr Rosindell, as you are Parliament’s greatest champion of a different type of island: our overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) for raising this important issue and for enabling a range of Members from across the House, representing all parts of the United Kingdom, to participate and give a complete tour of the British Isles. One thing we have learned today is that, although the British Isles are a great archipelago of more than 6,000 large and small islands and isles, relatively few of our constituents live on them, and we are perhaps less appreciative of them than we should be. Perhaps more than at any other point in our history, we are disconnected from our coast and our coastal communities. The Government are keen to change that and to ensure coastal communities and islands are properly represented. Today’s debate is an important part of that.
We want to raise productivity, living standards and economic growth in all parts of the United Kingdom, and of course islands and island communities are an essential part of that. Members representing the Isle of Wight, Hayling Island, Orkney and Shetland, Cumbrae, Arran and others have told the stories of their communities, many of which have been very positive. An important part of what we have heard today is that, although living on an island can cause problems, to which the Government, at a national or a local level, must respond, there are also opportunities for economic growth. Wonderful benefits can come from living in communities that are close and, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, can be very outward-facing to the rest of the world.
We appreciate that the barriers to growth can include a lack of opportunity—which can be a barrier to social mobility—poor connectivity and relatively high costs for transport, public service delivery and goods in the private sector. Although living on an island has many benefits and wonderful opportunities, which anyone who has grown up on one no doubt always lives with, the mainland can exert a strong gravitational pull, particularly to the young, and can at times lead to a drain of talent and youth. However, we have heard today about a number of islands whose populations are rising, which is very positive indeed.
Many of the barriers that island communities face are obviously a natural consequence of their geography and are common to all. Crudely, there are three types of island within the British Isles. The Isle of Wight is unique, in that it has a very large population—more than 130,000 people—and no bridge linking it with the mainland. I will turn to its specific demands in a moment.
The islands in the second category are mostly in Scotland, but there are a few off England, such as the Isles of Scilly. The populations of those islands, such as those represented by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, can still be substantial. They have no bridge to the mainland, and their remoteness poses particular problems, which require solutions, although they have smaller populations than the Isle of Wight.
Third are the islands, such as Hayling Island, that are connected to the mainland by roads. I do not want to diminish the challenges and issues they face, but they have commonalities with rural areas of the United Kingdom that have issues relating to remoteness. They are, to an extent, different from the islands that are separated from the mainland and do not have road links. I will address each of the three types. I apologise that this is a crude way of dissecting the issue, but it is at least a lens through which to look at it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) talked about the challenges and the opportunities of the Isle of Wight, which has a substantial population and no road connection to the mainland. The Government must think carefully about how we can assist it in delivering public services and ensuring its economy continues to grow. With the exception of the Isles of Scilly, it is unique—in England, at least—and we need to think about that when preparing new formulas for schools, local government, policing and other matters. I want to consider that with my hon. Friend in the future. I will talk about some of those issues in the time available to me.
A common thread for the Isle of Wight and all the other islands we have discussed today is digital. Although they are somewhat—at times, very—remote, the opportunities presented by the new economy are huge. They can help us break down some of the barriers and enable those islands to be highly connected to the rest of the world. We heard about new broadband opportunities in Newport, and I am sure there are other examples elsewhere in the British Isles.
We are focused on improving digital infrastructure on the Isle of Wight, in particular. It is clearly a critical part of life today. The Government are investing some £1 billion to ensure our digital infrastructure is fit for the future. I believe that the Isle of Wight was one of the first areas to benefit from the £400 million digital infrastructure investment fund. That was when investors Infracapital channelled some of the allocation into WightFibre to help to roll out full-fibre broadband to more than 50,000 homes, to some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight might have referred in his speech. Alongside that, Infracapital will invest £35 million of its own money to fund the expansion of the company’s infrastructure across the Isle of Wight. That is very positive and shows what we can do working together—although of course there is more work to be done.
On transport, roads are another vital part of the Isle of Wight’s infrastructure. From 2013 the Government will provide up to £477 million to Isle of Wight Council for a highways maintenance project through a private finance initiative that is under way. That will allow the council to carry out vital improvements and maintenance to local roads over a 25-year period.
We also recognise that transport to our islands must be adequate. That was not really touched on in my hon. Friend’s remarks, but having spoken to his predecessor in the past I know of concerns about the Isle of Wight ferry. Such concerns are no doubt common in other islands served by a single ferry company. The Competition and Markets Authority is aware of those concerns, which I expressed in my first meeting with the new CMA chief executive, Andrea Coscelli. The CMA is independent and the decision to take forward any investigation is its alone—the Government have no levers to direct the CMA as to which investigations it should choose, but I have raised the matter with him and know he is fully aware of it.
Mr Seely
I did not mention the ferries in my speech because I wanted to talk more broadly about the economy, but the relevant authorities are well aware that I would be keen to call for another investigation. However, I am not doing so at the moment because the new transport board on the Island is trying to work constructively with our ferry companies. I want to give that a chance to work first—for Wightlink, Red Funnel and Hovertravel to work together more closely and to be more supportive of the Island, driving our economy and being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. That is why nothing is happening at the moment, but there is that option.
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive approach. I suggest that he engage with the CMA if he wishes to take anything forward.
Schools do not fall directly within my remit at the Treasury, but in advance of the debate I reviewed the performance of Isle of Wight schools. I appreciate that in some cases there are some long-standing difficulties. The new national funding formula will help to address that challenge. Under the new formula, the Isle of Wight stands to gain up to 3.2% for its schools, which represents an increase of £2.2 million, or £140 per pupil. Clearly the new formula’s interest in sparsity of population will help in some island cases, but not in all because some islands are relatively densely populated. In certain parts of the Isle of Wight, however, that sparsity provision will help—I believe two primary schools will be eligible for funding in that respect. Certainly the specific challenges of the Isle of Wight need to be considered in future funding formulations.
I shall turn briefly to the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and to those islands that fall into the category of remote, or very remote, and without any of the direct transport links of a road bridge. Clearly, such islands require careful consideration by central Government. We shall work as constructively as possible with the Scottish Government in areas where we can collaborate. When the right hon. Gentleman was in Government, he created the 2014 island framework to encourage the UK Government to work closely with the islands around Scotland. We would like to see such initiatives continue.
The Government also recognise the issues with broadband, and we want to do what we can to assist in Scotland. For example, more than £50 million of the superfast broadband programme went to the Scottish highlands and islands to provide access to download speeds of at least 24 megabits per second. Recently, we announced the winners of phase 1 of the £25 million 5G testbed competition. That includes £4.3 million for the 5G RuralFirst testbed, which will be based primarily in the Orkney Islands.
As far as possible, we continue to support North sea oil and gas through continued Treasury investment, and a strong and stable fiscal framework for the oil and gas industry, most recently with the announcement of the transferable tax history, which has been widely welcomed by the industry. I take on board the comments of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to renewables and the essential role that they play, and will continue to play, in the future of islands such as the Orkneys and Shetlands. I shall take away his suggestion about wave and tidal funding.
Finally, on islands connected to the mainland by road, the most prominent one we heard about today was Hayling Island, which sounded like a wonderful place. I would love to visit the bookshop or the ferry and, on a day like today, we would all like to be on an island such as Hayling. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant are common in other rural areas elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and we are concerned about them. We are, for example, making further investment in roads. We have launched the large local majors programme, which is potentially transformative for market towns and smaller communities that require significant road investment projects. I encourage my hon. Friend to take that up with the Department for Transport, if applicable.
We are also aware of bank closures, which have been widely debated in the House and are common to a number of communities throughout the United Kingdom, although I appreciate that in islands the effect can be greater than elsewhere. The schools funding formula will help many island communities, as it will in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we would like to see that taken forward. Since 2012 the coastal communities fund has invested £174 million in projects focused on economic development, growing and regenerating coastal areas. The Isles of Scilly have benefited from the fund, as did the Hayling coastal community team in 2015, from £10,000. Funding round 5 is now open, with £40 million available to spend from April 2019 until the end of March 2021.
Robert Jenrick
In a moment if possible, but I am conscious of time.
I encourage all Members present to take advantage of that fund, where applicable, feeding into it and putting in their applications as soon as possible. From the Treasury’s perspective, I shall continue to work with my colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as we proceed to consider what the next stage of the fund will be. I shall ensure that the comments about islands we have heard today are fed into that process. I would like to work with my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight and for Havant to ensure that the next iteration of the fund takes on those views and works for coastal communities.
I thank all colleagues who have attended the debate to discuss these matters. We are very committed to taking this agenda forward and to ensuring that island communities have the funding and support they require to have vibrant communities and economies. Over the course of the year, whether in making decisions about applications to the coastal communities fund or in shaping the UK shared prosperity fund—that is an important discussion to be had in Parliament over the year to come, and I again encourage hon. Members representing coastal communities to take it seriously and engage in it—we shall continue, I hope, to display our commitment to the islands of the British Isles and their communities.
Alan Mak
We have had a very good and wide-ranging debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was right to highlight the opportunities and strengths of islands in addition to the challenges. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) emphasised what special and unique places our islands are. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) gave us an excellent perspective from Scotland, and I commend him for his service as a fire officer on Argyll and Bute.
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response and his commitments, on behalf of the Government, to increase productivity and living standards on all the islands of the United Kingdom, including Hayling Island. I would very much welcome his visiting my constituency. I thank both Opposition spokespeople for their responses, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) in particular. She, too, is welcome on Hayling Island anytime. Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for chairing the debate.
To conclude, we are all islanders and must all work together to ensure that all the islands of the United Kingdom, whether large or small, have a bright economic future. I am glad that the House, through this debate, has committed to ensuring just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the economies of the UK islands.
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for three minutes to allow broadcasting to switch their feeds to facilitate simultaneous transmission.
Support for Deaf Children: South Gloucestershire
(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
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for deaf children in south Gloucestershire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to have secured a vital debate about the issues faced by deaf children and their families in South Gloucestershire. I am grateful to the House authorities for ensuring that there is a signer today in the Public Gallery and live subtitles during the debate.
I secured the debate after meeting parents and families of deaf children in my constituency, and subsequently the National Deaf Children’s Society, to discuss the current review of service provision across the four authority areas in the west of England. I thank those families and the NDCS for discussing the matter with me in great depth, and for all the work they do up and down the country to make life better and fairer for deaf and hearing-impaired children.
Hearing loss affects more than 10 million adults and around 45,000 children in the UK. Of those, around half are born deaf, while others can acquire the condition later during childhood. Around 370 children are born with severe to profound deafness in England each year. Deafness in children can be temporary or permanent, and it can be mild or profound. It can be in one ear or in both. Regardless of its type, it is often a very high-need condition and it can have a serious impact on children’s development and their ability to achieve their ambitions. It can affect language development, ability to communicate and educational achievements and attainment, and it can increase the risk of isolation and mental health difficulties. Around 48% of deaf children fail to reach the expected levels of language communication skills in their early years. It is easy to see how this condition can go on to have a negative impact on children and affect their quality of life.
Local authorities and schools in England already are required to provide support for deaf children, to ensure that young children especially are not at a substantial disadvantage to their hearing peers. The fact that only one in five children passes GCSE English and maths in the south-west demonstrates that there is still much more to do. Deaf children in South Gloucestershire face the same issues. Despite the fact that deafness is not a learning disability, 44% of deaf children are likely not to do as well as their peers. It is clear that more needs to be done to close the gap, to support children and to ensure that they have a fair chance of maximising their educational achievements and fulfilling their potential.
Deaf children and young people in South Gloucestershire rely on support provided to them by the Sensory Support Service, which has served other neighbouring local authorities since 1996: Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol and North Somerset. The service supports the educational development of children in the area who have sensory impairment and who are aged between zero and 16.
In November 2017, the four authorities decided to carry out a review of all the support services. That review is at an early stage. A stakeholder reference group has been created to enable parents, charities, children and carers to input into the review, and it allows anyone affected to have their say. The stakeholder group is meeting for the first time later this month, and it is timely to have this debate just days before that meeting is due to take place. The redesigned service will come into effect around September 2019, and it will continue to be jointly commissioned by the four authorities. Now is the right time to ensure that the new revised service is fit for purpose and is serving deaf children well in our community.
There are four main points that I would like to raise, which should be considered as part of the review: early years support, teachers of the deaf, speech and language therapy and, importantly, the provision of radio aids.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and pay tribute to the fantastic work he is doing on this important matter for children in our council area. I welcome more proposals, in particular to ensure that the new Sensory Support Service prioritises the provision of radio aids for children to use in nursery and at home. That would be hugely beneficial to the children and their families, who need that highly valuable resource.
Luke Hall
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. I will talk about the issues he raised in a bit more detail, but he has hit the nail on the head about the need for hearing aids and other assisted listening technologies outside the school or nursery setting. I thank him for that, and for his important work in South Gloucestershire on behalf of the communities.
Early years support services can be vital in determining a child’s future success. Therefore, it is important that local children get the targeted support that they require as early as possible during their development. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Many deaf children can face a lack of pre-school and early years support. The foundations for communication and language skills are often laid during the earliest stage of a child’s life. Local parents have expressed their concerns about the uncertainty that comes with the review and about making sure that the outcome is right. Support for early years and pre-school must be prioritised and strengthened during the review period.
Support in the form of teachers of the deaf can be extremely useful for children with hearing loss. They provide specialist training and advice to teachers, parents and pupils on how to deal with the difficulties that come with the everyday challenges that people may face. Those teachers can give skilled assistance to pupils and their families and make a significant contribution to their academic progress and achievement later in life. Currently, there are unfilled vacancies in South Gloucestershire that are a source of concern to local parents, who want to ensure that the frontline delivery of services remains a priority after September 2019. Parents want to be certain that children in our community will continue to have fair access to help from those specialist teachers so that they can continue to make positive improvements in their development and learning. It is vital that the review protects frontline teaching of the deaf.
My third point is about therapy support—specifically, speech and language therapy provision—beyond key stage 1 in South Gloucestershire. Speech and language therapy—SALT—can help children to develop better communication skills, optimise their speech, build their confidence and improve their interaction with others. It is important to ensure that the appropriate specialised SALT support is provided beyond key stage 1, because it can make a real difference to the development of children’s communication.
It is important that local children can continue to benefit from the expert advice and assessment of the NHS SALT service after the review. This is, therefore, the perfect time for South Gloucestershire Council and other authorities to consider improving the joining up of provision and support between health and education organisations, especially following the Ofsted report. Although I accept that in some cases commissioning is delegated to schools, it is important to ensure that support such as the provision of teachers of the deaf and SALT is complemented, and that there are no gaps in the provision of services for deaf children. That is a real concern that parents and the NDCS in particular have raised with me.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He raises important points about education provision in South Gloucestershire, which is not as good as it should be. South Gloucestershire does not do as well as neighbouring local authorities such as Bristol, particularly for deaf children and people with special educational needs. On speech and language therapy provision and its funding, does he believe that the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group also has a role to play? Deafness is a special educational need and a physical impairment, and its detection can take place at GP centres and in hospitals, so the NHS and South Gloucestershire Council both have roles to play.
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for all the work he does on behalf of people, including children, around South Gloucestershire. He is absolutely right: of course the clinical commissioning group and local NHS services have a role in ensuring that children around South Gloucestershire receive optimal support. He is right to point out that there are clearly ways we can improve in South Gloucestershire following the Ofsted report.
The need for improved access to assistive listening technologies such as radio aids—especially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) pointed out, for pre-school children outside the nursery setting—has come up time and again in my conversations with local parents. Radio aids help deaf children to hear speech and sounds more clearly, as they transmit sound directly to a child’s hearing aid or implant. That can be critical in the early years of a child’s life, when they are at the earliest stage of learning. Radio aids can play an essential role in language development and in improving parent-to-child communication in the home and outside nursery.
We had a fascinating day when the NDCS brought hearing aids here so that we could hear the remarkable difference, in a busy and loud environment, between having that technology and not having it. Such environments often make for difficult listening conditions, and radio aids can prove useful in reducing the effects of background noise and improving the listening experience. Using them in places such as the car, public transport, after-school clubs and the home can make a big difference in a child’s language development and improve their concentration and attention.
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Is that not the critical point? Academics such as Leon Feinstein have shown that word acquisition varies: at the age of three, a child in a disadvantaged family might know 600 words but a child in a more affluent family might know nearly 6,000 words. For a deaf child, being able to acquire words early is vital. The success of the Government’s phonics programme in developing language acquisition has clearly been proven, but that cannot take place unless we have radio aids. Does he therefore believe that there should be universal provision of radio aids for deaf children in South Gloucestershire, and that children should be able to take those aids outside the school setting to ensure they are constantly learning and engaged in whatever setting they are in?
Luke Hall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the success of the Government’s phonics programme and the disparity in children’s vocabulary. I will come on to an example of a child in my constituency who benefited and learned new words by being part of a trial in South Gloucestershire that made radio aids possible. I completely agree that it is vital for people to have access to radio aids outside the home.
Living with hearing loss is sometimes an isolating and lonely experience, and radio aids have been shown to have positive effects on children’s psychological and emotional wellbeing and self-confidence. Perhaps the best argument for the use of radio aids I have heard came from my constituent, Hannah, whose daughter has severe hearing loss and has been wearing hearing aids since she was eight weeks old. Hannah’s daughter was offered the chance to use a radio aid for a trial period. Hannah told me how beneficial that had been for her daughter, who started to pick up new vocabulary and became more confident and independent. That radio aid enabled her to have an experience of life that was much more like that of her hearing friends.
Local parents are concerned about the fact that although the provision of radio aids outside the school or nursery setting might be greatly beneficial, it is not a certainty for children in South Gloucestershire. In this review period, there is even more uncertainty about what will come post September next year. I therefore urge all four authorities to use the review to consider providing radio aids to all deaf and hearing-impaired children for use in the home and outside the school or nursery setting as quickly as possible.
I ask the Minister to urge South Gloucestershire Council and the other three authorities to take the review process as an opportunity to evaluate overall provision for local deaf children, and to have in mind the four points I have raised: prioritising early years and pre-school provision and ensuring that it is strengthened as a result of the review; protecting the provision of teaching of the deaf; joining up the teaching of the deaf and speech and language therapy services, which is particularly important and has been raised a number of times; and considering providing radio aids to all deaf and hearing-impaired children outside the home as quickly as possible. The review gives us the opportunity to improve the support we offer to deaf children, and to help children in South Gloucestershire to develop better communication skills, optimise their speech skills, build their confidence in interactions with their families and others, maximise their academic attainment and become more confident and independent. Taking those steps will make that possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on securing this timely debate, which follows my recent meetings with members of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness. I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the Government’s position on supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including those who are deaf and hearing-impaired, and to understand views about the services available in South Gloucestershire.
I am determined to ensure that children and young people who are deaf or have a hearing impairment receive the support they need to achieve the success they deserve. Our latest figures show that more than 21,000 pupils who have a hearing impairment as their primary special educational need are supported by schools in England, and 93% of children with a hearing impairment are educated in mainstream primary and secondary schools. I know that many colleagues are concerned that that group of children and young people is likely to receive a poorer service, and I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) about hearing aids in early years settings. However, I assure colleagues that it is not my expectation that those children should receive a poorer service. I expect deaf and hearing-impaired children and young people to receive the support they need to help them fulfil their aspirations alongside their peers. I hope that message gets home to the leadership in South Gloucestershire and neighbouring authorities.
The 2014 SEND reforms were the biggest change to the system in a generation, placing a new emphasis on promoting better involvement of parents and young people in the planning and support provided for their children. The Children and Families Act 2014 and the “SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years” in 2015 built on best practice developed over many years. The reforms are about improving the support available to all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, which we are doing by joining up services for nought to 25-year-olds across education, health and social care and by focusing on positive outcomes in education, employment, housing, health and community participation. I want to be absolutely clear that that vision applies equally to deaf and hearing-impaired children and young people.
The completion of the statutory transition period in the SEND system is not the end point for the SEND reforms. We all recognise that we are only partway to achieving our vision; the biggest issue we have to address now is changing the culture in local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and education settings. We must support organisations to overcome the barriers that prevent them from working together, focus on the long-term outcomes for these young people and ensure that our policies are delivering for families and supporting children to succeed. Supporting schools to respond to the needs of all their pupils is crucial to achieving that goal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate mentioned teachers and the training they receive, and that is very much part of the Government’s strategy. In the past five years, we have funded the National Sensory Impairment Partnership to provide a wide range of support to early years, schools, post-16 providers and local authorities to improve outcomes for children and young people with sensory impairment. The work has included the development of resources and training, which are now being accessed by practitioners across the sector.
Having developed those resources and many others relating to other specific impairments, we are shifting our focus to better supporting schools and working to embed the SEND reforms within the school-led system of school improvement. In that way, we aim to equip the workforce to deliver high-quality teaching across all types of SEN. We have recently contracted with the Whole School SEND consortium for a two-year programme to equip schools to identify and meet their training needs in relation to SEND. We are delighted that the National Sensory Impairment Partnership is very much part of that consortium. The consortium will, among other things, help to review the mandatory qualifications for teachers of pupils with sensory impairment to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. I hope that provides my hon. Friend with some reassurance on one of his points.
The Government have separately invested in a number of programmes to support children and young people with hearing impairments and their families. We have funded the development of an early support guide for parents of deaf children, which is available through the Council for Disabled Children’s website. In addition, we have funded the National Deaf Children’s Society’s I-Sign project and the development of a family-orientated sign language programme, which is available free on the society’s family sign language website.
To support local areas to improve and to reassure families that services will be held to account, we have introduced joint local area inspections. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) alluded to the fact that South Gloucestershire is challenged, certainly. The inspections, which started in May 2016 and will see every local area inspected by 2021, are carried out by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. Parents’ views of services are an important part of the inspections. The inspections are playing an important role in our reforms, not least by bringing together education, health and social care services, and I am pleased to see services working collaboratively with families to act on the inspections’ findings.
By the way, I have written to South Gloucestershire, which has been asked by Ofsted and the CQC to produce a written statement of action and is required to update me on progress in the action it is taking to address its weaknesses. We will, of course, support South Gloucestershire to respond to the written statement of action through the Department for Education’s professional SEND adviser team and NHS England’s regional adviser team. I understand the local authority is working hard to address those weaknesses.
The duty to commission services jointly is vital to the success of the SEND reforms. We recognise that unless education, health and social care partners work together, we will not see the holistic approach to a child’s progression and the positive outcomes that the system was designed to deliver. Joint working is also one of the best ways of managing pressures on local authority and NHS budgets. Looking for more efficient ways to work together, to share information and to avoid duplication will work in favour of professionals and those who are most important: families and their children. The child or young person and their family must be at the centre of that joint commissioning approach.
Some areas are demonstrating excellent joint working. For example, Wiltshire received positive feedback on the effectiveness of its local area’s joint commissioning arrangements. It was reported that senior officers across education, health and care worked together effectively, adopting a well-integrated, multi-agency approach.
What might all of that mean to the deaf and hearing-impaired children and young people in South Gloucestershire? As my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate articulated, South Gloucestershire, along with its neighbouring local authorities, is considering the best way to support sensory-impaired children and young people through its Sensory Support Service. It is important that parents, carers and young people have and take the opportunity to feed into that work. My hon. Friend, by securing the debate, has provided a wonderful opportunity for his constituents and local authority to hear from colleagues and the Department on what needs to happen, and to shape those services for the future.
I am very supportive of local authorities working together to provide effectively for children and young people in their areas. Working in that way is not about local authorities abdicating their responsibility; rather, it is about achieving a better service and better value for money by working together and sharing knowledge and expertise for the benefit of all.
How local authorities choose to allocate their funding is a matter for them, and each authority will carefully consider how best to meet the needs of its children and young people. I understand that South Gloucestershire has funded radio aids for children to access their learning in early years and schools settings from its equipment budget. I am encouraged that it is working closely with children, young people and families to make decisions on how local funding is allocated to overcome barriers and improve access to education for the children in its area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood mentioned closing the word gap by improving children’s vocabulary. Last week, we announced a fund of £8.5 million to which local authorities can apply for peer-to-peer review of what really works in terms of whole learning. We now need to assess and collect evidence for best practice from a number of projects, and then we will begin to work out how we scale that for the whole country. I am proud of what has been achieved so far and I look forward to working with the SEND organisations, delivery partners and practitioners to ensure the vision becomes a reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate also mentioned speech and language therapy at key stage 1 and how local authorities should look to expand that and take it forward. Early years provision was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke. We have a pretty comprehensive strategy in early years interventions. We currently invest about £6 billion a year in childcare, with the disadvantaged two-year-old offer of 15 hours a week and the universal offer of 15 hours a week for three and four-year-olds. All of that is very much part of our overall strategy for early years intervention.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister for making that absolutely vital point. We have these accusations of school funding cuts and less money going to young people. Will he finally nail this lie once and for all? Across the country and in South Gloucestershire more money is being spent on special educational needs and our primary schools. Cuts are not taking place; the Government are investing in our future.
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. We are running out of time. The Minister needs to wind up very quickly.
Nadhim Zahawi
I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who wonderfully articulated the position of the Government. It is absolutely correct.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Office for Product Safety and Standards
(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
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of the Office for Product Safety and Standards.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
The Minister will be familiar with my interest in electrical safety and, in particular, household electrical goods. I am sure he has familiarised himself with all my previous debates and correspondence on the issue. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the new Office for Product Safety and Standards, and I am keen to hear from him what he will do with some of the serious issues around product safety, and specifically electrical goods. Disappointingly, there has been no parliamentary scrutiny of the functions of the office to date, and I was disappointed that no Minister came to the House to explain what it would be. It was irritating that the Government made the announcement on a weekend; perhaps today we can hear an explanation for that.
The previous Minister, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), came to the all-party parliamentary group on home electrical safety in December last year, to explain and to listen to the way forward that members of that group wanted. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as Minister and her willingness to listen to parliamentarians and stakeholders about the changes required to electrical product safety in the UK.
The APPG on home electrical safety is an excellent forum for many parliamentarians and stakeholder attendees to discuss the priority issues concerning electrical safety. Stakeholder attendees include Electrical Safety First, which assists me with the administration of the group, the London fire brigade and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, of which I am a vice-president, the Anti-Counterfeiting Group and others. I would like to think that our combined effort and knowledge have kept these matters high on the parliamentary agenda.
Special mention should also be given to my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who have both worked for a long time to protect people from fires and white good damage in their homes. The APPG’s next meeting is next Tuesday, and I extend an invitation to the Minister to come and listen to a presentation from eBay on what it is doing to prevent counterfeit electrical goods from being sold on its platform—an issue that has got wildly out of control in recent years and, if I am honest, piqued my initial interest in the subject when I held my first debate on this matter in this very room.
I welcome the creation of the office, which is long overdue, and I hope it will help not only to co-ordinate across Government, but to bring together a range of stakeholders to help and advise the office, such as Electrical Safety First, the British Standards Institution, the fire brigades, CTSI and Which?, and many others that are on the frontline of preventing fires caused by faulty products, and that exist to educate the public. The office now needs to reach out to those organisations. I question what it will do to engage stakeholders.
The Minister will be aware that I have previously corresponded with the Department on what I think should be the priority areas. Although I appreciated the Minister’s response, I wonder whether today is an opportunity to share when the strategy will be published and whether electrical product safety will be a priority.
Electricity is one of the biggest causes of fires in our homes, but I see no real Government strategy to help mitigate that risk. Is the office working on a cross-Government strategy? The Home Office has its own “Fire Kills” campaign, but there needs to be a longer, sustained campaign, which Electrical Safety First has been calling for. What is the priority consumer campaign to prevent electrical fires in the home—or where is it? I would like to know what discussions the office is having with the Home Office about fires caused by faulty electrical goods. The Home Office seems to have its own unit, and now the Office for Product Safety and Standards exists, so where is the co-ordination? Can we have some reassurance that there will be joined-up thinking?
I note from the office’s website that one of the first announcements last month was on teaming up with BSI, the UK’s national standards body, to launch the first Government-backed code of practice for product safety recall in the UK. That is a welcome step and is backed by Government, but can the Minister outline whether there will be a Government campaign for consumers on product safety in the strategy? Although initiatives such as “Register my appliance” exist, where is the Government-backed consumer campaign on electrical goods?
There have been significant consumer awareness campaigns from organisations such as Electrical Safety First and the London fire brigade, particularly on plastic-backed fridges, white good fires, counterfeit electrical goods and why recalled goods are openly being sold. The office must get to grips with that issue. From my personal perspective, I do not think it is right that counterfeit electrical goods are sold openly online by the likes of Amazon and eBay. As I have said, the latter will be given an opportunity next week to reassure the APPG meeting, but Amazon has consistently refused to engage and washed its hands of any responsibility, and even though it was invited to next week’s meeting it has declined to respond.
At the last debate, the previous Minister promised a roundtable discussion with Apple, BaByliss, ACG and others to discuss the serious problems they face with counterfeiting and its safety aspects. I keep saying to Ministers that this goes beyond intellectual property; it is about the safety of the public. It is about fire in their homes. It is about the death of my constituent Linda Merron, who bought an electrical product on eBay that burned her house down. It is unacceptable that eBay and Amazon can sell goods that are unsafe and basically get away with it. That would not be allowed on the high street, and the issue will only get worse with the collapse of high street electrical stores such as Maplin, which shows that consumers are increasingly buying online. I want to hear today that the office will tackle those companies that break the law by selling substandard, counterfeit or recalled products.
A closely related problem is the private sales of electrical goods via eBay and Amazon, particularly on Amazon Marketplace. It is my understanding that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not cover private sales, so anything faulty could be sold person to person without legal protection. Can the Minister look into that and perhaps write to me about the situation regarding private sales of electrical goods between two individuals, their rights and the consumer legislation? If there is a loophole, I would expect the office to look at it.
It is all very well my calling for greater attacking of the issues and enforcement, but who will enforce this? As the Local Government Association stated in its trading standards review, between 2010 and 2015 there have been cuts of more than 40% to local government, and trading standards has taken the brunt of those cuts. As CTSI has informed me,
“the Office for Product Safety and Standards is a step forwards for consumer protection in the UK. However; there is still a pressing need to ensure frontline trading standards services have the resources to fulfil their duties to protect the public as was noted by the BEIS Select Committee, Lynn Faulds Wood and the National Audit Office.”
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work she has done to identify these serious issues. She mentions trading standards. The National Audit Office has identified the funding gap there, but I think there is another issue. Local trading standards are responsible for businesses in their area. In Peterborough, where Whirlpool is based, the local trading standards office is responsible for the quality of goods for Whirlpool nationwide. There is a conflict of interest and it does not work, because the local trading standards office does not have the resources to police a multinational company such as Whirlpool.
Carolyn Harris
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is my understanding that Peterborough actually has fewer than three trading standards officers.
Will the Minister please outline how trading standards will be boosted and supported by this new office? Will there be moneys for the training of more trading standards officers? Surely the Government realise that more people are needed on the ground, and now. Will any support for trading standards be backed up with a proper database of injuries that stakeholders can access?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am not surprised to hear that there are three trading standards officers in Peterborough, who of course have to cover everything that trading standards does. The time spent on electrical safety will be perhaps part of one post. We need to know from the Minister how the new office will actually fill that gap. At the moment, nobody regulates what is happening. It required Which? to start legal action before Whirlpool or the Government responded at all on this.
Carolyn Harris
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I have struggled greatly with Whirlpool. Communicating with the company has been extremely difficult.
The APPG will shortly produce a report on what we believe the Minister and the new office should look at, in terms of electrical safety, based on evidence received from a wide range of organisations. I will invite the Minister to the meeting in July, but he is welcome at any meeting. As we did with his predecessor, perhaps we could have a roundtable discussion—perhaps along with his officials—on these issues, the strategy and our report. I hope the Minister will indicate whether that may be possible.
As I stated earlier, I welcome the new office, but there are concerns about its priorities and strategy and what it will do to protect consumers. Electrical product safety must be a priority area, given the tragic consequences we have seen of white goods fires. I wish the office well, but as I am sure colleagues will raise, more needs to be done to reassure consumers, stakeholders and the electrical products industry that the office will provide the necessary strategic vision, have real power for consumers, support trading standards and be listened to across Government to help to protect the public from electrical product safety problems and fires in their homes.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and congratulate her on securing this important and timely debate.
Product safety standards is a subject on which we should all be focused. It is not so long ago that I wrote a column for my local newspaper, the Stirling Observer, which focused on product safety—especially of tumble dryers. I received an unexpectedly high response to that article compared with others I had written on more current constitutional issues that we might debate in the House and in Scotland.
I also reflect on the first ever surgery I attended as a newly elected Member, in the Mayfield Centre in Stirling. We advertised the event but only two constituents came along to speak to me, so I had some time to speak to the caretaker. He was delighted to speak to his new MP, because he wanted to point out to me an issue that, so far as he was aware, no one was speaking about: the regulation and safety of tumble dryers. Little did I know that, within a few weeks of that, I would be a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and that we would be conducting an inquiry into the safety of tumble dryers.
This is an important subject, as has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea East. Our inquiry found, as can be read in the published report, that companies such as Whirlpool have not made enough of an effort to take responsibility for their products and the consequences of their use when they are deemed dangerous. In fact, the report identified that a million faulty tumble dryers are in everyday use in this country. We also identified in the report gaps in the regulatory regime.
I should mention that, during the hearings that we conducted, Whirlpool made commitments about its willingness to respond to the concerns that we raised. We asked it to resolve issues with defective machines within two weeks. It said that it would do it within a week, but we have no way of measuring whether the company has been true to the commitment that it made and put on the record.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on our Select Committee in probing Whirlpool and Ian Moverley, who gave evidence—or at least answered a few of our questions, but not all of them. On the 1 million faulty tumble dryers that Whirlpool knows about, is the hon. Gentleman also concerned that Which? said that it had found as recently as last month through its mystery shopping that customers with these faulty tumble dryers were still being given the wrong advice? That means there are potentially still 1 million tumble dryers in our homes that could catch fire, like the ones we in the Committee heard about and the ones other hon. Members have given evidence on.
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee—I have the privilege of serving on it—for her intervention. She is absolutely right, and I share all those concerns—specifically in relation to the Which? report of recent weeks that suggested that Whirlpool customers were being advised that they could continue to use their defective models, even though they were known to be defective and presented a danger to the safety of the people who lived in homes where they were in use.
Similarly, I am also concerned to hear that the BBC and Which? have reported that some of the machines that have had their defects corrected have then caused fires. This is a significant issue and, as I said earlier, is something that should concentrate all our minds—particularly those of Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will wish to address these specific issues in his reply.
Questions need to be asked, and it is vital that the regulatory regime that we have meets the need that we currently place on it. As we take more products into our lives and rely more on technology, the more we need a regulator with teeth. The new Office for Product Safety and Standards is a promising development, but it will need to be tested against reality—the lawyers and the corporate spin machines that defend the spin cycles of the manufacturers.
I should at this point deviate to tell the House that I had a most interesting experience in the last few minutes while visiting a constituent of mine who is here in Parliament. She is at a drop-in event in Portcullis House sponsored by Genetic Alliance UK, which is a charity that works to improve the lives of patients and carers. I told her that I was coming to Westminster Hall to participate in a debate on tumble dryers—that is how I expressed it, even though the debate is broader—and she volunteered that her tumble dryer had been faulty. It was a different make from the one I have discussed. She returned the machine and was offered £100 and a new machine, but that machine was faulty. This product seems to have endemic issues.
I hope Members will forgive me if I dwell a little more on an issue that has bothered me a great deal since being elected: the apparent ineffectiveness of regulators. For example, Ofgem constantly failed to take on the electricity markets, which were obviously broken, and I have found Ofcom to be generally unresponsive to the wireless telephony and broadband connectivity issues of my rural constituents. The list goes on. The debate is not about that, but I am concerned that the new office could be another ineffectual regulator—toothless, ineffective, and sometimes even, sad to say, supine—instead of a body that the Government, and us as parliamentarians, have put good faith in to defend the best interests of people.
In some cases, regulators fail not because they do not have enough power but because they lack the will and suffer from organisational atrophy that causes inaction. The regulator in this field, the OPSS, must not fail. If it does, there is the possibility of lives being lost—actually, that is beyond a possibility; it is a fact—consumers being ripped off with faulty goods, and untold damage being done to property.
The situation regarding Whirlpool, which I have already mentioned, is one in which our Select Committee expected action on the part of the company. To our knowledge, that has not been forthcoming. Its actions have been inadequate. Instead of responding to the concerns that we raised with it and those of my constituents and others who have raised issues with me that I have passed on, it has resisted action and, in my view, done the bare minimum that it can get away with. An activist regulator would put paid to the inaction, and a test of the ability of the new regulator will be how it pursues this. It is essential that when questions are raised about products, companies act transparently. That is what we would expect, and what we would expect a regulator to insist on.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I was remiss in not saying anything at the start. This is a heavily subscribed debate, so to be fair to one another, colleagues should take about five minutes at the most, before the winding-up speeches start.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David, for two reasons. One is that you are a fellow West Ham supporter. They have survived in the premiership for another year, so you will obviously be in a good mood. Secondly, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety rescue, you take a keen interest in these matters yourself, so it is good to see you here and following the debate as closely as you are.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He made another of his trademark thoughtful speeches, which he is becoming known for. I am delighted to welcome the Minister to his position. He arrives with a fair wind. He is held in regard across the House and much is expected of him, so we are all looking forward to his response to this debate, which will be my first experience of his winding up.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate and on not taking undue time in opening the debate, as some colleagues in these debates do. She has left lots of time for the rest of us to contribute. I also congratulate her on so ably chairing the all-party parliamentary home electrical safety group and leading us on this issue so effectively. She has been so well supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on these issues. I will try to keep to your time constraints, Sir David.
I thank Electrical Safety First, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Which? and the London fire brigade for all their efforts in this area and for their briefings. Like the previous two speakers, I look forward to the Minister’s response, as well as the Opposition speeches. The tone of the briefings that I have received is best described as positive and welcoming but with a sceptical edge, and I think that the simplest thing I can do is to quote from the material with which I have been supplied.
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute asked two main questions. How would the OPSS add to the current market surveillance and enforcement functions to improve the system and, if there was a repeat of the recent white goods scandal, how would the office support local authority trading standards to ensure that the system was robust in protecting consumers? I am sure that the Minister has all these briefings and will be well prepared to respond to them.
The first two points made by Electrical Safety First in its briefing are that the charity welcomes the debate and the newly established Office for Product Safety and Standards, as it represents a key opportunity. It says that,
“the OPSS is fundamental to creating better cross-government co-ordination”.
Then it asks a number of questions. On product recall, it states:
“Through collaboration with stakeholders there must also be significant effort to improve product registration”.
With regard to online retail, it says that,
“consideration should be given to bringing forward additional legislation”.
On counterfeit electrical goods, it says:
“This issue must be looked at closely”.
On data collection, it says that,
“product safety in the UK is fragmented and incomplete.”
And it says that an injury database is
“Key to an effective intelligence system”.
That is hardly a ringing endorsement, but Electrical Safety First is more upbeat than Which? is.
Which? is probably the most sceptical. It states:
“Which? welcomed the Government’s recognition that the product safety system needs to be fixed. However, the announcement of the OPSS falls short of the full overhaul the product safety system so desperately needs…Which? is calling for fundamental reform that stops unsafe products from reaching UK households.”
It reminds us of the history, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). I am talking about the Peterborough trading standards challenge, which was brought about only because of the London fire brigade report and because Which? basically took legal action to make Peterborough trading standards challenge Whirlpool.
The London fire brigade, in its briefing, is also welcoming, but asks questions. On progress and powers of the new office, it asks:
“Could the Minister give further detail on what measures will be in place to ensure the Office has technical expertise and the resources to support…Trading Standards…will the OPSS also consider criminal prosecution if a manufacturer of white goods lets consumers continue to use a known dangerous product?...will the new Office encourage and facilitate information sharing by manufacturers and insurers following fires so that fire and rescue services and trading standards are in possession of key data”.
It asks:
“Could the Minister give an update on what progress has been made on the recall register?...Could the Minister confirm that there will be an obligation on manufacturers to inform government of all recalls…what will be done to communicate the new register to consumers”.
Much is expected of the new Office for Product Safety and Standards, and certainly the fanfare from Government is that this is a positive step forward. It should be and very well could be. I look forward to the winding-up speeches from the Opposition spokespersons, but this is, more importantly, an opportunity for the Minister to explain how the new office will help and what he expects it to achieve. I am very grateful for the opportunity to have contributed.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will not repeat what my hon. Friend said, except to say that we are all grateful for the expertise and support that we get in trying to deal with these issues, for your involvement over time and for the Select Committee’s involvement now.
It is probably right to say that the announcement of the new office was rather subdued. I think that it came at a weekend; we were all expecting an oral statement or at least some explanation of its role, but we have had to wait really till today to address that matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for initiating the debate and for her expertise on the matter.
We know what needs to be done. We had the Lynn Faulds Wood report two years ago. We had the Government’s own working party report. We have had much expert advice, including from the London fire brigade, Which? and Electrical Safety First. The difficulty is that not much is happening. There is a fear—if I can be blunt with the Minister—that this is really window dressing; it is simply a way of being seen to do something. We are told that it is a new office and has additional funding—£12 million. Can the Minister confirm, first, that that is additional money? Secondly, I think that that is when it is fully operational. When will the office be fully operational in that way? Its remit appears to be quite limited. It appears to be mainly the same people doing the job, and it appears to have the same limitations because of the reliance, still, on the local network of underfunded trading standards organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. I can confirm that we are talking about £12 million of additional resources for the Office for Product Safety and Standards. In this first year, we envisage there being an additional spend of approximately £9 million; that is as it staffs up and gets itself ready. But there will be £12 million of new money, in addition to the work that the officials have already been doing within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for that answer. Perhaps, because of the limited time, I will limit myself to making one point. Will the new office pass the Whirlpool test? Whirlpool is untypical in some ways, because one particular design fault has affected 5.5 million tumble dryers; I think it was estimated that one in six homes in the country are affected. That is not the only problem with Whirlpool. We have also had the issue that led to the Llanrwst inquest and the sad, tragic deaths there. The Whirlpool reaction has been extraordinarily unhelpful. If the office can deal with Whirlpool, it can probably deal with a number of other issues.
I remind Members that over 12 years a number of different brands manufactured tumble dryers that were liable to catch fire and did in many hundreds, if not thousands, of cases. The concentration was initially on the slow speed at which they were repaired or replaced and then the fact that half of them were not identified at all. That threw up the lack of a registration or recall process. Whirlpool persistently resisted a recall or even giving the correct safety advice. That is bad enough, but through Which? and the BBC’s “Watchdog” programme—which has done an incredible job in exposing this negligent behaviour by Whirlpool and is now being broadcast weekly—we have discovered that that was not the only problem.
The replacement and repaired machines were themselves faulty and large numbers of them are now catching fire. We could well be back where we were, except for the fact that people have been lulled into a false sense of security in the belief that they now have safe goods in their home when they often do not. How does the Minister intend to approach the Whirlpool issue and learn from it? Will we have a proper registration process? Will we have a clear database of products that are at risk and are recalled? Will we insist on recall, rather than this rather botchy repair method? Will that be within the remit of the new office?
Finally, we are coming up to the first anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, which we are dealing with on a daily basis. It was started by a particular type of fridge freezer. If the Minister cannot answer this question now, I would be grateful if he would write to me. I have had contradictory answers from his Department and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. When will we get a verdict on that? Is it coming through the police inquiry or his Department? When will we know exactly which fault caused that fire? We know it is in a particular model of fridge freezer, but we need to know more, because if there is a further risk, it needs to be demonstrated and publicised.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) who has done so much work on this issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this debate.
Like everyone, I welcome the establishment of the Office for Product Safety and Standards, but it needs a role for consumers as well as businesses. Consumers need to be front and centre in this. I will not go into the Whirlpool affair, which has been dealt with, although I hope lessons will be learned from that. I would like to know, however, what support will be given to trading standards. We have heard about the Peterborough problem. Will there be a centralised team under the national trading standards remit on product safety? That seems like a good way of working.
I want to concentrate on the recall register. How will consumers know about it? If I had time, I would do a little test and ask people if they could tell me the model number of their fridge, freezer and washing machine—apart from the make—because I could not. Where are these numbers? Usually they are at the back of machines in completely inaccessible places. If there are fitted units, the whole cupboard has to be taken apart to get to the model number. What is the point of publishing a register of model numbers that most people do not have a clue that they own? How will we get around that one?
What about people who are not on the internet? How will they know about a recall? Surely, the way to do it would be through a register at the point of sale that would only be used in the case of a recall. It should be given to the manufacturer with strict instructions that there is to be no marketing or contact unless there is a recall. If the machine is sold on, online traders who deal with it, such as eBay, Amazon, Gumtree and Shpock, could also register who it is sold on to. That would get around the fact that we cannot get to second-hand goods or the people who sell them. We know that few people fill out registration cards, because they are frightened of getting marketing calls all the time.
It is illegal to sell second-hand and fake goods subject to recall in the US. I do not see why we cannot have some form of legislation on that here. We need to tighten up the online platforms. I do not want to stop the sale of second-hand goods. I do not want people to be forced to go to BrightHouse—heaven forbid—as the only place they can buy these goods, but they have to be safe. The online platforms must be made responsible for the goods. They are not simply equivalent to landlords who let a shop that sells goods. They are considered to be the same as the sellers. People who buy from Amazon Marketplace consider that they are buying from Amazon and are covered by that. That applies to fake goods as well. They are equally responsible for the sale of fake goods, which all too often cause fires. Fake chargers, fake hair straighteners and all the fake goods sold on such websites are the responsibility—I would say—of the people who provide the platform for the sellers. The minimum they should do on recall is highlight that there is a recall. When it comes up and somebody is looking at white goods, a warning should flash: “These products have been recalled.”
Finally, will we still be in the European rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products, or Rapex, after this? It is important we co-operate with Europe, as many of the goods are European.
I welcome the establishment of an office dedicated to product safety, but the devil will be in the detail. When will it publish its action plan? When will it publish its priorities? Will there be a timeline for these priorities? Will consumers be at the front, centre and heart of this office?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and to speak in this exceptionally important debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).
As we have seen on too many occasions in the last few years, product safety can be the difference between life and death. According to the consumer magazine Which?, faulty goods can cause as many as 3,120 fires a year. That is 60 fires a week or one fire every three hours. Since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Britain has led the world in workplace and consumer safety. High standards have ensured that we can live and work safely without risk of death or injury in our daily lives. British safety has been a global success story, with our standards adopted across the middle east, Asia and the Commonwealth. It is right, therefore, that we welcome the introduction of the Office for Product Safety and Standards as the next step in ensuring that product safety in the UK remains world class, that it is placed right at the heart of the economy, and that we avoid any sense of a race to the bottom on regulatory standards.
To do that effectively, as well as all the actions mentioned by my hon. Friends, the Government need to take a couple of extra actions as well. The Office for Product Safety and Standards must be properly financed, resourced and staffed. I welcome the £12 million that the Minister has already mentioned. The motto at the heart of the office must simply be that safety cannot be done on the cheap. The Government must provide the resources to allow it to attract the talent that it needs in order to be effective in maintaining and reinforcing the high-quality regulation that exists for consumers.
The points raised by all my hon. Friends are absolutely crucial in dealing with these problems with white goods and electrical safety. Having a new office gives us an opportunity to expand its remit and include workplace safety items as well. A company called Arco, based in my constituency of Hull, supplies health and safety equipment and services. It tells me that it has seen worryingly levels of non-compliance in a wide range of workplace safety items, including things such as high-vis jackets and non-steel toecap boots. It has carried out some tests on some of these products in a laboratory in Hull. It has revealed that up to 50% of boots containing steel midsole protection on the consumer market are actually made from brittle or mild steel, which is subject to corrosion. Many of these products have passed the CE branding procedure at the test stage, but they simply do not protect employers or consumers to an adequate standard.
We all know that protective equipment is often the last line of defence for consumers and workers against serious injury or fatality, so I think the Office for Product Safety and Standards should expand its remit to reflect this urgency. The Government should also act to give a new legislative footing to products and workplace safety that is fit to meet the evolving challenges of product safety, reflects the concerns of the industry, and gives the office real teeth to make it really effective. Product safety and standards are one area that all of us, regardless of party, can get behind. We all want to see consumers protected and safety promoted. I hope that the new Office for Product Safety and Standards can be a resounding success, which it will be if the Government follow all of the recommendations mentioned in the debate.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this debate on the new Office for Product Safety and Standards and on the powerful case she has set out.
The Minister may know that my interest in these issues stems from my constituency’s historical links to white goods manufacturing. I am very proud of our legacy. Hoover washing machines, dishwashers and even the Sinclair C5 were all made in my constituency. Secondly, I am a member of the all-party group on home electrical safety, chaired by my hon. Friend. I want to focus my brief remarks on three issues—communications with the public, old white goods and elderly electrical products being sold online, and support for trading standards in Wales.
I have seen the briefing from Electrical Safety First that was distributed to hon. Members before this debate, and I am grateful for it. I welcome, as other Members have, the creation of the OPSS. I see it as protecting consumers from electrical hazards, particularly fires caused by white goods. As Electrical Safety First states in its briefing,
“there needs to be expansion of government campaigns on electrical safety in the home throughout the year.”
I very much agree with that statement when I look at the fires caused by white goods in homes and those who are affected.
Some 1,719 fires in Wales were caused by an electrical source of ignition last year. In the past three years, according to the South Wales fire service, 43 fires were caused by tumble dryers and washing machines, with over 55% of those instances attributed to Hotpoint, Indesit or Creda machines. Seven of those 43 were in my constituency. Will the Government consider a consumer campaign on fires caused by white goods targeted at vulnerable families who might buy cheaper white goods online and in marketplaces, some of which may be recalled or second-hand, with unsuspecting consumers not even being aware of their recalled status?
Many people used to buy products specifically manufactured in the UK, stamped “made in the UK” or “made in Great Britain”, because they were often seen as a trusted product. As I have mentioned in previous debates in the House, many manufacturers, including Hoover, decided to send production overseas and now import electrical goods into the UK. We need to look closely at online platforms such as eBay, Amazon, Gumtree and Facebook that allow, without any regulation or enforcement, second-hand and in particular very elderly electrical products to be sold, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) outlined. What will the new office do with the online platforms that allow the sales of very elderly electrical goods to the public? Is it right that old electric heaters and washing machines from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s should be allowed to be sold to the public via sites such as eBay as safe to use? I do not believe that should be allowed. Furthermore, manufacturers should take action to prevent their very elderly products from being sold online and work with the likes of eBay, Amazon and so on. What plans does the new office have to look at second-hand electrical goods sales?
Second-hand goods and recalled products being sold online or in marketplaces need proper enforcement. Information from the Welsh Local Government Association shows that owing to austerity and the pressures placed on local councils, regulation activities were cut by 47% in the past five years, which includes trading standards responsibilities. As the WLGA suggests, there is a loss of expertise and ability to enforce electrical product safety, particularly in the most vulnerable communities, which is potentially where the cheapest electrical goods would be bought and sold. Will the Minister agree with me that the new office—this also addresses the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—needs to support local trading standards on the ground to ensure proper market surveillance of the sales of electrical goods in the community? I refer not only to old products, but to new, particularly dodgy mobile phone chargers and e-cigarettes, which the WLGA says that trading standards departments get the most complaints about.
I hope that the Minister will look closely at those issues and ensure that the new office works for the most vulnerable consumers who need to be protected from dangerous electrical goods in their communities. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister on what has been done and what further he can do to address the issues and offer reassurances.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate. I congratulate her on raising this important issue, which matters to so many of us and our constituents. Also, a bit cheekily, I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her recent election as deputy leader, although I am not sure whether that is allowed.
The move to establish a new Office for Product Safety and Standards is welcome, but I will echo a few of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has said about how there will be only limited improvement should the Government fail to establish an effective product register site for all UK recalled products.
I am part of a group of mothers in my constituency who often talk about how we keep our babies, toddlers and newborns safe. We are usually awash with information about the best nappies to use, whether to use formula or to breastfeed, and which car seat should be used, but one of the things that we struggle with is finding out which products that we use for our newborns should be recalled: for example, tumble dryers, which most of us use; baby monitors, which are often fitted to the cots that children sleep in or are at least in their rooms; or bottle or milk warmers that in the past have been recalled, which we do not have much information about.
If we want to find out information about those products, we have to go through individual websites to try to find out which one is faulty and which one we should use, at the same time as trying to look after our young children, which is not the easiest of things to do. We found out that the communication from manufacturers about faulty products is simply not good enough. In a consumer survey carried out by Electrical Safety First, only 21% of people said that they had ever responded to a product recall, and 47% had never even seen a recall notice. That is certainly the experience that I have had, along with the constituents that I am speaking about.
Manufacturers often fail to be clear about what dangers their product poses. If they said more clearly what accidents, deaths and fires were linked to the product that they have recalled, more people would act on the recall notice. In fact, in a survey, 77% of consumers said that if they knew what exactly was wrong with the product that they were using and what dangers it could pose to them and their families, they would be more likely to take the product recall notice seriously.
It is shameful that recall success rates are rarely more than 10% or 20%. If we sincerely want recalls to be successful where necessary, we should not leave it up to consumers to hunt through thousands of websites to find out information. It is not reasonable to expect new parents who are already dealing with newborn children to check every website of every manufacturer from whom they have ever bought a product. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield talked about how many people actually know the product’s serial number or what is on the back of every product that they have bought: what make it was or in what year it was bought. It is simply not possible for consumers to have such information at their fingertips.
We must make sure that consumers are equipped with information about the products they have bought to ensure that they can keep themselves and their families safe. Will the Minister agree that it is vital that the OPSS outline the detail behind its commitment to establish a single national database for UK product recalls? In particular, we need to know what resources and funding the OPSS will have to publicise the site’s existence. After all, we know that public awareness is key to successful product recall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to speak in a Westminster Hall debate, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who always speaks with a real passion and belief in what she says. I commend her for that. I always look forward to debates that she is involved in. It is because of her that we have this debate and are able to speak in it, so I thank her for that. I also thank all the hon. Members who have made contributions and the Front-Bench spokespersons for the Scottish National party and for the Labour party who will speak later. I believe their contributions will be significant as well. I am sure that the Minister, who is taking notes, will take on board Members’ questions and concerns, and I hope that we can obtain some reassurance from him as to how things stand.
I received a briefing from Electrical Safety First, a charity dedicated to reducing the number of deaths, injuries and fires from domestic electrical accidents, and I commend it and fully support it. We should note its recommendations, and the hard work that the charity does. Over the years I have debated this topic, including in Adjournment debates in the main Chamber with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), among others, and it keeps coming back. That is because there seem to be continual problems with electrical safety. Electricity causes more than 20,000 house fires a year; that is almost half of all accidental house fires. Every year in the UK, around 350,000 people are injured through contact with electricity and 70 people are killed.
An example, if anyone needs a reminder, of what electricity can do when it goes wrong, is the Whirlpool case. I spoke in the debate on that matter obtained by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I remember the debate well, and the issue even better. Afterwards I learned from one of my constituents who had such a dryer that she had been told to stay in and watch the dryer when it was in use. I nearly fell off my chair when I heard that. It is an unusual and strange thing to say: “Don’t watch TV; watch your dryer.”
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. What alerted me to the issue in the first place was a serious tower block fire in Shepherd’s Bush, two years ago, when the victim was watching—she was in the same room as the fire and did everything right, including unplugging it. It still completely destroyed her flat, and Whirlpool would still not change their advice about using the machines, until they were threatened with legal action.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has been a warrior on these issues and speaks well about them, and what he said illustrates the point. “Watch your dryer”—my goodness, watch it as it burns and the house catches fire. It will be too late then, but that is by the way.
I thought that what was happening was not the way to handle an electrical safety unit, and I am pleased about the setting up of the Office for Product Safety and Standards. There has been no long-term strategy to tackle fires caused by electricity in people’s homes. At present, only the Electrical Fire Safety Week held in November each year—we all go along—exists to provide a concentration of communication to the public from Government. Communication campaigns such as the Home Office’s “Fire Kills” campaign have been under Government review for some time. Perhaps the review is coming to an end; I hope so.
Electrical Safety First believes that Government campaigns on electrical fires must be expanded. There should be more advertising, probably on television, and through councils, and more safety measures should be taken. An average success rate of 20% of products being recovered or repaired means that millions of potentially dangerous products remain in people’s homes. We may not know it but we might have such things in our own homes. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) mentioned phone chargers, and it is an important point: teenagers laugh if their phone charger, or even earphones, catches fire, but those incidents are not reported. Teenagers do not know where to report them, or who to contact. It is easier to buy a new one, which is probably what they do. They discard the old one, without considering why the fire happened. We must realise that someone who falls asleep with their earphones on may not find it so funny. It is definitely not a funny matter.
Clearly, consumers need confidence that the Government are taking appropriate action to protect them, particularly given that five fires a day are caused in the UK by white goods alone, and in view of the dangers posed by counterfeit electrical goods. In her opening remarks the hon. Member for Swansea East made many good points, but the one I want to reiterate is the rise in the number of people buying online. It continues to be a problem, and it is frustrating because the attraction is price, and customers do not see the safety issue. Is the safety perfect? No, it is not. Is there a safety-conscious attitude? No—or rather, as that is not fair, not in every case.
A big issue, which must be addressed, is the need to look at authenticity and proof of origin. I completely agree that an action plan must be developed, and backed up with an enforcement operation strategy to target the growing problems. Consumers are being put at risk by inaccurate and misleading advertising of electrical goods, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Products claimed to be genuine often contain counterfeit or substandard components. They might look good, but that does not always mean that they are. That has a significant impact on consumer safety, creating a culture of acceptability in selling counterfeit electrical goods online. It undermines legitimate UK business—those who are doing it right. What does the Minister think can be done further to address that issue?
We live in a technologically driven world that is over-reliant on technology. We depend on such things in our lives. We test-drive cars and research the safety of vehicles in crashes, but we do not do the same for electrical goods that we use in our homes. We must, through the new office and today’s debate, send the message that it is important for people to safety-check everything in their homes, and that they can have recourse to a way to report defective goods. That must be done not simply to complain—that is not what it is about—but for the safety of others in the future. That is the motivation of every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. We look to the Minister, as we always do, for a satisfactory response.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I commend colleagues on their excellent timekeeping, which is an example to others and has resulted in plenty of time being left for the Opposition spokesmen and, particularly, for the Minister.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to take part in a debate with so much consensus, which does not happen often. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) who has done a power of work on the issue and continues to champion the cause, as we all recognise. I thank the consumer organisation Which? for providing an excellent briefing, as has Electrical Safety First.
The Office for Product Safety and Standards is welcome, of course, as we have heard from a number of Members. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) pointed out, it is important as a way of strengthening our product safety regime and making sure that customers are aware of and, importantly, can have confidence in the availability of an effective system, should products need repair or replacement. However, caution is required about the impact. In its report the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee regretted the Government’s limited response, and the lack of urgency about acting on recommendations to address product safety issues. It found that reductions in funding for local trading standards and national trading bodies were having the negative effect that might be expected on the adequacy of the existing product safety system.
That finding, combined with the fragmentation of the current system, makes it difficult for consumers to have confidence in the consistent enforcement of the required standards across the UK. We have heard today of responses from the manufacturer Whirlpool to a defect in its tumble dryers, which clearly show the limitations of the existing system. Indeed, as a direct result of its slow response, 1 million homes still contain potentially dangerous appliances, as set out by the hon. Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who explained the dangers that have dogged consumers who have those machines and has, of course, been a champion in the area in question.
There is no doubt that progress in improving the safety of electrical goods has been too slow. I suspect that the Minister would probably agree with that, in his quieter moments. That is despite a widely supported set of recommendations, made in Lynn Faulds Wood’s independent review, published two years ago. That review, which had a national product safety agency as its central recommendation, concluded that that was needed as part of a long-overdue overhaul of the entire system. All hon. Members welcome the new Office for Product Safety and Standards, but as we have heard, it must have sufficient scope and resources to deal with issues of product safety across the UK.
Stephen Kerr
Despite what I am about to say, I do not wish to introduce a tone of discord, but I was distressed last week when, in the Scottish Parliament, our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, answered a question from Miles Briggs MSP regarding genuine concerns about the safety of babies being permitted to sleep in baby boxes. The response he received did not indicate to me that the First Minister shares any kind of genuine feeling for the fact that people are sincerely concerned about product safety and baby boxes.
Patricia Gibson
That question is a bit leftfield, but I am happy to take it head on.
Patricia Gibson
If the hon. Gentleman googles the Scottish Cot Death Trust, he will find that it has no concerns about baby boxes. However, if cardboard is set alight it does catch fire—there is a revelation for the hon. Gentleman—and the trick is not to light matches around cardboard. That is probably the safest thing for a baby.
As I was saying, the Office for Product Safety and Standards must be given sufficient scope and resources to deal with issues of product safety. It must be independent and have real teeth to protect consumers and prevent dangerous products from doing them harm. The Minister will be interested to hear that the consumer organisation Which? has expressed concern and disappointment that the full overhaul and fundamental reform needed to stop unsafe goods from reaching or remaining in our homes does not appear to be on the table. Disappointingly, it seems that the new office has not engaged with consumer organisations such as Which?, which I am sure the Minister would agree has some standing and calibre. I wonder why that is, and how consumers would view that lack of engagement. What does it mean when an organisation of such status cannot get the new office to engage with it? Perhaps that is something the Minister could unblock.
It seems a missed opportunity that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will apparently not address the systematic weaknesses in the existing enforcement framework, as set out by Which?, and it seems that there is no action plan for the new office—Which? has expended considerable effort in trying to elicit such a plan, but without success. This matter is fairly straight- forward because we all know about the ongoing failures in the product safety system, and recent product safety issues have brought into even greater focus questions about the adequacy of the current regulatory and enforcement system in the UK. There are concerns about a lack of effective co-ordination and direction in the new office, and if local authorities have no regulatory enforcement staffing resource, that might be a big problem. We know how under pressure trading standards officers are locally, and their role is extremely important for safety in our communities.
The OPSS must also consider product recall as part of its strategy—as the hon. Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) pointed out, product recall has an average success rate of only 20%, and potentially, millions of unsafe products remain in unsuspecting homes. It must also consider online retail, as that must be held to the legal standards that apply to other forms of retail shopping and product safety—that point was also raised by the hon. Members for Makerfield and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
Counterfeit goods are a huge problem, and we need a way forward to counter that issue. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn pointed out, data collection and sharing for product safety is fragmented and incomplete, and we need a true picture of the scale of the problem of unsafe goods. An injury database could be used to help collect intelligence and quickly identify dangerous products, and that would be a positive step forward.
We have the opportunity to address current weaknesses in the system and make sure that it is fit for purpose in the potentially more diverse trading environment that the UK will be part of in years to come—that point was set out by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). We have the opportunity to introduce a new national independent regime for product safety to ensure effective enforcement, market surveillance, and appropriate standards for goods. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us, getting product safety wrong will, and indeed has, cost lives.
The post-Brexit world raises challenges, and we cannot have a situation where the UK diverges significantly from the rest of the EU, as that could only be to the detriment of consumers—I hope the Minister will reassure us on that point. We all agree that the new office is welcome, but we are concerned to ensure that it has the power, resource and strategic direction to help it achieve what we all want, which is a safe environment for our consumers who buy products in good faith and have a right to expect that they are safe.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is, yet again, a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir David, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important and extremely topical debate. I also thank the all-party group on home electrical safety, Which?, Electrical Safety First, and the BBC’s “Watchdog”—I apologise to anyone who I may have missed, because many people are interested in this issue.
The safety and security of their citizens must be the No. 1 priority for all Governments, but in recent years we have witnessed a series of fires that have haunted the nation. The Grenfell tragedy is suspected to have been caused by a faulty fridge freezer, although, as several hon. Members have said, we are still waiting for the independent inquiry to verify that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has raised with Ministers the tragic case of the Wilson family in her constituency. John Wilson was killed, and his wife and daughter seriously injured, in a house fire and explosion caused by a faulty fridge freezer. The model in question was known to be a fire hazard and was subject to a product safety notice. However, the family had not been informed, and the coroner found that the manufacturer had not taken sufficient steps to warn customers. Those are just some of the tragic stories.
After years of reviews and consultations, in January the Government finally announced the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards, a new body that will
“enhance protection for consumers and the environment”.
Given its name, I was somewhat surprised when I checked its website and found that “product safety” featured at the end of its list of priorities. Indeed, when scrolling through OPSS’s social media account, there is little mention of the steps that it is taking to enhance product safety, or how it is tackling current product safety issues. I am therefore delighted to join other Members in seeking clarification from the Minister about what the scope and nature of the OPSS will be.
That the product safety regime is out of date and not fit for purpose has been evident for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, only a couple of weeks ago after a widespread investigation by Which?, it was revealed that, further to previous investigations, companies such as Whirlpool are
“failing to give full and appropriate safety advice when contacted about fire-risk tumble dryer models”.
That is a clear breach of Whirlpool’s legal obligations under the safety notice and could mean that it is breaking product safety law.
That investigation is part of an ongoing two-year campaign that calls for a full recall of those unsafe products. The fact that the matter has not yet been properly resolved represents an abdication of the manufacturers’ and the Government’s duties to consumers. The OPSS presents an initial opportunity to ensure that that is dealt with, but despite the Minister’s promise to get to work right away, there has been no response. I understand that the body is still new, but if that reflects how it will operate in future, that is disappointing and a far cry from what consumers need to protect themselves against faulty goods. Shockingly, 1 million Whirlpool tumble dryers subject to a safety notice are still in the homes of consumers, and I fear it is only a matter of time before the next tragedy.
I have some pressing questions for the Minister. Is the OPSS looking into the claims made by the Which? investigation, and, if so, what steps is it taking to respond to that urgent investigation? Will the Minister set out clearly the process through which this body will deal with any future investigations? I am pleased that the Government are soon expected to launch their strategy for the OPSS—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith strongly expressed his views on that. Will the Minister confirm the timeline for the publication of the strategy and outline its key priorities?
Given the shambles around the product recall system, I urge the Minister to ensure that part of the OPSS’s remit is playing a key role in dealing with product recalls swiftly. More broadly, the strategy must also address how the body will work with local authorities on the ground. Since 2010, they have suffered severe cuts, as the Government’s consumer Green Paper admits. On page 57, it says that,
“the capacity of Local Authorities to take national cases has reduced. Two-thirds of English local authorities have reported not having the expertise to cover fully the range of statutory duties required of trading standards teams. For example, only half of authorities now have specialist skills in e-crime, a national priority area.”
So the Government openly admit that they are letting consumers down.
Undoubtedly, the lack of resources has left trade bodies bereft of the crucial expertise they require to deal with such cases, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). The Government’s strategy should set out how they will close the gap in the enforcement mechanisms, so that trading bodies are sufficiently supported to enforce consumer law.
I understand that work has already begun on a database of unsafe products, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) eloquently drew attention. However, there is little detail about it. How are the Government conducting the database? Will we be able to see which goods have been recalled? Who will have access to the data? How will third parties be able to access the data in a responsible manner? I hope the Minister will answer those questions in his response. Furthermore, the database needs to be in place by 29 March 2019 in preparation for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be in place by then?
Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), raised the issue of second-hand goods and online purchases. How will the Government address that important issue?
The OPSS is a step in the right direction but it does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental issue of the product safety regime. Clearly, the current policy is out of date and not fit for purpose. If we are to keep citizens safe, the Government must take firmer action now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Sir David, with your vast experience of this place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful input. The hon. Lady is a true champion for her constituency, as I know from my work on the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill. She has made a huge contribution to the lives of people across our country, and I commend her not only for the work that she does, but for the way in which she does it.
Let me be clear that there is no doubt about the Government’s commitment to maintaining the highest level of consumer protection. I have a wide and varied brief. As the Minister responsible for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility, I cover postal issues, competition policy and retail. I lose track of the number of things that should be on my business card, but it would not fit in my pocket if it had everything on. I reassure the Chamber that consumer protection is of the utmost importance, however, and if anything keeps me awake at night, it is ensuring that this country has a product safety regime that keeps us all safe. The Government’s commitment led to the first ever national technical expertise to support local authority trading standards teams in their vital work of enforcing product safety.
There were some questions about the announcement in relation to the Office for Product Safety and Standards. I put my hands up; it was my first week as a Minister. I thought it was better to get the information into the public arena and for people to be aware of it. If there are suggestions that I should have come to the House or done it differently, I take them on board. We are always learning.
I announced the establishment of the Office for Product Safety and Standards on 21 January. That announcement responded to the central recommendation made by the working group on product recalls and safety. That group was set up by the Government to advise on the practical steps that could be taken to enhance the UK’s approach to product safety. It identified a need for a national technical and scientific resource to support decision making in local authorities and in the businesses they regulate. We will deliver that national capability through the Office for Product Safety and Standards. I have high ambitions for what the office will be able to achieve, and I am determined that the capability will be established quickly.
Since establishing the office, we have taken steps to deliver improvements, which I will say more about shortly, but it might be helpful to remind hon. Members where the responsibilities within the product safety regime lie, so we are clear about exactly where we should expect the office to deliver improvements. It has not been set up to do what others are already doing or should be doing.
Businesses are legally responsible for ensuring that the products they place on the market are safe, and for taking effective action to address any issues that arise once those products are in circulation. The Office for Product Safety and Standards does not take those responsibilities away from businesses, nor does it lessen them in any way. It gives us the scope to better enforce those requirements more consistently across the country.
Day-to-day enforcement of product safety is led by local authorities, which have teams of officers on the ground across the country, as we have heard. In that role, they provide vital services, such as being a point of contact, giving advice to consumers and businesses, and leading on investigations into potential non-compliance. I pay tribute to the work that trading standards officers do across the country. The establishment of the office does not move, alter or reduce that role. Local authorities remain front and centre in the delivery of effective protections.
The office will provide additional support for those local teams, who will be able to draw on the national testing facilities, leading scientific advice and technical expertise to help them to deal with the complexity of the issues they encounter. We have heard about the challenges in relation to resource, but this is a new, additional resource of additional expertise to help and support those trading standards officers across the country.
To clarify, the new office will have a budget for new product safety activities of an additional £12 million a year. As I said earlier, the budget for the first year in operation, 2018-19, is about £25 million, which includes £9 million of additional funding. In the following year, that £9 million will increase to £12 million. Those are substantial amounts of resources. The office will employ about 290 people, of whom 180 will be existing staff and 110 will be new posts. I hope that reassures right hon. and hon. Members.
Stephen Kerr
Will the new office that the Minister is describing in great detail have the power to hold to the fire the feet of big organisations, such as Whirlpool, in favour of consumers?
Andrew Griffiths
I absolutely reassure my hon. Friend. I think he won the prize for the best pun today when he talked about the spin cycle of those large companies. I noticed it, if nobody else did, and laughed internally. Clearly, the office has to have the teeth and the capabilities to hold those businesses to account. I reassure him that it will.
Andy Slaughter
I think the Minister has said that one of the office’s duties will be to maintain a recall register. How is that progressing, and will manufacturers be under an obligation to ensure that the register is notified of all recalls?
Andrew Griffiths
I confirm that there is an obligation in place for manufacturers to notify the Office for Product Safety and Standards. I will come on to how the database will work further on in my speech.[Official Report, 15 May 2018, Vol. 641, c. 2MC.]
Within the office, we are applying lessons from regulators such as the Food Standards Agency, which is a national regulator that deals with significant volumes of product incidents and provides national scientific expertise to local authorities. So we are not creating something new; we are learning the lessons from previous regulators to ensure that the office works properly. We are also applying the lessons learned from international comparators—the OECD and American counterparts—and we are in the process of building national capacity.
Through the OPSS, the Government have already led the development of a code of practice for product recalls and corrective actions, working with the British Standards Institution. The code provides greater clarity for businesses on what they should do in such cases. It also provides a framework for local authorities when they engage with businesses to support and enforce programmes of corrective action.
There was a question about how the OPSS will support trading standards officers. I can confirm that so far, more than 250 local authority officers have received training on the new code and as a result they are now better equipped to deal with incidents.
Gill Furniss
Although the Minister said earlier that there are 290 posts at the OPSS, it looks as though there is little resource in terms of extra staffing or extra funding for local trading standards officers. Is that correct?
Andrew Griffiths
To clarify, as I said before, there are 110 new posts at the OPSS, with an additional resource of £12 million; I think that is a substantial amount of money. The Government are properly resourcing what we accept is a vital facility.
As we build the office over the coming year, the Government will continue to consult on aspects of its functions and on its long-term scope. I think there has been some question about whether it should remain in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or be an independent body. We will consult on that and on the case for changes to its legal powers.
The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned the work of the all-party parliamentary group on home electrical safety, and I commend that work. I have read a number of the reports and documents that it has produced, and they were helpful to me. I also pay tribute to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for the work that she has done. That work demonstrates the desire to work across parties and to ensure that we get this matter right for all our constituents.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
In the spirit of cross-party working, the Minister might remember that on 29 January he responded to a Westminster Hall debate on a petition calling for greater regulation of the sale of fireworks. In response to an inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), he said that, regarding the sale and regulation of fireworks, “this new body” would
“—where necessary—come forward with suggestions and advice to Government.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 261WH.]
He also committed to arranging a meeting with all those Members who were interested in the regulation and sale of fireworks. Has there been any progress on that particular issue?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She has reminded the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who said that this debate was the first time that he had heard me speak as the Minister, that this is actually the second time that he has done so; that was a very useful debate. My understanding—I look to my right, at my officials—is that officials were in the process of setting up that meeting. If they have not done so, I will chase that up; it should take place, because it is an important meeting and I want it to happen.
The hon. Member for Swansea East asked what the OPSS was doing to discuss electrical fire safety with the Home Office; that is important. The OPSS is building up its intelligence-gathering capability and will use a database and evidence to help to identify and prioritise products that pose higher safety risks to consumers. The OPSS is also represented on the Home Office’s fire statistics users group and we are in regular—almost daily—contact across Government to ensure that these activities are properly joined up.
The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned online selling, which is very important. Action is being taken by law enforcement agencies against the sale of counterfeit goods at local markets and car boot sales, through social media channels such as Facebook and facilitated by fulfilment houses.
The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of Amazon giving evidence to her all-party parliamentary group. I put on the record that I understand the point she made, and I agree with her that it would be valuable for the APPG to engage constructively with Amazon. I am sure that others outside this place have heard her comment and will respond to her in the near future; she should let me know if they do not.
Existing legislation applies to online retailers and they have a responsibility for the products they sell. As we have heard, the Intellectual Property Office works closely with Electrical Safety First; I commend the work that that charity does to highlight how to identify fake electrical goods that are being sold online.
One of the reasons for creating the OPSS is to enable the UK to meet the evolving challenges of product safety by responding to the increasing rate of product innovation, the growth of online shopping and trading portals, and expanding international trade.
I was asked whether private sales—consumer to consumer, on websites such as eBay—are regulated. Consumer-to-consumer sales are not covered by the Consumer Rights Act, other than in relation to things such as secondary ticketing. However, as we have heard today, there is a current consultation—a Green Paper—that I have launched, which specifically asks whether more protection is needed in this area. If the hon. Lady would like to contribute to that consultation, I would certainly be interested in hearing her views.
Over the past three years, National Trading Standards has had a core budget of £40 million to work with local authorities to tackle harm in this area. There was also a question in relation to the injury database. The injury database was scrapped in 2002, and at present there are no plans to reinstate it. However, the OPSS is considering how to ensure that it has access to the best information, and we always keep abreast of these things and will consider the future as we go forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) raised the issue of regulators and their powers. The White Paper specifically asks whether regulators need more powers, so he might want to have a look at it.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked whether businesses will be required to notify the OPSS; I think that I have already confirmed to him that they will absolutely be required to do so.
Then there is the issue of selling second-hand goods subject to recall. Under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, there is a requirement for sellers of second-hand goods not to sell goods that they know are unsafe.
I was asked what will happen on our exit from the EU. Of course, unsafe products will remain a serious risk. UK enforcement authorities are currently reliant on EU systems, such as Rapex, as the hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned. However, BEIS is developing new systems to enable regulators to identify new threats quickly, to mount co-ordinated and rapid responses, and to target and intercept products, including imports.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) raised the issue of boots. I can tell her that safety boots are regulated under the personal protective equipment regulations. Manufacturers have a legal obligation to ensure that they are safe, and trading standards officers have the powers to act if necessary. If the hon. Lady provides me with the details, I will ask the OPSS to work with trading standards officers to look into the case for her.
What else have we had? I think that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has pointed out that we intend to undertake a further upgrade of the Government’s product recall website; that issue was raised earlier. We recognise that this website is important and we will put extra work into it. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). She mentions that mums are concerned about bottle warmers and baby seats. I would say that it is not only mums who are concerned; as a new dad myself, I know that dads are also concerned. I can correct her by saying that they are no longer called baby seats; I think they are now called travel systems. That was news to me, but we are always learning as we go, are we not?
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some very important points. I commend him on the fact that he has spoken in some 379 debates in the last year. If only our products were as reliable as he is, we would not need this new office. However, I point out to him that currently the number of questions that he has asked stands at 666, so he might want to ask another question shortly.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned Which? I think we all recognise the important role that Which? plays in consumer protection. I can confirm to her that I am meeting its managing director next week and I can also confirm that the OPSS is working closely with Which? in a number of areas and has had regular meetings with it. I hope that reassures her.
I was also asked about the Grenfell fridge. Clearly, that issue is a priority. A thorough safety investigation has taken place and I hope to be able to come forward with information for the House in the very near future.
In closing, I reassure the House that this Government take the issue of product safety incredibly seriously. We have to get this matter right for all of our constituents. As the Minister responsible, I confirm that the Department and the new OPSS will continue to engage with parliamentarians to ensure that we get it right. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of the Office for Product Safety and Standards.
DWP Offices Closures: Merthyr Tydfil
(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
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that the debate is now scheduled to finish at 4.45 pm. I call Gerald Jones to move the motion.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed closure of DWP offices in Merthyr Tydfil.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. Early in 2017, the Department for Work and Pensions announced that it intended to close many of its offices, sites and jobcentres across the UK. About 250 staff work in the DWP office in Merthyr Tydfil town centre, and they clearly make a contribution to spending in the community and our town centre. The office is well established and is close to the town centre, so our local economy would really notice the loss of this large workplace.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I have a very similar situation in Cwmbran town centre, as Cwmbran pension centre makes that type of contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is economically illiterate to take such jobs out of local economies across the valleys?
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree with his point, and will comment on that further in the course of my contribution.
Job opportunities for local people would be limited if the DWP pulls out of Merthyr Tydfil. Such a proposal goes against what I believe the Government should be doing: helping to support local communities, the local economy and local jobs. The proposed move could mean services being more difficult to access for claimants and hundreds of jobs being moved out of deprived communities, where every job counts. In 2008, the Welsh Government moved several of their Departments out of Cardiff and located one of their regional offices in Merthyr Tydfil, bringing secure jobs to the town and supporting the local economy. The UK Government would do well to follow the Welsh Government’s example in that and, if I may say, many other areas.
If the closure goes ahead, the potential loss of jobs and incomes in the town would have a huge impact on Merthyr Tydfil and the surrounding communities across the heads of the valleys.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
A number of towns throughout south Wales will be affected similarly to Merthyr Tydfil. I refer in particular to Caerphilly, where the local authority has told me that retailers and businesses will be hit badly if the DWP moves its office out of Caerphilly to Treforest.
Gerald Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. His point, similar to that made by other colleagues, highlights the fact that many towns across the south Wales valleys are in a similar position. Their local economies are supported by such jobs, and any move to remove them would be detrimental.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the valleys. Does he agree that Newport is also affected? We are very proud of the civil service jobs we have in Newport; there are hundreds at Sovereign House, the DWP office. Does my hon. Friend agree that in a drive to centralise, the Government are overlooking the importance of local jobs and local expertise from local people? That would be lost, given the travel difficulties that people are experiencing getting to Treforest.
Gerald Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I see Newport as part of the south Wales economic area. Job losses in that community would have a similar effect there as they do in other areas across south Wales.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To highlight the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), I have constituents who commute to Sovereign House in Newport who will now face disrupted travel from having to go so much further to Treforest, rather than down the road to Newport.
Gerald Jones
Again, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I will come on to some of the travel pressures that I have recently experienced myself.
As I said, the closure would have an impact on the surrounding communities across the heads of the valleys —an area trying its best to regenerate itself amid ongoing austerity pressures, which have created a difficult financial situation for our area.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my constituency, in Gabalfa, the DWP office is set to close. Does he agree that such job losses take away something very valuable from our local communities? There is a lack of understanding from the Government of the transport challenges that will be faced by my constituents and many other people across the south Wales valleys.
Gerald Jones
The geography of south Wales is quite unique and people have to navigate the transport difficulties to which my hon. Friends have alluded on a daily basis. There are huge difficulties in access across valleys and from parts of south Wales to others and the transport links need to be addressed.
If the closures go ahead, they will decimate the economies of town centres across south-east Wales—town centres that are already struggling to cope. The DWP is planning to relocate staff to a site that, until last week, was known only as “north of Cardiff”. Last week, we had confirmation that it has signed a lease for a site on Treforest industrial estate. It was probably the worst-kept secret, but anyway it has now been confirmed.
In January, I and my Welsh Assembly colleague, Dawn Bowden AM, along with members of the PCS union, undertook an early morning journey on public transport to the proposed new site. It proved that to get to the new location by public transport will, for some existing employees, involve travel by train and bus, and walking a distance through a poorly lit industrial estate, which will undoubtedly be a major challenge in the winter months. The journey took all of two hours.
The site has poor access from the nearest train station along a narrow road with no pavement and my understanding is that it will have 1,700 full-time equivalent roles, but initial observations show that the car parking provision would be limited. There is a clear expectation that members of staff will travel by public transport, but it is also clear that many would find it extremely difficult to make that daily journey by public transport. Some members of staff already commute long distances to get to their workplace in Merthyr Tydfil as a result of previous DWP workforce reorganisations. Having to travel even further would, in many cases, cause hardship.
The construction of a brand-new building with a view to lowering costs seems a little confused. In many communities across south-east Wales, there is an opportunity to look at existing buildings, which would undoubtedly have a competitive financial case and retain jobs and viable office space in town centres. Alternatively, if a large employer such as the DWP pulls out of town centres, buildings such as the former tax office in Merthyr Tydfil, which closed nearly a decade ago, will remain empty and become dilapidated over time, often becoming a blight on the local community and impacting heavily on the wider public purse in the medium to long term.
UK Government offices are currently based in a number of towns in south Wales, supporting local jobs and economies. I am bound to highlight the opportunities that exist in Merthyr Tydfil. The option of retaining current jobs and having an enhanced presence is more than worthy of consideration. The current DWP office in Merthyr Tydfil is well-established and the staff turnover rate is low. Many employees have worked in that location for a long time and are committed to providing a good service to the public, and the local jobs market means that vacancies in Merthyr Tydfil are filled quickly and applicants remain in jobs. The DWP office is modern and has space for additional staff. Traffic congestion coming into Merthyr Tydfil at peak times is minimal in comparison with larger towns and cities and would mean that staff and customers would gain easy access, whether for employment or accessing the service.
I hope the Minister will comment on the concerns I have raised. Has the DWP yet undertaken an equality impact assessment regarding members of staff? DWP announced the proposed closure of Merthyr Tydfil benefit centre along with others in the south Wales area, yet, to date, local, district and senior managers state that equality impact assessments have not been completed or even commissioned. I received a letter in July last year from the then Minister for Employment, stating that an equality analysis was due to take place, so I would be extremely disappointed and annoyed if, after nearly 12 months, that had not happened. I cannot understand how the decision to close a site that provides quality jobs in such a deprived area of south Wales can be made without an equality impact assessment being carried out and its findings being considered. Surely carrying out an impact assessment on such a move is an essential first step.
An announcement was recently made that staff on fixed-term appointments in Merthyr Tydfil benefits centre will not have their contracts renewed, meaning that there will be at least 40 fewer staff by the end of the year. Yet the work will still need to be processed. Staff at the centre are concerned that current workloads will be exported to other sites, some possibly outside of Wales. They are concerned that something is being kept from them. Does the DWP have plans to close the site earlier than originally announced?
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Just last week, Virgin Media announced its intention to close a flagship site in my constituency of Swansea East, with the potential loss of 770 jobs. Jobcentre Plus will be the first port of call for all of those people who will be seeking new opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that any attempt to minimise local access to Jobcentre Plus can only add to the fear and frustration of those vulnerable people, who are already very fearful for their futures?
Gerald Jones
I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s point reinforces the point about having access to quality jobs and services in local communities.
The plans for the Merthyr Tydfil office have caused real concern in my community. The workforce are clearly concerned. The local and regional branches of the PCS union have raised objections. I and a number of Parliamentary colleagues from across south-east Wales have raised concerns. My Welsh Assembly colleague Dawn Bowden and many of her Welsh Assembly colleagues have raised concerns. Local traders and employers in the town are also concerned.
Although the Minister may ignore some of those concerns, I feel sure that he would not wish to ignore the concerns of the newest Conservative Association in the UK, the Merthyr and Rhymney Conservative Association, which stated in March that it also objects to the relocation of those jobs. I understand that the association has written to the Minister to raise its objections:
“Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney Conservatives are against this move as we believe the 200 jobs should be kept locally and not moved down the valley. We believe this would have a negative impact on workers by increasing commuting times and adding extra travel costs which would impact their cost of living.”
The deputy chairman for membership also said:
“I believe the proposed move of the DWP office to Treforest will have a detrimental effect on the current 200 strong workforce. I am a strong believer in the idea that local jobs should be for local people hence why we have contacted the minister in a bid to get him to re-think this decision which could potentially have a wide impact on the wider economy.”
Perhaps the Minister will share his response and confirm whether he agrees with his Conservative colleagues.
I have serious concerns that such huge changes for staff and customers are being taken forward at a time when universal credit is about to be rolled out in the area. Universal credit has proved to be challenging in many other areas. For the staff to be worried about their future while dealing with a major policy change is not a constructive or a timely mix.
Will the Minister confirm whether an equality analysis has been carried out regarding Merthyr Tydfil benefit centre? The DWP prides itself on being a diverse and inclusive employer and has many disabled and vulnerable workers. As we know, the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities, including Government Departments such as DWP, to consider the potential impact on people with protected characteristics when making policy decisions and delivering services. The PCS union has been vocal in demanding that a full equality impact assessment and health and safety review be carried out.
Why is the DWP ignoring the Government’s green policy, which is trying to reduce the number of cars on the road, by relocating service centres to an industrial estate with poor public transport links? Why is the DWP ignoring the Welsh Government and the TUC’s “Better jobs in local areas” campaign by relocating away from local communities to centralised locations in cities or remote industrial areas?
Finally, why is the DWP suddenly not renewing the contracts of staff on fixed-term contracts, leaving sections decimated and unable to function? Is it planning to close the site earlier than announced? I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to those queries in the hope that he can quell some of the concern, anxiety and growing anger about the decision, which does nothing to support local town centres and economies, or to protect local jobs.
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing this important debate.
The level of employment in the United Kingdom is at a record high. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the employment rate is 70.1%—an increase of 7 percentage points since 2010. That trend has been replicated across Wales as a whole, where the employment rate has increased by 5.8 percentage points since 2010, and now stands at 73%. I know that all hon. Members will welcome those jobs figures.
It may be helpful if I explain the background to the changes in the DWP estate, which have led to this issue. In March 2018, the 20-year contract covering the majority of the DWP’s current estate of more than 900 sites came to an end, which gave us a significant opportunity to re-evaluate what we need from our estate, taking into account the impact of universal credit, the increased use of online services and the improving employment rates. It is therefore right that we reconfigure our Jobcentre estate and make jobcentres fit for the 21st century. This is not about reducing services; it is about taking the opportunity to stop spending money on empty space, so we can spend more on supporting those in need.
In July 2017, we announced our plans for the majority of sites in the DWP estate. As part of that, we announced that five sites in south Wales, all with a focus on back-of-house activities, including Merthyr Tydfil, would be moving to a new single strategic processing site from 2021. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, the current office in Merthyr Tydfil is a mixed site, with a customer-facing jobcentre and a back-of-house processing function. I can confirm our intention is to keep the current site in Merthyr Tydfil for the next three years. Thereafter we will transfer the back-of-house staff to our new consolidated site for back-of-house operations, which, as the hon. Gentleman noted, we recently formally confirmed will be in Treforest.
Anna McMorrin
Will the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with the Welsh Government about the closure of those centres and the moving of the office to another site?
Alok Sharma
I will talk about the Welsh Government in a moment.
By choosing Treforest, we will be securing quality jobs for the next generation in an area that still lags in terms of employment rates. The hon. Lady talked about the Welsh Government, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney talked about following the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government recently set out their “Our Valleys, Our Future” strategy. Their ambition is to see more public sector jobs relocated to the south Wales valleys, and we believe our investment in Treforest demonstrates our commitment to that. The announcement of the move to Treforest was welcomed by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council.
Gerald Jones
Does the Minister recognise that the Welsh Assembly’s “Our Valleys, Our Future” strategy is about bringing new jobs to the south Wales valleys, not relocating jobs from existing communities, thus decimating the economies of those town centres?
Alok Sharma
Of course, the Welsh Government’s Welsh Revenue Authority has also chosen to base itself in Treforest. The DWP’s site is able to house 1,700 jobs, which is more than the number of people who are moving, so there is the potential to locate more new jobs at that site in the future. I know hon. Members are keen on that, and of course I support it.
Anna McMorrin
Will the Minister answer my initial question? What conversations has he had with Welsh Government Ministers about this move?
Alok Sharma
I have been in post for a number of months, and I personally have not had a direct conversation with my Welsh counterparts, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady after this debate to set out the conversations that have been had with the Welsh Government. As I say, with this move we are supporting the strategy that the Welsh Government have set out for additional jobs in the valleys.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that those jobs are being moved from the heads of the valleys area—the north—to the south towards Cardiff? It is the area around Merthyr, and further east towards Tredegar, Ebbw Vale and Brynmawr, where jobs are needed most.
Alok Sharma
When we make changes to the estate, of course we have to take into account the impact on jobs, but new jobs in other areas will be created as a result, and it must be balanced with the savings we will get as a result of the reconfiguration of the DWP estate. That money will be ploughed back into helping those most in need.
Alok Sharma
Let me continue for a little while.
In arriving at Treforest as the new site, we conducted a comprehensive postcode mapping exercise of the home locations of all potentially affected DWP colleagues. I have a set of figures for how long it will take individuals located in the five sites to reach Treforest by public transport. The latest personal travel report published by the Welsh Government—I think it is from 2013—set out that eight out of 10 journeys to work are by car. The proportion has remained broadly unchanged for 10 years. The timings I have been given suggest that the journey times will be about 20 to 25 minutes in most cases—perhaps less.
Anna McMorrin
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Has he actually been to the south Wales valleys?
Alok Sharma
Certainly not during my time as a Minister in this role.
There is a train station at the edge of the estate, where the new site will be. We understand that the Welsh Government have ambitious plans to enhance the transport links throughout south Wales, and that they will further improve access to Treforest, which is one of their key priority areas for the south Wales metro. We will work closely with colleagues in the Welsh Government and the local council on those transport solutions.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said that there is insufficient parking space at Treforest. The DWP has made provision for substantial car parking on site to complement the park-and-ride development led by the Welsh Government.
Based on current estimates, moving our back-of-house functions to Treforest will impact about 239 DWP staff in Merthyr Tydfil. As part of the move, we want to maximise the retention of DWP colleagues, along with their valuable skills and experience. To do that, we will consult fully with colleagues and trade unions and have one-to-one conversations with staff to understand the personal impact of any changes on them.
Wayne David
Has the DWP made any objective assessment of the impact that moving people out of a number of communities will have on those communities?
Alok Sharma
The question was asked in terms of the staff who will be required to move, as I said, although we did do a postcode mapping exercise. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also asked about the impact on claimants, but a jobcentre will continue to be located in Merthyr Tydfil—I confirm that again.
We shall seek to redeploy any staff, wherever possible, who are unable to move to the new location. We are also prepared to pay colleagues’ excess travel costs for up to three years to assist their transition. When it comes to the front-of-house staff, as I said, I reassure Members that we are committed to retaining a jobcentre in Merthyr Tydfil, so the impact on claimants should be minimal, because there will still be a jobcentre there. We are looking for alternative premises, and we want to be in the new location by the end of March 2021.
Gerald Jones
The Minister mentioned the discussions with staff and the impact assessments for those staff. Will he give us more information as to when those impact assessments are likely to take place? As I said, it would have been advantageous to the Department for that to have been done before the final decision was made—a case of the proverbial stable door being bolted after the horse has gone. Will he give us some indication of when the assessments are likely to take place?
Alok Sharma
We are talking about a move three years from now so, clearly, informal conversations will start now—that would be natural—and staff will be evaluating where they want to be located. We expect the formal process, however, to start nine months before the actual move. The reason for that is simple: individual circumstances may change during the period leading up to a move, so we want to deal with people and their circumstances in real time.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of equality impact assessments, and I confirm that we have been mindful of our equalities duties throughout the process. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) asked me whether I had visited any of the sites. I said that I had not. I confirm that I have visited Newport jobcentre but not any of the back-office sites due to be relocated to Treforest.
The move from the existing site at Merthyr Tydfil will be a change for the Department and for our claimants and staff. By choosing Treforest, however, the DWP is making a long-term commitment to providing quality jobs in an area of need. In securing the site on a 25-year lease, we shall provide job security for our staff. We are also committed, as I said, to retaining a jobcentre in Merthyr Tydfil itself.
Question put and agreed to.
Electric Vehicles and Bicycles
(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
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Before we begin, let me point out that this debate will now end at 17.45. I have been notified that six people want to speak, so you can probably do the maths yourselves, otherwise I shall have to impose a time limit.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. Will you speak to the House of Commons authorities about whether it is possible to have the Westminster Hall monitors display the end time of the debate? That would be particularly helpful to Members when there has been a Division—or Divisions—in the main Chamber.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered take-up of electric vehicles and bicycles.
I am extremely grateful to Members across the House for their support for what I believe to be a very important debate. This is the third time that I have secured a debate in this Chamber on the take-up of electric vehicles. It is such an important issue for many reasons: electric vehicles will help us to reach our carbon commitments; they are the answer to low-cost, pollution-free motoring for our constituents; and, perhaps above all, it is essential for the United Kingdom to grasp global leadership of this key industry of the future, so that a new and up-and-coming industry’s jobs and investment will be here in the United Kingdom.
In the case of conventional vehicles, the UK is passing £5 billion from sales of conventional vehicles on to foreign economies. Partly because of how supply chains work, a country such as Germany has a significant advantage.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Picking up on the point about those conventional vehicles, although I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for electric vehicles and know the importance of reaching the 2040 target, we need to bear in mind the 170,000 jobs in car making in this country. In the medium term, clean diesel—which is less polluting than petrol—should be part of the strategy as we go forward.
Andrew Selous
If we get this strategy right, there will be more than enough jobs for everyone. I am absolutely with my hon. Friend in wanting enough good-quality jobs.
In 2016 a fifth of all electric vehicles sold in Europe were produced at the Nissan plant in Sunderland. Looking forward, the United Kingdom has a genuine opportunity to capture a significant part of the global market by 2030, which could be worth an estimated £95 billion to the UK economy—lots of jobs for lots of car workers by 2030.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This is a timely debate, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the electric vehicles made in my constituency, such as those made by Jaguar Land Rover. On the outskirts of the Rugby constituency, we have the black cab makers, which have made some tremendous advances. The hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) mentioned that we need a transitional period for diesel engines and, unless we get a proper transitional period during which to make the transfer from diesel to petrol or whatever clean fuel, there will be a lot of concern in our area about jobs.
Andrew Selous
I understand the concerns. However, if Members for constituencies that make conventional vehicles will bear with me, by the end of my remarks they will be optimistic about there being more than enough jobs for everyone.
Bringing forward the electric vehicles target to 2030 from 2040 would enable the United Kingdom to reduce our oil imports by almost 50% by 2035, saving £6.3 billion annually. Paris banned fossil-fuelled vehicles from the city centre and air pollution fell by 40%. Second-hand conventional diesel cars are losing a lot of their value, but it is possible to upgrade the batteries on electric vehicles. The key point for a lot of our constituents is that electric vehicles should be cost-competitive with petrol and diesel cars by 2022. At the moment, their running costs are already lower, but up-front cost parity is expected to come as early as 2022. That will be a huge tipping point for our economy.
Sir Greg Knight
I believe we should always embrace new technology while cherishing the past. Does my hon. Friend accept that, for people like me who have a journey of more than 220 miles to undertake, for the moment at least, an electric vehicle is not an option?
Andrew Selous
With some of the new chargers, an electric vehicle range of 300 miles is entirely possible. At the moment, I agree with my right hon. Friend, but if we play this right it will not be long before he will be able to motor up to East Yorkshire in comfort in an electric vehicle.
Nissan claims that by 2030, widespread adoption of a vehicle-to-grid service could save consumers up to £2.4 billion in reduced electricity costs. I am impressed by some of what the Government have done so far, but the 2040 target is too far out. We need to be bolder. The target for Scotland is 2032; for China, it is 2030; for Germany, it is 2030; for India, it is 2030; for Austria, it is 2030; for the Netherlands, it is 2025; and for Norway, it is 2025. I want the United Kingdom to be a world leader. The Government need to signal their intent to be at the front of the pack and not a best of the rest person coming up the rear.
Julian Knight
Bringing forward the 2040 target will destroy the new car market, because no one will spend £50,000 on a Land Rover if they think it will be worth peanuts in five or eight years’ time. That is simple economics. I caution my hon. Friend that it is great to have the ambition, but setting an arbitrary date before 2040 would be a grave mistake.
Andrew Selous
I have to very respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend. I bow to no one in my defence of high-quality British jobs. I absolutely accept the anxiety, but we can sustain those conventional jobs. Very soon, there will be so much pent-up demand for electric vehicles that the car workers in his constituency, and that of the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), will not be able to keep up with the demand for these new energy vehicles—as they are called in China—from our constituents when we reach that 2022 tipping point. It is the obvious thing for our constituents to do.
The transport sector is now the largest source of carbon dioxide in the country. Emissions in the transport sector went up in 2017. If we bring forward the 2040 date, that would address a large part of the gap to which the Committee on Climate Change has drawn our attention.
We need to make huge progress in the fleet sector, and we can do that now. There are about 25,000 central Government fleet vehicles in the UK. The Government say a quarter of those should be electric by 2022—that is a much less ambitious target than India and China have announced for their fleets. Let us go for a 100% Government electric vehicle fleet by 2022, including those run by local councils. We have a long way to go; only two of the Ministry of Justice’s 1,482 vehicles are electric. Let me praise Dundee City Council, which has 83 electric vehicles—the most of any UK local authority. It has also brought in a charging hub for the public and taxis, with four 50 kW and three 32 kW chargers. Well done, Dundee.
There is the serious issue of company car tax. There is a lunatic progression: at the moment, the rate of company car tax for zero-emission vehicles is 9%, which is due to rise to 16% before going down to 2%. Let us get it down to 2%; let us signal our intention, not make it worse for the area that we are trying to encourage.
We should be ambitious on sales targets. Let us go for 15% by 2022, 45% by 2025 and 85% by 2030 and get on with electric charging infrastructure.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. We have the objective for 2040—I agree that it is not very ambitious compared with other targets that we could have set—but we do not have any adequate milestones to get us there. My hon. Friend has laid that out, and that is exactly what the Government need to do.
Andrew Selous
I have great confidence in the Minister. I think he gets it, and I am genuinely trying to be helpful to make sure that Britain is a world leader in this important industry of the future.
I said that this is the third debate on electric vehicles, but we are making history today, because I am informed that this is the first House of Commons debate on electric bicycles. Hon. Members who have read their Order Paper carefully will have seen that the debate is also about the take-up of electric bicycles. Most people probably do not know anything about them. Six weeks ago, I knew nothing about them, until I was asked to chair a meeting of the all-party parliamentary cycling group—I am delighted to see my co-chair, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) in the debate. I found out about them and I was lent an electric bike for 10 days or so by the Green Commute Initiative, for which I was very grateful.
In my constituency, I live on a hill. I cycle with a conventional bike in London, but at the grand old age of 56, I found that extra boost helped me to get to and from my constituency office on a daily basis, and on one day twice. With my electric bike, I took more exercise that week than I have probably taken all year. That is the thing about electric bikes: they open up cycling to older people, and people who are anxious about ability or fitness, people wanting to arrive somewhere sweat- free when there are no workplace shower facilities. They can deal with carrying luggage and shopping; even commercial cargo is easy on an e-bike.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I am deeply excited about electric bikes. Being a cyclist from Muswell Hill, which has a perpendicular hill, I would benefit from an electric bike. In my constituency, there is very little uptake of cycling compared with in the wider Yorkshire and the Humber region. The electric bike will encourage people with disabilities, people who want to go further and not get changed and people for whom it may not be in their culture to ride a bicycle. It is a fantastic and exciting step forward. I celebrate the electric bicycle.
Andrew Selous
I agree with every word that the hon. Lady said. Journeys by e-bike are longer, with an average of 5.9 miles compared with 3.9 miles. Importantly, 18% of disabled cyclists own a bike with electric assistance. It is fantastic to get more disabled people cycling, too.
Let us think of all the deliveries from internet shopping; 51% of all urban motorised trips related to carrying goods have the potential to transfer to cargo bikes. I think that Sainsbury’s has six e-bikes, which I believe the Minister may have seen recently. There is a huge opportunity, although I learnt yesterday that the legislation on cargo e-bikes is confusing. We can do more.
How is the United Kingdom doing with e-bikes compared with everyone else? In 2017, we had 63,000 sales, but Spain sold 66,000, Switzerland sold 87,000, Austria sold 120,000, Italy sold 155,000, Belgium sold 245,000, France sold 255,000, the Netherlands sold 294,000 and Germany sold a whopping 720,000 in 2017. That is more than 11 times the number in the United Kingdom, so we have a little catching up to do.
What can my good friend the Minister do to help? I checked the Office for Low Emission Vehicles’ definition of “vehicle”, and I think it could include a bicycle. Let us be a little less siloed. Electric bikes have huge potential to change the way we travel for the better. They reduce congestion and pollution, and get people fitter. Let us see them in that sense and give them the recognition they deserve. Let us also recognise that the cycle to work scheme, although it is excellent, does not reach older cyclists, people who are not in work or other people who would benefit hugely from electric bikes. As with all cycling, we need to ensure that our roads are in good condition—dangerous potholes are a big disincentive to cycling whether someone uses an electric bike or an ordinary bike.
Germany offers a subsidy of up to €2,500 for the purchase of an e-bike. In France, a modest €200 subsidy for a 12-month period led to a 31% increase in sales. There is huge potential in this area, and I say to the Minister: let us be at the forefront of the electric bike industry as well as the electric vehicle industry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. If Members stick to five minutes or less, we will get everyone in. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will certainly do that, Mr McCabe—you have my word. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on bringing forward this debate. I know this subject is a passion of his. I do not know very much about electric bikes—unlike the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), obviously—so I will speak about electric vehicles.
I am going to show my age by saying that I am a “Doctor Who” fan. That takes me back a long time. Some people in the Chamber will know what that means; others will say, “What’s he talking about?” Years ago, we always wondered whether the electric cars and all the other things in “Doctor Who” would ever happen. Well, they have; they may have been a wee bit beyond our dreams back in the ’60s and the early ’70s, but that is a fact.
We must learn to rely less on petrol and diesel, and look to environmentally friendly methods of transport. We encourage people to use public transport and to car-pool. Condensing five vehicles heading from Newtownards to Belfast into one, or getting 50 cars off the road through vibrant, frequent and reliable public transport, would certainly be the most effective way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Nissan has already said that we are not being ambitious enough, that we will be overtaken by the provision of things such as electric charging points, and that electric vehicles will be here sooner rather than later?
Jim Shannon
I heard Nissan say that, so I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman refers to.
The Library briefing for the debate states:
“Though concerns have been raised about the extra demand EVs will add to the electricity grid, the system operator National Grid have said many predictions are exaggerated.”
We need some reality in this debate, and I hope that we can get it. The briefing continues:
“EVs have lower emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants over their lifetime compared with conventional vehicles. Although EVs generally have higher manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, they have lower emissions from use, meaning that generally they have lower emissions than the equivalent conventional fuel vehicles.”
EVs are not a perfect solution, but they certainly are better than what we have. We should look towards them and—I say this gently—perhaps be a wee bit more positive about what we put forward.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that electric vehicles are the answer to pollution-free travel, but that the Government need to promote that mode of travel much more effectively?
Jim Shannon
I agree wholeheartedly. The idea of electric vehicles is taking root in Northern Ireland. Although most electric vehicle drivers charge their car at home, there is a network of 336 public charge points across Northern Ireland, which are owned and operated by the Electricity Supply Board. More and more councils are looking to provide charging points in council-owned car parks, in an attempt to encourage people to understand that if they decide to buy an electric car, they will be able to charge it when they are out and about or away on their holidays. I am conscious of the time—I will keep to the limit, Mr McCabe—but perhaps the Minister will give us some idea of how we can encourage the provision of charging points. If we do not have charging points in rural areas, we cannot encourage people who live in the countryside to participate.
I commend the tax breaks that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Minister were involved in providing. Those tax breaks, which the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire and other Members mentioned, have incentivised businesses to be involved in electric cars. A business can get a 100% first-year allowance for its expenditure on new and unused electric vans. That is critical to making this happen, and it is important that we move it forward. That allowance applies to expenditure from 1 April 2010 for companies that pay corporation tax, and from 6 April 2010 for businesses that pay income tax.
All that is an attempt to ensure that we encourage individuals and businesses alike to take the forward step of buying electric vehicles where possible. We can do more to encourage people to look at that idea by offering non-business owners greater tax breaks on new cars for personal use. Let us encourage people by incentivising them. As the Minister probably knows already, we can do that with tax breaks.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for bringing this worthy issue to the Chamber. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on fair fuel for UK motorists and UK hauliers.
People who live in constituencies such as mine, who are fortunate enough to enjoy a beautiful rural setting, know only too well that it is through careful protection of the environment that we will ensure that future generations experience similar sights. Unfortunately, pollution and climate change have come to pose serious threats to everyday life. From the poor air quality in our cities to the growing concern about plastics and the coastal erosion that affects constituencies such as mine, it is apparent that more needs to be done.
I welcome the positive steps that the UK Government have taken, but it is imperative that every member of the British public acknowledges their responsibility to reduce their impact on the natural world. To that end, the mode of transport that a person chooses could not be more important. Although the production and assembly of electric cars still generate harmful emissions, the lower pollution they produce during their lives, especially compared with their petrol counterparts, means that they should be supported—alongside important interim measures such as alternative fuels, as other Members have suggested.
In 2017, there were approximately 800 electric cars across Scotland—just 0.1% of all cars registered in the country. Invariably, electric cars are likely to be confined to major cities. In Angus, which lacks the necessary facilities and impetus to engage with electric cars, we have been unable to realise the possibilities offered by such vehicles. I strongly believe that that needs to change. As was mentioned, the Scottish Government have sought to bring the target further forward than the UK Government, but I believe—excuse the pun—that they are miles behind in delivering on that target. We need clear objectives to ensure that the public get behind these important measures and know where the Government are going with them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is probably aware that it was announced that £160 million from the national productivity investment fund would be invested in charge point infrastructure. Does she agree that Scotland must get its fair share of that £160 million, based on its rurality and geography?
Kirstene Hair
Of course I agree. The Scottish Government also had a scheme for people who wanted to upgrade their cars, but that funding dried up very quickly. If the Scottish Government are to get fully behind this issue, they too must put money forward and engage the public to get involved.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
On that point, the Welsh Government are investing £2 million in infrastructure to get a network of rapid charging points on the major roads across Wales. We want the UK Government to make that type of investment and keep it rolling to encourage such infrastructure.
Kirstene Hair
The hon. Lady is right. We need to get infrastructure built quickly, specifically in rural areas, but also in main towns and on roads, so that people can get geared up for this transformation.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) mentioned the Welsh Government, but in the whole of Wales there are only 31 publicly funded charging points. In Scotland, there are nearly 1,000.
Kirstene Hair
My hon. Friend is right. There is very much an onus on the devolved Administrations to put that infrastructure in place as swiftly as possible.
I welcome the UK Government’s decision to create the new charging infrastructure in the UK as well as facilitating greater uptake of electric cars and supporting research into charging technology. In total, Westminster has earmarked £340 million towards those endeavours, with a further £200 million promised from private bodies.
However, battery-powered vehicles are just one solution. Although less advanced, the merits and charms of the ordinary bicycle cannot be understated. From cycling to work schemes organised by schools and offices, to communal bicycle groups, more and more people are beginning to appreciate the options that exist on two wheels.
I sincerely hope that Government actions continue to foster a shift in the British public to engage with their daily commute and indeed any other commutes. By making alternative methods of travel more accessible, especially in more remote areas, we can seek a change that is beneficial to not just us but the planet as a whole.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. The take-up of electric vehicles and electric bikes is vital in our fight against irreversible climate change and to improve our air quality—especially in cities, given that so many of our cities exceed both EU and World Health Organisation safe air quality levels. I represent a constituency with no public electric vehicle chargepoints, which is an issue I have raised with the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), both publicly and privately. I can now add this Minister to the list of those I am raising it with.
I want to use the debate to make public ideas that I have put to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and that I now put to the Department for Transport. This is timely, following the joint report by the Transport Committee, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Health Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee—I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee—which included a recommendation that,
“the Treasury introduces more ambitious measures to encourage the take-up of low emission vehicles”
and electric vehicles, including,
“a revision of Vehicle Excise Duty rates to better incentivise both new purchases and support the second-hand market.”
Those points were made brilliantly by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who did not make any points in his speech that I disagreed with.
I have ideas in six areas that would improve the take-up of electric vehicles and bikes. First, we should align Office for Low Emission Vehicles residential chargepoint grant residential funding with the Joint Air Quality Unit funding to provide a match for local authorities, to make OLEV residential funding feasible. Currently, we have very low take-up of that OLEV grant. At present, local authorities have no repayment mechanism for residential OLEV, so they need to find a matched funder. A list of potential match sources would unlock the fund. Local authorities will not currently commit their scarce funding to fund OLEV residential chargepoints; they need that matched funding.
Secondly, we should regulate the electric supply so that three-phase power supplies are included in building codes for all new homes, offices, shopping centres, public buildings and other areas where public parking is available. Only a small number of EV charge stations may then be necessary. At present, retail and commercial sites may rapidly increase the number of EV chargepoints on their premises without having to make major investments into new power supply, but power supply is one of the great barriers to increasing EV chargepoints. Further to installing wires, it would doubtless encourage take-up if we regulate so that all new workplaces—particularly those of large employers—have a minimum number of EV charging facilities on site.
Thirdly, clean air zones such as the one coming to Leeds next year are a powerful policy tool. However, one concern is that those in social grades D and E who have kept an old vehicle running are likely to be charged, and they are least likely to be able to make use of the Government’s ultra low emission vehicle grants. We could test extending the ULEV grant into the secondary market. Plenty of electric vehicles will be fleet cars, and one or two-year-old vehicles in the secondary electric vehicle market could be purchased by those in the lower earning quartiles. That should be encouraged via an extension in ULEV grants. The Government should test such a policy in areas where they are bringing in clean air zones, because that is where charging will start.
Fourthly, we should encourage EV charging more broadly. There is considerable scope for soft measures to encourage electric vehicles, which could include free parking electric vehicle-only bays on the high street, with free charging, which would incentivise those bays to be used and normalise electric vehicles among people who use the high street.
Fifthly, we should provide support for the city centre parking levy—a levy on businesses with parking spaces—to encourage a modal shift to other measures, including opt-outs for EV charging. We would put a levy on businesses, but if they put in an electric vehicle space, that space would not be charged for, to incentivise them to put in electric vehicle chargepoints.
Sixthly, on licensing and planning, we should make regulations to ensure that when granting new planning or licensing of some commercial premises over a certain size, EV spaces must be installed at a certain density per resident or parking space. This area has fallen through the gaps: we see many planning permissions across the country with no electric vehicle spaces or chargepoints. We should therefore legislate to ensure that all UK car parks with more than 50 spaces must have a minimum of one EV space per 25 spaces. Therefore, a car park with 50 spaces would have to provide a minimum of two EV chargepoints. That would be incredibly easy to implement in quite a short timescale.
Those are my immediate points for improving our EV infrastructure. I understand that we are looking at 2040, but we need a timetable. I agree that we need to look to 2030 or even 2025—the Norway model. My suggestions are not in conflict at all with deadlines or implementation dates and could be considered now. They would hugely incentivise take-up of electric vehicles.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I pay tribute to and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate and on his impressive and powerful speech. I am a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into electric vehicles, so that is a subject that I could speak about for a long time. In fact, I have chosen to speak not about electric cars but about my new-found enthusiasm for electric bicycles.
I would like to tell Members about the Stirling Cycle Hub, which is an organisation that knows about how to get people on to their bikes. It encourages and facilitates cycling throughout Stirling from its base at Stirling train station. It is a superb organisation that works through the Forth Environment Link to help Stirling to pursue a greener, healthier future.
Stirling Cycle Hub has acquired a number of electric bicycles for its cycle hire scheme at Stirling station. Last week, it let me have a ride on one. To be frank, it was a revelation. I have a bicycle, and, to be honest, it rests rather serenely in my garden shed, untouched in a very long while. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Shame indeed. I had never been on an electric bicycle. Emily Harvey, the development manager, guided me on a cycle route using the bicycle’s electric assistance to Stirling Sport Village and back, and it was a sweat-free, pleasant experience—it felt like I had never stopped cycling.
While the bike asked me to pedal, the ride was as effortless as a cycle through the flat lands of the Dutch tulip fields, yet we were negotiating all the hills and obstacles of an urban cycle. I would love to use one of those bikes to traverse the great peaks and troughs of my constituency, which as all Members know is the most beautiful in the country, and do so without breaking a sweat. The purists in the cycling fraternity may see that as cheating, but it is a great way of opening up the joys of cycling to a wider audience.
Stirling Cycle Hub has had a great deal of success: it has rented the bikes out 202 times in the last year. It tells great stories about how grandmothers are now able to cycle with their grandchildren and how, as I mentioned earlier, people are using electric bikes to make deliveries. It is a great way to get into cycling and, for those who are perhaps not as fit as they could be—I will move quickly over that passage, and I must say I include myself in that number—or, more importantly, those who are recovering from mobility difficulties or have disabilities, it is a great way of getting back on a bike and getting around.
It makes it possible for a wider range of people to commute, and makes it a more positive experience for those of us who live in constituencies, as I said earlier, with hills. The motor in the bicycle assists with pedalling, making it like a gentle cycle while going up a steep hill. I invite all my hon. Friends, and hon. Members from all parts of the House, the next time they are in Stirling—they should make that a regular trip—to go to the Cycle Hub at the railway station and hire one of those fantastic bikes, which will allow them to experience Stirling without breaking sweat. As colleagues know, my constituency is famed for its beauty and its glens.
I repeat the point that, for those with any kind of mobility difficulty or low levels of physical fitness, these bikes are a boon. I ask the Minister what more we can do to encourage the take-up of electric bicycles. The nextbike scheme in central Scotland, which includes my constituency, has seen over 40,000 journeys made by bicycle because of the work of those such as Stirling Cycle Hub, but can the Government play a more positive role in encouraging people? As we have heard, we are lagging behind the Germans, among others. Surely, we can rise to the challenge and get us all on electric bicycles.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I also congratulate my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), on securing this debate. The purpose of the APPG on cycling is not to be a cycling club; we seek to engage with Government and stakeholders to get more people cycling more often, and safely.
As has been said, cycling has many benefits, public and personal. It reduces congestion, improves air quality, improves personal health, improves mobility for people who are frail or disabled and reduces journey times for those who, like me, are London-based. It improves street design and local trading in town centres and town environments.
I am also a new convert to e-bikes; like the hon. Gentleman, I also trialled an e-bike over the Easter recess, thanks to the Green Commute Initiative. As somebody who cycles fairly regularly and has two and a half bikes myself, I was a little bit purist about such things and wondered if it was cheating, but I am definitely converted. It meant I could do the nine-mile trip between here and home without breaking too much of a sweat, but still get more exercise than I would have done sitting on a train. It was quicker and easier, and the few hills there were certainly seemed a lot less. It meant pottering around my constituency was much easier, and the main thing was that I did not have to wear different clothes, which I normally would if I were getting on my road bike and riding any distance.
I would advise all hon. Members to test an e-bike. Transport for London, through a range of London cycle stockists, is running a test scheme at the moment, and there is nothing in the blurb that says that people must be London residents—although, in fact, most Members of Parliament are London residents some or all of the time. I advise them to try it and have the same experience that my colleagues have already mentioned.
On top of cycling, e-bikes in particular will get different people and different users cycling. Hon. Members have already mentioned older people, those with mobility problems or health problems for whom the energy of a main bike would be too much, and people with balance problems. E-bikes are good for cargo, particularly in cities, and for people in hilly areas for whom cycling is just too much effort. They also extend the commuting distance that normal people can do on a bike. Men in Lycra around London are a different issue, but we are not trying to get those people on to e-bikes; we are trying to get everyone else on to e-bikes.
There is no doubt that the extent of cycling and e-bike roll-out in other countries in Europe has been massive and that the UK is behind the trend, so I have some recommendations for the Government that could help us to catch up. First, OLEV should recognise e-bikes as low emission vehicles, which would unblock some subsidy options that are available to other types of e-vehicles. Secondly, the cycle to work scheme limit should be increased to £2,500 for e-bikes, since very few e-bikes come in below the £1,000 current limit. Thirdly, for registered disabled people, cycles and e-bikes, including e-trikes, should be incorporated into the Motability scheme to provide more mobility opportunities for people with disabilities. Only through a step change in the number of people cycling and using e-bikes will, for instance, Transport for London be able to achieve its target of taking non-private vehicle transport options up from 63% to 80%. If we do not do that in London, with an increased population it will grind to a halt.
I will go back very briefly to electric vehicles. Tesla’s showroom is in my constituency and I have also had the pleasure of looking at the new electric black cab. I have had a test drive in a Tesla, which was absolutely fantastic. I cannot afford it because they are very expensive—they are nice cars—but Tesla is also bringing out a mid-range car soon. Its big concern is the shortage of three-phase electricity. The barriers are not necessarily blockages by local authorities per se. There is an issue about getting three-phase electricity to the roadside or to industrial estates such as Tesla’s base out at Heathrow. There are issues of wayleave, common-law problems of getting access over land and issues of getting access to the high-voltage transmission network.
However, I have to say to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who was concerned about long-distance travel, that with an adequate network of fast charging points, one can take an electric vehicle several hundred miles—across to mid-France—without the journey taking any longer, because with fast phase charging one can charge the car in the time it takes to have a comfort break, something to eat and a cup of coffee. That is perfectly possible.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. Like everybody else, I commend the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for introducing the debate. He spoke really well and knowledgeably, and gave a fair and balanced presentation. He said it is his third debate on electric cars, so I would like to ask him how he goes about achieving his tabling success—it is a tip I could maybe use for the future. I have spoken in every one of those debates. I served on the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill Committee, as did he, and I see a lot of familiar faces here from those debates and from the Bill Committee.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point that 2040 is too far away on the horizon for the phasing out of the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles. I agree with the point about more ambitious stage targets, in order to get there quicker. I disagreed—as I think he did too—with the intervention of the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who was concerned that people suddenly will not buy Land Rovers, because they will see in the future that they might decrease in value. It is certainly my experience in my constituency that if someone pays £50,000 for a Land Rover they can afford to drive that vehicle, and they are not looking at a second-hand market down the road. I think luxury vehicles will not be affected by the stage targets, and I urge the Government to think about stage targets in that earlier phase-out of carbon vehicles.
I am unsure about the suggestion by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire that 2022 might become a tipping point for the sale of electric vehicles as costs come down and upfront costs become more competitive. My concern is that we have heard for a while that we have reached the tipping point. Every so often there are Government announcements that say, “We have reached the tipping point. The sale of electric vehicles has gone up 50% compared with the year before,” but the reality is that less than 2% of vehicles on the roads are electric, so we are some way from that tipping point. Norway is a small, independent country, yet somewhere between 18% and 25% of vehicles on its roads are electric, so more can be done here. The Government need to look at what is happening elsewhere.
The hon. Members who spoke about electric bikes had a common theme, which was the access they provide to getting out and about in the great outdoors for people who are older or vulnerable, or who perhaps have a disability. I certainly echo those sentiments.
In Scotland, a third of all car journeys are actually for less than two miles, and a further quarter are for a mile or less. People take very short journeys in cars, and if we can get them either out of their petrol cars and into electric vehicles, or ideally on to bicycles or electric bikes, it would make a huge difference to carbon emissions and obviously to people’s general fitness.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matt Western
Would the hon. Gentleman encourage similar programmes to that in Sweden, where they put in a 25% subsidy to encourage people to switch to electric bikes? It has been massively successful.
Alan Brown
I would fully support that. I do not think I will be able to respond to all the points that hon. Members have made. It is fair to say that I agreed with most points. The enthusiasm for electric vehicles and electric bikes shone through.
The hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) mentioned the Scottish Government’s money running out quickly. I point out that Scottish Tories actually criticised the Scottish Government’s bringing in a loan system that allowed people to apply for loans to buy electric vehicles. It has been a success, to the extent that it has been oversubscribed, so the Scottish Government are looking at providing additional funding for that. Her comments should be a compliment, not a criticism. I urge the UK Government to extend their grant scheme, because that has a short horizon as well. We really need to look at extending that further.
I commend the Kilmarnock Station Railway Heritage Trust in my constituency, which has completely renovated and occupied a number of rooms and basement areas of Kilmarnock railway station. It provides a huge number of third sector support services. Like the Stirling Cycle Hub, which the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) complimented, it operates a cycle hub and undertakes led runs to encourage other people to take up cycling. It also takes referrals from people recovering from addictions, making cycling part of their recovery process and giving them motivation and fitness and getting them out and about. It is a fantastic scheme. It also has a volunteering and mentoring operation.
The trust also operates a cycle hub at Whitelee wind farm, which is the second biggest onshore renewable energy site in Europe. It encourages people to get out there and cycle in the great outdoors, which is a fantastic co-location idea, harmonising renewables with getting people out and about. I pay tribute to my constituent, Alan Vass, who led the expansion of the cycle hub. It is getting bigger and better, and I wish him well for the future.
Much has been said about making the UK a world leader. The truth is that the UK has a long way to go and needs to look elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with ambition, but we need to put strategies in place to match that ambition.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who was incredibly helpful in the advice that he gave the Government. Whether in the Paris agreement, Committee on Climate Change reports or numerous High Court rulings, the Government have clearly had serious warnings about how pollution is killing our planet—and is also killing us. Of course, transport is the major pollutant.
I place before the Government a big question about inconsistencies in their policies and the lack of connectivity between different announcements across Government. I also say this as an MP representing the highly polluted city of York. Certainly, announcements that we will see the end of the electrification of trains, and that a new generation of diesel trains will be put on the tracks, seem to clash with the Government’s ambitions—or perhaps, as we have heard, the lack of ambition—for electric vehicles.
We heard that, by 2030, India will no longer sell petrol vehicles. For Norway that will be in 2025, and for Scotland it will be in 2032, yet for the rest of the UK it will be in 2040. We also know that cities such as Paris, Madrid, Mexico City and Athens will ban dirty fuels in their cities by 2025, as will Copenhagen from next year. Meanwhile, air pollution causes 50,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. When will the Government’s Road to Zero plan actually see the light of day? It has been long promised but not yet seen.
The Government’s spending around active travel is woeful. Cycling and walking must come centre stage and must be seen as the mode of choice for shorter journeys, supported by more public sector options. We also need to address the strain that the increased use of electric vehicles will put on our national grid and look at the options available to decarbonise our energy at the same time. We need to ensure that investment goes in the right place. We heard how investment in our manufacturing sector will give a real boost to our economy, but we must not ignore the threats, particularly from China and the investment opportunities that it will see in the future.
We need to look at all modes of transport when looking at electric vehicles—not just rail, as I have mentioned, but buses, taxis, trucks, vans, motorcycles and bicycles. We need to see the Government now put their foot on the accelerator to bring forward the electric vehicle revolution, as opposed to creeping forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned the need for infrastructure. If we look at places such as Denmark and the Netherlands, we see real investment in infrastructure, and we need to see that here also. What has actually happened to the £400 million invested in the charging infrastructure investment fund? It is deeply embarrassing that the Government announced that but did not have any equity behind it. What other incentives will the Government put in place to encourage people to switch, whether through scrappage schemes, grants or, indeed, looking at the Mayor of London’s toxic vehicle charge? The market share for plug-in cars was less than 2% last year. Why have the Government cut grants for plug-in cars and for home charging? What impact will that have? Again, I believe that puts forward a mixed message.
On electric bikes, it is incredibly important, as we have already heard from so many hon. Members, that we get people back on to their bikes with confidence. We need to take on board the shocking obesity figures that are continually presented to Members and to see that, while electric bikes can be a real step up to exercise, they can also help other people to step down without having to revert to cars.
What consideration has the Minister given to the cycle to work scheme and the opportunities that that could bring for electric bikes? The Cycle to Work Alliance has clearly said that there should be £1,000 grants for bikes and safety equipment and £2,500 for electric bikes. Will the Minister look at that proposal and report back to the House on how we will move forward? If grants from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles are available for electric cars and motorbikes, why can they not be available for electrically assisted bikes, too? The benefits of that would be even greater in the future.
The Opposition have been clear: we will be ambitious, whether on development, manufacturing or use. I trust that the Minister will want to match our approach as we clean up and green up our transport system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am only sad that I have, now, four minutes, until 5.43.
Jesse Norman
But do I not have to allow two minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)?
Jesse Norman
I do not have to, but I have been ceded one of those minutes. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That will allow me to cover at least a tiny fraction of the many points that enthusiastic colleagues have raised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on convening this third debate. I doubly congratulate him on adding the vital topic of e-bikes to his original subject. That he has managed to add e-bikes to the subject for the third debate is proof that Parliament can evolve in its thinking. As I said, I congratulate him.
We have had mention of Dutch tulip fields and men in Lycra and a lot of references to sweat. That is a little unsettling, but I will try to make progress either way. I have been very impressed by the lobbying energy, if nothing else, of the e-bike industry in relation to so many of my colleagues, who have the feel of latter-day converts to a new religion. As a man who has been riding a bike for 45 years and riding an e-bike for some years, I am delighted that colleagues have come to the table and I congratulate them. Of course, I invite them to submit any of these new-found revelations and the evidence for them to the cycling and walking safety review, which addresses precisely these issues, including air quality and health effects, in a very holistic way.
The Government want to position the UK as the best place on the planet to develop, manufacture and use zero-emission vehicles. I think that that is perfectly clear from what we have said. It will clean up our air—
Nick Smith
Can the Minister please update us on his discussions with the German Government about holding Volkswagen to account for the emissions scandal?
Jesse Norman
Yes, I would be delighted to. I have recently written to Volkswagen to draw attention to the continuing dissatisfaction that I and my colleagues have with its performance. I have raised the matter not merely with the operating personnel but with the supervisory board of that company, and I understand that my colleagues in other parts of the Government are in touch with their German counterparts, to make it clear that we remain exceedingly dissatisfied on behalf of consumers, Volkswagen customers and the general public in this country by the performance of the company and we expect it to continue the process of making amends through the scheme it has in place, extending it as and when that may be required.
Let me proceed. I have said that we want almost every car and van to have zero emissions by 2050. We have said that we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire asked whether that target was too far out. I say to him that it is not. If he reflects on the experience of the past 12 months, he will see that one of the results of the Volkswagen scandal has been that diesels—in many ways, diesel is a thoroughly excellent technology, which is rapidly improving and is useful especially for journeys of distance and between cities in particular—have taken the brunt of that. The result has been a worsening in performance on air quality or rather on emissions, and that is precisely the kind of counterintuitive response that would come from a failure to manage the process effectively. I draw his attention to that.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Jesse Norman
I will give way once more, but tragically I will not have a chance to address any of the other points that were made.
Andrew Jones
The Minister has just mentioned air quality. Does he agree that electric buses, which are, so to speak, rolling out in Harrogate this year, are critical to providing a solid public transport system that will tackle the air quality in our towns and cities?
Jesse Norman
I can only yield, in these circumstances, to a person so distinguished as my immediate predecessor in this job. I congratulate him on raising the profile of electric buses in Harrogate and using them as a template for further developments in the bus industry around the country. He is right.
In the minute and a half that remains to me, let me just say this: we also believe that e-bikes can play a very important part in the decarbonisation of our transport system. As I have said, I am a great believer in e-bikes. Colleagues will be surprised to learn that we have been thinking about this issue for some time. It is important to draw a distinction between e-bikes, the price of which is falling, the diversity of which is increasing and the market for which is working quite satisfactorily in many ways—although I can understand that colleagues recently discovering them might like a subsidy from the Government —and e-cargo bikes, which have a very important potential public purpose in substituting for diesel-using small vans, especially in urban contexts. We will be looking very closely at that particular issue as part of the wider picture.
Let me quickly respond to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who I know is also a cyclist. She asked when the Road to Zero plan would be published. The answer is that it has, for very proper reasons, been held up by purdah, but we expect to publish it fairly shortly.
I now yield to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire.
Andrew Selous
It just remains for me to thank hon. Members from across the House—from four different parties—for coming to contribute to the debate. I hope that the Minister has seen the enthusiasm. We are generally willing the Government to make a success of both electric vehicle and electric bike take-up. We will carry on scrutinising this issue in the months and years to come and we look forward to further success and progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered take-up of electric vehicles and bicycles.
Written Statements
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business Update
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
Under section 2 of the Immigration Act 2016 the Director of Labour Market Enforcement is required to prepare an annual strategy which, once approved, must be laid before Parliament.
The Director of Labour Market Enforcement is a statutory appointment under the Immigration Act 2016. The Director is responsible for setting the strategic priorities of the three existing enforcement agencies. These are the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and HMRC’s National Minimum Wage Enforcement team.
Professor Sir David Metcalf CBE was appointed as the Director on 1 January 2017. Sir David’s introductory independent labour market enforcement strategy was published in July 2017 and today this second strategy is being published. This strategy provides a valuable assessment of the existing scale of labour exploitation and makes 37 recommendations on labour market enforcement and raising awareness of employment rights.
There is significant crossover and alignment between this strategy and the Government’s response to the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices and subsequent consultations. The Government will publish a response to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s strategy later this year, once the consultations have closed and the Government have considered the responses.
The Government’s Good Work plan is a vital part of the industrial strategy, the long-term plan to build a Britain fit for the future by helping businesses create better, higher-paying jobs in every part of the UK.
I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir David and his team for the hard work that has gone into this second strategy.
Copies of the strategy have been laid before both Houses.
[HCWS670]
Housing First
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Today, the Government are launching three Housing First pilots in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, and the Liverpool City Region. The programme will total £28 million of Government funding and include a robust external evaluation. The funding allocated to each region is as follows, and is based on the number of rough sleepers, or those at risk of rough sleeping who we think would benefit from a Housing First approach:
Greater Manchester: £8.0 million
Liverpool City Region: £7.7 million
West Midlands: £9.6 million
The pilots will support circa 1,000 rough sleepers and those at risk of rough sleeping with the most complex needs to help them to end their homelessness. People will be provided with stable, affordable accommodation and intensive wrap-around support. This will help them to recover from complex issues, such as substance abuse and mental health difficulties, and sustain their tenancies.
There is a growing body of international evidence supporting a Housing First approach as a way to ending rough sleeping, but to date this has not been rigorously evaluated on a large scale in the UK. Today’s announcement is a demonstration of this Government’s support for evidence-based approaches that have the potential to radically improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Government will carefully consider the evidence that is gathered to inform any expansion of Housing First.
Piloting Housing First gives effect to a manifesto commitment and is an important element of the Government’s effort to end rough sleeping by 2027. It will build on the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act, and the new rough sleeping initiative my predecessor announced on 30 March. The Government will bring forward a rough sleeping strategy in July that sets out how we intend to first halve and then end rough sleeping in 2022 and 2027.
[HCWS671]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the House, the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) (Amendment of Specified Offences) Order 2018
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) (Amendment of Specified Offences) Order 2018.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the order before the Committee today amends Part 2 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This sets out the range of offences where a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, may be considered. The intention of this schedule has always been clear: to allow the Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, and the Serious Fraud Office, or SFO, to consider using a DPA to tackle serious economic crime committed by corporate entities. The order before the Committee today is simple: it corrects an anomaly with regards to making misleading statements and practices in financial transactions.
The schedule of crimes at Part 2 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 currently includes a reference at paragraph 22(e) to Section 397 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It deals with misleading statements, practices and impressions in financial transactions. This provision was repealed and updated by the Financial Services Act 2012, which introduced new offences dealing with the same conduct under Section 89, on misleading statements; Section 90, on misleading impressions; and Section 91, on misleading statements regarding relevant benchmarks and misleading impressions as to the value of investments and interest rates that apply to a transaction. The order before the Committee today replaces the previous repealed offences under Section 397 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 with the three current measures to ensure that the SFO and the CPS remain able to consider using a DPA to tackle such behaviour if they wish. At the moment, they cannot do so given the anomaly in the legislation. All of the current protections, including the need for a court to approve the order, will continue to apply in full.
As this is a matter of correcting a technical oversight, I hope it will not detain the Committee too long. But before commending the order for approval, I will set out some further details and provide the background to the deferred prosecution scheme and why the Government are taking this action.
Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 sets out the scheme for deferred prosecution agreements. A DPA is a court-approved agreement between an organisation—not an individual—and a designated prosecutor who is considering prosecuting the organisation for a specific type of economic crime. These crimes are listed in Part 2 of the schedule. Under the scheme the organisation is charged with the offence, but upon a court declaration that the DPA is in the interest of justice and that its terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate, the indictment will be suspended for the duration of the agreement—usually two or three years. Upon the expiry of the DPA the proceedings are discontinued. The prosecution proceedings can be reinstated only if the DPA is terminated by the court before expiry because of a serious breach of the terms of the agreement.
There are no mandatory terms of a DPA but they are likely to include a financial penalty, disgorging any profits made from the offence, co-operating with investigations into the conduct of individuals, and the implementation and external monitoring of a compliance programme. Importantly, a DPA is not an alternative to individual criminal charges. If individual wrongdoing can be proved—for example, bribery—such charges can be pursued in addition to a DPA with the company.
DPAs are an appropriate and useful tool for addressing corporate economic and financial crime. A DPA is premised upon high levels of co-operation on the part of the offending company, which signals a willingness to address governance failures going forward. It allows companies to make redress for wrongdoing while also taking steps to safeguard against any future misconduct. DPAs are therefore a key means of encouraging the inclusion of economic and financial crime prevention as an integral part of corporate good governance. Where courts judge them appropriate, they are a means of allowing corporate entities to make full redress for crimes committed while avoiding collateral damage—for example, the company going into liquidation and laying off thousands of employees. Four DPAs have been agreed since the measures came into effect in 2014.
To reiterate, this order effects a technical correction of an anomaly required to allow DPAs in respect of offences dealing with misleading statements and impressions in financial transactions—it replaces like with like. Without today’s order, a designated prosecutor cannot enter into, and a court cannot approve, a DPA premised upon offending involving misleading statements and misleading impressions in respect a range of financial products. By introducing today’s order, we are ensuring that the CPS and SFO could consider applying for a DPA in these cases should they so wish. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, this is a perfectly acceptable amendment to the schedule to remove the anomaly that now exists. It is a moment, however, to consider the value and use of deferred prosecution agreements. As the noble Baroness pointed out, only four such agreements have so far been approved by the court, and only three of the judgments in those cases have as yet been published. However, those cases have made it possible to find some clear principles that should be applied. Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, put it this way: a deferred prosecution agreement,
“is a reward for openness”.
The first essential is co-operation with an investigation. The sooner a company comes in and self-reports, the more it has to be rewarded for. The SFO will look at what work has already been done to investigate, how thoroughly it has been done and how data has been dealt with—in a way that does not tip off potential suspects leading them to delete that data altogether. Secondly, the company must be committed to reform. This may mean removing senior staff responsible for the criminality and instituting changes in procedures. The SFO must be in a position to go before a judge and argue that the default position of a prosecution can be displaced in the specific case and that a deferred prosecution agreement is justified. The judge has to give his approval to this.
In the Rolls-Royce case, which is the largest of the cases so far, the judge commented that his first reaction to what was put before him had been that if the company was not to be prosecuted,
“in the context of such egregious criminality over decades, involving countries around the world, making truly vast corrupt payments and, consequently, even greater profits then it is difficult to see that any company would be prosecuted”.
Rolls-Royce had not self-reported, but it co-operated. It was its co-operation that enabled the SFO to take the matter before the court. What the company did report, when tasked with it, was far more extensive and of a different order to what may have been exposed without the co-operation that it provided. I hope that the committee of this House carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of the Bribery Act, which has just been formed, will give an opportunity to examine DPAs and how they should be used with great care.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, four agreements in between four and five years does not strike me as a particularly impressive figure. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer several questions today, but perhaps she can answer them subsequently by letter. How many cases were considered but not proceeded with? On the four cases to which she referred, what financial penalty was imposed on the relevant companies? In addition to such financial penalties, were proceedings taken against individuals, which is clearly a separate matter? On the companies that were subject to the provisions, what changes may have been made within those companies, assuming things have gone wrong not necessarily with the companies’ full understanding at the time? How many cases have been investigated and not proceeded with, and was such a decision made because there was no case to answer or for other reasons—for example, lack of financial capacity in the company to pay any penalty?
What is the present caseload of the relevant department for these arrangements? Are any cases currently under consideration and, if so, roughly how many? How long will it take for such matters to be resolved? In other words, is there likely to be rather more than an average of one a year in future? If not, are the Government satisfied that the regime is proving effective, and what further steps might be taken to make more use of the provision now that it will be brought up to date?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions today and for broadly welcoming the order. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his insights into the use of DPAs and the Rolls-Royce case, which was indeed rather large. As he pointed out, there is now an ad hoc committee on the Bribery Act. Obviously, it is not for us to consider its terms of reference, but I am sure that it will look into these things. The Government continue to support the use of DPAs when appropriate.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, he will be aware that I cannot say anything about the current caseload or casework going through the system at the moment, but I am very happy to write to him, as I would not want to mislead him. I am fairly sure that we can get the answers to a number of questions, and I will copy the answers to all noble Lords, because it would be good for noble Lords to understand how many DPAs have been used.
We should not necessarily assume that there have been too few or too many DPAs. They obviously have to be used only in appropriate cases. We may be able to draw conclusions from the information we get, but the Government continue to support their use. They can be very good for justice, fairness and jobs.
The order addresses a small but important statutory anomaly which is preventing future use of DPAs for this type of corporate offending. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No. 18) Order 2018
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No. 18) Order 2018.
Relevant Document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the order will allow courts in England and Wales to impose what is called a stand-alone location monitoring requirement as part of a community sentence when it is considered to be proportionate and necessary to do so. In other words, an offender’s whereabouts could, for its own sake and for a specified duration of the sentence, be monitored through an electronic GPS tag fitted to their ankle. The offender’s location would be tracked by satellite using technology similar to that of a satnav or Google Maps. The tag will record the offender’s position and send that data at frequent intervals to a monitoring centre via a mobile network. The location data will be retrospective and monitoring will not be in real time.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 already allows electronic monitoring to be used as part of a community sentence to manage a curfew or compliance with another requirement of the sentence, such as an exclusion zone. In practice, it has only been used in community sentences to monitor curfews through radio frequency technology; the GPS-enabled tags that are necessary to monitor an offender’s location are not currently widely available. That will change when the new electronic monitoring service that is being developed goes live in 2019 and GPS tags and the monitoring technology become widely available. The new service will begin on a date to be confirmed in the summer, following the conclusion of commercial discussions with providers.
This order, commencing a provision in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to allow for a stand-alone location monitoring requirement to be imposed, provides courts and probation practitioners with an additional tool to help to manage offenders in the community. The approach that we are taking has been, and is being, piloted in specific geographical areas, commenced through a no procedure statutory instrument. This allows the Ministry of Justice and, separately, the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—MOPAC—to pilot the use of location monitoring. The Ministry of Justice pilot concluded in March this year and the smaller pilot being run in London by the Mayor’s office will come to an end in September 2019.
Findings from the independent evaluation of the Ministry of Justice pilot that concluded in March will not be available until the summer. Nevertheless, feedback from probation practitioners and offenders engaged in both pilots suggest that standalone location monitoring is a valuable tool. We believe that it will provide offender managers with information that allows more insight into offender behaviour, allowing for constructive conversations to take place to reduce the risk of reoffending, aid rehabilitation and help those they supervise to lead law-abiding lives. Let us say, for example, that a probation officer is dealing with a domestic abuse case where the offending behaviour is linked to gambling or alcohol. The location information may show the offender frequenting alcohol or betting shops and this would enable the probation officer to have a sophisticated and evidence-led conversation with the offender about their behaviour and take appropriate steps to address it.
Stand-alone location monitoring may also help to deter offenders from taking part in criminal activity through the prospect of discovery or by giving the offender an excuse to distance themselves from those with whom they might commit crime. In effect, this can offer offenders a fresh start away from the influences of crime. In some cases, it could also provide enough assurance to enable courts to impose a community sentence as an alternative to custody, leading to many of the benefits of rehabilitation that offenders may get from being with their loved ones or through employment in the community. Prior to the introduction of the new electronic monitoring service, the Ministry of Justice will take into account the lessons learned from the pilots and provide information to sentencers and those that advise them, such as legal advisers and probation court teams, on how to target the new location monitoring capability.
I recognise that during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill that led to the 2013 Act, concerns were raised in your Lordships’ House about the potential for location monitoring to infringe civil liberties. Let me reassure the Committee that before imposing a stand-alone location monitoring requirement, the court must consider issues of proportionality and necessity, including any interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life. They must also have due regard to the five statutory purposes of sentencing: punishing offenders; reduction of crime; protection of the public; reform and rehabilitation of offenders; and the making of reparation by offenders. As they do now, the courts will continue to assess the suitability of any requirements for the offender, the seriousness of the offence and whether a community disposal is justified or imprisonment is warranted.
With regard to the processing of the offenders’ data in accordance with the Crime and Courts Act 2013, when commencing the legislation, my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is required to publish a code of practice that sets out the expectations, safeguards and broad responsibilities for the collection, retention and sharing of information gathered on such orders. The necessary code was published in February this year, prior to laying this order before Parliament and after consultation with stakeholders including the police, probation, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. It has been written with the provisions of the Data Protection Bill in mind and its content will be reviewed once the Bill becomes law. In addition, all offenders who are given an electronic monitoring requirement will receive an induction when they are fitted with a tag to explain what is required and a fair processing notice setting out what will happen with their data.
Standalone location monitoring will provide courts with one more tool to help manage the risk of offenders in the community. The pilots have indicated the operational value that can be derived from location monitoring. When targeted appropriately, it should help rehabilitate offenders, reduce the risk of reoffending, protect the public and, in some cases, provide enough assurance to the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to immediate imprisonment. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I suggest that it is unwise to introduce this commencement order before the result of the pilots is known. I gather from what the Minister just said that the first pilot ended in March but its findings will not be available until the summer and that there is still a pilot operating within the City of London.
We are familiar with electronic monitoring. It has been used to date to ensure compliance by an offender with the terms of a community order, a suspended sentence or a licence to enable a prisoner to be released. Standalone monitoring of this sort is a significant step further. The proposal is to use GPS tracking to monitor an individual’s movements, not against the prohibitions that will be set out in a court order or on release on parole, but generally. It is therefore highly intrusive, as I think the Minister acknowledged in what she said. It goes beyond what is necessary for rehabilitation or the protection of the public.
That point is perhaps emphasised even more by what we were told: that the monitoring will not be in real time—I think I understood that—but be retrospective. In other words, it is not an immediate form of surveillance but means that a probation officer will look back to see what his client has been doing rather than keep a watch over him. It is perhaps less objectionable if it is not immediate surveillance, but it may be rather more effective to use the resources that will be involved in this new system for rehabilitation rather than for tracking offenders in this way.
If this statutory instrument were brought forward after completion, evaluation and publication of the pilot projects—because we have no idea of the results of those pilot projects—it would be possible to assess whether the right balance has been struck. What are the Government going to do to bring those results before Parliament and give us notice of them? Will they give an undertaking not to seek the approval of both Houses before that is done? Otherwise we are faced with the verdict first and the trial afterwards. We want to know what the trial says so that we can comment on it and see whether this statutory instrument should be opposed when it is brought before the House.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, we have some experience of monitoring of this kind of a rather unfortunate nature—I am thinking of G4S and its very poor record in bygone years. I wonder, first of all, who is to be carrying out the job: is it going out to tender or are people already lined up for it? Who has conducted or is conducting the trials at present? What is the cost involved in the work that is being undertaken? Is it a matter for the individual authority, probation service or whatever to commission this? What system will there be to get feedback at a national level about the success or otherwise of the scheme as it goes forward?
Presumably the Government will wish to be satisfied with the trials and that the system is working but, of course, we have to take a longer view about its working, not simply that it is mechanically working but that, in time, it is yielding the results that the Government seek for helping people to, if I may put it this way, stay on the straight and narrow and live a responsible life. That will take presumably some time. How long has the current exercise of trying out the system been going on for? Can the Minister enlighten us a little about where that has taken place, how many people have been put through it and with what result? I am certainly not minded to oppose the process but, given the rather unfortunate past regarding similar arrangements, I think there is a need to look very carefully at what is happening and to get a report back in the not-too-distant future. Can the Minister indicate whether there will be an annual review and report of how the scheme is working? That would be helpful both at the national and appropriate local levels, so that we can see the system is working both mechanically, as it were, and in terms of its intentions to help people stay out of difficulty and obey the law. Will there be oversight of that kind and, ultimately, reports about how the system is working in practice?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their contributions. They raised a number of issues that I think are pertinent to the order that we are discussing. As I hope I mentioned in my opening remarks, feedback has already been received from the pilots that have already finished, and indeed the one that is ongoing, that the system does work and is useful for the task that has been set for it. The main feature now is for the Government to learn what they can about how the pilot operated and how to put that into the operations of the new system when it comes online next year.
A summary of the conclusions of the pilot will of course be made available. It is important that we look at this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out, this is not surveillance and it is not real time, which would be far too resource-intensive. It is information that can be gathered and which allows probation officers and others to have a more informed conversation with the offender. The offender knows that they are being monitored. We believe that it will aid rehabilitation and it is my wish and my hope that it keeps some offenders out of prison, because in some cases that is certainly not helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also mentioned the issue of timing. I am well aware that the results of the pilot are not available to us now, but we do know that the system works. We also know, as we spent most of yesterday discussing, that we are about to receive a tsunami of secondary legislation. It is therefore the department’s opinion that, if we lay this order before Parliament now, we can be confident that it will go through and become operational and that this is appropriate before Parliament’s mind turns to matters of a European Union nature and we are deluged with SIs from other areas. It also means that if we have an early decision in your Lordships’ House, that will give us plenty of time to liaise with the stakeholders—there are many in this system—and make sure that our plan for delivery is absolutely watertight.
Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Relevant Agency (England) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are essential to implement the safeguarding reforms set out in the Children Act 2004, as inserted by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I welcome the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in drawing these regulations to the attention of the House as an instrument of interest.
These reforms aim to improve the protection of children. As noble Lords may recall, they were based on the findings of the 2016 Wood review, which found widespread agreement that existing multi-agency working arrangements should be replaced with a stronger, more flexible statutory framework. Alan Wood also recommended a learning-focused system of reviews to replace serious case reviews. The Act enables the establishment of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. The panel will identify and commission reviews of serious child safeguarding cases which are complex or of national importance.
I am glad that, following a recruitment exercise conducted in accordance with Cabinet Office procedures, Edward Timpson has agreed to take on the role of panel chair. Following his advice and that of a skilled and representative assessment panel, we last week confirmed five appointments who will bring a range of experience to support him in this important work.
The Act also requires the three safeguarding partners —police, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities—to work together to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. As part of this, they must determine the agencies with whom they intend to work. They must also identify and commission reviews of serious cases which raise issues of local importance.
These regulations will enable these provisions to operate effectively. The regulations set out the criteria which the panel must take into account when deciding whether to commission a national review. The panel must also set up a pool of potential reviewers. This arrangement will support our aim of improving the speed and quality of reviews. The panel may, however, select other reviewers if no one in the pool is available or suitably experienced. The panel may also remove potential reviewers from the pool.
As the panel cannot let its own contracts, the Secretary of State will hold the contracts with reviewers. Therefore, these regulations require the Secretary of State to appoint or remove reviewers from national reviews based on the panel’s recommendation. The regulations also specify details of the panel’s supervisory powers during a national review and of its final reports, including publication. Requiring public availability of reports for at least three years will ensure that national-level learning can be spread throughout the system, the key purpose of these new provisions.
The regulations also cover local reviews—the responsibility of the safeguarding partners. As for national reviews, the provisions cover review criteria, the appointment and removal of reviewers, reports and publication. Like the panel, safeguarding partners must make decisions on when it is appropriate to commission a local review, taking local review criteria into account. This includes any advice from the panel on whether a local review may be appropriate. The regulations support the timeliness and quality of local reviews. The safeguarding partners must monitor the progress and quality of local reviews and may seek information during the review to enable them to assess this. The regulations also specify some details that final reports must include and require reports or findings to be available for at least one year.
The regulations set out a list of agencies with which the safeguarding partners may choose to work. The Government first published the list in indicative regulations during the passage of the Bill. Safeguarding partners should select agencies relevant to their local areas. The list of those selected may change from time to time, although we expect schools always to be involved. The safeguarding partners should consult the agencies selected, and the published arrangements should include a list of those agencies. Duties on relevant agencies apply only to agencies included by the safeguarding partners in local arrangements. The Government consulted on these regulations and the associated statutory guidance last autumn. Consultees were largely positive, although some clarifications were made to the regulations as a result.
The panel will begin work on 29 June 2018, when the transition to the new multi-agency arrangements will also commence. Safeguarding partners will have 12 months to prepare and publish their arrangements, including selecting relevant agencies, and a further three months to implement them. Provided that the regulations are agreed, we will publish the final version of the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children within the next few weeks. This will support the new arrangements and complement these regulations.
I thank all those who have contributed to work on these reforms, including noble Lords present. These regulations will support more flexible joint-working arrangements, as well as promote better and more timely learning from reviews, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the protection of children is perhaps one of the most important things that we should be doing. We welcome the safeguarding practice panel; if noble Lords do not mind me saying so, what an inspired choice Edward Timpson is as its chair. His work on the Children and Families Act was second to none.
I want to raise a particular issue that I hope the Minister will address: self-employed tutors. Unlike tutors employed by agencies, they are not legally obliged to apply for a Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS, check. Accountants, vets, even traffic wardens are required to have such checks, despite the fact that their jobs do not involve regular access to children, yet private tutors who regularly work and are involved with children do not. In a Commons Oral Question, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education said:
“It is ultimately the responsibility of parents to assure themselves about the suitability of any private tutor they might choose to employ before they engage them, for example by seeking and checking references, and asking to see a copy of any Disclosure and Barring Service certificate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/18; col. 12.]
As it stands, self-employed tutors cannot apply for a DBS check. Instead, they can apply for a subject access request, containing similar information, for a fee of £10, but they are not legally obliged to do so. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to deal with this rather strange anomaly. Either we insist that all tutors, whether self-employed or employed by an agency, have the correct requirements or, as a second-best option, they can apply for the certification, as suggested by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these important regulations. We recognise the paramount importance of child safeguarding, which should never be compromised, no matter the circumstances. We further recognise—in doing so, we are confident that we reflect public opinion—the need for a revamp of the system of serious case reviews following a number of deeply disturbing cases in recent years, compounded by the often inept handling of reviews into how such crimes were allowed to occur.
Many of those concerns were articulated during the passage through your Lordships’ House of the Children and Social Work Act and I do not intend to revisit them. Revised regulations and a new system of reviews was necessary and, in clearly outlining the requirements for such reviews at both local and national levels, these regulations perform an important function—no less so the requirements being placed on the relevant agencies to ensure the kind of joined-up action that was often absent in the past.
That said, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is another incursion by central government into what is properly a local government responsibility, yet more resources are being found to establish yet another ministerial body—or are there? Just what resources, in the form of new money, will be made available is less than transparent. Yesterday, when these regulations were considered in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Nadhim Zahawi MP, said:
“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/5/18; col. 5.]
That suggests that the Government do not treat this serious matter seriously enough to commit to additional resources, should they be necessary. The existing system was not performing adequately, hence these regulations. To suggest that this revamp, and the appointment of a new body, will not add to costs is surely not realistic.
We know that the former Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson—he of the shoe shop family—will chair the new Child Safeguarding Review Practice Panel. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that, with his record, he is a man in whom we have some confidence to carry out the task effectively. He will bring experience and authority to the post and we wish him well. However, he will be a busy man because he was also appointed last month as chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. He will receive £500 a day as chair of the panel, and his members, £400 plus expenses. Those rates do not sound unreasonable but if I have a concern, it is over the number of times that the panel will be required to meet and the number of panel members that it will require. I suggest that the cost remains an unknown, but perhaps the Minister can give us the Government’s thinking on this and how much, in rounded figures, it is expected to cost. As I said, it is not realistic to think that establishing a new body will not involve additional costs.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I am most grateful to the noble Lords for their comments and questions on these regulations. I can address some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised an important point about the role of tutors and how they should be checked. I will write to him on that, as it is a technical matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised several other points and I will try to address those. In terms of funding, it is important that the local areas 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, and the contributions from each relevant agency to support the local safeguarding arrangements. The funding should be sufficient to cover all elements of the arrangements. Any requirements for the national panel will be funded from the centre. We do not predict that there will be additional costs because we are hopeful that this will remove a lot of the overlap that there is in the system at the moment.
I am pleased that there is strong cross-party support for the appointment of Edward Timpson. He is very experienced in this area, but I take note of the noble Lord’s point about him being overstretched. The exclusion inquiry that he is looking into at the moment is a relatively short inquiry and should be completed within a few months, so I do not think that there will be significant overlap.
On costs, the fees and expenses of the members and chairs will be published and will be in line with the rates paid to other, similar expert panels.
The panel member that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to is from an academy trust. We would also consider someone from a local authority who has experience at senior level. Both the Chief Social Worker and Mark Gurrey will bring that as well to the team.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I accept the local authority involvement regarding those named, but I was particularly talking about local authority education, because there has been some concern expressed that education has been left out of the loop, as it were, in terms of those involved. For education to be introduced only in the form of what appears to be a businessperson from an academy trust—I do not know her experience beyond that—without anyone from the maintained sector is a concern. Can the Minister answer the question that I posed earlier, that the figure of five on the panel is just the opening number and that it can be—and probably will need to be—increased?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I agree that we should keep an open mind on the size of the panel. We have made clear through the statutory guidance that all the published local safeguarding arrangements must set out how relevant agencies, including schools and education providers, will be engaged with the multiagency working. The multi-academy trust member that we referred to, Dr Susan Tranter, has had experience as a head teacher and has had long service in the education sector, so she is not just an administrator but someone who has been involved in education.
These regulations underpin important safeguarding changes, as we discussed. They will give the safeguarding partners a framework to identify who is most appropriate to work with in order to support the safeguarding of children in their area and will give force to these decisions. The new child safeguarding practice review panel will be high profile, operate independently of government and promote genuine change in the safeguarding of children. The new arrangements for 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 also identify improvements at the national as well as local level, and the panel will follow up progress on implementation. The regulations enable these changes to function as intended and I sincerely hope that noble Lords will be willing to support them.
East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, the East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018, the West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018 and the West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018.
Relevant Document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018, the draft West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, the draft East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018 and the draft East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, which were laid before the House on 19 March 2018, be considered.
These instruments, if approved by Parliament and made, will on 1 April 2019 establish two new councils: East Suffolk Council and West Suffolk Council. East Suffolk Council is made up of two existing councils: Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council. West Suffolk Council is made up of Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council.
The instruments also provide for elections to these new councils to be held in May 2019 and each fourth year thereafter. This includes providing electoral arrangements—the warding arrangements that would be used for the first elections should the Local Government Boundary Commission for England be unable to conclude in time the electoral review which is expected it will undertake. In addition, they make transitional provisions, including for a shadow authority and shadow executive to prepare for the new councils during the period from when the order is in force until April 2019.
We have brought forward these instruments in response to locally-led proposals from each of the areas concerned. All of the existing principal councils in each area support the proposals and, as statute requires, have given their formal consent to the regulations. In line with the Government’s 2017 manifesto, we are committed to consider any locally-led proposals for district mergers and, as we told Parliament in November 2017, we will assess proposals on the basis that they will improve local government and service delivery, create structures with a credible geography and command a good deal of local support.
The Government are satisfied that these two merger proposals fully meet these criteria. In the case of East Suffolk, the merger is the next logical step to the many shared arrangements which the two existing councils in the area have today. It will improve local government in the area. It will achieve greater efficiency and resilience. It will secure for the future on-going savings totalling more than £20 million since 2010, as well as yielding further savings which the council estimates as £2.2 million per year.
The area of the new combined East Suffolk Council is a coherent geography with a population of around 240,000. This area is, in fact, the same area as the old county of East Suffolk that existed from 1888 until 1974. Finally, we are satisfied that the evidence shows that there is strong local support for this proposal, with a survey suggesting that 72% of residents would support the merger.
Turning to West Suffolk, the two merging councils already operate largely as one council. The merger completes and secures this and the benefits it brings. It will therefore improve local government in the area, securing for the future on-going savings of £4 million a year as well as yielding further savings which the council estimates as £850,000 per year. As in the case of East Suffolk, the new area recreates a traditional long-established area, that of the county of West Suffolk that existed prior to 1974, but with a population today of almost 180,000. As with East Suffolk, this proposal for a new West Suffolk has strong local support.
It may assist the Committee if before concluding I say something about the processes which have been followed by the councils and the Government and which have led us to conclude that these proposals do, indeed, meet the criteria and are worthy of implementation. In each case the councils concerned submitted their proposal after undertaking what we believe was a sound and full consultation exercise involving extensive local engagement and open consultation.
In the case of East Suffolk, in formulating their proposals, East Suffolk councils undertook a programme of engagement with residents and stakeholders from September 2016 until December 2016. The programme included: an independent, proportionally representative phone poll; a media campaign including press releases and promotion on social media; information packs for town and parish councils; an open consultation via a dedicated webpage and an online survey to collect comments on the proposals; formal communication to stakeholders; presentations and talks at resident and business forums and public events; and a frequently asked questions document updated with any common questions or concerns.
The independent poll commissioned to find out local residents’ views suggests that 72% of residents were in favour of the proposals to form a new single district council, with 22% raising concerns. All of the local institutional stakeholders, such as the NHS, the county council, major business groups in Suffolk and all the neighbouring authorities, are also in favour.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on items six and seven, pertaining to west Suffolk. I speak as a resident and ratepayer of the St Edmundsbury Borough Council. This is a rather unusual piece of legislation in that it is catching up with reality. It seems to be about turning de facto into de jure. Its roots lay in the fairly recent past. They were conceived by the leader of St Edmundsbury Borough Council, John Griffiths. The opportunity arose to sell the council offices in the middle of Bury St Edmunds for them to be converted into flats and for new offices to be built on the edge of the town. The building has more room, is better planned, is environmentally up to date and is very smart indeed. It houses the council officials of both St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath. Most of those posts are already held in common by one official. In effect, there is already a substantial shadow administration. In a way, we are officially legitimising what has already been done. In old-fashioned terms, these two authorities have been living in sin for years, and this legislation will effectively make them man and wife, as one concept.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I also speak as a Suffolk resident of almost 40 years, although not of either of the areas covered today. I am a former district and county councillor in Suffolk so I have a keen interest in this.
I have always advocated unitary government for Suffolk, perhaps going back to the old, two-council days before 1974, or possibly 1973, with serious devolution to the towns and parishes which want it. I felt that way because I truly believe that service delivery would be better if we brought together planning and transport, for example, under one council. Local people would not have to sort out which council does what. As a councillor, I know that that is a significant issue. The financial savings that can be made from creating unitary councils have been well established across the country where this has been done.
Opposition to my view has always been on the grounds of saying, “Well, district councils are important because they’re small and they’re local and the wards are small. Everybody knows everyone and they’re close to the people”. I buy that; I can see that argument. However, it seems that in merging these councils—I am talking about councils as opposed to their back-office functions—big wards will be created and the council offices will, in many cases, be moved away from the area they represent. The advantages of districts are lost without the benefits of unitary government. Bins will still be emptied by one council and the waste disposed of by another, for example.
I remain concerned about that. I accept the point that Suffolk councils have been in the process of merging their back-office functions to save costs for some years now. That is entirely sensible. However, my council in mid-Suffolk, having done that with the neighbouring authority of Babergh, has now gone completely mad and moved its joint offices to the middle of Ipswich. There is no local connection there. If you are going to defend three-tier local government on the grounds of local connection, you have to show local connection.
I am worried that all this is being driven by the parlous state of local government finance in this country, rather than some sort of rational, thought-out plan. It feels as though people who live in Suffolk are somehow not being properly engaged with—I will come back to that—or brought along in the process. It was interesting that the Secondary Legislation Committee shared some of those concerns. I appreciate the trouble that the Minister has gone to to allay those. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to do—to be charitable—to convince people in Suffolk and in town and parish councils that the proposals will work.
To give what I think is an important piece of context, the report that went to Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils on 14 March 2016 stated:
“The potential benefits and pitfalls of unitary local government have been well rehearsed previously”—
through LGR—and,
“have not been reproduced here. It is uncertain whether the new Secretary of State will be open to such discussions … Similarly, this could not be done in any format without … an impact upon Suffolk County Council. It is assumed at this stage (and without any discussion with the County Council) that this would be strongly resisted”,
by the county council. In other words, in East Suffolk at least, this was kicked off in 2016 without really knowing what the Secretary of State or the county council thought.
With regard to the support to which the Minister referred, the problem was that nobody ever had a say about the benefits of unitary councils—which I think, had it been put as an option, would have been more significant—but that did not take place because a unitary authority had been ruled out.
This continues to be a model. On 21 March this year, the leader of Suffolk County Council announced that he had commissioned a report from ResPublica to look at options for local government in Suffolk over the coming years. This afternoon, the local press are reporting that he has suspended this work, saying that it is because his opponent in a leadership bid is opposed to it. I have no idea whether the second part is true but it shows, given the importance of local government to Suffolk and the services that it delivers, that it deserves better than this.
Lord Tebbit
Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she make it plain that she is speaking primarily about East Suffolk? We in West Suffolk have been enjoying the benefits, or disbenefits, of the change now for a long while. We have been just living together and getting to like it.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I am very pleased to put a cloak of respectability over the noble Lord and the area in which he lives. I hope that he sleeps more soundly as a result. Yes, I was citing the report that went to East Suffolk, but there is a general point. I would have preferred a much more strategic look at the whole county and how services are delivered so that we can all feel that councils are genuinely representing us. I think that that is exactly where we will be in five years’ time, but that will probably have cost us a lot of time and money.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I should draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my declaration of interests: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am not a resident of Suffolk, although I have friends there and visit often. It is a wonderful place to spend time.
I am clear that there is local support for the order. I know that the Minister has addressed the issue raised by the Secondary Legislation Committee, and I am happy with that. I have talked generally about consultation: we must ensure that our consultation processes actually involve talking to local people to get their views; we do not always do that. I am not saying that about this case.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I think that local government in England is a little confused. If you go to one place, there is a unitary council that does everything for the whole county. In the next place, you will have four or five tiers of local government doing the same job. There is an issue there. That is not the case in other parts of the country. In some parts of the country, you can have a metro mayor and a combined authority, the PCC, a county council, a district council and the parish council, all delivering different services to you. In another place, you have just a unitary council or a unitary district. I know that the Minister will say that we like it being bespoke and everyone can do as they like, but you could equally argue that it is a bit confused and a bit of a dog’s breakfast in some parts of the country.
In principle, I am not against what is suggested here, bearing in mind the points I made.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the comments made by anybody who knows something about Suffolk, like my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. I just remind the Committee of my interests as a councillor in Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The comment I want to make is that I have attended a number of these sessions where, as a Committee, we have considered mergers or boundary reviews and, in every instance, the existing local councils involved make claims about the savings that will be made and services that will be more efficient and that residents will be happy with the general situation. My question is: do the Government or the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government do a review post hoc to test whether this is in fact the case? We always accept these claims at face value, and we have a very specific claim here about the savings that will be made. No doubt that is the intention of the councils involved, but my experience of what council officers claim and what actually happens is that they can often diverge. If such reviews do take place, I would really like to have access to them and, if they do not, I suggest that they are undertaken, partly because the funding savings that will be made are very specific. Councils always also make claims about efficiency of service provision, which may well be the case, but does anybody ask after the event whether it is the case?
I share some of the concerns expressed earlier, among all the comments that have been made, about the confusion of local government now and whether we are losing the “local” from local government. The area where I am a councillor, for example, serves 450,000 residents—it is a unitary, metropolitan council—and my ward serves 13,000 electors, so some 17,000 residents. This is compared with some local authorities where the wards will be considerably smaller. We have to ask the question about whether there is a democratic deficit for people in some parts of the country. How local is local government? There is, I think, a debate to be had between getting scale and service provision and losing the local touch, which democracy requires if it is going to work well. With those comments—well, questions—I will end what I have to say.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much indeed for their contributions in relation to these issues affecting Suffolk. I will deal with the contributions in the order that they were made, if I may. I turn first to my noble friend Lord Tebbit, with his personal experience of St Edmundsbury Borough Council—an excellent council in a lovely part of the country. My noble friend quite correctly said that this is de facto catching up with de jure, because this has been the position for a long while. I also remind all noble Lords that these proposals are locally led. This is not a government imposition of what we would like to see; this is something that is locally led so, in relation to the local democracy element, that is very important.
I am very happy as the Minister for Faith to be presiding over this union, this coming together, of these two parties—
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
I am sorry, but somebody will have to clarify whether I can speak. I was not here at the start of the debate, so I did not know that the Committee agreed to take the instruments en bloc. I intended to get here as quickly as I could, so I thought I could at least speak on the second pair when they were reached.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, the rules say that if a noble Lord is not present at the beginning of the debate he cannot take part in it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I would be very happy to see my noble friend Lord Porter afterwards, if he has particular points, and to cover those in detail, if that would be helpful.
I am very happy to preside over the union of the two parties that have been living in sin, as the noble Lord put it. It all seemed to be going well until the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, got up to object—it reminded me of a scene in Jane Eyre or possibly Far from the Madding Crowd—but happily not in relation to the one union that was very close to my noble friend’s heart. She subsequently clarified her concerns about some of the issues.
Babergh and Mid-Suffolk were very close to an agreement in relation to a locally led proposal. It was not to happen, but that was a local matter, and as a department or a Government we have quite rightly not attempted to impose anything on them. So these are locally led proposals. On the unitisation issue, I shall not get sucked into Suffolk politics and matters pertaining to that great county as I do not know all the issues. Once again, however, it is open to authorities within Suffolk to come forward with locally led proposals if that is what they want.
I was not up to speed with the latest development on the review of the county council. I know the county council initiated it of its own volition without the involvement of the other areas, but if something were to come forward at a future juncture, of course we would look at it.
In relation to East Suffolk as well as West Suffolk, from the evidence we have of the consultation, these proposals are strongly supported by residents. All the districts concerned, including Waveney and Suffolk Coastal in the case of East Suffolk, are strongly in support of these proposals, which comes back to the locally led point.
That brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He and I have at the very least a nuance of difference in our approach here. Despite his very respectable Labour pedigree, the noble Lord has a slight Stalinist tendency to favour a standard approach for every council in the country, which is not necessarily what local councils want. These are locally led proposals. The same is true on a different canvas in relation to the mayoralties. They are not necessarily the same, but they are locally supported and bespoke.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
Does the Minister accept that one of the problems, the one we are all grappling with, is that these proposals do not have any sense of originating from the people, so when people show support or do not do so they are showing support or otherwise for something that has been handed to them? It is the same now with many of the other structures of local government. We all share a deep commitment to local government structures and we want to be confident that they enjoy public support. This is not a political point. It is about local democracy.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I do not dissent from the general point that leadership means that proposals have to come from somewhere. I am keen to make the point, and perhaps to restate the point to overstate the point, that these are locally led proposals from local leaders. Of course they are not going to come from individual residents, but the evidence we have from the consultation, which the Secretary of State will have borne in mind when looking at these proposals, was that there was strong local support for them.
I take the point that there has to be a government policy, but the Government, of whom I am proud to be a part, are keen for there to be diversity and bespoke deals. The noble Lord probably takes a different view of this, but it is not a view that the Government subscribe to. We have a broad policy of saying these things have got to be locally led. We will look at them and scrutinise them to ensure that they are locally supported and represent value and so on, but local democracy is the key point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I take the Minister’s point. I am conscious that in other parts of England there are other places where there are differences among what councils want. Oxfordshire is an example where there are very different views about what is wanted in the future. Do I take it from what the Minister said that if councils do not want things to happen, they will not happen?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That is essentially true. These have to be locally led. If they have not got local support, they will not happen: that is absolutely the essence of what I am saying. That does not mean that there has to be 100% support—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Well, for district mergers, there has to be 100% support from the councils. What I am saying is that there does not necessarily have to be 100% support from the local MPs, for example, and that has not been the case. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate—
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Excuse me, but I am conscious that, in Oxfordshire, there may well be a view that they want a unitary authority. But Oxford City Council does not want that and is very clear about it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am making the point in relation to district councils, as it is district councils we are looking at. There are other considerations in relation to unitary authorities but, in relation to district councils, there has to be unanimous support from the authorities concerned, as there was in these cases. It happens that, in these cases, they have support also from the surrounding authorities, not all of which are in Suffolk itself.
Lastly, I will turn, if I may, to the point made by the noble Baroness, who also has great experience of local government. We are looking at Suffolk, but she will understand from the point of view of Kirklees the need for that local dimension. We have the local dimension here, as demonstrated by the feelings of the people in the area. That is the point I wish to emphasise.
In both cases, it is about recognising—once again I will adopt the words of my noble friend Lord Tebbit—a move from the de facto to the de jure. In both cases, there has been close co-operation. In both cases, for understandable reasons, it is intended that branch offices will be kept open while headquarters will be, in one case, in Bury St Edmunds, and, in the other case, in Melton, on the outskirts of Woodbridge. So there will be no change in that regard, but it is moving very sensibly from the de facto to the de jure, which is what they want. With that, I commend the regulations and the orders to the Committee.
Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations being considered were laid before the House on Thursday 15 March 2018. The private rented sector is an important part of our housing market, housing 4.5 million households in England. Houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, form a vital part of the sector, often providing cheaper accommodation for people whose housing options are limited. However, HMOs sometimes pose greater management challenges than single household accommodation, and some of the occupiers of HMOs are the most vulnerable people in our society. That is why mandatory licensing of HMOs was introduced in 2004 for properties with three or more storeys that are occupied by five or more people.
Since its introduction over a decade ago, mandatory licensing has been successful in raising standards and enabling local authorities to tackle overcrowded conditions and poor management practices. However, over the past 10 years, the private rented sector has doubled in size, which has led to increasingly small properties being used as HMOs.
As these smaller HMOs were not subject to mandatory licensing, some rogue landlords have been able to avoid local authority detection and enforcement by letting HMOs with fewer than three storeys. Poor practice by these landlords has led to negative harmful impacts on some local communities through the accumulation of rubbish and waste, as well as noisy and anti-social behaviour outside HMOs. It is to address these problems that the Government have extended mandatory licensing to properties of fewer than three storeys. We have already laid the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description) (England) Order on 23 February 2018; it will come into force in October 2018. We are working with local authorities on producing guidance to ensure they are able to meet this date.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords I remind the Committee that I am a vice president of the Local Government Association. The regulations have my entire support. This is a very welcome change. I have one question for the Minister, which I have raised on previous regulations. It takes a very long time to effect change—it is three years since the initial consultation took place in May 2015—and I wonder whether things might be speeded up a bit. We have to consult carefully on the regulation to get the right outcome, nevertheless it does seem to take a very long time.
It has to be right that local authorities can regulate the minimum size of rooms that may be occupied as sleeping accommodation. It has to be right that the local housing authority can specify the maximum number of persons who may occupy a specified room for the purpose of sleeping accommodation in that licenced HMO. It has to be right that local authorities can make schemes in respect of refuse storage and disposal that a landlord would have to implement. In all those respects this regulation has to be right.
There was a time when the definition of HMOs was adequate. They were of three or more storeys and were occupied by five or more persons forming two or more households. That was for many years a standard definition that stood the test of time. The difficulty now is, as the Minister said, that the private sector has grown to the point where it represents one in five household tenures in the UK, and standards have slipped. We have HMOs which, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, are under the radar, and something has to be done about that.
I understand that there has been some debate about a reasonable minimum size for sleeping accommodation. As the Minister made clear, 6.51 square metres for one person over the age of 10 is a minimum size, not necessarily a desirable size. Indeed, it is actually very small. If you calculate that in your own mind, it is not very big at all. I understand that there are some residential landlords who would like all the accommodation in an HMO, which might include communal accommodation, to be calculated as part of the minimum amount. It seems to me that sleeping accommodation, which is the private space of an individual in an HMO, has to be of a reasonable size for someone to do things other than just sleeping. Therefore, I find 6.51 square metres small. I do not think it reasonable to say that we should include communal accommodation and reduce the amount that is required under the law for sleeping accommodation.
With reference to paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, I wonder whether the period of 18 months’ grace is too long. For a while, I felt that once this has been approved, giving landlords a year, or perhaps nine months, would be adequate. Given the fact that it may prove complicated for local authorities to identify, investigate and agree with landlords what will happen, a period of 18 months is probably justified. When he replies, can the Minister explain the basis for the 18-month period as opposed to any other?
These regulations are very welcome. They help us to solve a problem. Where standards in the private rented sector are declining, they give local authorities powers to act to protect the interests of tenants. They should therefore be commended.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, these are important regulations before the Grand Committee. I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I do not know whether any noble Lords here have ever lived in an HMO. I certainly have not. My honourable friend in the other place, Melanie Onn, and I were work colleagues in the Labour Party; she lived in an HMO as a young homeless person and she will tell you what conditions were like there. She has some knowledge about this. These regulations are important and I am very happy to support them; they certainly go in the right direction, but there is a lot more to do.
I have also been out in Newham on a number of housing raids. Of course, Newham has a licensing scheme, but the standard of accommodation some people are expected to live in is absolutely shocking. The regulations are a step in the right direction, but we must never lose sight of the poor accommodation that we have and expect some people to live in. I support improved rights and protections for renters; the regulations will go some way to improving the rights of some of the most poor and vulnerable people in our communities.
We have had discussion of the national minimum room standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the room allocated to someone in an HMO is not just a bedroom. Other than the shared bathroom and kitchen, you need a bit more space to put a bed and a wardrobe in. This must be taken into account when concluding that the proposed minimum standard for a single occupier should be 6.51 square metres or 10.22 square metres for two people. Those sizes will be further compromised if young children are there as well.
Some local authorities may seek to provide larger minimum space standards in their licensing schemes, which is good. However, we need to consider carefully that these rooms are not just bedrooms. They are your bedroom and living room. They are the room where you put all your property. Everything you have in life goes into this one room. I certainly think that we have to look carefully at size there.
The Minister mentioned fines for letting out rooms that are smaller than the minimum, which is good. However, we must make the point that we can have all the regulations we like, but it becomes an issue when we cannot enforce them. The other issue with HMOs, particularly when they are very small or even illegally let, is the danger of overcrowding and overcluttering, which creates a fire risk and other problems that people get into in insufficient spaces.
Ultimately, we need to think also about issues such as the impact on mental health. You have to remember that people are letting one room and are sharing the building with people they do not know. Often, they will lock the door to their room at night, and that is not a great way to live your life. These are some of the most vulnerable people and there are real issues here, in particular for their mental health.
That leads on to the wider problem of a housing market in crisis, which we have talked about many times in this House and elsewhere. The standard and quality of some of the accommodation that people live in is shocking and we need to do much more about that.
I have to mention the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016, which offered little respite to people in this housing crisis. We need always to be on top of this. I support the regulations because they are a move forward, and I thank the Government for that, but we need to do much more. I am not sure if the Minister has been out to look at the situation, but I can recommend that he do so with Newham Council. He would find it shocking—I was last out with the council in February. For people to be living like that in HMOs in 2018, in one of the richest countries in the world and one of the richest cities in the world, is truly unbelievable. I am very happy to support the regulations before us today.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who speak on these issues on behalf of their parties. I thank them for their general approach, which is consistently responsible and, at the same time, questions aspects of the policy, which I fully understand.
I will deal first with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. One thing that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I have in common is that we always want these things to happen more quickly than appears deliverable. I understand, therefore, where the noble Lord is coming from when he talks about how long these things sometimes appear to take. We have touched on the fact that both noble Lords carry out visits to communities at the sharp end to see what is necessary, and similarly I have been to Sheffield and Luton and seen some of the problems that exist there, which are by no means unique. Tomorrow, I am in Leeds and Hull, and on Friday I will be in Bradford, and I expect to get similar messages there.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for what he said about the broader definition of HMOs that we have already brought in to take into account properties of three storeys and below. As a Government and as a country we have to be fleet of foot to change our definition in the light of new circumstances so that, as he said, things do not go under the radar. I accept that 6.51 square metres is relatively small, but, my gosh, he and I know that it is a massive improvement on some of the things that are happening now. As he rightly said, we must make sure that we focus on enforcement to make sure that these and other regulations are properly enforced.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether the 18-month period is appropriate. When I saw it, I also thought it seemed to be a long time. However, one needs to remember that this is not, primarily, to protect landlords. If anything, it is to protect tenants, some of whom I accept are currently sleeping in a space that is too small. However, we do not want those tenants to be forced out by a landlord saying that he has to do so because it is the law. The transitional period takes into account landlords to a degree, but, much more so, tenants as well as local authorities. Probably, 18 months is about the right period.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned Newham Council, which I know does much good work. I will, when possible, visit Newham to see what is happening there. He made the justifiable point that this issue has far-reaching implications for mental health, a point which, I must confess, I had not homed in on. He is absolutely right. In a sense, I lived in a HMO as a student, but that is a very different experience from living in a HMO as an adult, particularly with children, and I understand what the noble Lord is getting at. It is not a desirable position in many situations. It may be appropriate for people on a transitional basis but it is not how most people would opt to live; I fully accept that. However, given that some people are in that position, we have to make sure that there are appropriate regulations.
I again thank the noble Lords for their comments and for their general support. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2018 and the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2018.
21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2018 were laid before the House on 23 March 2018, and the draft Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2018 were laid before the House on 7 February 2018. Just to save the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, some trouble, I can let him know that the common commencement date rules do not apply to this type of regulation as they have no impact on business, so he need not raise that.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for raising the point before I had time to do so, but I just point out to him that that puts the score at 8-1 against.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said earlier on, I will endeavour to improve; I know that the noble Lord will keep a record on these matters.
The purpose of the draft orders is to implement reforms to the renewable heat incentive, or RHI. The reforms will deliver changes that will strengthen the focus on long-term decarbonisation, offer better value for money for taxpayers, increase protection for consumers and further support supply chain growth in the renewable heat sector. Heat accounts for around half of the UK’s energy use and one-third of total carbon emissions. Increasing the share of heat derived from renewable sources is a critical challenge, both to meet our renewable energy targets and to deliver the Government’s long-term carbon goals. Building a vibrant renewable heat sector is a key objective of my department’s clean growth strategy and the industrial strategy. The RHI is the main programme to deliver those goals over this spending period. Before the RHI started, only 1% of our heat came from renewable energy sources; that figure is now around 7% of total heat.
This type of tariff-based support for renewable heat is the first scheme of its kind in the world. Inevitably, there are lessons to be learned, and these reforms are a response to some of the lessons from the early years. The National Audit Office published a review of the RHI in February this year, which we were pleased to receive. Many of its comments related to issues covered by the draft regulations, which I hope will go some way towards addressing some of the issues raised by the NAO, which were also noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The draft orders will deliver a series of important reforms that will help us to deliver a more strategic mix of technologies and improve value for money over the next three years until the scheme closes in March 2021. I will highlight the main ones.
We will increase the tariffs available for biogas and biomethane technologies while introducing new restrictions on the feedstock that those plants use. That will encourage the increased use of food and agricultural waste and will reduce the use of energy crops, making better use of farmland for food production. Alongside changes already made last year, this will rebalance deployment away from biomass in favour of heat pumps, biogas and biomethane, which will all play a much stronger role in the scheme over the long term.
Another important change is that we will bring in tariff guarantees that will allow RHI applicants to secure their place on the scheme in advance of construction. This will support investments in larger plants that deliver better value for money. We will cap the amount of heat covered to 250 gigawatt hours per year to protect the scheme budget.
In the domestic scheme, take-up to date has been dominated by owners of larger homes. To promote wider uptake, we will introduce the assignment of rights. This will allow third parties to finance renewable technology and to be repaid directly from the RHI. Crucially, that will open up access to the scheme for those without up-front capital to pay for a new heating system.
Following consultation last year, we will limit the eligibility of certain heat uses. These provisions will remove most instances of wood-fuel drying and waste processing or drying. In addition, we will remove the use of heat for drying digestate in anaerobic digestion facilities as an eligible heat use. We consider that these processes are poor value for money and that many would not exist without RHI support. We will also remove support for heating swimming pools on the non-domestic scheme, unless the pool is for commercial or municipal use.
We are also introducing changes to allow more than one heat pump to use a common or shared ground loop. This should facilitate greater deployment of that important technology. The introduction of electricity metering for heat pumps across both schemes will allow participants to better monitor the efficiency of their plant and build confidence in the technology.
Following consultation, another change will be to increase the power efficiency threshold of combined heat and power technology from 10% to 20% to reduce the risk of overcompensation and to encourage plants to run more efficiently. There is also a whole series of mainly administrative changes to tighten cost control, reduce the risk of gaming and improve Ofgem’s delivery of both schemes, including by tightening its enforcement powers.
The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2018 also consolidate all previous revisions to the original regulations, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The RHI plays a central role in the Government’s programme to decarbonise heating. These regulations are an important step in refining the scheme and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in general, I welcome this secondary legislation, in that the National Audit Office report from February certainly needed some reaction from the Government on the way that the scheme operates. Just to put it in a bit of context, the audit report included some very interesting figures: between 2012 and 2017, there have been some £1.4 billion-worth of payments, which should lead to commitments of some £23 billion. To me those sound like big numbers but, as we know from smart meters, they are absolutely piffling. There have been 78,000 installations already and there were expected to be 500,000 by 2020. It is estimated that we have got to about a fifth of that original target. To give the Government their due, they have responded to reality in this area and moved some of those targets.
Although the Minister made a strong point about this being a major contributor to our carbon targets, the point I want to make is that, in many ways, it is a small drop in the ocean of what we need to do to meet our carbon budgets in future. The renewable heat incentive is certainly nothing like sufficient to meet those budgets in the heating sector, nor was it ever meant to be. That sector is so important, but it is one in which we still have so few solutions for meeting our targets. In electricity generation, we are well on our way; in transport, we at least have the solutions on hand; but in space heating, we do not yet, and the RHI is never going to get us there. There are big challenges for this scheme.
I was quite surprised to see in the audit report that Ofgem, which is the manager of the scheme, had not really managed to tackle some of the gaming issues and was uncertain on the overpayments side. I guess that all auditors have to find something. Certainly, the report praises the GB scheme in comparison with that in Northern Ireland, where clearly the scheme got completely out of control and caused the political difficulties that we now have there. However, it is estimated that we still have some £3 million-worth of overpayments.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
The delay to the laying of these regulations has been hard for the industry. We will not stand in their way; however, perfect they are not.
I am sure the Minister will understand the need to keep a watch on their effect as they come into being as there may be unintended consequences—some of which I shall run through. I seek the Minister’s assurance that the Government will keep them under review and make further changes and revisions where needed. I shall put forward a raft of suggestions in that vein.
One of the shocking aspects of the RHI is how far short of the expected targets it has fallen, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson. I was watching the Public Accounts Committee session on the RHI and was astonished at the BEIS response to questioning from the committee on the fact that the original target for number of installations was 513,000 by 2020 but, as was mentioned, only 78,000 had been installed by December 2017, as stated in the NAO report.
The BEIS response was even more shocking because it was that this meant we had saved money and that was a good thing. BEIS prayed in aid unsubsidised companies which were doing brilliantly. The Government would reach their targets for emissions reduction and renewable energy production anyway, so it did not matter. I thought that was a concerning approach to the desperate need to decarbonise heat.
The NAO report demonstrated that the ambition of the Government in this regard has been scaled down from their original ambition. The proportion of renewable heat that will not be eligible for RHI has gone up by 270% and the lifetime emission reduction resulting from the RHI has gone down by 44% compared to the original ambition. The Government are not on track at all to reach their fourth and fifth carbon budget targets, and they will be missed. We were all celebrating when we signed the Paris agreement, yet there has been no step change in actions to match the step change needed to meet our commitments, particularly on heat. In terms of our debate today, there is a cliff edge coming in 2021, so will the Minister say what is the Government’s plan? What is going to happen when the scheme ends? The Government have said that they will bring forward lots of studies this year and report on their review in the summer of 2018, which is nearly upon us. Can the Minister be explicit in his response and tell us what we can expect to see and when we can expect to see it?
As the Minister said, there has clearly been a lot of gaming to get subsidies that are not in the spirit of this agenda. Can he tell me how many companies have been caught gaming the system? In the committee, it seemed that most of the checking is done at the point of accreditation and there is relatively little in terms of inspection and audit. If we need regulations changed to clamp down on this, perhaps the Government should also be looking far more strictly at their compliance regime.
I want to address one of the changes in these regulations that have been brought in to address some of the gaming that was mentioned; the drying of wood. It is obviously not the intended purpose of the subsidy, and companies which game the system should be ashamed of themselves, but shame clearly is not working. I totally understand and support the Government’s desire to make changes that will exclude this type of gaming, which unfairly means that those who play by the book find themselves at an economic disadvantage, and margins are extremely tight.
However, there are potential unintended consequences of the new regulations about feedstock rules, and I should like the Minister to address this issue. The regulations in relation to AD rightly want to encourage the use of non-crop feedstock. That means that there will be a greater need for feedstock processes, such as pasteurisation or hydrolysis, to make sure that digestate is safe to lay across the land. It also means that a wider range of feedstock will be used. This is not my specialist subject, but removing potential bugs from the digestate, meeting the requirements of the Environment Agency and reassuring end users that the digestate is okay to spread to land seem pretty important.
As we rightly shift to non-crop feedstock, this will become a bigger issue and the need for these processes will increase, so companies doing the right thing may find themselves penalised economically for doing so under the new rules. Going forward, all RHI projects will use some waste feedstock, and the change to waste eligibility potentially rules out these uses. If the RHI subsidy is not allowed for plants using these processes, projects may be unable to go ahead. The original consultation referred only to withdrawing support from drying “industrial or municipal waste”, and it is a good move in these regulations to remove the ability to game in that way. Is it intended that the policy should also capture pasteurisation and/or hydrolysis in AD plants with the exclusion process for waste? If that is the Government’s intention, how will it work if only a proportion of the input feedstock is waste? Does it mean that even a tiny amount of waste feedstock would render all heat generated ineligible for support? Could the amount of support paid be adjusted based on the proportion of waste feedstock used?
There is a call from some in the industry for flexibility in the system, as there is a difference between AD projects that use heat for pasteurisation or hydrolysis as opposed to blow-drying wood. To indicate some of the financial implications, although each plant is different, this one is an example of potential financial implications on set-up. Funding projects with a current long-term investor requires returns of minimum 8.5%; it would need to be more like 9.5% to 10% on the open market. For an average plant, therefore, the overall cost to build is £12 million. The RHI heat income that would be lost if the changes are interpreted as “no RHI paid on heat for pasteurisation or hydrolysis if any waste is used” means that £880,000 would be lost over a project’s lifetime, taking 0.4% off the project’s returns. Given that these projects are only just achieving the required level, a project that is just about fundable now would not be funded as the return would fall to only just over 8%.
I know that is very detailed. I obviously want to give the Minister time to think about this, but these issues have been raised by the industry. The Minister is getting sympathetic looks from my noble friend on my right. My point is that this is detailed and close, but when margins are close, this is important. We want to encourage these people to set up new plants, not discourage them. This needs looking at and we need to keep an eye on it because it puts people out of business. As small as it seems, it is hugely important.
Lord McNally (LD)
I intervene to say that this matter illustrates the importance of these committees, where the industry and Members are able to put on record real concerns that both Ministers and the learned people behind them can take on board for the future.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I intervene just to say that I caught the noble Baroness’s noble friend’s eye and he was looking faintly sympathetic towards me. The noble Baroness is making some very valuable points, some of which I will be able to respond to. In relation to the point being made by the noble Lord, I will write to the noble Baroness in much greater detail and make the letter available in the Library, as she knows I always do.
Baroness Featherstone
I know that the Minister will always write to me. He writes to me often. I will leave that issue for him to ponder and, I hope, address in his response; I am happy to have in writing whatever he cannot address now.
I want to move on to other issues that need addressing or reviewing as soon as possible in the regulations. I thank Energy UK for drawing my attention to the assignment of rights, for which we are all grateful. Will the Government extend similar rights to small and medium-sized businesses and, if so, when? The changes to support household customers with high up-front costs are excellent, but small and medium businesses need a similar provision. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report was clear that a comprehensive review of the RHI is needed and that BEIS needed to be,
“rigorous and ongoing if the deficiencies of the past are to be redressed”.
To be sure that money is being spent appropriately, this needs to happen before the end of 2018 to make sure that what is yet to be spent is spent efficiently. Moreover, it is extremely important to introduce a long-term low-carbon heat incentive going into the future, beyond the cliff edge.
The NAO pointed out the scheme’s failure to be cost-effective and essentially said that that was down to poor monitoring and targeting. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will address the NAO’s concerns in monitoring and ensuring the appropriate targeting of the RHI in future?
Energy UK has helpfully published a report that lays out a way forward for the industry, the Government and Ofgem in terms of actions and decisions needed in order to decarbonise heat. Given the gap between where we are and where we need to get to on decarbonising heat—I was going to go into fracking but I will spare the Minister that—I suggest that the Minister not only reads that report by Energy UK but acts on the very good advice that is in it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent introduction to these regulations and other speakers who have contributed. It is a truism to say that these regulations are an important part of decarbonising the economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with our international commitments and targets. The key question has to be whether these regulations before us will help us in our drive to achieve the Government’s stated aims, which include a,
“focus on long-term decarbonisation, promotion of technologies with a credible role to play in that transition, and offering better value for money for taxpayers”.
I couple that observation with a question to the Minister: does he agree that the evidence before us—which, as has just been said, is not complete by any means—seems to show that we have been less successful in reducing carbon from heat in this country than we have been in decarbonising electricity generation? It may be that that is a lesson that we need to learn and expand upon during this process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, has just said that we are approaching a cliff-edge. Not only is this scheme time limited, but we have had very little information on how the Government are going to drive this policy through to 2030 and beyond and, indeed, on whether they are focusing sufficiently on decarbonisation or are falling into the trap of choosing some current technologies over others, which experience tells us is not the way to go. We need to go single-mindedly for the higher carbon-generating technologies and stick with that before we start playing around with too many other options that may well not be as efficient in getting us to the target.
Turning to the regulations, we do not disagree with the proposed changes. There have already been delays that have been far too long, revisions and seemingly endless consultations. The most important thing is to get on with delivering progress in renewable heat generation. However, we have to bear in mind, as the NAO report, which has already been mentioned, has brought into clear focus, that this reset of where we currently are translates into a very severe overall reduction in ambition. Can the Minister give us some indication of the longer-term plan that the Government have for renewable heat, and of what exactly the plan will consist? The ambition, which I thought all parties shared, of a substantial decarbonisation of heat cannot be achieved on the RHI alone. Indeed, as has been mentioned, these regulations are going to end, and will be closed to new entrants in March 2021. This is very short-term target and few, if any, new projects can be expected to be devised, tested and financed, or even introduced, in that timeframe. So, while we welcome what is being done, the Government need to answer some key questions: what is going to happen next and when will it happen? Where is the research on different heat-demand scenarios? What is the future for hydrogen, which recent reports have talked up? What changes will be needed in the grid, for example, if there is a large- scale uptake of heat pumps, and who will pay for that? What is the proper role of bioenergy, given its sometimes adverse impact on the natural environment? All we know is that the Government intend to publish a full report on the evidence by summer 2018, which is not, frankly, enough, and is, of course, already too late.
We have, as the Minister said, the benefit of a NAO report, which was picked up by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The key point that emerges from that is that the amount of renewable heating funded by the RHI will have reduced to 65% by 2020, and the lifetime carbon emission reductions achieved by the RHI, in terms of the current ambition compared with the original starting ambition, is a reduction of 44%. This is a substantial downgrading, which is very disappointing. As a country, we surely deserve better.
I have some specific questions for the Minister, some of which have been raised already. On the assignment of rights, which we agree is important, surely it is important for both domestic and non-domestic RHI, but the regulations restrict it to domestic. Can we have an explanation of why that is the case? On tariff guarantees, the regulations are sending the wrong signals; people need certainty, and making these TGs subject to closure if the guarantee amount is exceeded in any particular period is obviously helpful in capping the costs, but will be disastrous because they leave investors and operators uncertain about the likely financial return they will obtain from their investment. We welcome the geothermal element in the non-domestic scheme, but the funding identified seems very ineffective and insufficient. Can this be looked at again? Finally, I am surprised at the outturn position of 20% adopted on the CHP efficiency threshold, as 71% of the consultation responses disagreed that the level should be returned to 20%. The argument goes that CHP, because of its variable outputs, does not work on the basis of a known level of electricity certainty. By setting the level at 20% as if it were achievable across the board without exception, the scheme potentially undermines the viability of good CHP schemes that cannot operate entirely on that basis. I would be grateful for a comment from the Minister on that.
I look forward to the response from the Minister, but I echo what has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone: if he wants to add to his letter-writing, I am sure that we can wait for that.
Lord Henley
My Lords, as always, I make the offer of a letter to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, because obviously I will not be able to pick up all the points. I am grateful for noble Lords’ general welcome for the regulations and our response to the NAO report.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about this being a drop in the ocean given the large sums of money that are involved—we all know that a billion here and a billion there soon adds up to quite a large sum. Take, for example, AD, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. We know that AD will never solve all our problems, but it can deal with a certain amount of waste. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the important thing with any AD plant is to make sure that you have adequate waste as feedstock for the future. We do not want people producing waste for the sake of waste just to go into a plant. We want to use only genuine waste or, on occasion, to top it up with a certain amount of crops that are grown for that purpose. Principally, however, plants would be designed to deal with waste.
In my former life as a Defra Minister, I saw quite a number of AD plants taking in waste from very different sources. Where they were attached to a supermarket, one would see bucket loads of old yogurts or whatever else had gone past its sell-by date being tipped in. That was a good way of using it, and we want to devise schemes that will, as the noble Baroness rightly said, prevent that waste going to landfill. I saw excellent small schemes also. I remember one used by a salad producer, which took the waste from its own products—the stalks from tomatoes are actually rather difficult to break down—and used it to produce both heat and power to grow more tomatoes in due course, and used the digestate that comes out in the end to fertilise those tomatoes. It was, wonderfully, almost a closed loop. There are terrific advantages to AD, but, as we all know, it will not solve all the problems.
RHI will be an important step in helping to reduce carbon emissions and—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—make progress towards the legally binding renewable energy targets that we have. As I made clear, we will certainly look very carefully at ensuring that there is suitable waste feedstock and that the scheme ensures current and future supplies to anaerobic digestion. If the noble Lord has a local problem in the south-west, it is important that he, and those in that world, brings it to the attention of the department when it is reviewing this matter. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that my right honourable friend Claire Perry and the department will look constantly at these matters to make sure that there can be further tinkering to get it right.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about solar thermal. My understanding is that it is eligible for both schemes, so it is already supported by RHI. If he wants to look at that for his own domestic arrangements, he is welcome to do so.
As I said, I very much welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, had to say. I made it clear that we will keep these matters under review. I cannot give a precise date for when and how my right honourable friend will respond. I will certainly respond to some of the noble Baroness’s more detailed questions, particularly those relating to electrolysis and other matters, most of which I shall make a complete hash of if I try to respond to them now. I think all those taking part in this debate would be far more grateful for a written response.
The noble Baroness is right to raise the whole question of detecting abuses and gaming—something touched on by other noble Lords and which the NAO was wary of. As she pointed out, with any changes that we make, there are always potential unintended consequences, and we keep that under review. It is a large and varied scheme, and the non-domestic scheme in particular has huge variation in size, heat and use and the technology used between projects.
Despite all those challenges raised by the NAO, the department—the former Department for Energy and Climate Change, which noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will know well because it was one of their great Secretaries of State who sat in that department, which is now within BEIS—is working with Ofgem and, I think, developing a better approach to identifying gaming. We will certainly respond to the NAO in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also welcomed the changes, and I am again grateful. He particularly welcomed the assignment of rights, but was concerned that it might lead to a lack of access to loans or other finance for a number of businesses and that that could be a barrier for them. I can only say that we have no plans to widen the assignment of rights beyond the household sector at the moment, but we would always want to keep all matters under review.
Lord Teverson
What is the logic to that? The issue for small and medium-sized businesses is exactly the same as for domestic users: it is about high capital outlay, which is equally difficult for SMEs as for private, domestic householders. This has really got in the way. The Government have a great solution there now for the domestic sector; if the principle is being breached, I do not see why it is a difficulty to extend it to the SME sector.
Lord Henley
I appreciate what the noble Lord says about there being no logic to it. It is just that there is no evidence at the moment that lack of access to loans is a barrier to business. If the noble Lord thinks otherwise and can produce evidence, it can be looked at.
As I said, the order has largely been welcomed, and I am very grateful for that. These changes are necessary as a result of the NAO report. I think that we would all agree that there have been considerable successes this year. It is only part of the whole scheme of trying to decarbonise the system—again, we wish to pursue that even further.
I want to pick up on one final comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. If I could persuade her and some of her Liberal friends of the benefits of what she referred to as fracking and of pursuing greater domestic production of gas—of which there is potentially a great deal in this country—in that it improves both our chances of a degree of decarbonisation and our energy security, I would feel that I had achieved a very great thing. That will no doubt come in the future. In the meantime, I will give way before I finally put these regulations to bed.
Baroness Featherstone
Without going into a detailed back and forth discussion on fracking, I simply want to add to the point I made about the Paris agreement. Bringing on stream another fossil fuel at this point might be a distraction from a real solution to our problems in the future.
Lord Henley
I do not believe that it would be a distraction. It would have considerable benefits for the United Kingdom, bearing in mind what is available to us here. I hope one day to persuade the Liberal Democrats of the virtues of that approach. We might get there.
European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for myself and the noble Lord, Lord Collins—perhaps more for him than for myself. I am sure that he saw a captive audience at the back of the room; he was very impressed by the fact that we would have someone looking in. That was quickly diminished because, as noble Lords can see, the captive audience is made up of my officials.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lady O’Cathain to the debate. It is good to hear that this issue has interest in it. The order is interesting. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will no doubt remember, the order was laid before the House on 29 March. It amends the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978 and the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2009. I am sure that those orders are well-known to my noble friend Lady Goldie.
I start with the importance of the space sector. The European Space Agency and the European Organisation for Astronomical Research—also known as the European Southern Observatory, or ESO—are both important to the UK. We contribute more than £20 million annually to the ESO budget, for a share of just over 16%. We also contribute more than £300 million to the European Space Agency, making the UK the fourth-largest contributor. We are one of only six countries to host a European Space Agency, at the European Centre for Satellite Applications and Telecommunications in Harwell, Oxfordshire. This centre is a vital part of our strategy to develop the UK space sector—an area I know well from my time as a Minister at the Department for Transport. This is an important sector for the development of the UK economy in the future. The centre provides a focal point to showcase UK capability and partnerships. Working in partnership with the ESA, we are planning to develop an extension to our Oxfordshire campus which will house a meeting and exhibition space and a new conference centre. This will provide benefits not only to the space sector but to all sectors involved in the use of satellites, which currently contribute £250 billion to the UK economy. The space sector offers significant research and economic opportunities for the United Kingdom. British academics and businesses working in the sector are recognised internationally as leaders in the field and are in a strong position to take advantage of those opportunities.
I turn to the details of the order as it relates to each organisation. I turn first to the European Space Agency, established by a convention in 1975. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention and joined the agency the same year—although we had been collaborating with other European countries in this field for some decades before that. In 2013 we welcomed the European Centre for Space Applications and Telecommunications to Harwell in Oxfordshire. This order amends the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978, which afforded privileges and immunities to agency staff and high ranking officers. The revision confirms the immunities and privileges to which staff are entitled and the number of high-ranking officers that the UK will recognise.
Specifically, it confers the status of high-ranking officer on the head of the Harwell centre, and also provides for the ESA director-general and a maximum of seven further members of staff working at the centre to be considered high-ranking officers. This means that they are entitled to certain privileges and immunities, including exemptions from social security contributions. They are not, however, entitled to immunity from suit or legal process, except for actions carried out during their official functions or inviolability of residence. These high-ranking officers play a significant part in shaping ESA policy, and are world leaders in their field. The presence of high-ranking officers at the space centre in Harwell strengthens our capability and credibility and is crucial for the growth of the UK space sector and for attracting inward investment.
I want to reassure noble Lords that the privileges and immunities afforded to officers of the agency are limited to those that are required for them to conduct official activities. They are in line with those offered to officers of other international organisations of which the UK is a member.
If I could perhaps pre-empt questions before they are asked: leaving the European Union will have no direct impact on the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency. The ability for UK staff to work effectively for the organisation before and after the UK’s departure from the European Union is controlled by our adherence to legislation that accurately reflects the convention and its protocol and the privileges and immunities it affords to staff.
I now turn to the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere. The Committee may recall that some of the provisions of the order that relate to that organisation were debated in this House early last year. That earlier version of the draft order exempted only high-ranking officers of ESO from social security contributions. Having reconsidered the position, my department came to the view that we can properly exempt all members of staff from these contributions. We regret that this issue was not addressed fully during the debate on this order on 30 March last year. Rather than continuing with the 2017 draft order and amending it in short order, we have decided it would be better to lay this further amending draft order and to include in it the new provisions in relation to the ESA, which were not contained in the 2017 draft order. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I address the orders, which I welcome and see as perfectly sensible for international organisations. I have two particular points. Yesterday, we debated in the House how Parliament will deal with the tsunami of SIs that are coming our way as a result of Brexit. As the Minister has just done in his conclusion, I draw attention to the fact that these orders contain three apologies for errors in previous orders and two corrections. This is a fairly simple, straightforward endorsement of the workings of multinational organisations in our country and abroad. There were five mistakes in one SI. With the best intentions in the world, we have to look at the real problems we will have in dealing with statutory instruments and the need for accuracy and effectiveness.
I can see a little scepticism in the room about me talking about the space industry. That is one of the great things about being in the House of Lords. I served as one of the main spokespeople for the party on the Space Industry Bill. We greatly enjoyed taking it through, but I immediately started getting letters that began with, “As an expert on the space industry”. I am not an expert but I should declare that my son, James, is a space engineer working in Munich for a Franco-German company.
My views are all my own and they impinge on the way in which the Minister introduced these orders, with reference to the space industry. I agree with the Minister that the prospects of the space industry are among the most exciting that face us. I am very proud that, under the coalition Government, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and Vince Cable did a lot to reinvigorate the space industry. I am reading Ken Clarke’s memoirs at the moment. He talks about the 1980s, when he was in the DTI, and how he and most of his colleagues had little interest in the space industry as a growth industry for the future.
Now, it is the exact opposite. There is tremendous excitement and a great deal of potential there. The Government have done a lot of good things since 2015 to carry the industry forward. I understand that the legislation covering the European space industry and other international commitments relating to space has nothing to do with our membership of the European Union. As I said, my son works in a Franco-German company; he works with Poles, Italians, Germans and the French as well as Brits. It stretches credulity not to imagine that an organisation such as that, which depends so much on international co-operation, will find it more difficult outside the EU to partner.
Space ports are a good example. When Europe looks for its space port, I wonder whether the Scottish, Welsh or Cornish bidder will have a better chance than the Portuguese when Europe makes its decision. It is the same with Galileo: we have already seen the removal of one of the Galileo preparatory units from Portsmouth back to mainland Europe. We have to face the fact that what is a very exciting industry will have some question marks over it, because of the decision on our membership of the EU. I once saw a very interesting documentary about what is going on down in Chile—although the ESO headquarters are in Munich, not where my son works, its main work is of course down in Chile. The documentary showed that it is exciting and right at the cutting edge of space exploration.
My only words to cloud this optimism is that I remember very clearly where I was 50 years ago, when man landed on the moon. Those of us who were alive then could not imagine that, 50 years later, we would have made so little progress in space exploration. On the other hand, my father, who was born in 1899, used to talk about how, as a boy growing up in Liverpool, he remembered seeing the first aeroplanes flying and what happened to flight in the 20th century. What I learned from the Space Industry Bill is that the space industry is probably where they were in the early 20th century and that it could make similar amazing progress. Along with that, the progress regarding satellite technology, deep space probes, the mining of asteroids and so on are on the agenda of our scientists and could make a massive difference to the century ahead.
I support the passage of the regulations, but I just give those two gypsy warnings about the difficulty of dealing with the SI tsunami that we face and the problems of making our space industry viable outside EU partnerships. Again, some of us are old enough to remember Blue Streak and other adventures into space and that going it alone did not work.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I know it is late in the day, so I will try not to bang on too much. I must admit, I did not expect to be making this speech again; as one of my brothers in the trade union movement used to say, it is déjà vu all over again. I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity to read the Lords Hansard from the last time we had this order but, if he has not, I will remind him of some of the contributions that I made. One mistake I made the last time we debated this order is that I managed to speak without saying the words, “the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere”. I realised this because, when I was searching for my last contribution using the Hansard search facility, it did not bring up my contribution, as I had managed to not say those words. So, for the record, I have said them now, so that just in case we have to return to this subject again, I know I will be able to find it.
I appreciate the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I share his sentiments completely, and those of the Minister, about the importance of this. It is, strictly speaking, a sort of HR issue. This is about how we are going to treat employees of this organisation in accordance with an international treaty. I do not object to that—it is quite proper and should be done.
The concern I have is that this relates to a convention from 1962, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. We may be talking about other issues, but the protocol that we agreed to in the 2009 order—which took effect in 2012—and which we were talking about last March, was discovered to be defective in June 2014. There was a considerable period of time when this error went unnoticed but we now have to return to the subject. Last time we discussed it there were 40 employees: 38 in Chile and two in Germany. What is the score now? How many people are we talking about? What has been the impact of this error? Have people suffered a detriment? What is the cost to those individuals? If there has been a cost or a detriment to these individuals, what is the Foreign Office doing to address that? Will there be some form of retrospection?
When the Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, wrote to me, he acknowledged the parliamentary time that had been taken up and he regretted that it had been wasted. I accept that errors and mistakes happen, but this order has had a rather unfortunate journey, and I think we need an explanation. We need an assurance that things will be put right, and that the error has not resulted in people suffering a detriment. It may be that over this period of time, people have gone into and out of employment, which may complicate matters even more. I do not want to put too many onerous questions to the Minister. We have had a busy day already and are at the final hurdle but I hope that he will be able to answer me. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was unable to answer me last time but I am hoping that the Minister will be able to on this occasion.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their contributions. As we have agreed, being part of the European Space Agency brings real opportunities for British industry. Our scientists and engineers collaborate with their European colleagues at the European Space Agency to deliver important advances. Let us not forget that in 2018—the “Year of Engineering”—the inspiration that the European Space Agency provides is even more significant.
The amendment order puts in place the necessary immunities and privileges to allow the European Space Agency to operate effectively in the UK. It also aligns domestic law with obligations we have to our European colleagues at the European Space Agency, with whom we share an interest in increasing our knowledge of space. As both noble Lords have said, it also corrects errors in the order relating to the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere —it comes off the tongue so smoothly that I am sure we will all remember it for future reference. There may be a test in a year’s time—hopefully not in the Chamber. Just as we benefit from our association with the European Space Agency belonging to this organisation, also known as the ESO, opens up a galaxy of opportunities for our scientists. I notice that my officials have used real space terminology. The UK’s commitment to both the European Space Agency and—here we go again—the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere remains unchanged.
I have already referred in my opening remarks to the regret that we have. Let me assure the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Collins, that as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, just said, the journey which this order has been on has been turbulent. I understand totally their concern at the errors which were made in the order. The process is important. Let me assure the Committee that my department takes this issue very seriously. After the previous time this order was debated my noble friend Lady Goldie, who took that debate, followed up on it and we put right many of the clearance processes and revised our internal procedures for such orders. Although I cannot guarantee that there will be no error in any order in future, I can say on the record that our processes should pick up an error before orders are laid before Parliament. I totally empathise and align myself with the sentiment that we need to get this right.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about the tsunami of SIs which awaits us. It is important to ensure that in the approach we take when we lay orders in your Lordships’ House, and in the other place as well, the work is done and our processes reflect the importance that is attached to these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the staff. For clarity, let me say that the provision would apply only to those who are UK staff or UK nationals working in the UK. In this case, there are 42 employees who are UK nationals and ESO staff but none is currently in the UK. All are in Germany or Chile. We would therefore need to interrogate individual employee records since, as the noble Lord said, people may have moved locations. When he raised this issue with my noble friend previously, we said that we would put right any wrong in this respect. I can reassure him that, as I said, there are currently no such UK nationals employed in the UK. On the last occasion, the Government also undertook to treat sympathetically—I think my noble friend used that word—any approach made by any employee caught up in such a situation. I can confirm on the record that we have not been approached by any individual in that regard, but I assure the Committee that we will keep a watch on this. If there are any implications, I will certainly share them with the noble Lords concerned.
I hope that I have given reassurance to the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord McNally, about the importance of the procedure that should be deployed on statutory instruments in general, and specifically on this order. I hope that this is the end of it on this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked of how people are inspired and said that his son is employed in the space agency. We learn a lot from our children. After a conversation about space, I may have two aspiring astronauts: a six year-old called Mansoor and a four year-old called Faris. I am not embarrassed to admit that when my four year-old said, “Daddy, how many planets are there in the solar system?”, I responded with the figure nine. He said, “No”. I named them and he went, “Daddy, Pluto is not a planet. It’s a dwarf planet”.
We live and learn from our children, from our elders and seniors and from noble Lords. In doing so, we all align ourselves with this important industry and we want to inspire not just the current generation, as taken up by the son of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but future generations. Maybe at some point in time when my six year-old and my four year-old understand the concept of statutory instruments, I shall share this chapter of their father’s life with them as well. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Earl for his much-valued service to the House.
Brexit: North-East of England
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to undertake further work on the impact of Brexit on the economy of the north-east of England.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan)
My Lords, we are committed to getting the best possible deal for the United Kingdom, a deal that works for all parts of the UK, including the north-east. The Government are undertaking a wide range of analyses, looking at the implications of UK withdrawal from the EU. We continue to engage with businesses and industry bodies from all sectors of the economy and all regions and nations of the UK in order to inform our negotiations.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, only a year or so ago the Brexit Secretary was saying that he could get a deal that would deliver exactly the same benefits as those we enjoy under EU membership, yet we now know from the Government’s impact assessments, which they sought to hide from us in February, that the picture is very different. The north-east, in particular, is forecast to be the worst hit, taking an 11% hit to its economy even under the Government’s preferred approach and, if we exit without a deal, incurring an 18% hit. These figures have been backed by the London School of Economics, Birmingham University, the Durham University Business School and others. So the question is very simple and straightforward: does the Minister accept his Government’s assessment of the situation and the consequences of his approach to Brexit on the region of the country that both he and I belong to?
Lord Callanan
Of course, I share with the noble Baroness ambitions for the north-east of England. I thought she was being unduly pessimistic. She might have recognised that unemployment in the north-east is down to 5.2%, the lowest rate for 40 years. The north-east economy is doing extremely well. It is an exporting area: exporting to Europe, yes of course, but also to other parts of the world. We are committed to getting the best possible deal for frictionless trade. The analysis that she referred to was an incomplete analysis. Importantly, it did not analyse the type of deal we are seeking, which is a full and comprehensive free trade agreement, the most ambitious anywhere in the world, with the EU.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend welcome the proposal from Ben Houchen, the Conservative mayor of Teesside, for a free trade zone in that area, and other exciting ideas that are being developed for the north-east?
Lord Callanan
It is an excellent idea put forward by Conservative colleagues in the region who are setting the agenda for the north-east becoming a global manufacturing hub exporting to all parts of the world. I think it is an excellent proposal and we are looking at it very closely.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a few days ago the Business Secretary spoke in the north-east of England and said that he favoured,
“a soft Brexit that does not hurt businesses in the region”.
He advocated a trading relationship free of tariffs and free of frictions. Does the Minister agree with the Business Secretary? Will he tell the House how the Government plan to achieve this outside the single market and a customs union?
Lord Callanan
Of course, the Business Secretary comes from the north-east of England, as does the noble Lord. I totally agree with him that we want an agreement that brings the lowest possible tariffs—if possible, no tariffs at all—and frictionless free trade. That is good for the north-east, as it is for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, we have been pouring money into the north-east ever since Lord Hailsham went up there in his cloth cap and I fought Emanuel Shinwell in the 1960s in Easington, and yet nothing much seems to change. Surely that can only get better after Brexit.
Lord Callanan
Things are getting better for the north-east of England. I cited the unemployment figures. I would have thought that the Labour Party, as the party that is traditionally supposed to be concerned about these issues, would have welcomed—I will repeat it—the lowest unemployment for 40 years. It is a record that the coalition Government and the Conservative Government should be proud of. The area is booming under a Conservative Government.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, whenever the Government attack on the economy, they always cite the employment figures. They seem to have forgotten their elementary economics. Employment is a lagging indicator, reflecting demand for labour in the past. If they looked at current and leading indicators such as growth and investment intentions, they would see a very bleak picture. As the Minister no doubt knows, growth is less than 0.5%, whereas it is 3% on average in the European Union. The most recent CBI Investment Intentions Survey showed that 48% of companies had cut back their investment intentions from two years ago and only 2% had increased them. These are very serious matters. Do the Government not look at these matters and think that they are in some way responsible for the decline in the British economy as a result of their disastrous Brexit policies? If not, what is the cause of this divergence between our economic experience and that of the rest of the European Union?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I make no apologies for talking about our record levels of employment in a region of which I am proud to be a part. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not seem to recognise that. Unemployment is continuing to fall. There are record levels of investment. Last year, Nissan announced a new £57 million investment in the region, to last for 25 years. It said it was going to continue to produce cars in the region for many years to come. The region is booming; it is doing well. Unemployment is falling, and I am sorry that the Labour Party does not want to recognise that.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister sought to rubbish the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on the basis that they represented an incomplete analysis. Can he tell the House whether the Government have produced a complete analysis and, if so, what does it show?
Lord Callanan
I did not rubbish the noble Baroness’s figures. They are contributing to the debate. I said it was an incomplete analysis and did not model the preferred economic outcome that we are seeking. We are continuing to conduct a range of economic analyses of all exit scenarios for all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will share all the appropriate analysis with Parliament when we have negotiated a final deal.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware, apart from the fact that the short-term economic forecasts put out by Project Fear have already been proven to be false, that serious academic studies have shown that medium and long-term economic forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on? Is he aware that I was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time that Nissan had to decide where it was going to put its European headquarters? I remember the discussions very well, and Nissan was not at all concerned about our membership of the European Union. It was concerned about the quality of the workforce, our regulatory system and, above all, our tax system. It decided to come to this country, which has been a huge success for it.
Lord Callanan
The people of the north-east of England will be profoundly in debt to the noble Lord and of course to Baroness Thatcher for the role that they played in bringing Nissan to the north-east in the first place. The Labour Party might want to disparage that, but it was another tremendous achievement for the region, carried out under a Conservative Government. As a resident of the north-east, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as are many other people. I am sorry that opposition Peers want to laugh at him for that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in saluting the wisdom and shrewdness of the people of the north-east who, generation after generation, have sent huge numbers of fine Labour MPs to the House of Commons and who voted 58% to leave the European Union?
Lord Callanan
I can agree with the noble Lord’s latter point, but am maybe not so keen on his former one.
Manifesto to Strengthen Families
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the policies recommended in the Manifesto to Strengthen Families, published on 6 September 2017; and what steps they plan to take in response to those recommendations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, it is crucial that we seek to ensure that all children grow up in stable, nurturing families. As my noble friend knows, this is a wide-ranging, cross-cutting area. This Government have a broad set of policies to support families, including our childcare and early years offers, through to the DWP’s programme on parental conflict. We are considering the manifesto’s recommendations and will respond in due course.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I know he is enthusiastic about family support. He spoke about it in his maiden speech during the debate on it. In my efforts to rally support for a strengthening family strategy, I have had several conversations with Ministers and civil servants who have expressed frustration at the lack of clarity about who leads this vital agenda. They are concerned that they are stepping on to other Ministers’ territory, which is preventing any real progress being made. When will the Government appoint a Cabinet-level overlord who can co-ordinate family policy across government?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, as I mentioned, the Government are actively considering the recommendations set out in my noble friend’s manifesto. In my preparation for this Question, I spoke to an official in Downing Street who had had at least six conversations with my noble friend. Officials are treating this very seriously. The model of a specific brief—such as an equalities brief—being attached to a Cabinet Minister is a good one and deserves careful scrutiny. We shall continue to engage with my noble friend on this issue. I know he has also recently met my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families Nadhim Zahawi and discussed elements of the recommendations with him.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the stress created by poverty and hardship can undermine families. Can the Minister explain what the Government’s policy of abolishing benefits—tax credits and universal credit for children after the second child—will do to strengthen families?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, since the coalition and this Government took office, we have focused on the more disadvantaged families. For example, the troubled families programme is budgeted to spend £920 million helping nearly 290,000 families in most need. What is interesting is that the number of children defined as children in need has declined by 14% after they have been involved in this programme for 12 months.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
Will the Minister say what specific steps the Government propose to take to support the mental health and well-being of children affected by high-conflict parental separation, particularly those who have experienced or witnessed domestic violence and abuse?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, this Government have committed £1.4 billion to the mental health of families and children. We know that this is extremely important. Parental conflict is three times more likely to occur in poorer families than in those who are better off. This is why we are focusing on this area.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, prior to publication of the manifesto, the previous Prime Minister declared that a family test would be applied to all government policy. Would this not require not just a Cabinet-level overseer but for each department to have someone responsible for applying the family test? Does that exist?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the family test was introduced in 2014. It includes five questions. I will not go through all of them but I will mention a couple just to illustrate what we are trying to do: first, what kind of impact might the policy have on family formation; and, secondly, what kind of impact will the policy have on families going through key transitions such as becoming parents, getting married and so on? So the test is already operating on a voluntary basis. We are cautious about making it statutory because that would very much remove flexibility in how it was used.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the document in question seems to yearn for a return to an age when the nuclear family was ubiquitous. Social norms have moved on a bit in the past 50 years, and to advocate, as the document does, tax benefits for married couples alone unfairly stigmatises not just single parents but the children in such families. The manifesto of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, also advocates family hubs. These already exist; Labour created them with the Sure Start programme, and by 2010 there were some 3,600 children’s centres, reaching almost 3 million children and their families. Those figures are now halved as the result of a succession of budget cuts. Will the Minister explain how that squares with the Conservatives’ claim to be the party of families?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we recognise the value of family hubs. We have perhaps slightly shifted the emphasis with, for example, the introduction of 15 hours’ free childcare for the most disadvantaged children in this country. In the last two years participation has gone up from 58% to 71%, and 500,000 children now benefit from it. We believe that is a very effective mechanism to work alongside children and family hubs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise the need for an alcohol strategy as part of maintaining family integrity, given the figures showing that when there is dependency there is physical abuse in over one-third of families, which falls to 10% during recovery programmes, while mental health issues in other family members presenting to clinical services fall from two-thirds of families to one-third when there are adequate programmes in place?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we recognise the damage that alcoholism can do to families. We estimate that there are some 200,000 children living in households where alcohol dependency is a problem. We have launched a number of initiatives: the DWP has announced a £4.5 million innovation fund aimed at local authorities to support them in implementing evidence-based interventions; there is a £1 million fund for the voluntary sector and not-for-profit organisations to take forward projects to build capacity nationally; and there is a £500,000 fund for the expansion of an existing helpline to increase the support available to children with alcohol-dependent parents.
Asylum Seekers: Students
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many young asylum seekers have been required to cease studying as a condition of immigration bail, following the recent introduction of new provisions; and whether that condition will be applied to all asylum seekers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we have management information figures but these are not robust. I assure noble Lords that the new immigration bail provisions are not designed to be used to prevent children and asylum seekers studying. The Home Office is proactively looking to identify cases where this has been applied inappropriately, and will issue a new bail notice to the individual.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. The Minister will know it is widely believed that there is a blanket ban at present on asylum seekers accessing education, although an assurance was given during the passage of the legislation that it would be used merely to specify where education was accessed. In any event, what is the objective of applying this condition? Is a ban on study necessary? What does it achieve?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I must stress that there is not a blanket ban and it is not mandatory to impose a ban on studying. The cohorts of people who might be prohibited from studying are adult immigration offenders—for example, overstayers who are not asylum seekers; adults whose appeal rights have been exhausted, other than care leavers receiving local authority support; adults being deported; foreign criminals who have not made an asylum claim; and all adults for whom a deportation order is signed and enforceable.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
I do not know whether the Minister can help with a historic problem, which I hope has improved. I was listening just a year and half ago to care leavers who had been unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; the majority of them were not able to access education, and they were turning to the black economy to continue living here. If the system was not effective in removing them, they were unable to access proper care-leaving services, so they were falling through the cracks. How is that being addressed now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I stress to the noble Earl that anyone under the age of 18 in the UK has a right to study. That covers asylum-seeking children and children who are dependants of migrant workers. The following people can also study: care leavers, to whom the noble Earl alluded, former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children without standing claims, appeals or ongoing litigation concerning their asylum application, and any adult asylum-seekers without standing claims and/or appeals.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, what the Minister says does not quite seem to accord quite with some of the tales that have been coming out. There have been some really sad and shameful stories of young people who have been totally affected by this ban on education. What, if any, inquiries are made of the individual before deciding to impose this condition on them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Because of the nature of the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say that there may be cases that have fallen foul of a study restriction. As I said, it is not mandatory to impose a restriction on study, and it should be imposed only where appropriate. We are proactively looking at cases that might have been affected and are issuing new immigration bail notices.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, I am not clear about the thought process involved in this. There may be a case to argue in individual cases, but what is it? What is the thought process that makes someone decide that Bill Smith should stop studying?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I outlined to the noble Baroness earlier who might be in the cohort, and who might have to stop studying, but it is up to the First-tier Tribunal to impose the immigration bail conditions on an individual. It is certainly not mandatory to impose a condition against study.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us how many young people caught up in the backwash of the Windrush scandal have been denied student loans because of uncertainty about their residency position in this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cannot give the noble Lord that information. As I have said to the House previously, the Home Office is proactively looking at anyone of the Windrush generation who might have been inadvertently caught up in the issue we have been talking about over the last few weeks. I am sure that those figures will ultimately come to light, but I do not have them here today.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister’s contribution today is obviously different from some of the cases we all know about of who might have been caught up in this restriction. What is the Government’s timescale to sort out this issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said earlier, officials are proactively looking at these cases that might inadvertently have been caught out where the imposition of study bans have happened as a result of immigration bail. The answer is that it is immediate and I hope that this issue will be sorted out very quickly. In addition, new guidance has also been issued.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
When the Minister was replying to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, she referred to cohorts of students. Can she tell us how that word creeps into the answer, as it implies that there is some group of students for whom there is a collective exclusion?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord might like to check Hansard. I was referring not to cohorts of students but cohorts of individuals who might be prohibited from studying.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
When an immigrant child reaches the age of 18, they lose their protected status. What efforts are there to make sure that every young person reaching that age is fully aware of their legal obligations and their opportunities? Many of them are on the verge of going to university but could be deported. What are we doing to make sure that does not happen?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, an immigrant child could fall into several categories. I am sure, given his history, that the noble Lord is talking about an asylum-seeking child. Any asylum-seeking child coming up to the age of 18 will have their case looked at again.
Syria: Idlib
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to seek to prevent further fighting and loss of life in the Syrian province of Idlib.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we agree on the need to prevent a military assault by the Assad regime on Idlib, which would risk a humanitarian disaster. We have discussed the situation with Turkey and the United Nations, as the international actors best placed to facilitate dialogue and humanitarian assistance. We call on all parties to comply immediately with the ceasefire mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 2401.
Lord Hylton (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the situation in Idlib is potentially explosive because of the number of militants, including al-Nusra, who are already there? Is there an existing agreement between the regime, Turkey and Russia about that province? Will it be possible to transform any agreement into a permanent truce with disarmament, supervised by the United Nations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Taking the noble Lord’s second question first, the UN resolution provides for the very result he has alluded to. The United Nations has that basis, because it was a resolution that was passed by the Security Council with unanimity. He referred to agreements that may have been reached by the regime and other players within Idlib. That is not something that we would comment on, but I stress that one of the key players in that context is Russia, which is also a signatory to that UN Security Council resolution.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is highly probable that Assad will remain in power after this bloody, brutal and long civil war. Is it not time for Her Majesty’s Government to have some diplomatic representation in Damascus and to be talking to people? For goodness’ sake, we talk to many people internationally whom we do not like. Surely what is important is peace.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We can all relate to the final point of my noble friend. Sometimes we all have to talk to people we do not like. I accept that principle. In the context of Bashar al-Assad, the position of the Government is clear. We believe in a transition away from the Assad regime to bring about the kind of resolution we want to see in Syria, which is one of unity, keeping the country intact and ensuring there is proper representation. On his question about a diplomatic mission, I repeat an answer I have given consistently: we do not have any plans to open a mission in Damascus. Within the Geneva accords there are of course representatives of the Assad regime, and we continue discussions with them as part of the overall settlement we hope we can reach on Syria in Geneva.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the key element of this is establishing peace talks that have no preconditions, so we can get all the players around the table. Aside from that urgent need, we also have a situation in Idlib where the Syrian Government are saying that everyone is a terrorist. There are terrible crimes against humanity taking place because the civilian population, as a consequence of this war, has gone from 1.5 million to 2.6 million people. The people who are being bombed are the civilians, which is against international humanitarian law. How will we hold people to account for these terrible crimes?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord that what is required is a comprehensive settlement that has all partners around the table. I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition for also alluding to that. The need for the Geneva talks to succeed is important, because everyone is represented there. On his other point, again I agree totally with the noble Lord. We must ensure accountability for those who are perpetuating these crimes. As I have said before and say again, let us not forget who began this civil war and who has committed the atrocities that we currently see to their greatest extent in Syria. To accept that this person somehow has a future unifying role and representative voice—of course I refer to Bashar al-Assad—is not something I subscribe to. It is important that we see the transition we all desire in Syria.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we know that there are a number of militant groups active in Idlib, and that there have been recent reports of unexplained violence—car bombings and so on—within Idlib. Are the Government talking to some of those in the Gulf who have previously sponsored these groups, and to other Middle East countries, about what we do about the future of those militants now holed up in Idlib as part of moving towards a settlement? We know that, as with the remnants of al-Qaeda, those people are not going to change their mind very easily, and they have to be dealt with and resettled somewhere.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord will know, one of the major extremist terrorist groups that has been operating in Syria is Daesh. In that regard, the universal coalition against Daesh of 70-plus countries has seen the defeat of that particular organisation. That sets the precedent for how you can defeat extremist and terrorist voices. I assure the noble Lord that we are speaking to all players within and across the region to ensure that we can reach the settlement that we all want to see.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, this is a very difficult area, but what is the point in refusing to talk to the Assad regime? How on earth can we expect to have influence if we simply do nothing but throw bombs at them? We talked to Stalin, we talked to Mao Tse-Tung and we talked to Idi Amin, a man who kept human heads in his refrigerators. The art of diplomacy means dealing with some very difficult people over some very difficult issues. At the end of the day, salving our consciences should not be the main question—it is the ability to save as many lives as possible and restore stability to Syria as quickly as possible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure my noble friend that I agree with him on his final point—of course, that has been the intent of the Government consistently on Syria, in terms of the humanitarian support worth £2.71 billion that we have provided. On his first point, as I said earlier—and perhaps I should re-emphasise it—this is about a transition away from the Assad regime. However, his representatives are present in Geneva, which is why we need to ensure that, yes, his representatives, as well as those of the Syrian opposition and all international players, are heard in discussions, so that we can reach the resolution that we all want to see, which is peace and unity in Syria.
Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Committee
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iran Nuclear Deal
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made today by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I will make a Statement on the future of the Iran nuclear agreement, officially known as the joint comprehensive plan of action. The Government regret the decision of the United States Administration to withdraw from the deal and re-impose American sanctions on Iran. We did our utmost to prevent that outcome: from the moment that President Trump’s Administration took office, we made the case for keeping the JCPOA at every level. Last Sunday, I travelled to Washington and repeated this country’s support for the nuclear agreement in meetings with Secretary of State Pompeo, Vice-President Pence, national security adviser Bolton and others, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Trump last Saturday.
The US decision makes no difference to the British assessment that the constraints imposed on Iran’s nuclear ambitions by the JCPOA remain vital for our national security and the stability of the Middle East. Under the agreement, Iran has relinquished 95% of its low-enriched uranium, placed two-thirds of its centrifuges in storage, removed the core of its heavy water reactor—thus closing off the plutonium route to a bomb—and allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to mount the most intrusive and rigorous inspection regime ever devised, an obligation on Iran that lasts until 2040. The House should not underestimate the impact of these measures. The interval needed for Iran to make enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb is known as the breakout time. Under the deal, Iran’s breakout time has trebled or even quadrupled from a few months to at least a year, and the plutonium pathway to a weapon has been blocked completely.
For as long as Iran abides by the agreement—the IAEA has publicly reported its compliance nine times so far—Britain will remain a party to the JCPOA. I remind the House that the JCPOA is an international agreement, painstakingly negotiated over 13 years—under both Republican and Democratic Administrations—and enshrined in UN Resolution 2231. Britain has no intention of walking away; instead, we will co-operate with the other parties in order to ensure that while Iran continues to restrict its nuclear programme, its people will benefit from sanctions relief in accordance with the central bargain of the deal. I cannot yet go into detail on the steps we propose to take, but I hope to make them available as soon as possible, and I spoke yesterday to my French and German counterparts.
In his statement on 12 January, President Trump highlighted important limitations of the JCPOA, including the fact that some constraints on Iran’s nuclear capacity expire in 2025. Britain worked alongside France and Germany to find a way forward that would have addressed the President’s concerns and allowed the US to stay in the JCPOA, but without reopening the terms of the agreement. I still believe that that would have been the better course, and now that our efforts on this side of the Atlantic have not succeeded, it falls to the US Administration to spell out their view of the way ahead. In the meantime, I urge the US to avoid taking any action that would hinder other parties from continuing to make the agreement work in the interests of our collective national security. I urge Iran to respond to the US decision with restraint and to continue to observe its commitments under the JCPOA.
We have always been at one with the United States in our profound concern over Iran’s missile tests and Iran’s disruptive role in the Middle East, particularly in Yemen and Syria. The UK has acted to counter Iran’s destabilising behaviour in the region, and we will continue to do so. We remain adamant that a nuclear-armed Iran would never be acceptable to the United Kingdom; indeed, Iran’s obligation not to “seek, develop or acquire” nuclear weapons appears—without any time limit—on the first page of the preamble to the JCPOA.
Yesterday President Trump promised to work,
“with our allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat”.
I have no difficulty whatever with that goal; the question is how the US proposes to achieve it. Now that the Trump Administration have left the JCPOA, the responsibility falls on them to describe how they, in Washington, will build a new negotiated solution to our shared concerns—a settlement that must necessarily include Iran, China and Russia as well as countries in the region. Britain stands ready to support that task, but in the meantime, we will strive to preserve the gains made by the JCPOA. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. Of course, as every independent inspection has confirmed, the nuclear deal is working; Iran is complying in full, so to suggest otherwise is simply false. On the back of the success of this deal we also have a platform to make real progress on the issues the Minister referred to: in particular Iran’s ballistic missile programme, its regional activities and its human rights record. In the other place Boris Johnson said that the US has decided that there is another way forward. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to get from the US exactly what that way forward is and what it means for international peace and security. The Minister also referred to the fact that there are signatories to this international agreement. One of the sad things about this is that the opinions of those in Iran who shout, “Never trust the West” will be reinforced by this decision.
Alistair Burt said on the “Today” programme that the UK strategy was to de-escalate and hold to the agreement, as the Minister said. However, that requires Britain, the EU, China and Russia to act in concert. Can the Minister tell us exactly how we will work in concert with them to urge Iran not to respond in kind to this confrontational act, but to work with all the signatories to the international agreement? Not least, how will we work with partners in the agreement to ensure that firms trading with Iran do not face financial penalties? We need to ensure that this agreement holds; we can only do that by working collaboratively with every signatory. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us just what the Foreign Secretary is doing to work with our EU allies, Russia and China.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and welcome the fact that it is refreshingly frank and clear. On these Benches we share the widespread and huge concern over Donald Trump’s decision. We share the view that the JCPOA—to quote the Statement—remains “vital for our national security and the stability of the Middle East”. It is indeed ironic that the agreement with Iran is being jeopardised at exactly the same time as attempts are being made to de-escalate matters in North Korea. The Iran nuclear deal was hard-fought for; I pay tribute to our fellow Member of the House of Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her determination in seeing this through when others thought it was not possible. I am glad this is an area in which we are in lockstep with our European partners. Will the Minister say more about how we will make sure that Germany, France and the United Kingdom speak with one voice, and that China and Russia are in lockstep as well? If we are to stop Iran from walking away, that is surely vital.
Does the Minister agree that this situation plays into the hands of the hardliners in Iran, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has indicated? What assessment has been made of that? Does he agree that this is an incredibly dangerous time in the Middle East, with so many countries involved in Syria as well as a series of key anniversaries coming up? Could he confirm that the Government believe Iran was indeed in full compliance with the agreement and that this is indeed the view of the International Atomic Energy Agency? Does he agree that, if the United States or Israel had any evidence to the contrary, they needed to report that to the International Atomic Energy Agency?
What action is being taken to liaise with the US Administration, who clearly include some returning hardliners as well as most who have no influence whatsoever over the President? What discussions are occurring with Iranian officials? What plans are being made to tackle Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons should the JCPOA collapse? Is there any clarity over whether UK companies would face legal proceedings in the United States if they remain involved in Iran—and what is being done to support them? What happens if they are in consortia with American companies or American parts in their supply chain? What happens if Iranian oil is removed from the global market? How are we addressing the impact of that? Can the Minister also comment on Saudi Arabia’s role? What assessment is being made of the risk that, should Iran pull back from this deal, Saudi Arabia will wish to proceed with its own nuclear programme?
This is a crisis where, once again, we see the enormous importance of our EU partners. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that this continues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their support for the Government’s position. I assure them both that the Government remain very committed to this agreement and to working with international partners to ensure that it is sustained. As I said in repeating the Statement, it has reaped benefits, particularly by stopping the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.
I shall take some of the questions in turn. I assure both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that we will continue to work very closely on the E3 front with our partners in Germany and France. In that regard, as I said in repeating the Statement, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to their Foreign Ministers. All noble Lords will have seen that the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Theresa May, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany issued a joint statement immediately after the announcement. How that plays out in Iran is important. It is very easy to say that you are against the West, but the West is a broad group of nations, of which we are one. I often hear the words “Islam against the West”, but I am a Muslim of the West. Does that make me a contradiction? No, it does not. The point is that we cannot speak too generally on this matter.
We have seen unity among the E3. When President Macron and Chancellor Merkel visited the United States, they consistently raised their wish to see the US remain a part of the nuclear deal, and it is extremely regrettable that it has not done so. As I said, it now remains for the US to clarify further the requirements that it wishes to see, but the framework of the deal must remain. In that respect, the noble Baroness asked a specific question about compliance. As was pointed out in the Statement, on nine occasions, the last being in February of this year, it was reported back by the appropriate agencies that there was compliance, and that continues to be the case.
The noble Lord asked about dealings with Russia and China. Through various organisations, including the United Nations, we will continue to have conversations in this regard, but they remain equally committed to this agreement as the stability of the region depends on it.
The noble Baroness asked about dealings with Iran. I can inform the House that earlier today my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Zarif to assure Iran of our continued commitment. I am sure many noble Lords heard President Rouhani’s statement. We often hear about the different voices in Iran but President Rouhani has underlined Iran’s commitment to stay within this deal.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked about the implications for British companies, particularly those with United States counterparts. The Office of Foreign Assets Control in the US, which looks at how sanctions regimes apply, has already issued guidance to the financial services sector and we are currently evaluating that. As an initial step, we have issued immediate guidance to UK companies about reviewing their legal position with lawyers to ensure that they are compliant. At this juncture, I can share with noble Lords that there is a deferment date of between 90 and 180 days before the sanctions that the US imposes unilaterally become applicable. However, I will endeavour to keep your Lordships’ House informed about the implications of this decision, particularly for companies that may currently be investing or looking to invest in Iran and have international obligations.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have had his attention drawn to the rather surprising reports in the Israeli media that in recent weeks there has been an unexpected visit by a senior member of the Saudi royal family. As far as I know, that has not happened for a long time, if ever. Are the Government concerned that a new alliance between the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia might be planning much more aggressive actions against Iran than we have seen previously?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
There is speculation about different associations. What is required in that region is a degree of taking stock of what this decision means. We call on not just Iran but all the players in that region to take heed of the need to ensure stability as a priority and to show due restraint. I have made it very clear that Iran has complied with its obligations under the treaty, but the United States has raised particular concerns about the sunset clauses. However, we remain very much committed. We have seen the results and the benefits of the treaty. For other players in the region—my noble friend mentioned several countries—it is also important to reflect on what has been achieved thus far, and the importance of remaining firm on the principles of the treaty and ensuring that we can work with Iran for continued stability in the wider region.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, we stand on the brink of a disaster in the region. There is no doubt that, prior to the JCPOA, Israel was within days of carrying out an attack on what it thought were all the nuclear facilities in Iran. It is highly likely that if this falls apart, which it could, Iran will start work on a nuclear weapon again. What happens then? I am sure Israel will not allow that, and will attack—and if it attacks, people will assume that America is part of it and that we are part of it, and goodness knows what will happen in the entire region. Have we thought through what could happen, and what actions we need to think about taking? Inevitably, in a military sense, we will be pulled into this if that happens.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think everyone is concerned about the stability of the region. Let me assure the noble Lord that we have raised our concerns with both Iran and Israel to ensure that there is a de-escalation, and no further escalation, in this conflict—which, as the noble Lord points out, will not only destabilise the region itself but have much wider implications. Let us be clear: a regional conflict is in no one’s interests. We recognise Israel’s national security concerns, but we also implore Israel to show due restraint, and Iran, too, to show restraint in its extended influence in various conflicts in the region, notably in places such as Yemen and Syria. What is needed now is restraint across the board, and we will continue to work with all parties to ensure that that prevails. The noble Lord highlights the very challenging situation that we are currently confronting.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept a view from me personally: my congratulations to the Government on the role they have played in the lead-up to this lamentable decision by the US Administration? I do not believe we should mock what happened to the representations we made. They were properly and well made, both in the press and directly. What conclusions do the Government draw about a US Administration who have treated their three closest European allies with contempt, and have not felt the need to say a single word of remorse, when taking that decision, for ignoring the expressed views of their main allies? What conclusions do the Government draw from that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the efforts that the United Kingdom Government made. As I said, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made both calls and, in the case of the Foreign Secretary, a visit, to Washington to ensure that the US stayed part of the Iran deal. On the noble Lord’s second point, about the way the US has conducted itself with its European allies, of course it is deeply regrettable that the case made not just by the United Kingdom but by Germany and France did not get the result that we desired. However, I stress that the US and the United Kingdom remain important and strong allies. We have said clearly to the US that, while we recognise its concerns and the issues around the sunset clauses, it is now for the US to come forward and present what it believes to be workable solutions, while stressing and ensuring that the nuclear deal on the table remains intact.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister says, the task now is to persuade the American Administration to work on a new replacement agreement which embraces issues such as ballistic missiles and other destabilising and sinister activities by Iran. We all understand that. When we get on that path—as I hope we do—will he encourage his colleagues to point out two things to the Americans? First, if sanctions are reintroduced on a larger scale they will be immediately undermined by the Chinese, who already supply substantial amounts to Iran. They will soon supply substantial amounts of arms as well, quite aside from the wider dangers that the noble Lord, Lord West, has pointed out. Secondly, under American law the American Government are constrained from taking early and immediate actions and measures which lead to a substantial destabilisation of oil supplies in the oil market. This would certainly happen if Iran had to cut its exports from 2.9 million barrels a day down to fewer than 1 million barrels a day, and the result in oil markets would be chaos.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with my noble friend’s suggestion. It remains our position and that of our European partners, the French and the Germans, whatever proposals the United States wishes to put forward. Of course we will continue to work with the United States but, equally, it remains important that the nuclear deal stays on the table and that Iran is part and parcel of that.
On the issue of the United States and sanctions, my noble friend again makes an important point. The US has now confirmed that there will be a wind-down period before the sanctions take effect of either 90 or 180 days depending on the specific sanctions. The detail of how this will be impacted is still to be seen. My noble friend’s point on China is also well made.
The nuclear deal took a long time. It went through different iterations. It took both the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States and, as was acknowledged, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and others—I put on record my thanks to them—played a sterling role in bringing it to the table. It was a difficult deal to get done. Was it perfect? No, but it worked. It was having results. That is why we and our European partners remain committed to making it work by ensuring that Iran continues to remain part of the deal. The consequences of pulling away from the deal are all there and clear to be seen.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, there are a number of deeply disturbing and worrying aspects to this matter. The most powerful country in the world has broken an international agreement, and that is deeply destabilising for everyone. The cause of moderation in Iran and the position of Rouhani personally may have been undermined, which would not be in the interests of stability either. Particularly seriously, there is now a major rift between the United States and its European allies. The Government have taken exactly the right line on this, though the decision to send Boris Johnson to Washington, a man who is generally regarded as a slightly ludicrous figure—his previous intervention in Iran was certainly disastrous—was a tactical mistake. Can the Minister tell the House how it is going to be possible to prevent British or other European companies from being, in practice, so intimidated by the threat of fines from the United States Treasury as to de facto observing the US embargo whatever the British Government’s wishes on the matter might be?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary expended a great deal of energy focusing on whatever negotiations could take place and conducting last-minute meetings with various members of the Administration over this past weekend. I pay tribute to his efforts to seek an agreement and that should be recognised by your Lordships’ House.
On sanctions, as I said earlier, we have looked at the announcement from the United States and are evaluating its implications. The noble Lord raises a valid point about the threat of sanctions and the fear of what that may mean for companies operating in Iran. That is why the initial advice we have given is for companies to take legal advice on their individual cases as to the nature of what this would mean. Whether it will have an impact on their business boils down to a commercial decision they will need to take, having evaluated the risks in front of them. We will continue to look closely at the situation and if further advice is needed it will be provided on the Foreign Office website at the appropriate time.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I do not wish to repeat much that has already been said, but there are two matters that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. First, this was a deliberate breach of Resolution 2231 of the Security Council of the United Nations. It also occurs at the same time that the embassy of the United States is being located in east Jerusalem, contrary to international law. Will the Government impress upon our American colleagues that it is very difficult to maintain a special relationship dependent on shared values if there are serious breaches of international law that is respected, on the other hand, by the United Kingdom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord makes important points. The robustness and application of and adherence to UN Security Council resolutions are part of ensuring the vital international rules-based system that we all subscribe to. That is a point that we continue to make to our colleagues, our friends and our allies—that is, the United States. I think that we continue to have a very deep, meaningful and strong partnership with the United States on a raft of different issues, and we continue to wish to see direct engagement from the United States. That is important, not just for our bilateral relationship but for the security and stability of various regions in the world. Therefore we will continue to engage in a very positive vein on this issue.
In the same context, we look towards the United States, our strong ally. We will work constructively and co-operatively with it to address the wider concerns, be it on the issue of ballistic missiles or sunset clauses, ensuring that the nuclear deal stays live.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Would my noble friend assist the House in this regard? If the United States seeks to impose sanctions on UK firms trading with Iran after it has reactivated the sanctions regime, would the United States then be in breach of any international treaty, law or rule? If so, what does the United Kingdom propose to do about that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, my noble friend raises an important and pertinent point. As I have already alluded to, our immediate advice to UK companies impacted as such has been to take specific legal advice on their individual cases. The full implications of how these sanctions will translate is still being evaluated. Once more detail is available we will share that with the companies, as appropriate; but I cannot stress enough that any company in the United Kingdom that feels or believes it is impacted should take legal advice now.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I wonder whether the greatest danger here is that the approach of President Trump is completely counterproductive, in precisely encouraging the more hard-line and reactionary elements in Iran. Given that there has in fact been some good movement in the past year, with President Rouhani being re-elected against the more hard-line candidate and some changes on the legal front in the last six months, the danger is that this is going to provoke a deep anti-American, anti-western reaction that is precisely contrary to our fundamental thrust, which should be to promote the moderate elements in Iran. If so, what can we do—quite apart from the issue around the treaty—to promote the more moderate elements in Iran, which have a real traction when it comes to elections?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate raises an important element within the context of how the American withdrawal from the deal will be perceived in Iran. We have taken a very progressive, constructive and vital step forward, through the showing of strength of E3 unity. The President of France and the Chancellor of Germany, together with our Prime Minister, have issued a joint statement in that regard. As I said earlier, that translates the fact that not all the West shares the opinion of the United States in pulling away from the deal. It is important to communicate that effectively, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did today to Foreign Minister Zarif, and we continue to make that point consistently in all our dealings with Iran. On there being different voices within Iran, we saw President Rouhani step forward and give his commitment. We will continue to support all efforts to keep Iran within the deal and all international efforts to ensure that the deal itself remains alive.
Lord Mitchell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that the agreement has worked, but has it? It might have worked for the nuclear agreement, but has it worked for sanctions? Hundreds of millions of dollars are now in the hands of the Iranian Government. It has not gone to the people at all. It has gone into causing mischief in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in those countries. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I share the noble Lord’s concerns. I was quite specific on which elements of the deal have worked. I also said that the deal is not the perfect deal. There are limitations on it, some of which have been highlighted by the US in stating its reasons for withdrawing from it. That said, we still believe it to be an important part of ensuring that Iran does not progress down the route of acquiring nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord alluded to Iranian influence in the wider region. Again, we strongly condemn Iran and call on it to pull back. It has shown its hand in places such as Lebanon and Yemen, with support for the Houthis, and it continues to do so in Syria. This is not helping the situation in the wider region. It is destabilising. It is important that Iran recognises that its interventions in other parts of the region are viewed as far from helpful; they are extremely destabilising to the region and to peace generally. I assure all noble Lords that we continue to make this point very strongly to the Iranian authorities, its President and Foreign Minister on all occasions that we have these discussions. Iran has been destabilising in the region. That has to be recognised.
On our continued support, everyone would regret the fact that the Iranian people themselves need support. They have embarked on a difficult journey that is far from complete. It is important that we continue to show our support for them in the hope that we will see the kind of representation we all desire in Iran itself.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I commend the Government for standing four-square behind the JCPOA and I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. But with all due respect, businesses that are conducting perfectly legal business with Iran need more than advice. The Foreign Secretary said today in the other place:
“We will do our utmost to protect UK commercial interests”.
On 24 April, in the context of a Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I asked a very specific question about this issue, asking what the Government intended to do in the light of developments at the Bill Foreign Ministers’ meeting to bolster and support our businesses, which were already concerned about the reimposition of US sanctions and secondary sanctions. I was not given an answer, but I was given an assurance that I would be written to. I await that letter; I am content about that. But surely the time has now come for us to tell businesses more than that they should take some legal advice and await further advice. We need to give them some specific indication of the extent to which the Government are willing to go to protect their interests from the devastating effect of these potential sanctions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the noble Lord’s first point, I will ensure that there is a response, although that response no doubt will reflect the decision just taken. As I said earlier, the United States itself has issued specific guidelines in this respect, which we are currently evaluating. What I said about taking immediate legal advice was just that: immediate and initial advice. We will follow this up.
Of course we remain committed. We believe in strengthening trading ties with all countries across the world, but in this case we have continued to encourage commercial ties with Iran to try to build and progress that country to a more progressive future. We will look at this very carefully. Let me assure UK companies that are impacted that we are looking at the situation closely. The advice was issued only yesterday. We want to make sure we are evaluating it fully to ensure that we can subsequently give whatever advice and level of support we can after we have fully considered the implications. This is not just about telling businesses to get legal advice, but the first step must be—and I was in business for 20 years—to talk to your lawyers to make sure what you are doing and currently trading is in the context of international law and adherence to whatever sanctions regime might prevail.
My noble friend earlier raised an important point about the implications of the United States decision for international law. That also has to be evaluated, but let me assure all noble Lords that we are looking at this very carefully. It is a very sensitive issue, but the interests of British companies are going to be protected.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 View all Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 133KB) - (4 May 2018)
Baroness Randerson
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to see that we have, after several weeks’ delay, reached the Committee stage of this Bill. As I said in the previous debate, I welcome it. I was reminded, however, of its very narrow scope when I tried to devise some amendments which seemed to me useful and straightforward but seemed to the clerks, quite rightly, to be out of the scope of the Bill.
I understand the Government’s desire to deal with insurance as the low-hanging fruit of automated vehicles first of all. As we are told, however, that these vehicles will be on our roads in two to three years—and indeed as they are widely being trialled across the world and in parts of Britain—the Government, I fear, are going to have to run very fast to catch up on this issue given the pace of development of technology. I know that the Law Commission is looking at other aspects beyond insurance, at such matters as criminal responsibility and the wider issue of pedestrian and driver behaviour, but there is a serious danger of being overtaken by events. In moving Amendment 1, I want to concentrate our minds on the issue of vehicles manufactured and purchased or simply manufactured outside Britain and the importance of their being properly and fully reflected on the Secretary of State’s list.
The amendment’s intention is to ensure that this list is fully robust. Up to now, our insurance system has coped with imported cars simply because a car is a car. Whether a car is manufactured abroad and imported here prior to sale or manufactured and sold abroad and then imported into this country for use, either temporarily or permanently, this list has to be clear and comprehensive. How do the Government intend to ensure that the list is truly comprehensive? The world is a very big place, and we have a large number of people living in this country with links to other countries who might choose to import cars from abroad. There are also many hundreds of thousands of cars—indeed, millions—being driven on our roads that were manufactured abroad.
Amendment 2 stresses the importance of the Secretary of State’s list being aligned with definitions used in other countries—indeed, that goes for the whole Bill. The insurance industry has produced what it calls the 10 commandments, or 10 points, that a vehicle needs to adhere to in order to be considered automated. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, or UNECE, deals with global transport issues in relation to safety and is currently discussing international definitions of automation. I am told that the Department for Transport is taking a leading role in this.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is concerned that the Secretary of State’s list should follow the internationally accepted criteria as spelled by UNECE and should not be just a UK-specific definition. For this reason, it is keen that this legislation should use the internationally accepted levels used across the world within the industry. These standards were established by the Society of Automotive Engineers International and are apparently used everywhere across the world.
The Government intend the Bill to apply to levels 4 and 5, but, as written, it could apply to some vehicles at level 3. I want to draw attention to a recent court case in which a man was prosecuted for driving a Tesla S down the M1 near Hemel Hempstead while sitting in the passenger seat—there was no passenger in the driver’s seat. He was on autopilot. That is described by Tesla as a suite of driver assistance features including traffic-aware cruise control, which assists with acceleration and deceleration, and auto-steer. Although the reports I read did not specify it, I imagine that the vehicle also has automated emergency braking, because that is quite common in a range of cars. That is level 3, but it meets the definition in the Bill at Clause 1(1)(b), that vehicles are,
“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”.
Clearly, the argument here is whether that was safe, but I fear that the Government might find themselves involved in a great deal of protracted court procedure on the definition of “safe” After all, level 3 cars are certainly on our roads.
If I go into a little detail about the difference between the levels, the Committee will see how narrow that difference is and how the Government’s definition in the Bill could be misleading. In level 3, the vehicle controls all monitoring of the environment. The driver’s attention is still needed, but can disengage from safety-critical functions such as braking. Many level 3 cars currently available require no human attention to the road at lower speeds. At level 4, a vehicle tells its driver when it is safe to be automated and when not. The vehicle is capable of steering, braking, accelerating, monitoring other vehicles and the road, and responding to traffic. It can determine when to change lanes and signal but it cannot cope with traffic jams. That is sometimes referred to as the, “mind off” level. At level 5, a steering wheel is optional—there is no need for a steering wheel—no human intervention is required and you do not need brakes or pedals. It is a totally new design of car.
I have gone into that in some detail because I fear that the Government’s definition of automated vehicles as being,
“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”,
is oversimplified. They need instead to rely on internationally accepted definitions. The reason the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is concerned is that the levels are so well established and widely used across the world and within the industry that even if technology advances further, as it probably will, all they will do is add a level 6. It is rather inconsistent of the Government. I understand that they want some all-embracing definition that is not subject to change, but in the second part of the Bill, for example, which relates to electric vehicles, the Government are happy to refer to “fast and rapid charging”. That is the same kind of technological term currently in use—the current jargon.
I believe, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders also suggests, that this could lead to a blurring of definitions. It could lead to legal challenge and the Government could spend a lot of time defining what is safe. Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also deals with the definition of safe driving. I welcome it especially because it touches on the crucial issue of hacking: I am sure we will come back to that in later debates. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 33 and comment briefly on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The debate today will cover several areas, but one of them will be safety and I shall speak more about that later. My amendment covers safety, and lights particularly upon hacking. This is not a controversial Bill as I see it: virtually all the amendments are probing amendments and I hate to say it to the Minister but I think the speaking part on this occasion will be principally hers rather than mine.
Clause 7 sets out the terms for when a car is deemed to be driving itself, or in automated mode. However, it makes no mention of what happens if the vehicle is designed or manufactured faultily, or if it is hacked due to a failure by the manufacturer to install adequate software safeguards. While we all welcome the opportunities that this new technology will bring, we also have to recognise that it will bring new risks. A lot of these risks will be around the software used and therefore may be harder to pick up than in a conventional vehicle. This is a good opportunity to put in safeguards to give protection around this area now, rather than later down the line.
The amendment tightens up this area of the Bill by setting out when an automated vehicle is capable of driving itself safely. This would give the driver protection with regard to liability if it was proven that there was a manufacturer’s fault or the vehicle had been hacked. The purpose of the amendment is to get a general debate started in relation to this area, particularly on the hacking element.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, with regard to Amendment 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I are in complete accord that the Bill is far too narrowly drafted. We have here a sizeable opportunity for the United Kingdom and one that is part of our industrial strategy, yet we are introducing a very narrow Bill for a very fast-moving technology, which will, as the noble Baroness pointed out, likely be outdated within a year or so, when we could be passing something which gives the Government a much broader remit to introduce rules and regulations to enable them to continue promoting this technology for some years to come.
I very much hope that we will manage to get agreement around the Committee that, if the Government do not table their own amendments to broaden the Bill, we will send it back to the other place with some widely agreed amendments which do that. It is enormously important that we take this opportunity because legislative opportunities are few and far between. It is unusual for this House to insist on the Government having more powers than they propose to take, but this is an occasion when we should consider that. I look forward to conversations with the Benches opposite to see if we can agree some way of doing that. I would be even more delighted if the Government were to come forward with their own proposals, but they have not yet shown any signs of doing so.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment 2, because I think there is a large opportunity for level 3 vehicles as a replacement for trains on what are currently railway tracks. Let us imagine a large number of vehicles that will fit about eight people each running in place of trains; whether that is on the rails, which has advantages in terms of cost—both the energy cost of running a vehicle and the cost of maintaining the highway—or on a smooth surface on rubber tyres, which has advantages in terms of braking capability, meaning that you can run vehicles more closely together, seems an issue for the technicians.
If you used that space currently occupied by Southern Rail, in my case, on which the Government—because they own it—manage to run infrequent services at an average speed of 45 mph, for automated vehicles travelling at very safe intervals, perhaps two seconds apart, with individual vehicles stopping only at stations that the occupants wanted to stop at, probably travelling at 70 mph or 80 mph between stops, you would get a much better service. We would be able to get the Brighton main line back to the sorts of speeds they were used to in the 19th century; we might even be able to exceed them. For me, stuck down at the end of the Eastbourne branch, the service would be immeasurably better, both locally along the south coast and up into London. You would be able to reopen the second route from Brighton to London; the main route is frequently cut because of the age of the line and the difficulty of maintaining the tunnels—indeed, we are enduring two weeks of complete blackout this summer so that some work gets done on the tunnels.
There are all sorts of reasons why using level 3 vehicles—current technology—on the space currently occupied by Southern Rail would give everybody a much better service. You would not have to go for a scheduled train. There would be a vehicle there when you wanted to leave. There would probably be one leaving every minute. They would be faster and more reliable—because an individual vehicle, particularly if it is on rubber tyres, can just steer round your average cow which is what appears to cause the most frequent problems. You would not have these eternal delays caused by some minor obstruction on the line because that problem would no longer exist.
The advantages of this technology are known to the Government, Network Rail and other authorities. What we have all thought of as the disadvantage of being stuck with Southern Rail suddenly becomes the opportunity to have a really large network of autonomous vehicles, way ahead of anything else in the world and at a scale the rest of the world cannot match. It would provide a much better service than commuters and users get at the moment, probably at a lower cost, and a base for autonomous vehicle technology to work from in this country. I think it would prove enormously attractive to international business since it is very unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.
This is level 3 technology. You do not need anything more. You have a space where humans are not admitted. You do not need the sorts of capabilities a vehicle has to have to travel on the roads. Indeed, you might make these vehicles such that, when they got to a station, a human could take over and drive on. This technology might work. All sorts of things might work because you could try them as little add-ons to a large system. It would be much more efficient than what the Government are having to do at the moment—a whole series of minor experiments in little, confined areas, trying out different bits of technology without being able to integrate them properly. This is a really big opportunity, but it requires that we list and license level 3-capable vehicles because, even at this level, we need a proper amount of control over what is going on.
I like the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. We will have to be really cute in making sure that the software on these vehicles is up to date. One vehicle approaching another will have to know what software the other is using and, therefore, how that vehicle will behave in case of difficulty—such as a wheel falling off—so that they become predictable. To allow random collections of software, randomly updated, is just not going to work in an autonomous world.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, remarked in the course of her speech on Amendment 1, this Bill needs to be broader so that the Government can have the sort of powers they will need to regulate a fast-expanding industry, using as yet unknown technology. We need to give the Government flexibility. It is important that they have the tools necessary to make this industry succeed. I very much hope that this is something the Government will recognise in this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I was on the Science and Technology Committee and we discussed automated vehicles. After our session, I met some industrialists—people making and selling cars—in the context of automated vehicles. One of the things it was suggested that the Secretary of State might consider—it would come under Clause 1, referred to earlier—is that people purchasing vehicles, particularly those that are partially or wholly automatic, should understand the properties of the vehicle. There were some examples this year or last year when someone had a blackout and the vehicle took over control and moved them. So it seems that already some of these level 3 properties are not well understood by the people buying the cars. For some people, as I understand it, once you have paid by credit card or hire purchase the car arrives at your front door and off you drive. Even Tesla makes you have 95 minutes of training before you buy and use one of its cars. This is an area covered by subsection (1)(b) that the Secretary of State should be considering very strongly.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I should first make an unusual declaration of interest: namely, an investment that does not exist at this moment but which will almost certainly be made in the next few days. I will have an equity interest in the Penso group of companies and become its chairman. Penso is a manufacturer of very high-tech carbon fibre parts for the automotive, aerospace and rail industries, and produces the Vito London taxi for Mercedes in Coventry. The investment is likely to complete in the next few days, making the interest declarable as its product is very relevant to the lightweight future of electric cars. I should explain that none of my amendments seeks to confer exclusive benefits on the company and that I am moving them because I believe them all to be in the public interest.
Unfortunately, the grouping of the amendments in today’s debate is slightly unusual and many groups contain amendments that do not naturally fall together. Some of my later amendments overlap with, and propose different ways of achieving the same ends as, the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I apologise if the Minister has to repeat the same points in different sections.
Although I support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 1, we may yet hear from the Bill team that Amendment 2 is just not the way in which they wish to go with this definition. I must say that I believe that that is a mistake, because, although the Society of Automotive Engineers standards may change and the Government normally like to be in complete control of the definition, the choice here is between a vague definition that could be interpreted in different ways by different lawyers and an international standard developed by the SAE and adopted worldwide. Chinese vehicle producers will adopt the SAE regulations, as will producers all over the world. There seems therefore to be a great deal of merit in sticking to the worldwide standard rather than inventing our own because we believe that our choice of English will be so elegant that we can achieve it.
There are other ways of achieving the definition from those used in the Bill, and I will come to them in my later amendments. However, were the Government to change their mind and support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 2, I would immediately support it as well.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is important that we keep the scope of the Bill as wide as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, mentioned manufacturing in China. I suspect that by the time many of these cars and technologies have come on to the market, a very large proportion of the equipment will come from China anyway. There has to be some world standard—I am not sure which; we will come to that later—otherwise we will be in dead trouble. I also share the noble Lord’s concern about Amendment 2.
I was interested in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about turning railways into roads. We heard this before, about 30 years ago.
Lord Lucas
It was not about turning railways into roads; it ends up with turning roads into railways. It is just a different method of moving people on railways.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s explanation. It depends on whether the road is as defined in Clause 1(1)(a),
“roads or in other public places”,
on whether or not it will be a railway.
I want to point out that autonomous railways are happening at the moment. The centre section of the Thameslink railway is effectively driverless. It does not go very far—from Kings Cross St Pancras to Blackfriars—but it does not need a driver. Of course, a driver is there, but that is the state of technology on the mainline railways, and the underground railways and metros have done it for a long time. Whether the same number of passengers could be taken by these autonomous pods up a railway, road or whatever, compared with a 12-car train every two minutes with people standing is a debate we can have. But I am not sure that I would support widening this Bill to get that far.
I have also been studying a few issues related to the content of the Bill, and recently met the author Christian Wolmar who has written a book, Driverless Cars: On A Road To Nowhere. I recommend that the Minister and other speakers to read it; I am not going to give it away today. Without necessarily supporting what he says, there are issues relating to the human reaction to automation that are quite useful to study, including how close a vehicle can get to the one in front, and all the things we spoke about on Second Reading, which I shall not repeat today. It may take rather longer than some noble Lords think for all this to come about. We are certainly right to debate it now and to concentrate on common standards.
I certainly support my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. I think he was speaking to Amendment 8, which I did not know was in this group, but he made a good speech and I certainly support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, at the outset of this debate today on automated vehicles, I think it is helpful to set out what this Bill is trying to achieve. The provisions within the automated part of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill extend compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover the use of automated vehicles when operating in automated mode, so that victims of an accident caused by an automated vehicle while driving itself will be covered by the compulsory insurance in place on the vehicle. The insurer would be initially liable to pay compensation to any victim, including to the driver who had legitimately handed control to the vehicle. The insurer then would have the right to recover costs from any liable parties under existing UK common law and product liability law.
The Bill therefore requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of automated vehicles which are,
“designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”.
The purpose of this power is to allow manufacturers, owners of vehicles and insurers to know if the extension to compulsory motor insurance in this legislation applies to their vehicle. This will provide certainty to the automotive and insurance industries, as well as clarity to the public. The scope of the Bill applies to highly and fully automated vehicles only—that is, vehicles for which, when driving themselves, there is no monitoring or controlling role required of the driver.
This is broadly equivalent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, to levels 4 and 5, as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers—the SAE—and does not apply to vehicles with lower levels of automated technology or utilising advanced driver assistance systems, no matter how sophisticated. It does not apply to level 3 vehicles, and the Tesla vehicle the noble Baroness mentioned would not be covered. We will come to this point later, but level 3 cars still require monitoring by a driver, so they are not fully automatic and are not covered by the Bill. It also only applies to automated vehicles that are or might lawfully be used on roads or in other public places in Great Britain.
I acknowledge the point made by many noble Lords on the narrow scope of this Bill. It was designed with a specific purpose in mind, and I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords from across the House on the amendment from my noble friend Lord Borwick introducing more powers for the Government.
Regarding the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the inclusion of vehicles manufactured and purchased outside Great Britain, there is already a long-established process, along with guidance on the GOV.UK website, which covers the permanent use of foreign-registered vehicles in the UK. As part of this process, any vehicle which drives on UK roads must already be type-approved. For temporary use of vehicles on our roads, through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau we operate a Green Card scheme—an international certificate of insurance to make sure that victims of accidents involving foreign-registered vehicles are covered. We think this process would be the same for automated vehicles and, therefore, do not think the amendment is necessary at this stage because all vehicles manufactured and/or purchased outside Great Britain will be covered by the existing text.
The Bill does not define automated vehicles by SAE levels, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Amendment 2. This is because the SAE levels are generalised industry categories describing a broad capability, which could change over time. The type approval of an automated vehicle, the criteria of which have not yet been agreed, will not be carried out according to SAE levels of automation. Noble Lords may find it helpful to note that the UNECE working parties that set the international standards by which vehicles will be type-approved and used have rejected the SAE definitions because they do not meet the level of precision needed for regulation. Instead, they simply set out broad definitions.
The categories set out by the SAE are under continual revision. A direct link to the levels creates problems if the definitions move away from what is needed for the proper functioning of the Bill. I want to be clear: we are not rejecting the SAE levels. They are helpful, but they do not—the UNECE agrees with us here—meet the level of precision needed for type approval and regulation.
Lord Berkeley
Could the noble Baroness explain what she means by “manufactured in Great Britain”? She is aware of all the Brexit debates about certificates of origin, and that bits and pieces and components go right across the world and back again. What exactly do we mean by “manufactured in Great Britain”? Is it just the name on the front?
Baroness Sugg
Happily, the Bill covers vehicles manufactured in Great Britain and abroad: it covers any vehicle. I am afraid I do not have an exact definition, but I imagine that it is when the majority is manufactured in the UK. As I say, the Bill will cover all vehicles, wherever they are manufactured.
On Amendment 33, I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we must ensure that all new automated vehicles are safe and secure for use in Great Britain. We have many amendments to come on that. We are working at the United Nations level to develop international requirements for vehicle manufacturers on both vehicle safety and cybersecurity. These standards, which are still being developed, will then form the basis of the type approval process which automated vehicles, like conventional vehicles today, must pass before they can be sold for safe use on British roads or in other public places, or get on to the Secretary of State’s list for insurance.
Based on the international UNECE standards, which the UK is actively contributing to, and our evolving domestic regulatory programme, we expect it to be very clear which vehicles, including their software, can safely operate in automated mode. We do not think it appropriate at this early stage to set too precise criteria.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
You are still not explaining how people will understand and be informed of this. Is there no regulation for that? As I understand it, even manufacturers are conscious of this being uncontrolled. When you buy such a car, you do not know what kind of information you will have and how you are going to be taught about it. As I mentioned, British cars are being provided with little information, unlike the Tesla car. Even for that complicated car they apparently need an hour and a half or whatever it is for training. Is anything being done about that?
Baroness Sugg
As the noble Lord rightly says, for level 3 partially automated cars there is a training system in place before the vehicle is used. For levels 4 and 5 that is something we are working on. We have not seen these vehicles yet, but I agree it will be essential to ensure that people who use these vehicles are able to use them safely. That is part of what we will be looking at, as we put together the regulations.
We think that we need to maintain flexibility to ensure that all the vehicles relevant to Clause 1 can be identified and included in the list, so that we can give insurers the clarity over which vehicles require insurance.
On hacking, we are working with the UK security agencies, including the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, and the new National Cyber Security Centre, to engage directly with industry, raising awareness and promoting best practice. Cybersecurity, including for automated vehicles, has been identified as a top priority in the national security strategy. Of course, it is essential that all parties involved in the manufacturing supply chain, from designers and engineers to retailers and executives, are provided with a consistent set of guidelines that support the industry. As part of this work, we developed, consulted with industry, and published in August last year the Principles of Cyber Security for Connected and Automated Vehicles, a guidance document for the automotive industry on good cybersecurity. Those principles are now informing the work that we do at UNECE level on the taskforce on cybersecurity, which is developing standards, practices, directives, and regulations concerning cybersecurity and their applicability to the automotive industry. We have also set up an automotive information exchange to promote sharing of intelligence and best practice for effective cybersecurity.
I very much agree with the intention of the amendment, but we think that both the safety and cybersecurity requirements of automated vehicles will be covered in future regulations, once agreed at this international level. I hope that, given those arguments, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The Minister made a very important statement at the beginning, so I want to make sure that I heard it correctly. I think that she said that the responsibility of the Secretary of State would be to list the vehicles that could safely be driven automatically or would safely drive themselves automatically on the roads. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will effectively be certificating these vehicles as being safe?
Baroness Sugg
The vehicles will be certified through the type approval process, following what has been agreed at international levels. That is what will decide whether or not those vehicles are safe. Once that type of approval process has happened, those vehicles will then go on the Secretary of State’s list, which is purely for insurance purposes, so that insurance companies and purchasers of vehicles can understand whether those vehicles require automated vehicle insurance. So it will be a separate process to the list on exactly how those vehicles are certified, which is what is subject to ongoing conversations at international level. We do not yet have those standards, but we are working towards getting them, which will certify whether a vehicle is safe. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Sugg
I am afraid that we do not have a specific timetable. Obviously, technology is developing all the time, and we do not yet have the technology available for type 4 and type 5 vehicles. We are working closely, as I say, at United Nations level, and are also working as part of that with both vehicle and software manufacturers to be able to define those standards. Given that we do not yet have the technology, we are not yet able to define the standards, so I am afraid that it will slightly depend on how things progress. However, we play a leading role in this and, as soon as these international standards are set, we will then be able to use them for our type approval for standards within the UK and declare it legal and safe for those vehicles to be driven in the UK.
Baroness Randerson
I thank noble Lords and the Minister for her comments, and particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his support on the need for a more precise definition.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I clarify that I have specified levels 4 and 5 because that is what the Government have said that the Bill applies to. If the Government want it to apply to level 3 as well, that is fine. The principle is the need for a clearer definition; the use of levels rather than the definition is what I am suggesting.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked how long it would take to get used to automated vehicles. If you drive a minibus, it comes as a bit of a shock to find that you are sort of on top of the car in front of you, in comparison with driving a car, when you expect to have a bonnet in front of you. We are getting used to new ways of driving. As I have mentioned before to noble Lords, I have an electric car, and that is a totally different style of driving. We will get used to it more quickly than perhaps some people think.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, can I argue against crisp definitions? We do not yet know what will happen. Maybe we can evolve a system where the ordinary car we use at home can switch into fully automated mode for, say, travelling around the railways, and then when it is not part of a railway, it will come off. Sometimes it is a car and at other times it is a rail vehicle. If we are to take a lead in this industry, we will need to continuously shape and reshape definitions. We do not want to be hamstrung by what we can think of now. I agree that we ought to share definitions around the world, but they ought to be based on technology as it evolves. It ought to be fast moving. We ought to equip ourselves with legislation which can move as the industry moves.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked me whether there would be capacity constraints. No, there would not be; if you transfer to rubber wheels, you can manage much higher traffic densities because you do not have the braking distance problems, and you can fit with the current level of autonomous safety. I am not saying that one could manage high-speed lines, but Southern rail is all low-speed. The fast services on the London to Brighton line manage 45 miles per hour. If, with autonomous vehicles, you are managing to go 70 or 80 miles per hour, just by doing that you are doubling the capacity. Therefore there are no capacity constraints on using these routes for autonomous vehicles. It will probably be managed by Network Rail because you need the consistency, predictability and safety constraints that go with rail services. However, we are talking about much smaller vehicles and different technology—about providing a basis for the whole of autonomous vehicle technology to evolve. Under those circumstances, you have to move definitions to keep up with the technology.
Level 3, as I read the definition, seems to provide a pretty good base: there are times when the vehicle can be autonomous but then it gets to a point where it says: “Hang on, I can’t be autonomous here, I need the driver to take back control”. That seems to be the sort of technology you might well try to put on a rail service so that, without having to get to levels 4 and 5, you can provide room for individual vehicles to travel on the service and provide the connections that people want beyond a railway station. We do not know yet; we have not got there. We have to allow the Government the breadth of definition that will allow us to experiment and to lead the field.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord talks about looking at the future and says we have not got there. With all due respect, we have got there. I have been in a driverless car—technologically, they exist. They are being trialled in parts of this country and indeed across the world. However, the noble Lord is right that we are crystal ball gazing over exactly how they will be used. In what circumstances will we use them? Will we all own our own little pod or will we summon up a pod to collect us and take us to work, or whatever, whenever we wish it? There is a great deal of debate here; undoubtedly the initiative has already been taken by taxi companies, for example, in this area.
However, I return briefly to Amendment 1 and the points made about definitions. I am not slavishly devoted to levels 3, 4 and 5—or 4 and 5. If the Minister says this has been rejected, that is contrary to what I was told, but I am happy to go with what has now been accepted. The definition needs to be precise enough for this not to end up in a lot of court cases. I say that because the whole of this part of the Bill is about insurance; we all know that insurance is always mired in legal definitions, so the Government need to be on firm ground. Having said all that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Randerson
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, removing the two words “or adapted” would mean that the Secretary of State’s list would not include vehicles manufactured for conventional driving and adapted for autonomous mode. Those involved in the motor industry regard the concept of adapting vehicles as extremely dangerous. The technology companies—the people who write and design the software for cars—also regard it as very dangerous. The point they make is that their software is specifically tailored to individual car design. The fact that their technology works safely in one car does not mean that it can be shoe-horned into another model, even a similar model.
The clause as written would include individual adaptations by enthusiasts, which would be a very uncertain path to go down. Indeed, if a car manufacturer decided to adapt a current level 3 model—for example, the Tesla S, to which I referred earlier—to a level 4 car, I am absolutely sure that Tesla, in line with standard motor industry practice, would call it the “Tesla S Elite” or something similar. It would be a different model and therefore it would not be an adaptation in the meaning set out in relation to the Secretary of State’s list. What I am really pointing out here is that the concept of “adapted” vehicles would narrowly include those adapted on a one-off basis by individual enthusiasts, and therefore it would not seem reasonable to expect the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport to have the expertise to know whether that was safe.
I want to refer briefly to Amendment 29, which is in this group and stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. A big section of it is very similar to the amendment tabled by Labour in the Commons to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord on having managed to get this amendment accepted. I could not think of a way of doing it, but he has done very well.
Amendment 29 addresses crucial issues associated with the proper repair and maintenance of automated vehicles. In particular, it goes into detail on the need to establish properly accredited training schemes for those who repair and maintain them. Rather like the repair of electric vehicles, the process is totally different from traditional vehicle repair. I spoke at Second Reading about the need for a process similar to the old CORGI gas safety scheme. That was a highly respected, universally acknowledged scheme and came about as a result of the Government working with the industry. We need the Government to work with industry in the same way on automated vehicles, and I am very grateful that the noble Lord has raised it in his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in my name. I accept the noble Baroness’s congratulations on behalf of my staff—which is one quarter of a very able lady—who managed to get this past the Public Bill Office. The proposed new clause would protect insurers against accidents caused by vehicles repaired by unauthorised technicians. It would also require the Government to establish a scheme for the authorised inspection, repair and maintenance of automated vehicles by licensed and accredited technicians.
The automotive industry already relies on hundreds of thousands of individuals who support work on and maintain vehicles. As the technology develops, so too must the skills of those working on them. We are already aware of an existing skills gap in the industry. As the technology develops, that gap may well worsen but, as it stands, the Bill does not address a worsening skills gap. If we do not start planning for this now, we will be left with a huge hole in the support structures for these new vehicles.
I am of the generation where I was privileged at the age of 17 to buy a car for seven pounds and 10 shillings. The car was seven years older than me. It tended to go only about 10 miles before having to have its plugs cleaned and so on—which made courting my wife a bit difficult at times. But we were of a generation when the skill of looking after automotive technology was very straightforward, and widely understood by a large section of the population. Now I drive a Prius, and I would not dare touch anything on it. Not only is it unduly complex, but it could be very dangerous, with the very high voltages involved and so on. There is nothing I could do to that car that would do anything other than worsen its performance.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. He is right about the need for such an authorised inspection regime, and in his worry about unauthorised repairs. The Committee may or may not be aware that a lot of trucks, and probably many modern trains and other big pieces of plant and equipment, are already remotely monitored. Where I live in Cornwall, outside the front door of the house is a 200-tonne gantry crane that operates on rubber tyres. It was manufactured in Italy and erected in Cornwall, and if the driver does the wrong thing, or the wrong person drives it, the people in Italy know exactly what is happening and they will stop it: they will prevent it operating. If it tries to lift 300 tonnes when it is capable of lifting only 250 tonnes it will be stopped, so that the equipment does not get severely damaged. That is very common, so my noble friend’s amendment is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will see the need for some kind of scheme to cover at least the specialist equipment that will be in the vehicles.
I worry about Amendment 3 and the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the word “adapted”. She said that adapting a vehicle would probably be done in a back yard somewhere, by somebody who probably would not know what they were doing, and could therefore be dangerous. That is certainly a worry. But the word “adapted” would also cover current vehicles adapted for people with certain disabilities—for example, if someone cannot use a brake pedal so there has to be a brake behind the steering wheel. I know we are talking about a different technology, but the word “adapted” will be difficult. I suggest to the noble Baroness that, if Amendment 29 were accepted, all vehicles, whether specialist, adapted or not, would have to be covered by the authorised “inspection, repair or maintenance”, so it would be better to go down that route rather than inserting the word “adapted”, as she suggests in Amendment 3.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too have some difficulty with the word “adapted”. I understand that modern technology is more difficult to handle than when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I were pulling our Austin 7, or whatever it was, apart. Nevertheless, you cannot totally slam the door on any form of cottage or other industry which was set up in order to help individuals to produce an adaptation of a particular vehicle. I do not support this amendment in the way in which it is drafted.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I too have some difficulty with this because I drive, I must confess, a Skoda. I am told that a brand new Skoda is built to my specifications when I order it, not before. It is not produced on a line but only when I order it and, therefore, each adaptation is my instruction to the manufacturer. Whether or not that is an adaptation I do not know, but we have to bear it in mind when considering this amendment.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, while I respect the opinions of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the way that the automotive industry works is through a large number of companies of various sizes, some of which believe they have the only solution that makes a positive change to the industry. They may approach a big car company and try to persuade it that their creation of a level 4 vehicle software is better than that produced by Ford or General Motors. I do not think they will succeed, but they will want to try it out—and that process will involve adapting an existing vehicle. That would be much harder than it is at the present stage if the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness were accepted.
It is a reality of life that the world is filled with brilliant engineers who have their own suggestions. Some of them are nutters and some of them are geniuses, and it is only by trying out their suggestions that you can work out which one is which.
Lord Maxton
The noble Lord will remember that, when we were considering this issue in the Science and Technology Committee, it was suggested that one of the first uses of a fully automated vehicle would be in agriculture, with it going up and down a field. A story was told of a van suddenly appearing at the back of a field and the farmer going up to two men and asking, “What are you doing here?”. They said, “We are from Germany, and we are here because the big end on your combine harvester is about to go”.
Lord Borwick
The point is well made. It is an immensely complicated industry and, effectively, prohibiting adaptions would send it backwards.
On the issue of maintenance of these vehicles, there is a host of health and safety regulations which should cover many of the points raised. It is indeed extraordinarily dangerous to start dealing with high-voltage DC cables on the inside if you are not trained to do so. However, because of my interest in electrical vehicles in the past, I have gone through the training, the basic lesson of which is to stay as far away from it as you possibly can. It is extraordinarily dangerous, and I entirely support the training of people as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, if we imagine a future with a lot of autonomous vehicles around, one of the things that such a vehicle needs to do is predict how other autonomous vehicles will react in particular circumstances—that is, if faced with a sudden unexpected obstacle, the priority will be to veer to the left, say. That knowledge can come only on the basis of a shared understanding of the software that each of them has and of the capabilities in terms of awareness of the local picture and the wider picture that are built into the vehicle. To allow those things to be tampered with by back-street garages and amateur electricians seems to me to go against the whole advantage of moving towards autonomy. Therefore I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is aiming at. I think we need really clear control of the quality of maintenance.
I can see what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is aiming at in removing “or adapted”; we do not allow people to adapt Boeing 747s in a random sort of way. They might do it to trial things and have a bit of their own airspace to wander around in while they are doing it, but we should be really cautious in allowing widespread adaptation. Every adaptation introduces another complication that every other autonomous vehicle would have to be aware of. Adaptation should be confined to test areas and test tracks, and what appears on the public scene should be a well-understood, well-documented vehicle—and not too many different kinds, please.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I will first address Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the removal of “or adapted” from Clause 1(1). It may be that in the future vehicles could be adapted to be capable of driving themselves safely. It could also be the case that some future vehicles are designed to be ready for full automation at some point after their sale but not yet fully capable.
I do understand the concern around this, as we have not yet seen such vehicles in the marketplace, but, given that we cannot predict how these vehicles will evolve, it is important to ensure that we do not prematurely preclude such technology—or, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, put it, slam the door on potential innovation. Happily, it would not be up to the Secretary of State or, indeed, the Department for Transport, to decide whether an adapted vehicle was safe. Whether it was a vehicle adapted by an enthusiast in their back yard, or with a software update from Tesla, it would be subject to the same type of approval process before it could be legally used on our roads. So I can reassure noble Lords that a vehicle with any such adaptation would be on the Clause 1 list—and therefore have insurance, and be on our roads legally—only if the adaptation was considered safe.
On Amendment 29, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is of course absolutely right to be concerned that automated vehicles meet appropriate safety standards and that the inspection, repair and maintenance of an automated vehicle is done in an authorised way. Motorists with these new vehicles will clearly expect the same level of knowledge and customer service they have come to expect for conventional vehicles. However, we believe that at this stage it is too early to develop a full training, licensing, and accreditation scheme for automated vehicles, or to legislate on how automated vehicles are inspected, maintained and repaired.
As I have said, the Bill is focused on ensuring a sensible insurance regime, and we do not believe that it is the right time to legislate further on maintenance in the manner outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, given that the UNECE harmonised technical safety standards have not yet been agreed for these vehicles. As I said in debate on previous groups, these conversations around safety standards are ongoing, with the UK actively participating in these important discussions.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Might the noble Baroness meet us half way by giving us an assurance that at an appropriate time such a scheme will be developed?
Baroness Sugg
I am happy to give the noble Lord that assurance. I think that, in order for the UK to remain a leader in the development and deployment of AV technology, we will of course need the right skills. If we are to secure an automated future we will need them in ongoing repair and maintenance as well as in design and technology.
We are working with the relevant technology and professional bodies on this issue, alongside the DVSA. We are also working with the Automotive Council on improving skills in the sector by developing new trailblazer apprenticeships and targeting areas where there are skills shortages, as well as co-ordinating work across the sectors. As the professional body for the automotive industry, the Institute of the Motor Industry is well placed to help the Government understand the challenges of ensuring that automated vehicle maintenance and repair is carried out in a professional and safe manner. We hold regular meetings with the IMI, at both official and ministerial level, to discuss the potential models of regulation that we will need for AV skills testing.
As I said, I understand noble Lords’ concern in this area. As the technology develops and matures we will consider such an accreditation scheme and what, if any, government intervention would be needed to ensure that we have enough skills to make sure that the industry can develop. We fully expect there to be other pieces of regulatory and legislative reform in due course as part of our wider programme.
While I can reassure noble Lords that the work on training and accreditation is progressing well, I am afraid—I feel I will be saying this a lot today—that, as the Bill concerns an insurance framework, we do not feel it is an appropriate place to include such an amendment. But I hope that the reassurances I have given on the work that is ongoing in this area, and that in due course we will be looking to implement such a scheme, will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I accept that my Amendment 3 is a very simple and straightforward device. It was an attempt to approach one aspect of the safety issue. Amendment 29 is a much more complex and comprehensive approach. If Amendment 29 or something like it were adopted, there would be no need for Amendment 3.
I was trying to begin to talk about safety and to raise the issue that if you allow adaptations, the Secretary of State will have to devise a way to apply a wide and rigorous range of safety tests. Currently, if you build your own car in a garage you can test it pretty straightforwardly and take it on the road. You could be stopped by a policeman and you could take it to a garage and it would or would not get its MoT on a series of straightforward yes or no tests with no doubt about it. But, if we are talking about adaptations to autonomous vehicles, the danger in these adaptations will almost certainly be in the software, which it is very much more difficult to test. We have only to look back at the Volkswagen scandal. Volkswagen installed the so-called defeat device in the software of its diesel cars that kicked in only when it detected that it was being tested. It was therefore able to mask the true extent of emissions. That is a very complex operation. To test software we would have to go through very lengthy, all-situations style testing to make sure that a vehicle is truly safe. It is not just a case of putting your foot on the brake and saying that it stops quite quickly and it is fine.
Lord Berkeley
Would the noble Baroness be tempted to press the Minister to have a meeting on these issues before Report and come back with a much shorter text than Amendment 29 with the intention of covering these issues? I think that would give many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate quite a lot of comfort.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, puts forward a very good idea. I know that the Minister is always very generous in providing opportunities to discuss issues. We already have two issues that we need further information on. I am sure that there will be other amendments later where we will need a meeting or, at the very least, a fairly lengthy letter—but it would be better to discuss it.
I readily acknowledge that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is a more thorough approach to the issue of safety. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Borwick
Lord Borwick
My Lords, we have here a portmanteau group of about three different subjects which have in common that they are all proposed by me, but that is about it. I will start with Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7. These address the alternative to using the SAE definitions that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I think are probably the right solution to the problem.
The first amendment deals with the phrase,
“in at least some circumstances or situations”.
As has been mentioned, the Science and Technology Committee did a very good study on autonomous vehicles, let down, in my mind, only by the fact that we were not allowed to entitle it “Goodbye, Mr Toad”. This was supported by a large number of people because the phrase encapsulates one of the greatest advantages of autonomous vehicles: bypassing bad driving. In the future automated vehicles will drive better than human beings.
The phrase,
“in at least some circumstances or situations”,
will certainly open discussions as to whether some downright unusual vehicles such as agricultural autonomous vehicles will fall under that description. I fear that in the Secretary of State’s opinion, they will not, and somebody will undertake a judicial review as to whether the Secretary of State was right. The net result will be wealthier lawyers rather than a clear definition.
Similarly, the meaning of the word “safely” is very unclear. One man’s “safely” is another man’s “dangerously”. Putting such ambiguous words into legislation opens up the possibility of somebody’s saying, “That autonomous vehicle was involved in an accident; it therefore cannot have been driving safely. If it was not driving safely, it should not have been on the list, and is therefore not covered by the insurance that it was thought to be covered by”. I hesitate to say that putting in the word “safely” is dangerous, but it opens the possibility of a bunch of litigation which is unnecessary because the clause works without it.
I know that the word “safely” is part of the Government’s attempt to differentiate between what we would call level 3 and levels 4 and 5. It comes from the Government’s determination not to use those terms. If the Government were to change their mind on that, the need for subjective words such as “safely” would disappear.
Amendments 31, 32 and 34 deal with the meanings in Clause 7 of “being controlled” and “driving itself”. The Bill states that,
“a vehicle is ‘driving itself’ if it is operating in a mode in which it is not being controlled, and does not need to be monitored, by an individual”.
There is a lot of uncertainty as to what phrases such as “be monitored” mean. Amendment 34 tries to identify that more clearly. On Amendment 32, there is again some uncertainty as to what “an individual” means. Does it mean an individual who is licensed to drive that vehicle? Does it mean an individual who is capable of driving, with a driving licence, or one who is not drunk or fast asleep? There is a lot of uncertainty in these words. The Minister may say that the wording will be sorted out in the detailed regulations, but it could be changed to deal with such problems at the start.
On Amendment 35, “roads” has not been defined in the Bill and could easily be defined to tie up with the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that a creative lawyer does not come up with an alternative definition for their own benefit. I hope that all the amendments are helpful in clarifying the meaning of these phrases. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I went through the process of devising amendments with a lean approach to the wording. Once again, the amendments take a more comprehensive approach to the same issue I raised regarding the definitions. I understand the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, about there being some overlap in the grouping of amendments. That is because this is a highly technical Bill and the aim of the amendments is not always obvious. In this case, the aim is clearly the same as the one I was approaching, and it underlines the point I made when speaking to my first group of amendments: that definitions will be central.
Many years ago, I was a justice of the peace. I sat through many motoring cases at a basic level in the magistrates’ court where clever lawyers spent ages examining the definitions of simple words. There were many cases where people avoided apparently obvious judicial process because of a definition. The Government need to look again at the definitions used in the Bill.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, we should welcome these attempts to clarify the wording of the Bill, but I suspect that it is a more or less hopeless task to agree on it. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, did not want to change,
“does not need to be monitored”,
because that is a subjective question. For example, if you are in a taxi, are you happy if no driver is there? If you are flying in a plane, it will be on autopilot most of the time, but are you happy if there is no pilot there who can take over and is monitoring? The question whether one feels the need to have someone there monitoring is ambiguous. To say that there is no need for someone to be monitoring is going to be very subjective. For that reason, I suspect it will be a very long time before level 4 or level 5 automation will be perfectly acceptable.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to Amendment 35. Having a definition of “road”, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is essential. I know there are lots of different definitions of roads within the various road traffic Acts, but I happened to come across a case a few years ago where somebody who was driving a 4x4 on a road which did not appear to be a road within the definition of the road traffic Acts was arrested and charged with drink-driving. He was convicted in the end and it is quite clear, which I did not understand before, that that offence can occur anywhere—in a field, a factory, or anywhere else—because it is not particularly a road traffic offence: it is being drunk in charge of a vehicle. I do not know whether that will be reflected when we get to who is in charge of these vehicles, but it demonstrates the importance of having a definition of “road” where such legislation will apply.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I think there is a difficulty with what my noble friend’s Amendment 4 proposes. There is no reason to suppose that we will not have vehicles that are dual-capable—capable of being driven by people and driven autonomously—maybe as part of the evolution to a fully autonomous system. I do not suspect that a farmer will want their Land Rover to be autonomous for a long time in the future, except when it is on a roadway and switching between two modes may become quite important. Therefore, a vehicle that is capable of switching between the two modes, and is therefore not always autonomous, will be an important part of the evolution to autonomous vehicles.
I also suspect that once a vehicle is autonomous, it will not ever be truly not in someone’s charge. If you have a set of vehicles which are essentially public vehicles—small buses, which are just picked up on the street and you take one to wherever you are going—some kind of alarm system will be necessary. There will probably be some oversight in case of a known problem: you will want to say, “Right, all vehicles within a particular radius shall slow down or stop because there appears to be some problem developing here”. Defining who is in charge of a vehicle where those capabilities exist will be quite problematic. This comes back to my wanting the Government to give themselves the flexibility to adapt the regulations as circumstances change, our knowledge improves and systems move.
The picture the Government paint of a Bill every year is just not feasible: government does not work that way. This sort of backwater gets a Bill every four years if we are lucky. We absolutely have to reckon that this Bill has to last the rest of this Parliament and probably the first year or two of the next. There is not the space in a Government’s life for off-centre Bills on a regular basis. The Bill is underpowered for the mission it sets out to achieve.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, as I mentioned in the debate on the first group of amendments, the scope of the Bill applies only to highly and fully automated vehicles; that is, vehicles for which, when driving themselves, there is no monitoring or controlling role required of the driver. I appreciate my noble friend’s efforts to clarify the language in the Bill in this series of amendments. I will try to help with the definitions, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said, these terms are highly subjective.
On Amendment 4, it is anticipated that the first automated vehicles to reach the UK market will be able to be used in automated mode only in specific circumstances or situations. These could include instances where vehicles have been geo-fenced, and are therefore able to operate only in specific, defined areas, or systems that would operate only on motorways and other high-speed roads, or indeed in the way my noble friend Lord Lucas described earlier. These vehicles may not be capable of driving safely in all situations, so we believe it is essential that the wording,
“in … some circumstances or situations”,
remains within the Bill so that such vehicles can get on the Secretary of State’s list and get insurance.
Lord Maxton
The Minister keeps talking about “vehicles” and not “cars”. Vehicles are already being used in agriculture. They do have to go on roads, however; for example, to go from one field to another. Is that part of the definition?
Baroness Sugg
I know that this issue came up in the noble Lord’s committee. It is something we are looking at. Again, we will probably equate it to the existing situation with agricultural machinery: only if it needs to be lawfully insured at the moment will it need to be lawfully insured as an automated vehicle.
On Amendment 5 and the proposal to remove “safely” and Amendment 34 to define “monitoring”, as my noble friend said, the Bill uses “safely” to distinguish between vehicles with high or full automation, which are covered by the Bill, and conditionally automated vehicles, which are not. Conditionally automated vehicles need the human user to monitor their driving at all times. Highly and fully automated vehicles do not need such monitoring in automated mode: they can operate safely without it.
That is why we think we need “safely” in the definition in Clause 1 that highly and fully automated vehicles are,
“capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving themselves”.
The definition of “driving itself”, given in Clause 7, is,
“in a mode in which it is not being controlled, and does not need to be monitored, by an individual”.
So the Bill covers vehicles that have been designed to be able to drive themselves—safely, with no monitoring needed, in at least some situations. Without “safely”, we think that the Bill would cover—incorrectly—vehicles in which the driving tasks are shared conditionally. However, I have listened to the arguments made in this and earlier debates and will look at the definition in the Bill and see if there is anything we can to do clarify it further.
On Amendment 6, it is certainly our intention that only vehicles that are considered safe at the time at which the list is made or updated are included. I will consider the arguments made today and see whether we can make a clarification here.
On my noble friend’s Amendments 7, 31 and 32 regarding control, we think there are risks in using more specific terms at this stage, given that we cannot predict how the technology will evolve. I ask noble Lords to take account of this point throughout today’s debate. It is important to utilise broad language at this stage. We have used general terms to reflect the policy intent in establishing the compulsory insurance framework. As the scope of the Bill applies to vehicles for which, when driving themselves, there is no monitoring or controlling role required of the driver, we do not feel that we need to further define “control” at this stage.
On the subject of roads, my noble friend Lord Borwick raised an interesting point in Amendment 35 —he was backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—regarding the definition of “road” in the context of Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act. I think we can clarify this further to make it explicit in the Bill. I will look at tabling an amendment on that ahead of Report.
I have attempted to clarify the definitions here, but following the points made in this and earlier debates, I will look at the definition in Clause 1 to ensure it is clear that only vehicles that can be lawfully used in self-driving mode will be included in the list.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in the previous debate, I will follow up this session with a detailed letter, as well as a meeting ahead of Report to discuss the issues further. Given these reassurances, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her comments. Clearly, a lot of conversations should take place between now and Report, and they should include a wide variety of Peers who have expressed an interest in the Bill. I look forward to those discussions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on and publish the criteria that they will use to determine whether, in their opinion, a motor vehicle is designed or adapted to be capable, in at least some circumstances or situations, of safely driving itself without having to be monitored by an individual.(1B) The Secretary of State may not change the criteria under subsection (1A) until they have consulted vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, before moving Amendment 8, I would like to reflect on the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this backwater of transport gets a Bill only every two or three years. I think the Minister and I are locked in our fourth transport Bill in as many months. If you extrapolate from that, we will be here for ever.
Amendment 8 improves the Bill because it requires the Government to consult on and publish criteria for the definition of “automated vehicles” that will be used by the Secretary of State. The current drafting of Clause 1 puts the onus on the Secretary of State to define, in his or her opinion, what constitutes an automated vehicle without having to consult the sector. The Bill will be vastly improved if there is a requirement to consult and publish the criteria by which an automated vehicle is defined. It would also prevent the Secretary of State changing the criteria without consulting vehicle manufacturers, insurers and other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
It is crucial for manufacturers, vehicle owners and insurers to know whether they are making, buying, loaning on or insuring an automated vehicle, and whether the scope of the legislation applies to their vehicle. There are concerns that the Bill, as currently drafted, leaves the Secretary of State with total discretion as to what is an automated vehicle. The amendment therefore provides greater clarity and will help the Government by ensuring that relevant persons and organisations would be sufficiently involved, allowing that to inform the Secretary of State’s list of automated vehicles. The additional clarity provided by the amendment would help create a more reassuring environment which encourages the development and uptake of automated vehicles.
I will just touch on the whole area of safety. I have spent a life in safety-critical environments. The first thing that does is give one an aversion to the word “safe” because it is used in a binary sense: things are either safe or unsafe. In practice, nothing is absolutely safe. In my experience, most regimes are developed by one of two routes. One is the “crash and regulate” route, which has served aviation quite well. Hundreds of aeroplanes crashed in the early days, and we have now got to a situation where regulation refined by those experiences has produced the safest aviation environment in history. The motor industry has also essentially been a “crash and regulate” environment. Crashes have occurred, other incidents have occurred, regulations have been developed and safety has generally improved decade on decade. But in other areas the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 criteria have been used; that is, pursuing the objective of reducing risk to as low as is reasonably practical. That is a much more philosophical approach.
I hope that in developing these criteria the department, in its participation in international discussions, looks at both approaches, particularly the philosophical, proportional approach. When we move into this automated phase, it will be like the beginning of motoring all over again. We will be in an entirely different environment. For decades, we have relied on eyes and ears to be our interface senses; in this situation, we will be trusting a whole new series of senses, and the possibility of multiple interface failures has to be very high. I hope the department will take this seriously and actively develop its skills in looking at this whole safety environment so that we can play an important role in getting the right regulatory regime for automated vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 10. This amendment follows on nicely from Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. We had a useful discussion on that. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made an excellent case for why we need a properly organised maintenance regime. My noble friend the Minister agreed and said that we would commit to legislate in due course. Why do we not legislate now? When we legislate for something such as a maintenance regime in a fast-moving area—as this will continue to be—we give the Government powers to create one under regulations. We do not specify it or try to pin it down with a lot of detail, because it is too fast-moving an area, too new and too unknown.
The only way we can ever legislate for something such as an Amendment 29 regime is by giving the Government the ability to create regulations. I do not see any reason why we cannot do that now. When the Government get to the point where they consider a maintenance regime is needed, there could be other primary legislation in the queue. It may take a year or two to get a slot, a year to get the Bill through Parliament, and then there is the whole process of producing and consulting on the draft regulations. It may take the Government two or three years to get to the point where they have a maintenance regime in place. If we give them the power in this Bill to create a maintenance regime if and when they think it is needed, the whole process will be much shorter.
This is an industry where we ought to be caring enough about the economy and the future of this country to be giving the Government a lot of flexibility in what they do. If we get to the point of autonomous vehicles being on our roads, we can anticipate that we will need to say something about their ability to deal with level crossings. I do not think that we would ever try to deal with that sort of thing in primary legislation. If we are going to give the Government that sort of power in secondary legislation, why not do it now?
It is absolutely clear that we are going to have to deal extensively with the way in which data is handled and shared. Again, whenever we choose to legislate, it will be in a fast-moving, fast-changing, unpredictable set of circumstances. We will give the Government reasonably broad powers to keep updating the regulations without primary legislation being required at each turn. I believe that we can frame those regulations now.
We are going to have to produce regulations that restrict the ability of autonomous vehicles to drive in particular ways in particular circumstances. Those will keep changing as the capabilities of autonomous vehicles improve, as our experience of them improves, and as the way in which we as a society choose to deal with them improves. We are never going to try to deal with that sort of thing through primary legislation. Let us make this a fast-moving, adaptable Government, in a crucial area for the economy, by giving them the power now. We know that we want up-to-date software. We have already covered that today. Let us give the Government the ability to make sure that that is the case.
We know that we have to provide for human/autonomous changeover. It is unclear what that will look like. It will continue to change and adapt as technology moves. Let us give the Government the power now to deal with those things. When we look at our practice in this House, we know that we are not going to pin the Government down with primary legislation. We know that we are going to give them a sensible set of powers to create secondary legislation. There is nothing we need to know more than we do now in order to draft the required legislation. I hope that the Government will take these powers voluntarily—but, if not, I think we should be prepared to insist that they have them. The Government will then be much more responsive to the needs of the economy in terms of pushing this forward and putting ourselves into a position where international companies choose to do part of their autonomous vehicle development here because the environment is right and adaptable.
I understand—and one can judge from the admirable brevity of the Minister’s replies—that this is not in current contemplation by the department. That is why we may need to insist on an amendment or two. In conversations between Committee and Report, I hope that we may be able to agree what such an amendment might look like. We must put ourselves in a position where we are seen internationally not as an environment where change is slow and difficult because it requires primary legislation but rather as one which is quick and adaptable because we have already made the necessary provisions.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 11 is in this group—a probing amendment, again on the subject of safety. I noticed that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered a Department for Transport memorandum which stated that,
“the Secretary of State will need to have regard to whether vehicles or types of vehicles have met international or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated vehicles that will need to be met before the vehicles can lawfully be used on the roads”.
It went on to say about safety requirements that they were,
“likely to be recorded in a vehicle’s registration document”,
and,
“could therefore be identified either by type … or by reference to information in the registration document”.
Does that not overlook other essential safety requirements, such as the one I mention in my amendment—an MoT of the vehicle after so many years since new? Will the addition of greater and greater computer control and software mean that the current three years since new and yearly MoT thereafter will still be sufficient?
My amendment, and the much more comprehensive considerations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and by other noble Lords about safety requirements, suggest that, for a vehicle that is included on an approved list, there will be additional safeguards to consider before it can be legally insured for on-road use. I instanced an MoT as just one example of a safety issue that may have to be considered for the vehicle to be listed. Alternatively, can the Minister confirm whether existing or additional safety regulations may be required and are to be introduced in parallel with the Bill before a fully automated vehicle is insured for on-road use?
It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point that some test of competence might be required of the owner-occupant of a driverless vehicle. How might this bear on the issue of insurance cover for the individual in or in charge of the vehicle? I noted that a recent report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, suggested that, even if the vehicle is travelling under automated lane control, for example, as is possible today, the driver’s seat has to be occupied and the occupant is responsible for retaining ultimate control of the vehicle, maybe without even briefly letting go of the steering wheel. From the Minister’s opening remarks, though, I now understand that this level of vehicle automation is not to be covered by the Bill. How then are the insurance arrangements for these types of vehicle to be taken care of—or are they already taken care of by existing legislation?
The departmental memorandum that I mentioned says that the Secretary of State’s decision is administrative in nature and so could be open to judicial review. In respect of introducing new technology, this could be a troublesome legal minefield, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has already mentioned. So I should be grateful to hear from the Minister about her department’s thinking on these safety issues.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 10 and the associated Amendment 22. I feel that I need to declare my interest as I am an employed member of the Environmental Defense Fund Europe, an advocacy group that promotes solutions to climate change and air quality.
While I am speaking to this part of the Bill, it is fair to say that my interest lies in Part 2, but I feel that the Bill ought to be seen in its entirety as a tool that the Government can use to reach their aspirations to see a huge transformation in the transport sector. We are anticipating and looking forward to the publication of the government strategy, Road to Zero. We hope it is a road to zero, not a road to nowhere; I hope it contains ambition. We hope the narrow parts of the Bill are stepping stones and that additional policies and consultation will be launched with the document, which we hope we will see before Report.
Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, covers a very important aspect. I hope and suspect that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the consultation will indeed be forthcoming in the documents that we expect from the department. It is really important that we have that debate about how we are helping the Secretary of State to ensure that he or she is drawing on the very best information available, as this is quite a complex and technical area. There must be wide consultation on definitions in order for this list to be relevant and useful for every part of the community, including the insurers but also the users of the cars.
On Amendment 10 and the associated Amendment 22, many of us have been playing a game with the clerks in order to enable us to have a debate that is broader than the clauses before us. The short title of the Bill appears very wide but when it comes to it we are allowed only a very narrowed-down debate. I have put my name to Amendment 10 just to be able to talk about standards for autonomous vehicles. I understand that the nature of our debate, because it is linked to insurance, means that it has been mainly about the fear of accidents and safety, but there is an important additional element to autonomous vehicles, which is their environmental value. If we do not consider this at the outset then there is a chance that, no matter how well meaning we are in encouraging the use of autonomous vehicles and transport as a service more generally, we could see a period when these vehicles are overlapping with existing vehicles and we see more congestion, higher quality impacts and indeed greater impact on climate change.
I have a question for the Minister. Clause 1 of the Bill says:
“The list may identify vehicles … in some other way”.
When considering the list, could we interpret that as meaning we will have additional information about the environmental impact of these vehicles? There is an assumption that autonomous vehicles will be cleaner—and indeed that they will be electric, which would speak to both parts of the Bill—but there is no requirement or necessity for that to be the case. In the setting of and consulting on standards for these vehicles, could we include from the outset environmental standards that mean we do not have unintended consequences? Through our efforts to boost this industry, see inward investment and create jobs and financial flows, we do not want inadvertently to encourage lots of highly polluting vehicles using as many cheating devices as software engineers could come up with, in delivering the service through autonomous vehicles. We saw this in our drive to try to increase the efficiency of vehicles that has led to a big push to diesel.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, I have been surprised by the Bill and the discussions on it because it is fairly unusual to find circumstances where there is the kind of debate that will happen on the next set of amendments about “must” and “may” regarding what the Government can do. Normally the Government suggest that the wording should be that they “may” do something while Back-Benchers push for it to be that they “must” do something. Here we have entirely the reverse of that problem. Similarly, when my noble friend Lord Lucas proposes that the Government should have the right to regulate on safety standards—I have a similar amendment coming much later—normally it is a matter of the Government wanting to have the powers to regulate and the Back-Benchers suggesting that they should not. Here again we have the reverse of that standard, but this is a new industry and perhaps we have new ways of legislating for it.
The points that my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, make are entirely right: we need standards. However, I think so many things are happening with this that the power to make regulations should be wider than just in respect of standards. That is why I have tabled Amendment 30, which will be dealt with towards the end of our debate today. I support my noble friend’s amendment as far as it goes. I think my amendment is slightly better than his but we can deal with that problem later.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I fully appreciate that we will see fast-moving technological developments in this area in future. With that in mind, I understand the intent behind noble Lords’ amendments on safety criteria and standards. It is going to be critical to ensure that automated vehicles are safe for effective deployment on UK roads. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, rightly points out, their safety will also need to be maintained throughout the vehicle’s lifespan, as is the case for conventional vehicles today.
There is a long-established process in place for setting vehicle standards, which we have touched on before. The UNECE’s World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations is tasked with creating a uniform system of regulations for vehicle design in order to deliver high levels of vehicle safety and environmental protection and facilitate international trade. These UN regulations, of which there are over 140 in number, contain the provisions for vehicles, their systems, their parts, their equipment related to safety and environmental aspects. So they provide the legal framework, allowing member countries such as the UK to establish harmonised international-level UNECE regulatory instruments concerning motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. They include performance-oriented test requirements as well as the administrative procedures. The latter address the type approval of vehicle systems, parts and equipment, the conformity of production and the mutual recognition of the type approvals granted by member countries.
The standards by which automated vehicles will be approved safe for sale and use are still being discussed internationally at this UNECE working group, where the UK plays a leading role. We expect them to follow the way in which conventional vehicles have been judged safe to use. I will certainly look carefully at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to help inform our approach in those negotiations. We work with bodies such as the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, which participates in these discussions in a consultative capacity. We think that this is likely to form the basis of the type approval process which automated vehicles, like conventional vehicles today, must pass to be sold for safe use on UK roads.
Based on international standards and our evolving domestic regulatory programme, we expect it to be very clear which vehicles, including their software, can safely operate. The vehicles approved as safe by type approval will then go on to the list, so that our domestic insurance framework is clear which vehicles need which insurance products. The Clause 1 list of automated vehicles will not be the mechanism by which automated vehicles are regulated in relation to safety and security. That will be governed by future laws and technical standards, which we expect to be developed with the appropriate level of scrutiny and consultation, just as current road traffic laws and vehicle standards are developed.
On the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about consultation, these changes to domestic legislation, including road traffic laws and vehicle requirements, will generally undergo public consultation and have impact assessments carried out. They are subject to parliamentary scrutiny when amending legislation is laid in the House. Throughout the development of our policy in this area, we have consulted closely with industry. Given the understandable interest in this new area, we fully expect there to be full consultation when we see the regulations appear for automated vehicles. So I agree with the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to consult on the standards that will be set for automated vehicles. That is something that we plan to do, but I am again afraid that I cannot agree that this Bill, which relates to insurance provision only, is the right place for it.
I fully expect that future regulations for automated vehicles will cover many of the points in Amendment 10, including environmental issues, but we think that legislating in any way further, in the absence of the more detailed knowledge of the ultimate international design standards, risks us regulating ineffectively, potentially creating barriers to the use of this technology in the UK and therefore impeding innovation.
As the new technologies reach the point of market readiness, we will be able to set and define the standards, both internationally at a UNECE level and, depending on the outcome of the international discussions, domestically as part of our ongoing regulatory programme. As I have said, we fully expect this to be subject to full consultation.
Baroness Worthington
I wanted to ask the Minister whether she thought there was value. I understand that there will be lots of ongoing discussion, but there may be value in taking some enabling powers now so that we can move forward quickly. This is quite a competition among many nations, and it would be a great shame if we were to lose this parliamentary opportunity to take some enabling powers now.
Baroness Sugg
I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a fast-moving industry, and we absolutely want to position ourselves at the front of it. As my noble friend pointed out, I am in an unusual situation of being offered powers to Government. This is a narrow Bill, which I acknowledged at the beginning. We have been trying to ask only for powers which we know how we will use in the future. We have an amendment from my noble friend coming up on that, and it has been interesting to hear people’s views. At the moment, the Bill is focused entirely on insurance, but I will be interested to hear views from everybody around the House ahead of Report.
In Amendment 11, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is right to be concerned that vehicles must meet the appropriate safety standards, both before they are sold and to ensure their ongoing roadworthiness. They are important issues that will require attention from the Government, and we certainly expect safety throughout the vehicle’s life to form the basis of future regulation. We do not yet know, because of the technology, the timescale to expect for regular vehicle checks. As the standards have not yet been set, I am afraid that we are unable to introduce those detailed regulations at this time and in this Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley
On that point, the Minister says that the Government cannot introduce regulations at this time. Will it be primary legislation to do that, or does existing legislation give them the opportunity to produce regulations as and when required?
Baroness Sugg
Under the construction UNECE regulations, which are how we deal with conventional vehicles, we are able to introduce regulations, which is a potential future for automated vehicles. We have asked the Law Commission to do a far-reaching review on our regulatory framework for automated vehicles. That is designed to promote the safe development and use of automated vehicles, identify areas in the law that may be barriers to the use of automated vehicles, and propose potential solutions. One of those barriers was that we did not have an insurance framework, and those vehicles could not be insured. That is the purpose of the Bill. We are working with the Law Commission to understand where we need to make further primary or secondary legislation. As and when appropriate, the Government will come forward with legislative and regulatory proposals, and will absolutely consult on the detail.
I turn to the role of the insurer and my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 22. It is the policy intent of the Bill that it mirrors existing processes as closely as possible without making complex legislative changes to the existing framework. A vehicle is insured if there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain, a policy of insurance that satisfies the conditions in Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is the contractual obligation of the insured person to provide accurate information to the insurer. Failure to do so may result in the policy being voided.
I understand that there is concern that we are proposing an insurance framework before we have agreed the safety standards, and before we are sure how we will regulate for those, but as I said, the Bill is designed to enable insurers to begin developing new insurance products, in response to a request from the insurance industry. We want those insurance products to be developed now so that it will encourage further investment and research in automated vehicles in the country—something I am sure noble Lords are in favour of.
I hope that these words have assured noble Lords that there will be comprehensive safety standards, which will be informed by consultation, to ensure that only automated vehicles that can be used safely will be placed on the list. Again, I am afraid, as the Bill is solely considering a list in relation to the insurance framework and not these safety standards at this stage, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, before the noble Lord deals with his amendment, may I say that I am sad that I was right that the Government are determined to keep the Bill within its current scope? They are missing considerable opportunities in regard to my noble friend’s description of what the Bill would do: enable the insurance industry to develop new products, and enable us in this aspect to be ahead of the game and part of the international conversation. She talks about the advantage of legislating now, but the Government will not legislate now in other areas where they could simply and where I think the House would be inclined to give them quite wide powers to get on in this area. I am disappointed that the Government are taking this action. If I find opportunities beyond today to do something about it, I look forward to taking them.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I shall study the Minister’s response with great care, and I look forward to possible contacts between now and Report, and will decide whether to table further amendments then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Borwick
Lord Borwick
My Lords, as I mentioned a moment ago, in tabling these amendments, I felt that the legislation imposes an unnecessary and potentially damaging duty on the Secretary of State that he or she “must” produce a list. Governments hate being told that they must do something. It is normally a case of taxpayers “must” do something, but rarely Governments.
It seems ironic that Back-Benchers are offering amendments to say the Government “may” do something, but the Government themselves are insisting that they must. What if, through some administrative or IT failure, the Secretary of State did not produce a new list every time there was a single addition? I am assured by the Bill team that the mechanics of this list are such that there will be automatic updates with subsequent publication, and that the DVLA will act on behalf of the Secretary of State to ensure that it is not the imposition I suggest it might be. However, I still believe it important to note that, if lists are produced, they should include the vehicle registration. This is why I propose a detailed new clause in Amendment 12.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, about “must” and “may”. It is interesting that the Government like to put “must” on its own. I am sure the Minister will have a view on that.
I have a short comment on Amendment 12, which is in this group. I support it. The Minister may say it is too early but, if you are going to have a written notice under proposed new subsection (2), surely the documentation, certificates or anything relating to not only the vehicle but the software, control system and everything else should be included.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend on further regulatory powers in the Bill. As I said, I would be interested to hear views from noble Lords from across the House on further regulatory powers later but, at this stage, we are just not ready to make further regulation. That is why we have not asked for the powers.
The purpose of the list in Clause 1 is to allow manufacturers, owners of vehicles and insurers to know if the extension of the compulsory motor insurance in this legislation applies to their vehicle. The aim is to provide certainty to the automotive and insurance industries, as well as clarity to the public. As I have said, the list itself is not a mechanism to approve which vehicles are safe to use. This will be determined by future regulation, most likely based on international standards. The list in Clause 1 is simply to inform the insurance industry which vehicles require automated vehicle insurance.
My noble friend Lord Borwick’s Amendment 9, which replaces “must” with “may”, would imply that preparing, updating or publishing this list might be at the Secretary of State’s discretion. We believe it is right that the Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, who “must” ensure that the list, comprising any vehicle that may lawfully be used when driving itself on roads or other public places in Great Britain, is published and kept up to date. If the list is not updated, people may obtain the wrong type of insurance, leading to difficulties for victims in securing compensation quickly and easily. As I said, this aims to provide certainty.
In order for the Bill to deliver the insurance framework that it is intended to—this is after consultation with the insurance industry—it is important to maintain the list as a duty on the Secretary of State. Perhaps this is something we can discuss further before Report.
Amendment 12 concerns the duty of a manufacturer to notify the Secretary of State. I understand my noble friend’s intention but, at this stage, it is not appropriate to legislate in this regard. There are already existing processes in place when registering a vehicle or notifying changes regarding a status of the vehicle, and we are working with the DVLA on how to replicate these processes for automated vehicles. We have yet to complete that work, so we do not feel it is the right time to legislate in this regard. I hope that, given this explanation, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Borwick
“(a) damage is caused by an automated vehicle when driving itself,(b) the vehicle that caused the damage is insured at the time of the accident, and”
Lord Borwick
My Lords, we have reached halfway through the list before us today. This is a discussion about the difference between accidents and damage. I feel that, sometimes, the legislation as drafted moves fluently between the words “accident” and “damage”. I fear that that is open to misinterpretation, as an opportunity, by lawyers in the future.
It is critical that “caused” be defined in this Bill. A lack of a test of cause of an accident or damage to a person or vehicle will lead to years on end of appeals in cases. The Bill therefore has the opportunity to provide for a measure against a reasonable standard. The focus should be on what or who caused the damage, rather than the accident causing the damage. By doing this, the Bill could be a world leader in clarifying such a test, as has never been done before. We must accept that the public are nervous about this new technology, and the Bill should clarify what happens before, during and after an accident. It will clearly demonstrate that we have the citizen at the forefront of our minds.
The problem of leaving “caused” undefined is that, in so many processes, the Ministry of Justice is trying to reduce the amount of litigation. As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the magistrates’ courts are filled with motoring cases of liability for damage caused by somebody’s unreasonable behaviour. If we are careful with the drafting, we could help reduce that litigation in future. Therefore, I beg to move these amendments.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 17. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on this. The key issue is what sort of standards we can expect from automated vehicles. We are told, as has already been said, to expect far higher standards and few accidents. The estimate is an 80% reduction in the number of road traffic accidents once automated vehicles are fully established. After all, we know as humans that even very good drivers sometimes have a bad day, and we are not all very good drivers, but automated vehicles should always be on the ball. However, undoubtedly there will still be accidents, especially during the lengthy transition period, when some cars have drivers and others do not. There are even worrying tales of some pedestrians, in areas where automated vehicles are being trialled, playing chicken by testing how close you can get to the cars by stepping out in front of them, to see how quickly they will stop.
Legal advice we have received indicates that under the Bill as drafted, the insurer would be liable when an accident happens, even if damage is not caused or the damage caused is not the fault of the automated vehicle. My Amendment 17 would lower the standard by which the automated vehicle is judged to that of a reasonable driver. This, of course, removes the double standard the Bill would create—that an automatic vehicle is always safer than a manually driven car. It would therefore lower the burden on insurers.
I am not entirely sure about the term “reasonable” driver; I wondered whether “competent” might be a better word, but I was assured that “reasonable” is an accepted legal term and would be understood. I have tabled this simply as a probing amendment because we need clarity from the Government. After all, millions of insurance policies will rely on this Bill and the structure it creates. The Government have written the Bill expressly to prepare the insurance market for AVs, so it is vital that we have clarity on how the Government view the system they plan to create.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, in this group, replace “accident” with “damage”. This is an issue of technical legal terms, on which I would welcome clarification as well. I am very pleased to see that he has tabled his amendments.
Lord Borwick
I should perhaps earlier have declared my interest as chairman of the advisory board for the Gateway autonomous vehicle in Greenwich project, which has done a lot of work on the subject that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned—the habit of pedestrians testing autonomous vehicles. They found that in time, that habit reduces, not because the relevant pedestrians are squashed by the autonomous vehicle but because they get bored with the test. They might try it once, as a teenager, but they do not bother to try it again: it is a boring process. Boring a teenager is not something we should use as the basis of a safety standard, but it is a powerful factor in this matter. I very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and myself.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendments 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 24 seek to clarify the definitions of “damage” and “accident”, terms which are already in common use in road traffic legislation and case law. It may help if I set out how we have intended the provisions in this Bill to work. They are intended to mirror the existing conventional vehicle compulsory third-party insurance framework, found in the Road Traffic Act 1988, for automated vehicles. However, the Bill’s read-across with the Road Traffic Act has to be adjusted at times to allow for the lack of a driver when an automated vehicle operates in automated mode, which means that the Bill makes use of the word “accident” as a way of introducing the word “damage”, which in turn is defined in the Bill in a way that mirrors the meaning of “damage” in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Again, as I said, the aim of the Bill is to provide consistency with conventional vehicles in the 1988 Act.
“Damage” is defined within Clause 2 as,
“death or personal injury, and any damage to property other than … the automated vehicle … goods carried for hire or reward in or on that vehicle or in or on any trailer (whether or not coupled) drawn by it, or … property in the custody, or under the control, of … the insured person … or … the person in charge of the automated vehicle at the time of the accident”.
As I highlighted earlier, the policy intent of the Bill is that it mirror existing processes as closely as possible without making complex legislative changes to the existing framework. I appreciate the challenge from my noble friend in testing the Bill’s wording, but we believe that the task of mirroring the existing processes in the 1988 Act is best done by the wording as it currently stands.
Lord Borwick
Lord Borwick
My Lords, Amendment 19 addresses the problem at the back-end of subsection (2), where it says,
“allowing the vehicle to begin driving itself when it was not appropriate to do so”.
The problem may be that it might have been right for the vehicle to start off on a nice sunny day in London, and it then drives to Scotland, where it is snowing, and it is no longer appropriate. However, it was appropriate at the start of the journey, and it would certainly be right for the driver to allow the vehicle to begin driving itself at that time—but not right for him to allow it to continue to drive. That would be a simple change in the wording, which I have put in Amendment 19.
In Amendment 20, I address the question of what “not appropriate” means, when we could use the phrase “avoidable and unreasonable”, which I think is much more in keeping with legal custom than the word “appropriate”, because it can be argued as to what it means. Those are my two amendments in this group, and I leave to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, Amendment 21. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 21 in this group. The Bill as currently drafted means that the insurer or owner of an automated vehicle is not liable where the event was caused by a person allowing the vehicle to drive itself where it was not appropriate to do so. However, it does not define when it is or is not appropriate to do so. This amendment requires the Government to provide regulatory guidance for when it is and is not appropriate for a person to allow an automated vehicle to drive itself.
It would clearly not be appropriate in some circumstances for vehicles to drive themselves: for example, early automated vehicles might be deemed safe to use only on motorways and not on some urban roads. Another example would be that a software issue might arise so that using the automated function at that point would be inappropriate. Clause 3(2) is not clear enough in its intentions. Does it even apply to fully automated vehicles or bimodal vehicles? We need more clarity on this.
One of the primary purposes of Part 1 is to provide a framework to give insurers, manufacturers and potential users greater clarity, providing confidence and encouraging progress on automated vehicles. However, it is still not clear from the Bill what the Government have in mind about when their use would be appropriate. We are asking for regulations to be brought forward to better define those circumstances, because we cannot afford to have confusion here. People must be clear about where their obligations lie. If we are to see the growth in the industry we all wish for, we do not want to leave this issue hanging over it.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion to my noble friend in connection with Amendment 21. The most appropriate authority to make these regulations would be the Office of Rail and Road. It is responsible for safety on the railway; it should be responsible for road safety, but we have not got there yet. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would support me on that one. However, I hope that is a helpful suggestion.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, given Network Rail’s safety record over the last 10 years, I would absolutely support that recommendation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as we deal with a set of amendments dealing with handover, it is perhaps appropriate to give my noble friend a break, and I move over from the passenger seat. However, I assure the Committee that my noble friend remains in control.
The transferring of control of an automated vehicle between a human driver and the automated vehicle’s system will be an important factor in ascertaining how a vehicle safely and appropriately operates on UK roads. Straightaway I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who spoke to his Amendment 21, that of course we recognise the need to put in place a proper regulatory framework to ensure both the safe deployment and safe use of automated vehicles—I will say a bit more about that in a moment.
It is likely that the first automated vehicles to reach the market will be able to be used in automated mode only in specific circumstances or situations, with vehicles capable of full automation arriving further into the future. My noble friend Lady Sugg said a little more about that when we debated Amendment 4. For example, she said that these circumstances could refer to vehicles that have been geo-fenced—able to operate only in a very specific, defined area—or to systems that would operate only on motorways and other high-speed roads. It is likely that these vehicles will be designed to allow handover only in these very specific circumstances: for example, from the driver to the vehicle when the vehicle enters that geo-fenced area, and from the vehicle to the driver when it leaves, in a safe manner and when appropriate to do so.
It is anticipated that the relevant international regulations at UNECE level will reflect these limited use cases and handover process. It is possible that these regulations will contain requirements for the vehicle to be able to detect where it is so that the system cannot be used in other situations. These standards and regulations will be likely to form the basis of the type approval process which automated vehicles, like conventional vehicles today, must pass to be sold for safe use on UK roads or in other public places. They would then be covered by Clause 1.
At the moment, the powers we have are sufficient. We can use existing powers in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to revise existing, or create new, road vehicle construction and use regulations to transpose or reinforce new iterations of the global regulations as they appear. However—I repeat what we have said before during this debate—global regulations for automated vehicles have not yet been decided, and so it is not clear what changes in our domestic framework would be needed at the present time. It would be premature to ask for primary powers in a Bill that is just about automated vehicle insurance without more detailed knowledge of the ultimate design standards to which these vehicles will be held, or without knowing the outcome of the Law Commission review of the existing legal framework —which, again, my noble friend mentioned.
As regards handover of the driving to an automated vehicle, my noble friend Lord Borwick has proposed a different test from that in the Bill: that the handover must not be “avoidable and unreasonable”. These two words would be applied conjunctively by the courts, and the result would be that a person could be found to be negligent only provided “avoidability” and “unreasonableness” were both shown to be present. The Bill’s test makes for a lower threshold on the insurer by placing a stricter burden on the driver not to hand over in situations when it would be inappropriate to do so. While the technological and wider regulatory framework here is still very new and developing, it would be prudent to set a strict standard and relax it if appropriate once more is known. Therefore, in the Government’s view, the original text of the Bill should stand.
To insert “or continue” into Clause 3, as proposed in Amendment 19, would in effect legislate for the possibility of the user having some residual role in the driving task after the handover to self-driving mode is completed. When a vehicle leaves a geo-fenced area or comes off the motorway, it is anticipated that there will be a safe handover back to the driver, and the details of this will be covered by international safety standards. However, my noble friend’s amendment does not fit with the Bill’s definition of an automated vehicle, because this requires no monitoring while the vehicle is driving itself. I hope this explanation reassures him that his amendment is not necessary.
While, as I have already said, I am sympathetic to the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in Amendment 21, we think that we do not need these powers, as the definition of when it is appropriate for the vehicle to drive itself will be covered elsewhere in regulations. I hope that, given that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Can the Minister expand on where else in regulations these powers will be available?
Lord Young of Cookham
I think I said when I was speaking to the amendments that at the moment the powers we have are sufficient. We can use existing powers in the Road Traffic Act 1988 to revise existing, or create new, road vehicle construction and use regulations to transpose or reinforce new iterations of the global regulations as they appear. However, as has been the case with other regulations we have debated, on safety and other issues the Government will bring forward the appropriate legislative framework in due course if we do not already have powers under existing primary legislation.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the Law Commission report several times. Can he give any timetable for when the Law Commission will report on various issues? I am not just thinking about this one. One report on railway level crossings was completed about five years ago. I know that you are supposed to wait two years after a report has been produced before it is introduced into legislation. However, if one waits three, four or five years, the report’s conclusions may get out of date. I remember threatening the last coalition Government with putting the whole Law Commission report on level crossings down as amendments to a suitable Bill—it would have been about 50 pages long, but that was not the problem—in order to get the coalition Government to do something. My impression is that, because of all the Brexit legislation, everything has come to a grinding halt. I am not necessarily suggesting that the Minister will be able to answer my detailed question, but if he or a colleague could write to me on that, I think it would be a useful subject for discussion later.
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand that the Law Commission work on the issue that we are debating now is a three-year programme. I am not sighted on the level crossing review, but either I shall write to the noble Lord or, perhaps later on, during one of our debates, we can update the exact timescale of the Law Commission review of the existing legal framework for automated vehicles. Obviously, automated control is not in operation.
Lord Borwick
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. I think it would be useful between this stage and Report to talk more about the nature of “continue”. There will still be a duty, either on the vehicle to monitor itself, or on the passenger to monitor it; that person will be aware of conditions changing, and there will undoubtedly be differences as a result of a snowstorm occurring. I think the drafting could use some improvement—I am not sure mine is exactly the right phrasing—but I look forward to discussing it with my noble friend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question given yesterday by my honourable friend the Minister for Care on the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Programme annual report.
“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, as it is known, 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 £1.4m. 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”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating that briefing. He may find that the decision about the date of the publication was actually that of NHS England and, frankly, publishing it on the Friday before a bank holiday is either incompetent or shameful. However, seven years after the Winterbourne View scandal and five years since the avoidable death of Connor Sparrowhawk, the findings of this review show a much worse picture than previous reports about the early deaths of people with learning difficulties. One in eight of the deaths reviewed so far show there to have been abuse, neglect and delay in treatment and gaps in care. Women with a learning disability are dying 29 years younger, and men 23 years younger, than the general population; 28% of the deaths reviewed had occurred before the age of 50, compared with just 5% in the general population. This is a terrible situation.
I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, almost one in 10 of the people who have died have been in out-of-area placements, without the support of family, friends, or any local, familiar community support. The Government have repeatedly said that such placements must be avoided, so will the Minister tell the House what action is being taken to ensure that government statements and guidance on this matter are being followed? Secondly, will the Minister expand on the last part of the Statement, and tell us what action the Government are taking to address the alarming gap in life expectancy of people with learning difficulties?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions and agree with her that it is a troubling report; it paints a troubling picture of the shockingly poor outcomes that people with learning disabilities have in terms of their mortality and morbidity. I would not disagree with her about that picture and I will come to the actions we are taking to try and address it.
On the publication, I agree with her that the timing was less than ideal. The department did not have sight of it; it was an independent report commissioned by NHS England. We are investigating that, but I agree it was not done as it should have been and we will endeavour to ensure that this does not happen again. On the areas of policy that she referred to, on out-of-area placements there is a programme called Building the Right Support, which is trying to increase the amount of care delivered in community settings, bringing people with learning difficulties, disabilities and autism out of in-patient care to more suitable care in the community. The intention is to reduce the use of in-patient beds for people in mental health hospitals by 35% to 50% between March 2015 and March 2019. It is an attempt to locate much more of that care in the community.
The noble Baroness also asked about other actions we are taking to improve outcomes. I want to focus on the annual health checks that are now available for adults and young people from 14-plus years. That is happening every year. We know the use of these checks is increasing; it has increased by 17% year on year up to 2017-18. There is a real ambition to raise that further by 64% in 2018-19 compared to 2016-17. We know this group does not always feel equipped to come forward and bring health issues to the notice of the health system. It needs extra support; it needs people to be on their side, checking in with them to make sure their issues are addressed. I think this is one way in which we will make some difference.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of a learning disability charity that provides services for 2,500 adults in England. This report makes for uncomfortable reading for anyone involved in the sector and it should shock the general public. We are judged by how well we as a society care for those who are weak and vulnerable. On this count, we have failed. Each year, the deaths of 1,200 people with learning disabilities are avoidable. The standard of their care is not fit for purpose. There are not enough learning disability specialist nurses in the NHS and support staff are no longer being funded to support people with a learning disability in a healthcare setting.
I have three questions for the Minister. Do either the Department of Health and Social Care or Health Education England collect figures on how many health professionals attend training in dealing with people with a learning disability? What guidance is given to staff about the provision of written material in an accessible format? Finally, once admitted, learning disabled patients lose their funding from the local authority so they have no one who knows or understands them and they are left frightened and alone. Does the Minister believe this should be the case?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for raising excellent questions. We know that there is a need for more specialist nurses, and indeed that is one reason for the expansion of the number of nurse training places. The education and training of staff is a focus of the recommendations of this report and, equally, of the Mencap report. If noble Lords have not read that, I commend it too. Because it is a very good point, I will look into whether we are tracking the number of people who access training. Certainly there is now, and has been since 2016, an education and training framework for the care of people with learning disabilities. I believe that there is also one to follow for adults with autism, and that is welcome. However, as the noble Baroness says, it is about making sure that the staff use that training.
On the noble Baroness’s point about advocacy, I did not realise the funding issue that she raised existed. I will take that back and investigate it. I know that NHS England, the LGA and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services have put out joint guidance on advocacy for this group of people, but I will investigate the funding point and write to her.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of a social enterprise that creates communication resources for people with learning disabilities. My own research more than 25 years ago uncovered very similar shocking inequalities. The noble Lord has responded to a question about education but is it not now time for there to be mandatory education for all healthcare professionals? This is not a specialist matter. Does he agree that such training should be co-delivered by people with learning disabilities in order to reduce the fear and lack of understanding among health professionals when it comes to making reasonable adjustments? What action will be taken now?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The point that the noble Baroness makes about the involvement of people with learning disabilities in this process is critical. I did not respond to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, about communications with people with learning disabilities. Having written a manifesto in the past and having had it translated into the Easy Read format, I know that this is critical. I know that there are attempts to make sure that communications are made in that format where it is helpful to do so.
On the noble Baroness’s question about training, we have a really good template which my honourable friend Caroline Dinenage mentioned in the other place yesterday, and that is dementia training. It is tiered, with tiers 1 and 2, and it has been rolled out very broadly across the health and care sectors with great success. Therefore, I think that we have a template for doing this, and I know that my honourable friend is taking that forward. It was a specific recommendation in the report by the University of Bristol. My honourable friend committed to take forward with NHS England all those recommendations, and that is what we will endeavour to do.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given that the report recommends that there should be a named healthcare co-ordinator, yet there is a serious shortage of experienced learning disability medical and nursing staff and it will take some time for trainees to feed through the system, have the Government considered discussing with the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council ways of attracting back into the service older, currently retired professionals who might have a great deal of wisdom and might be motivated to work in a specific area, act as a person’s advocate and provide on-site teaching in conjunction with the person? They could take on the role of communicator and navigator to develop a strategic pathway for the person with learning difficulties or disabilities, and they could also have a role in teaching people about the signs of sepsis, pneumonia and so on, so that there are early alerts.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. Clearly there is a need to recruit healthcare co-ordinators. One positive thing that I would highlight is a recommendation in the report from the University of Bristol regarding the sharing of health action plans between health and care agencies. That is already happening and is one positive step. Her idea about bringing back into the profession more experienced professionals to act as advocates is a very good one. A concerted effort is being made to do that through the Return to Practice programme. I do not know whether there is a specific strand relating to people with learning disabilities but I will take that away and investigate it.
On her point about signs of sepsis, pneumonia and other diseases, which are among the causes of this early mortality, some good progress is being made. NHS England is creating new pathways in those areas specifically designed for people with learning disabilities, and I believe that it will be publishing some of them this year.
Renewal of G4S Contracts
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend Victoria Atkins MP:
“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 the autumn of 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 honourable 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”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question given by her honourable friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle in the other place yesterday.
We were all shocked at the appalling abuse at Brook House uncovered by the “Panorama” programme. As the noble Baroness said, regardless of status, all immigration detainees must be treated with dignity and respect. I agree with that entirely. However, I do not think that a further extension of two years can in any way be presented as a short-term continuation of the G4S contract to run the Gatwick immigration centres. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether any other options to this extension were considered—and, if not, why not? If they were, what were they, and why was it still felt that this was the best option? Further, can she tell us what measures the Home Office has put in place to ensure that there will be no repeat of the appalling abuse of detainees during this two-year extension? It is clear that whatever measures were in place before failed. The abuse was brought to light only by the “Panorama” programme and those involved should be congratulated on the work they did to expose the abuse at Brook House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cannot disagree—in fact, I do not think that anyone would disagree—with the noble Lord that watching the “Panorama” programme was very uncomfortable. It was shocking, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He asked why the contract was extended for two years and whether other options were considered. The two-year extension to May 2020 was to allow for the reprocurement of services. It is not an unusual amount of time when such a reprocurement is being undertaken.
The procurement and the longer-term contract will be for the provision of the operation, management and maintenance of Brook House and Tinsley House and the pre-departure family accommodation at Tinsley House, as I pointed out. It is to allow the Home Office to consider any relevant conclusions from the independent reviews by Stephen Shaw and Kate Lampard. The Home Office has received the Stephen Shaw report, and both are due to be published in the summer. All bidders in the current competition were told of this decision on 4 May.
The noble Lord rightly asked what the Government are doing in the light of the shocking findings by “Panorama”. Since the programme aired, the Home Office has worked closely with G4S to ensure that it responds vigorously and at pace to the issues highlighted by “Panorama”. The former Home Secretary, and Ministers Brandon Lewis and Caroline Nokes, have met G4S senior managers regularly to review progress, and that oversight will be maintained. We have set out very clear expectations for G4S in responding to the issues at Brook House highlighted by “Panorama”, and we are currently satisfied that G4S has responded well. It has appointed a new manager and dismissed nine members of staff; enhanced staffing levels with recruitment and training plans in place; introduced body-worn cameras for staff to provide more transparency and assurance around procedures there; refreshed and promoted its whistleblowing procedures, with additional training provided at the centre by the Jill Dando Institute; put in place an improved drugs strategy; and, as I mentioned, commissioned the independent review by Kate Lampard, which will report this summer. I think I have now answered all the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. The Government’s explanation for releasing this information on the Friday of a bank holiday weekend—because the decision was made during purdah—begs the question: why was it made during purdah? Can the Minister explain how granting a two-year extension to G4S to run these facilities, despite the undercover BBC report, is consistent with the fact that the new Home Secretary no longer wants a hostile environment for illegal immigrants? Whoever gets the contract, is this not what happens when people are detained not knowing how long they are going to be detained, and with more than 160 people a year being detained for four months or more? Surely an absolute limit on immigration detention, as exists in most civilised countries, would provide the incentive the Home Office clearly needs to resolve these cases quickly one way or the other.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He asked why there is a two-year extension, especially when G4S was the subject of the “Panorama” programme. I hope I have outlined to the noble Lord, through my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, what the Government’s expectations of G4S will be in this period—and the full reprocurement will provide a solid basis for further progress on all the issues I have outlined. We will continue to monitor the progress and the performance carefully. The conclusions, in due course, of Kate Lampard’s review and Stephen Shaw’s wider follow-up review will provide further opportunities to learn the lessons and embed good practice, both at Gatwick and across immigration detention more widely.
The noble Lord made the point about the hostile environment, and I have said several times since the new Home Secretary has been in post that that is not a term he wants to see, because of the connotations. He is more interested in a compliant environment, with people complying with immigration rules. As for people not knowing how long they will be detained, we are clear that people are detained for as short a time as possible. It must be noted that 92% of people in detention are not there for more than four months. Indefinite detention is against the law: it is not something that we do. Therefore, people are in detention for as short a period as possible.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that at the root of this problem is, possibly, not having a rigorous enough selection process for staff? The make-up of staff—for example, their attitude to immigration—is vital. I know that it is difficult to find the right staff, but it is absolutely essential if we are to change the culture of how we look at people in detention.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally agree with the noble Lord about the rigorous selection of staff. He will have heard me saying that nine staff have been dismissed in the light of the programme. However, going forward, it is not so much about those nine staff having been dismissed as about the staff who will be employed. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also talked about a humane environment. Humanity is at the heart of this: these are people, and they must be treated properly and humanely. I also talked about the whistleblowing procedures and the internal whistleblowing policy, which have been refreshed and reinforced. The engagement between case workers and detainees is a very important relationship that must be treated sensitively. The new arrangements will also strengthen our capacity to oversee the contract effectively. I totally agree with the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Judd
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this whole horrible saga has once more raised the strategic question of how far commercial culture can satisfactorily replace the tradition of public service, with its concentration on people? Has there not once again been too much concentration on targets and systems? We are dealing with people in crisis. It is difficult to imagine the turmoil and trauma that they and their families are going through. However firm our policy—and I am certain that it has to be firm—does the Minister not agree that we must have people in place who understand human relations and the predicament of the people with whom they are coping?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord always speaks with great humanity on such matters. It is probably fair to say that public outsourcing is not necessarily all good and private outsourcing is not necessarily all bad. What is important is that the service delivered meets the highest standards. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that human beings are at the centre of this issue and that some of them will be traumatised when they come into detention, so it is all the more important that they are treated sensitively.
Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Consequential, Transitional, Transitory and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2018
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Consequential, Transitional, Transitory and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2018 do not provide sufficient independence for the Office for Students (OfS) from Ministers; do not enable the OfS to engage effectively with students, student unions and the National Union of Students; do not enable the OfS to protect the institutional autonomy of universities, or the autonomy of the OfS board; and overemphasise the marketisation of higher education (SI 2018/245).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations relate to the establishment and operation of the Office for Students, the new regulator of higher education institutions. The OfS has replaced both HEFCE and the Office for Fair Access, which as a result of the regulations ceased to exist on 1 April this year, with the OfS taking on their statutory functions. I do not seek to challenge the passage of these regulations, but I welcome the opportunity to debate the establishment and future of the OfS at a time of major turbulence in our higher education system. We have seen the tripling of fees, the introduction of loans and the ending of maintenance grants promoted by a Government driven by a neoliberal ideology which places such faith in markets to the detriment of everything else.
What has been the outcome in practice? There is no competition in fees; students are leaving university with debts of around £50,000, a large majority of whom will not pay them in full; we have the most expensive undergraduate courses in the world; there has been a complete collapse in part-time provision; and a reduction in home-based postgraduate students. There is a huge uncovered gap in the public finances. The Education Policy Institute calculates that the contribution of student loans to net government debt is forecast to rise from around 4% of GDP today to over 11% in the 2040s.
Nor is it clear in what direction the OfS is going to take higher education. It is ironic that alongside the Government’s genuflection to free market ideology with the creation of the OfS, it brings with it the tools of what could be a heavy-handed regulator. It is an intention we have seen all too clearly in the character of the last Education Minister. One moment he was extolling the virtues of the market and new private providers; the next, threatening the same institutions with draconian punishments if they did not do what he, as the Minister, wanted. I fully accept that intervention in the pay of vice-chancellors might be justified in the public sector, but it sits rather uneasily in the competitive market that Mr Johnson was so keen on.
My key concern is whether Ministers, instead of promoting scholarships, encouraging research or a concern for truth, have as their goal turning the UK’s higher education system into a market-driven one at the expense of both quality and the public interest. This is not a broken system that needs shoring up and intervention; it is the second most successful higher education system in the world with four universities ranked in the top 10.
I imagine the Minister will refer to the regulatory framework for the OfS published in February this year. It certainly makes interesting reading and there are some positives. First, I am glad that it starts with an affirmation that our universities provide a world-class higher education sector. I am also glad that at page 15 it states that the regulatory approach is designed to be principles-based and that the imposition of a narrow, rules-based approach, with numerical performance targets or lists of detailed requirements, would risk leading to a compliance culture that would stifle innovation and prevent the sector flourishing. Spot on.
If the Minister wants to see a regulatory system that has all the wrong characteristics, look no further than the NHS, which seeks to combine the legal framework of a competitive market with intense micromanagement by Ministers and a plethora of regulatory bodies all pulling in different directions.
I welcome the statement, again on page 15, that once the regulatory framework is established its implementation will reduce bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation. My reservation is that in that framework I did not see what contribution the OfS would make to enhance the world-class status of our universities. Indeed, I could not see what the added value of the OfS was meant to be. I hope the Minister is able to explain that. The framework document seems to have an excessive belief in creating a market to drive competition, but nowhere have I seen evidence to suggest that this will enhance the sector overall.
The most depressing characteristic of the framework is that the language of the market is used so much. The use of the word “provider” is objectionable. No longer are Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, Sheffield or whatever to be regarded as universities or higher education institutes—they are to be called providers. Why on earth are we not using “university” or “higher education institute”? If it is because the Government’s legal framework is designed to allow tin-pot little institutions to be suddenly called universities, I cannot think of a worse reason for introducing market ideology into a sector which has shown itself to outshine country after country. The one thing I would ask the Minister to do is expel the use of the word “provider”. It is a typical government approach to markets they do not understand, and which threatens to reduce the integrity of our university sector.
I come now to the OfS and its independence. It has to be seen as an independent institution if it is to have credibility and inspire confidence among the public, students and universities. It has had a poor start. It was clearly complicit in the shambolic and over-political approach taken by Ministers to the board appointment process. It was not a good start by its chairman. The appointment of Mr Toby Young and his subsequent resignation was followed by an investigation by the Public Appointments Commissioner. He identified a number of problems, including all-male appointment panels, failure to provide information to the commissioner in good time and—this is the key point—risking the independence of the board by a too partisan approach to appointments. He found that the governance code was not followed, itself a breach of the ministerial code.
This is important because the composition of the board remains highly controversial even now. There is no active further education sector representative on the board, there is no one from the NUS and there is no voice for staff. The appointments process has been symptomatic of a Government who are clearly trying to use the OfS to pursue a deeply ideological agenda. At the moment the chairman seems to show no signs of resisting the Government’s intervention in the activities of this body.
On access and participation, which is the subject of this statutory instrument because of the changes it makes, the recent end-of-cycle report from UCAS offered concerning statistics, stating that young people from the most advantaged backgrounds are still 5.5 times more likely to enter a university with the highest entrance requirement than their disadvantaged peers. Les Ebdon, the outgoing director of Fair Access, said in response last month that,
“people with the potential to excel are missing out on opportunities”.
This is an unforgiveable waste of talent.
Within the new OfS structure we are to have a Director for Fair Access and Participation, but will that person have enough clout within the OfS to make a real impact on this problem? Will that person have a direct line to Ministers, and not simply report to members of the OfS board and the chief executive? Importantly, can I take it that that person will be directly available to parliamentarians?
The term Office for Students—which is slightly Orwellian—suggests that it is focused on outcomes for students. That we will see. However, a recent Treasury Select Committee report noted that without adequate information, an efficiently functioning market will struggle to develop. Prospective students face the unenviable task of determining whether to participate in higher education based on increasing quantities of university marketing material coupled with a lack of proven, reliable metrics for judging the quality of courses. Can the Minister say what the intentions of the regulator are in this regard?
I refer the Minister to Universities UK’s submission to the current review of post-18 funding, which made some very good points. First, it says that while students understand the general long-term benefit of entering higher education, they are much less certain of how that translates into benefits that relate to them personally and how benefits vary according to the choices they make; secondly, that government, in partnership with universities, should provide more targeted information to prospective students on the cost and benefits of higher education; and thirdly, that universities could develop their value-for-money statements to better explain how pricing decisions for undergraduate courses are arrived at. Those should explain how the university uses income from tuition fees and other sources of income to fund the student experience and other activities, such as research.
Finally, I come to private providers. In the Government’s desperation to promote new private providers, they are already playing fast and loose with the term “university”, handing it over without proper scrutiny or oversight. Every time the title “university” is given to a new provider, without ensuring that it provides a good education, that not only risks students and taxpayers being ripped off, but potentially damages the integrity and reputation of the whole system. The initial conditions of registration are designed so that providers do not need a track record in delivering higher education; nor do they need evidence of financial performance.
Those of us with some experience in the education sector know what happens when you do not have sufficiently strong entrance qualifications. I fear that we are going to see a train crash here. I come back to my original question about why the Government are putting the international reputation of our universities at risk. The health of those institutions is of crucial importance to the UK. Clearly, we need to do nothing that would put that position at risk. The OfS has a clear role in mitigating that risk, but it must respect the institutional autonomy of universities and resist the temptation to micromanage every corner of university life. Obviously, I wish it well, but I believe that its performance needs to be kept under close scrutiny. This debate is a good start. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, statutory instruments are never the most exciting things to debate because there is very little we can do to them. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for raising this, because it gives us an opportunity to raise concerns about the benighted Higher Education and Research Act and to ask the Government to clarify their position.
The noble Lord has expressed concern about many of the issues, which I share. The report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments into the OfS revealed a blatant cronyism in the appointments process, which was influenced heavily by the Prime Minister’s own special advisers. Apparently, special advisers at No. 10 blocked several nominees for the “student experience” role on the OfS board because they had been previously involved with student unions or had expressed opposition to the Prevent strategy. The report concludes that,
“the decision on whether or not to appoint one candidate in particular was heavily influenced, not by the panel but by special advisers”.
It concluded that there was a “clear disparity” in the treatment of different candidates, and parts of the process,
“had serious shortcomings in terms of the fairness and transparency aspects”,
of the code governing public appointments. That was a complete failure of process that ignored due diligence procedures.
We know that Toby Young was, until March, CEO of the New Schools Network, which received several sizeable grants to provide advice to sponsors setting up a free school. Ministers say that that support is now under review, and the Liberal Democrats have been calling for a reassessment of whether the award of those contracts followed due process. His appointment to the board was rescinded, but it should never have been allowed to get that far, both on his credentials and on the offensive views he had expressed.
I absolutely concur with the noble Lord that, given the large number of HE students who take their courses in FE colleges, it is really disappointing that the board did not appoint anyone from the FE sector. It is a highly valuable and important part of our education system, which is all too frequently overlooked and underfunded. Having a representative on the board we see as not only desirable but essential.
The appointments process has undermined confidence in the board of the OfS. Universities no longer see it as independent of Ministers and its fitness to regulate the sector must be called into question. The OfS must operate in a way that is proportionate, risk- based and truly independent of government. It must also have regard to its statutory duty to uphold institutional autonomy. The Minister will well remember the concerns voiced in this House over universities’ autonomy.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the scrutiny of these regulations, which are consequential on the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, provides an opportunity to take another look at the developments in the governance of UK universities and to consider where they are taking us. The education Act of 2017 encapsulated a modern view of the purpose of universities that is greatly at variance with a conception that prevailed for most of the 20th century. In the traditional view, which accompanied the expansion of universities that began in the 1960s, universities’ purpose was to create an educated population and to give it full access to our cultural and intellectual heritage, with no limit initially on the number of participants. Anyone who was capable of profiting from a university education should have been able to do so.
Nowadays, it is generally agreed among members of the Government and senior management of universities that universities should be regarded as institutions for training the workforce and for making discoveries for pursuing developments that might stimulate economic growth. The universities Act of 2017 attempted to direct the activities of universities to these ends via a plethora of regulations and initiatives that fall under three headings: the research excellence framework, the REF; the teaching excellence framework, the TEF; and latterly the knowledge exchange framework, the KEF. Work is under way to develop metrics to enable the Government to judge the successes and failures of institutions in each of these three areas and to award the available funds to support their activities accordingly. There has been a hypertrophy of university administration, which has arisen largely to service the demands of Governments. In most institutions, administrators now outnumber the academic staff.
The declared objectives of Governments have been mutually antagonistic and largely counterproductive. To recruit sufficient numbers of students in the increasingly competitive open market environment created by the present Government, UK universities are indulging in what has been described as an amenities arms race. They have been spending exorbitantly on student union buildings, swimming pools, sports centres and student accommodation. Things have had to give way to enable these developments. The university to which I am affiliated as an emeritus professor has declared the objective of reducing its salary bill by 20% to provide the funds for capital investments.
It is clear that there has been a conflict of objectives in the context of the teaching excellence framework. The assessments are based largely on measures of customer satisfaction. The provision of student amenities is liable to enhance this satisfaction. The reduction in the numbers of permanent teaching staff and their replacement by casualised teachers has provided some of the necessary funds. The casual workers are mainly drawn from among the postgraduate students but they include a growing number of post-doctoral teaching fellows on temporary contracts. This is bound to affect the quality of the teaching.
The research excellence framework involves a quinquennial competition among university departments to determine where they should be ranked in terms of their research output. Once more, the effect has been dysfunctional. These assessments are based on a so-called peer review by senior academics. Departments can guess what sort of research will be most favoured by closely examining the adjudicators’ research output. Innovative research and interdisciplinary research in particular tend to be discouraged.
The principal effect of the research excellence framework has been to compel academics to maximise their published output. They have learned to write several papers for the price of one good idea by contriving never completely to finish a research paper. In this way, there will be something left over on which to base a subsequent paper. A small voice used to remind me, whenever I became enthused by the prospect of a new research avenue of enquiry, that I could not afford to indulge in speculative research. My mission instead was to write papers. Only when I had produced a sufficient number of papers was I free to pursue the research.
The research excellence framework has also militated against the objective of doing applied research of a sort that might lead to industrial innovation. Such research is liable to be sponsored, in part, by an industrial enterprise. For that reason, it is often subject to industrial secrecy. An academic who seeks promotion through the excellence of their publications would be advised to steer away from such applied research, which might not see the light of day for many years. This is one way in which the research excellence framework comes into direct conflict with the objectives of the knowledge exchange framework, which aims to encourage the practical application of academic research. One cannot impose these contradictory requirements upon academics without driving them to despair. Nor can academics evade these demands, which are being placed upon them at the behest of the Government by university administrators. Vast amounts of time are liable to be spent in meeting the demands of the various assessment exercises, to the detriment of teaching, research and the transfer of knowledge.
The mantra of the present Government is to induce market competition into the university environment. University life is already very competitive. Hitherto the competition has been largely academic. Now there is intense competition to win research grants, since their acquisition is liable to be an important factor in achieving promotion. A young statistician in my department was able to make rapid headway on the basis of a grant from the Medical Research Council to pursue a very ordinary epidemiological investigation, which would not have incited any interest among his more cerebral colleagues. His preferment created intense jealously. Maybe that is too personal a story to dwell upon, but there is a point to be made. Applied research of this nature is best conduced in research establishments that are devoted to the relevant lines of inquiry, be they in medicine, pharmacology, telecommunications, aviation or whatever.
Britain was once endowed with many splendid research establishments within the public sector. These had strong relationships with universities, as well as with industry. Many of them were abolished in the 1970s and 1980s. It is wrong to expect universities to fill the gap that has been left, which is what the knowledge exchange framework is intended to force them to do.
I believe that the Government’s policies towards our universities are self-defeating. They are liable greatly to diminish the quality of our universities and their status in the world of learning.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad that I gave way to my noble friend because that was a very important speech. By the same token, I applaud my noble friend Lord Hunt’s speech. He reflected my own misgivings very powerfully. I should declare an interest because I have been, over many years, involved, and still remain involved, in the governance, in the widest sense, of some of our university institutions.
We applaud the standing of British universities. We cannot reflect enough on how that standing and admiration across the world has been achieved. It has certainly not been achieved with the language of “providers”, or of “customers” instead of “students”. In other words, it has not been involved in the context of an overriding commitment to market ideology. It has been achieved because of a long-standing and continuing commitment to scholarship, to learning and to the concept of the value of education as an end in itself, not as a means to an immediate end.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving us this opportunity to consider progress made and to mull over some of the issues. Over the course of the past six months or so, I have put down several Questions to the Minister on higher education matters, and I want to come to some of those. I am grateful always for his detailed replies.
Of course, the Office for Students did not get off to a very good start with our Foreign Secretary’s confidant being appointed to that board. The board has the title of Office for Students but does not seem to have students at the heart of what it does. It should have included somebody from the NUS and someone from further education.
Fear not for vice-chancellors, because the former chief lobbyist for vice-chancellors was appointed to the board. As one vice-chancellor recently put it, no doubt with a smile on his or her face, “For us, this is far better than having a former vice-chancellor on the board. We now have 130 vice-chancellors as our regulator”.
Six months ago, “Panorama”, which we have heard mentioned in the previous Statement, reported on some of the problems of higher education, particularly those of private colleges. I was quite hopeful that the Office for Students would deal with some of these issues. I have not been reassured. As for the responsibilities, it talks about a “light touch” in monitoring and self-regulation. It says:
“Further changes will make it quicker and simpler for new providers to enter the market, with an expectation that greater competition may mean some providers will exit”.
I do not want a light touch on some of these issues.
I have had several emails from various individuals who have attended a college. I am not going to name the college, but I want to give a flavour of this, and I am quite happy to hand these over to the Minister. One student says that the college charges money from students to forge their attendance record and to make assignments for them; the college makes fake timetables and uses names of its full-time staff members on the timetables in their ignorance and uses fake assessment schedules where names of staff members are used as assessors without their knowledge. The college charges students a proportion of their total student loan grant available to students in one year as a token of the college’s services to students, fakes pages and records on student assessments and uses the name of the Ministry of Defence and the RAF et cetera on its website in order to facilitate its dirty business. And so it goes on.
That really is not good enough. We talk about having the finest higher education system in the world, but practices like that do not help our reputation, and we need to do something about that. It cannot be just a light touch here and a light touch there. Proper action has to be taken.
I will turn to a few issues that I have also raised, such as essay mills. I moved an amendment on that to the Higher Education and Research Act and was assured that, if we could not get this under control, we would look at legislation. I was grateful for the Minister’s reply. He said—and I think it is important to put it out there—that he expects the Office for Students to encourage and support the sector to implement strong policies and sanctions to address this important issue in the most robust way possible. That gives me hope. Now that we have said that, we can come back in 12 months or so and see whether that has happened.
One of the issues we talk about is degrees of private colleges particularly being validated by our universities. Again I put a Question down about how the Government ensure that a consistent and professional level of external examiners appointed for degrees are validated by universities but not delivered by those universities. The Minister’s replied that these institutions are subject to a rigorous, risk-based approach to quality assurance. That did not happen at Greenwich College. Its degrees were validated by Plymouth University, which allowed the practices to go on. When those degrees were validated, I did not see that institution being subject to a rigorous, risk-based approach. Again, I hope that the Office for Students will tackle this issue properly. My noble friend Lady Garden and I have met the new chief executive of the Greenwich School of Management, which was the subject of that programme and where some of the most appalling practices were highlighted, and we were reassured by the approach that it is putting in place. We have been invited to visit the college in the summer.
Responsibility for equal opportunities is also conferred on the Office for Students. It is equal opportunities in its widest sense: equal opportunity of access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and equal opportunities for young people with special educational needs. Some fantastic work is going in terms of special educational needs. I came across a student who had completed her first degree at Leeds University and was going on to do a master’s degree. She had mild cerebral palsy and some other issues as well. That university has been stunning in the support that it has given her. Sometimes, when we moan about things, it is right and proper that we highlight good practice as well. Perhaps the Office for Students can take good practice and ensure that other universities highlight it as well.
I shall now give some examples of bad practice—again, I have put a Question to the Minister about this. Let us imagine that a student from a deprived community manages to get to a top London university. They get a first; their family is so proud of them and the ceremony to award their degree comes about. Suddenly, that young person from a deprived community is charged £45 for each ticket for their family—that is on top of having to pay for their gown and their photograph. That is absolutely disgraceful. We are talking about a top London university. It should not happen. When I wrote to the vice-chancellor, I was told that it did not even have a bursary award to support students in such a situation.
When we were talking about TEF, I remember being concerned that we might see universities going down the road of schools and hanging out banners equivalent to those saying, “Ofsted regard us as an outstanding school”. The prediction came true, because I was driving past Hope University in Liverpool and nearly crashed the car when I saw banners hanging outside the university—incidentally, Hope University is the only ecumenical university in Europe—declaring: “Hope has got a gold standard”, with leaflets given out here and there.
At Second Reading of the higher education Bill, the Benches opposite were packed out. I think that I was the only person who did not declare an interest—there were vice-chancellors, former vice-chancellors, chancellors and masters. They are not here now. I thought at the time, “It’s a pity we haven’t got a student standing up, because we need to listen to students”. For students, universities are about getting a job, getting an experience and getting a qualification. I hope that the Office for Students will be plugged into students and will hear what students want loud and clear, because that is what it must be about.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling this Motion. It is clear from it that the regulations are not in themselves at the heart of what troubles noble Lords and that, as the noble Lord said, this debate is intended instead to go somewhat broader on a number of issues, many of which have been raised previously in this House, not least during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act, or HERA as it is known. Indeed, we spent about 110 hours debating the Act in both Houses, had more than 1,300 amendments and made at least 31 major concessions. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity again to touch on the issues raised in the Motion.
I want to put on record as a reminder what the regulations will enable. In particular, they enable the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation to exercise the statutory functions previously exercised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which we know as HEFCE, and the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education. This will be for a transitional period between 1 April 2018, when HEFCE and DFA ceased to exist, and 31 July 2019, after which the new regulatory system under HERA will be fully functioning and the old system will in essence fall away for good. The transitional period allows for a smooth progression to the new system of regulation introduced by HERA, so minimising any disruption in the sector. The consultation on the OfS regulatory framework explained how this transition would work and the proposals were met with general approval by those responding.
Let me now address the four key issues that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt has raised. I want to spend some time on them, despite the Benches opposite being not exactly full for this debate as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, pointed out. On the first issue, the independence of the Office for Students from Ministers, I remind your Lordships that the House voted for the OfS to be an operationally independent statutory body, responsible and accountable for a much broader suite of functions than was its predecessor, HEFCE. Let me be quite clear: in regulating all registered higher education providers, it is the OfS, and not the Secretary of State, that determines and publishes the registration conditions applicable to providers, the registration categories and its own regulatory framework. The Secretary of State’s powers to attach terms and conditions to OfS grant funding and to give directions to the OfS are limited. The OfS is required only to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State and not to follow it. However, I think that noble Lords will agree that it is important that the OfS has obligations to report to the Secretary of State, and these are set out in HERA. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the OfS also has obligations to produce annual reports and accounts, and these are publicly available.
A recent example will help me illustrate the reality of the OfS’s independence. While the department started off the consultation exercise on the conditions and regulatory framework, working with the then future OfS chair, CEO and Director for Fair Access and Participation, once the OfS was established in January 2018, it did not simply adopt the proposals outlined in the consultation document produced by the department. The published framework differed from the consultation draft in some significant respects. For example, taking into account responses to the consultation, the OfS decided to drop the registered basic category of the register which the department had proposed. I hope that this small example helps to reassure noble Lords that the OfS acts, and will continue to act, independently from Ministers.
On the second issue raised by the Motion, I might begin by laying out exactly how the OfS engages with students. The Office for Students’ approach to regulation and its statutory duties, as set out in the regulatory framework it published in February, is bold, student-focused and risk-based. It is consistent with its statutory duties, which, again, this House voted for.
We expect all members of the OfS board to engage with students to ensure they really understand the issues that they face and have these as considerations when making decisions and exercising their functions. HERA ensures that there is to be at least one OfS member with experience of representing or promoting higher education students’ interests, either individually or generally. However, I am pleased to say that the OfS went one step further: it should be a further reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it has set up a student panel where all 13 members are either students, prospective students or recent graduates. This membership includes current undergraduate and postgraduate students, part-time and international students, prospective students at GCSE and sixth-form ages, and a representative from the NUS. This provides a direct channel into the OfS itself, bringing a diverse range of views and perspectives. It is also worth noting that the current student representative on the board is also a full member of the student panel.
It bears repeating that HERA sets out the requirements to be met in appointing OfS members, and the desirable criteria for the make-up of that membership that the Secretary of State must consider. These statutory requirements were all subject to a rigorous parliamentary debate in this House about whether particular representation was necessary to enable the board of OfS members to operate effectively. Parliament concluded that there should not be a requirement for specific representation from every single part of the sector. Instead, the criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard include experience of providing higher education, and from a broad range of different types of English higher education providers. We consider that the current OfS membership meets these criteria.
I recognise that the appointments process for OfS members has not necessarily been as smooth as one would have hoped, a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, with some further criticisms. I reassure your Lordships that the department has looked carefully and seriously at all the recommendations of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we have already made improvements to the DfE diligence processes in line with the Commissioner’s advice. To further ensure the robustness of these processes, we have established a DfE nominations committee, to ensure adherence to the Government’s code on all future public appointments. I will also update noble Lords on the couple of appointments still to be made. The competition for the OfS member with student experience is to be launched shortly, as the current appointment is on a short-term basis only. We will run a separate competition for the vacancy left by the resignation of Toby Young later in the year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, has raised on a few occasions, including today, her wish for a representative from the further education sector to be on the board: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised this as well. We encourage such representatives to apply when the competition is launched. We also, of course, continue to communicate with the Commissioner for Public Appointments on these appointments.
I move on to that old chestnut of institutional autonomy: the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, should be reassured that I remember it. It was debated at length during the progress of HERA through both Houses of Parliament, but it bears repeating: after amendments by your Lordships, HERA brought in the most robust statutory protection for institutional autonomy that has ever existed in our modern higher education system. It placed new and explicit protections for the freedom of English higher education providers. I do not think anyone disagrees about the importance we place on institutional autonomy and academic freedom, and this is reflected in the duty of the Office for Students, in carrying out all its functions, to have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers. That duty also applies to the Secretary of State when issuing guidance, giving directions by regulations and determining terms and conditions of grants to the OfS. This means that the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers when exercising any of these functions.
The final issue within the Motion refers to the overemphasis on making the higher education sector more of a market. I would like to put this in a slightly different way. Students are surely better protected when we make them aware of their rights in relation to their education, including their rights as consumers. I use this word with some caution because I know from previous debates that this is a term that does not best please a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but I use it nevertheless. I make no apology for what the noble Lord refers to as “marketisation”. Surely the House will agree that students should rightly expect the best quality and robust standards in their higher education study and experience, and equally be protected from concerns about governance and financial stability. The OfS sets clear expectations about how providers should go about this, through conditions of registration. For example, the OfS has now introduced a registration condition for student protection plans, to set out what students can expect to happen should a course, campus or institution close, to ensure that students can complete their courses or be compensated if this is not possible.
I turn to questions raised during this short debate, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, who spoke about the word “provider”. Let me say that not all higher education providers are universities. “Provider” includes universities, but the terms are not interchangeable. There are special protections attached to the use of university title and providers have to meet tests in order to call themselves a university. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, asked whether the OfS has the expertise necessary to undertake the vast number of tasks that it has been set or that we gave it. The OfS combines the expertise of its diverse board, its student panel and its staff with the experienced leadership of its chair, Sir Michael Barber, and its CEO, Nicola Dandridge. It is well placed to perform its functions, we believe, during the transition period and beyond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, spoke about the TEF external review and the subject TEF. I reassure the House that the TEF review is going to take place and, of course, I have said from this Dispatch Box that we need to move to a subject-level TEF. By extending the test to the subject level, the Government aim to help prospective students compare the different courses on offer across institutions. This will shine a light on course quality, revealing which universities are providing excellent teaching and which are perhaps coasting or relying more on their research reputation.
I would also like to raise myself the issue of essay mills, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I know he has raised it on other occasions in this Chamber. I start by saying, and I am sure the whole House will agree with me, that cheating of any kind at any level is completely unacceptable, particularly to the department and to the country. We have given the new regulator, the OfS, the power to take appropriate action where this is happening, including fines, suspension from the OfS register or, ultimately, deregistration of the provider—the highest possible punishment. We have given the OfS the power to impose fines when it is fully operational. The Government have already taken action to ensure that universities know their responsibilities and have instructed leaders across the sector, including the NUS, the QAA and UUK, to create new guidance, which was published last year, as the noble Lord may know, setting out their roles when it comes to cheating. However, we are reviewing its effectiveness, particularly because of the seriousness of this issue. The Department for Education has ensured that the parliamentary passage of the Bill did not rule out legislating in the future: that is a measure of the seriousness with which we take it.
I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who spoke about what he called an amenities arms race. We believe that investing in the student experience via new facilities and by other means is a good thing, but rest assured that the TEF and the regulation provided by the OfS still puts the greatest stock on teaching quality and provision.
Finally, I think it is worth reflecting on what has happened since the Higher Education and Research Act received Royal Assent. As planned, the OfS was up and running from 1 January 2018 and officially launched on 1 April 2018. In the meantime, the designated quality body and designated data body were announced after recommendations by the OfS. The OfS published its regulatory framework and registration conditions on 28 February and the Secretary of State’s guidance was issued shortly before that date. The OfS has established and convened the aforementioned student panel to advise on strategy and activity. The OfS is now registering providers with early student recruitment cycles, and on Monday 30 April published its strategy and business plan for 2018-19.
To conclude, clearly there are strong views still on all sides of the House. I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I will review Hansard to be sure that I have covered many of the points he made. Understandably perhaps, he used a broad brush to cover a range of issues, including tuition fees. He will know that the post-18 review is looking at the funding of tuition fees. I will look carefully at what noble Lords have said, and indeed what I have said, and if a letter is merited, I will certainly write to noble Lords and leave a copy in the Library. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords about the reasons for this order and on the questions they have raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw his Motion, but of course that is entirely his decision.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full response, and to other noble Lords who have spoken. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, at the heart of this is our concern about the autonomy of our universities and the independence of the OfS. These become ever more important because marketisation increases the risk of perverse incentives being put in place, as well as the temptation to do so.
The Minister, commenting on what my noble friend Lord Hanworth said about the amenities arms race, said that you have to ensure that students have a good experience. I agree, but he said that when the reviews of students’ attitude to their university are done, which then feed into the teaching quality, often it will be the amenities that they judge. If those amenities are developed at the expense of investment in academics and the casualisation of those academics, with all the insecurities that that brings, it is a matter for some concern and at least debate.
My noble friend Lord Judd talked about the international standing of our universities, which he said depended on scholarship, learning and education as goods in themselves. I have seen nothing to suggest that the OfS has any understanding of those values, which is why we are so concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the important question of these new private colleges—call them what you will—which are to be given university title and allowed into the sector without appropriate scrutiny of whether they are capable of taking on the awesome responsibility they have been given. So far, from what I have read of the OfS approach, the risk seems to be that colleges such as Greenwich will actually come under a lighter-touch regulation than institutions which have provided wonderful excellence over decades or hundreds of years. That is the charge that I put to the Government: why are these wretched private institutions to be given such an advantage when they come into a sector that is universally recognised as brilliant? The Minister has not answered that question. As for the gold star for Liverpool Hope University, the Minister forgets that it would have to be “Liverpool Hope Provider”.
I am grateful to the Minister for his very full response, which is always appreciated. He said that the OfS will be operationally independent and the Secretary of State’s powers of intervention are limited. The OfS has to show that it is independent. The chairman could have shown he was independent by resisting the intervention by special advisers in the appointment of Mr Toby Young. He did not. That is why his own position and judgment are in question and why he has an awful lot to do to show that he can carry out his job effectively. People are put to the test. He was put to the test. I do not think he succeeded.
Of course it is important to engage with students and the students’ panel is welcome, but it is no substitute for having somebody on the board of the OfS who can actually represent the views of the NUS. It remains a big issue for the credibility of that body.
On the core issue of marketisation, the Minister said that surely students have the right to good information. I totally agree and anything we can do to provide that information is to be welcomed; Universities UK’s evidence points to the direction. But students’ right to information does not equal a market or marketisation. That is why “provider” is such a pejorative term. For the sake of a few tin-pot organisations that are going to be allowed into the sector, we eradicate the concept of university and call them all providers. At the least that shows rather limited thinking.
At the end of the day the OfS has our good will. We hope it will do a good job. But we remain concerned that the Government’s intent is, in effect, to damage the university sector, with huge consequences for our country. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill
Wednesday 9th May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 View all Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 133KB) - (4 May 2018)
Lord Borwick
“(b) the manufacturer of the automated vehicle (or owner or registered keeper retrofitting or modifying the vehicle to become an automated vehicle) failing to ensure that latest safety-critical software was automatically installed before that vehicle was moved from a parked and deactivated position.”
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, as we go through this Bill, it is remarkable how many amendments overlap each other. It was not necessarily apparent at Second Reading, but we have all from our different directions come out with the same answers. One of them is in the update of safety-critical software.
This Bill seems to have taken some time to go through another place and then to arrive here. Since we first heard about it, it has changed its name on various occasions. It has had aviation included and then taken out. During this period—which I have variously heard has been two or five years—things have changed. The Bill is written as if it is the job of the insured person to update the software. That might have been true five years ago, but nowadays the software is updated automatically. We are, after all, talking about an automated vehicle—the software should be updated automatically.
I believe that the drafting, as we have it, of Clause 4(1)(b) should be changed to the wording in Amendment 23. It is perfectly easy to programme the software so that the vehicle will demand itself to be updated and will not move unless it is done. Given that this is safety-critical software, we ought to make certain that this vehicle itself has enough ability to know whether it is up to date. It can easily do that with modern software systems. So making certain that the vehicle updates itself before it moves from wherever it is in a parked and deactivated position will be perfectly easy. Nowadays, with the design of the Tesla vehicle, all the updating is done automatically—sometimes without the knowledge of the owner or driver. It is easy for the manufacturers to do and a much more modern way of looking at it than the drafted wording in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 25 in my name and—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The noble Lord should speak to the amendments.
Lord Tunnicliffe
You are quite right. I am a pedant as well, and proud of it. I shall start again.
I rise to speak to Amendments 25 and 28 in my name. The first concerns insurance, which is what the Bill is supposed to be about. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has said, because of the time this Bill has been in gestation, the language is not perhaps as we should like. It has effectively defeated me. If you look at Clause 4, for instance, we have:
“an insured person … an insured person who is not the holder of the policy …someone who is not insured under the policy in question”,
and then we have, simply, “that person”. I got lost working my way through it.
What this amendment tries to do is to protect the innocent party. What we need from this Bill is that, when an innocent party is injured or their property is damaged by an automated vehicle, they get the money without quibble and all the legal battles take place between the insurance company and whomever may be responsible for the event. It may be that the Bill, as drafted, achieves this. I shall be happy if the Minister tells me that, provided she accompanies it with a plain language explanation as to how the clauses and subsections get us to that point. I do not think this Bill is going to win a crystal mark for clear English.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the victim or damaged party. We must be clear that the insurance system put in place for automated vehicles is designed in such a way that it does not cause any delay or question over the payment of compensation to the victim, if there is any dispute between the insured person and the insurance company over responsibility for the accident. As the technology becomes more complex, so too could the decision about who is to be held responsible. I understand that this Bill aims to set out the liability of insurers for automated vehicles. So I am seeking clarity from the Minister on this point to ensure that the victim of any potential accident is at the front of our minds when we are discussing these issues.
I shall now speak to Amendment 28. Under the current drafting of the Bill, people would be able to drive their automated vehicle on the roads without having the latest updated software, which could lead to safety risks. The clause would require the Government to introduce regulations requiring automated vehicles to be up to date in order for their automated functions to be used. If a vehicle had a serious mechanical fault that could endanger the driver and others, we would not allow it on our roads. It makes sense that an automated vehicle would similarly present an increased safety risk if its operating system were not updated.
Without the new clause, people would be able to take an un-updated vehicle on to our roads, either by accident or on purpose. Insurance companies could surely factor the increased risk into premiums, which would be higher as a consequence. Most people with smartphones or computers are likely to have software that prevents them from being used until it is updated. There does not seem to be any reason why a similar mechanism could not be included in automated vehicles. By preventing un-updated vehicles from being used, we would achieve safer roads and cheaper insurance.
The primary benefit of AVs is that they reduce the likelihood of human error, yet one of the few areas where scope for human error remains—the responsibility for ensuring that software is updated—would not be addressed even though it would not be difficult to do so. The new clause would address that.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, it seems that the Government have not thought widely enough about the issue of how software operates these days. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, there is an element here of the concepts being slightly out of date.
My car’s software is automatically downloaded. We became aware a few months ago that it had been updated and now, no matter where we went, it told us that we did not have enough electricity to get there—which is taking range anxiety to its extreme. The problem is that, two visits to the repair shop later, they still have not been able to fix the problem. I would be pretty upset if this were an automated car and people said it was my fault when clearly I had faulty software.
It is also important to remember that, even though software might be automatically downloaded, individuals still have a responsibility, and that responsibility is not to interfere with it. It is not beyond imagination that software on automated cars might impose a maximum speed of 90 miles per hour so that you could not go any faster. It would not be impossible for someone who was pretty clever at interfering with software and writing their own to override this. Clearly there needs to be something in the Bill that expresses the fact that owners, drivers and users of these vehicles should not interfere with the software.
My point is that the Government need to rethink this, about a year or 18 months on from when it was originally thought about, and look at it from the modern perspective of the issues that we are all aware of now in relation to software.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, these are interesting amendments. When my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe was speaking to Amendment 25 and mentioned the word “victim”, I began to think, “Well, who is a victim? Can a car be a victim, or only a person?” I think it is too late tonight to start a long debate on that, but perhaps the Minister could think about that some time.
I turn to Amendments 23 and 28. My worry about Amendment 23 is: what happens if the manufacturer has gone bust? In other words, the manufacturer does not actually have to be the person who supplies updates; it can be anyone. My gut feeling is that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s Amendment 28 is better because it just says that the vehicle may not be operated unless the application software relating to the vehicle’s automated function is up to date. I think that would cover what Amendment 23 covers but in a better way.
What nobody has mentioned tonight, which the noble Baroness touched on, is what happens if the software does not work and you are stuck on a motorway or in a one-way street and cannot move the car? Again, I think that is a debate for another day, but I hope the Minister will have some response to the points made by many noble Lords, particularly about who updates the software.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Borwick that software updates should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. They are capable of updating it, and of making it automatic that it is updated. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that systems need to be better than they are at the moment. I note that my iPhone issued by this House is automatically updated with software. About two weeks ago it deleted all my telephone contacts and it resists all efforts by all our excellent people in this House to restore it to normality, because Apple takes no responsibility for this, of course. It just produces the update and there is no recourse to make the thing work properly.
In the case of automated vehicles we absolutely need to have recourse to the manufacturers, and they need to know that that is where liability for these things rests. It is their responsibility to make sure that their fleet of vehicles on the roads is up to date and functioning as expected. This reflects back into other aspects of the Bill that we have already discussed, as to who should be allowed to make modifications and how the whole fleet of autonomous vehicles should communicate with each other.
I am also happy with Amendment 25; it is an excellent thing. I would only point out in the drafting of Amendment 28 that it refers to “public roads” whereas the Bill refers to “public spaces”. With reference to a conversation I had earlier with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that presumably includes the airspace above public spaces, so the Bill includes your future Amazon drone wandering along six feet above the pavement to drop your parcel over your gate. I see nothing in the Bill that excludes airborne vehicles—or indeed waterborne vehicles—so I presume that both are included in that definition of public spaces. I do not know which definition of public spaces is being referred to. The ones I can find in legislation are pretty vague and not really related to this subject, but I would assume that at the same time as thinking we are dealing with road vehicles, we are also dealing with ones that could be airborne—at least within reasonable reach of the ground.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, I think I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, being better than my Amendment 23. It is better because the point about manufacturers going bust had not occurred to me—so putting it into the passive is a much better way of doing it.
Amendment 25 seems to be approaching a sort of strict liability basis, with the automated vehicle’s insurer responsible even if that vehicle was not responsible in any way for the accident. I refer him to the accident that was reported a couple of days ago with a Waymo vehicle in which another car went into it. It was absolutely not the fault of the automated vehicle; it was hit by a manually controlled car. In that case it would seem to be particularly unfair that the insurer of the automated car had to pay out and then recover from somebody else. That was an entirely innocent case where the automated vehicle was totally not responsible for the accident.
A lot of this will come out in due course as we learn more. It is a problem at this stage that we have to legislate to get the insurance right in an industry that is developing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the provisions in the Bill will ensure that victims of an accident caused by an automated vehicle that is driving itself will be covered by the compulsory insurance in place on the vehicle. It is the intent that the victims of such accidents will get quick and appropriate compensation.
In Amendments 23 and 28 my noble friend Lord Borwick and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raise the important issue of safety-critical updates to vehicles. It is not the function of the Bill to provide software standards or requirements for automated vehicles. The Bill provides an insurance framework so that victims have quick access to compensation in line with existing practices, and is just one element of a wider regulatory programme to ensure that people and businesses in this country can benefit from the safe introduction of automated vehicles.
The purpose of Clause 4 is to deal with the relationship between the insurer and the insured person in certain circumstances. This addresses the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It exists specifically to deal with the insurer’s freedom to exclude liability in the small number of potential situations where the owner needs to act to install a safety-critical software update and knowingly chooses not to install it, or the owner makes unauthorised software alterations, thus putting themselves and others in harm’s way. The clause is designed specifically to deal with that. It mirrors the situation for the compulsory insurance of conventional vehicles, where a driver would not be protected if they drove a vehicle that they knew was unsafe or not roadworthy.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Perhaps the Minister could help me a little here. If a vehicle is not insured today, and a pedestrian is harmed, say, who had no responsibility at all, my understanding is that they will get an instant payout from some sort of collective fund. Is that correct? If it is, is it the intention of the Bill to have a similar situation, including possibly defective software?
Baroness Sugg
I am pleased that the noble Lord has allowed me to address this point, because it goes to defective software. As the noble Lord said, it would be a legal requirement that all automated vehicles must be insured, but there will be instances when vehicles are driven illegally, as we see today. I will take this opportunity to clarify that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau will continue to play the same role as it does now with uninsured and untraced drivers, so that victims involved in collisions with uninsured automated vehicles will have quick and fair access to compensation, in line with conventional insurance practice. This arrangement is not currently covered in legislation nor included in this legislation; it is covered through an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. We are discussing what changes are needed to that agreement to sufficiently and appropriately incorporate automated vehicles within the existing process.
On software updates, Clause 4 anticipates that vehicle manufacturers will want to ensure that their vehicle systems are as safe as possible for consumers. As my noble friend Lord Borwick said, we expect that most updates will be done automatically and will be the responsibility of manufacturers. This is something that manufacturers acknowledge. Vehicle safety standards, which include software, as I have mentioned before, are still being discussed at the UNECE level. The requirements for system updates form part of the international discussions on the standards that will ultimately form the basis of the type-approval process that the vehicles must pass before they are sold in the UK.
There will be robust standards in place before these vehicles arrive to market, which will include the updating of safety-critical software. I can reassure noble Lords that vehicles will have to meet these standards before they are made available on the market. I fully appreciate the noble Lords’ intention to ensure that automated vehicles’ software is up to date, so that they are functioning safely—but, as with our previous debate on standards, we do not think it is right to act unilaterally at this time.
All noble Lords, including myself, are in the same place on this. We expect that vehicles will not be deemed safe to use, and therefore will not be placed on the list and covered by insurance, unless the safety-critical software is in place. It is a complex issue; we still do not know exactly how the software is going to work. We see some good examples from Tesla and Apple, but this is part of extensive conversations at an international level, with manufacturers and other countries, to understand how best to deal with this.
Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, requires the insurer to pay out first and then recover from the liable party. I hope that I can say this in plain English. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4 already work with Clause 2, where the insurer has a first-instance liability to pay the injured party. I believe that Clause 2 is clear on that, and where the liabilities of insurers are when the accident is caused by an automated vehicle. I think that the current wording fulfils the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Right of insurer to data and control
(1) An insurer may require, as a condition of insurance, that an automated vehicle transmits to the insurer when requested, at specified intervals or in real time, such data as the insurer may specify.(2) An insurer may require, as a condition of insurance, that an automated vehicle behaves in a fashion specified by the insurer on receipt of electronic instructions from the insurer.”
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 26, which has at its heart the flow of data between a driver and the insurer—but, more particularly, between an automated vehicle and the insurer. It suggests that the insurer should have the right to require data flows to be made in ways that are specified by them to support the contract for insurance. I am particularly thinking of data that might flow at the time of an accident so that the insurer can capture the full dataset at that point rather than risking it being destroyed, perhaps by a later fire or some other consequence of the accident. But we might also get a situation in which insurance flexes with the state and use of the vehicle. To go back to an aspect of my earlier Amendment 10, data flows are an important part of how we consider our relationship with automated vehicles.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, Amendment 27 is a probing amendment, triggered when I first read this Bill, which happened at about the same time as the very first fatal accident in America from a Tesla vehicle, when it was it was speculated in the press that Tesla would not release the data from the vehicle because it had proprietary value to Tesla. In fact, as I understand it, Tesla released the data in due course. However, I could imagine circumstances in which the owner or manufacturer of an automated vehicle believed that the less which was found out about this accident, the better for them.
One of the greatest advantages to the insurance industry of the automated vehicles is the enormous quantity of data that will be available from them. Not only will there be the product of six or more cameras facing every single direction but all the other information picked up about speeds can and will be stored in the vehicle as it goes by. Maybe the industry would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that to delete such data would be the offence of perverting the course of justice. However, in the meantime I wanted to propose the amendment.
Amendment 30, the next one in this group, is on the question of regulations, which has already been touched on in earlier debates about standards. However, I believe that the range of aspects of automated vehicles that we have discussed this evening is very great, and there is clearly a lack of knowledge on the part of noble Lords such as myself, not just about the sheer detail of this but about the industry and what is coming on. So many different things are happening, and each of them is an outstanding opportunity for the country. We need a legislative background that can cope with completely new circumstances, not only prohibiting things that are brand new and thoroughly bad but permitting things which are brand new and have not been invented yet.
On the suggestion that we can revert to new primary legislation, given the number of years it has taken to develop this legislation and the constant pressure on legislative time in both Houses, it would be wise for the Government to take regulatory powers to come up with new regulations to deal with new matters. Therefore, these limited new regulatory powers are proposed in Amendment 30.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I take this opportunity to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for a little more information about his intention with regard to this amendment on transmission of data. One can see advantages to that flow of data, and one knows that it would naturally take place, because technically it can take place. However, there are huge issues about privacy. I am not entirely sure that I would want—to grasp an example from the air—information to be in someone else’s hands about the fact that I go swimming every week, so that suddenly a department store starts trying to sell me swimsuits every day of the week. I do not want that unnecessary invasion of my privacy. There could be very much more sensitive issues. I could be visiting a hospital and wanting to keep my medical condition private—that kind of thing. There have to be rules about what this data is used for, how it is kept, and so on. Is it the Minister’s view that current legislation on data and privacy going through this House would cover that sort of issue, or will we need other legislation to cover it? Does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, envisage a sort of situation akin to the black box that some drivers use now to reassure their insurance company that they are driving safely and within speed limits, and so on, which, in return, keeps their insurance premiums down? I am interested in that point.
Finally, I will make a comment about Amendment 30. I am not usually keen on giving the Government delegated powers but there are some sensible limits on this here. I understand that we are envisaging a future; we cannot predict every requirement accurately and we cannot wait around on every occasion for primary legislation—so, as far as that goes, it seems a sensible proposal to me.
Lord Lucas
I share the noble Baroness’s admiration for my noble friend’s Amendment 30, which puts things in a very simple and clear way and is well worth having in the Bill. As far as the insurance amendment is concerned, I was looking for a way within the narrow confines of the Bill of illustrating the need for the Government to go further now. Even dealing with the subject of insurance, there are matters that need to be discussed now which we may need to bring into secondary legislation to enable things to operate properly. We should make provision for these things to be done in the Bill. I do not have answers to the questions that the noble Baroness has asked. I imagine that, in an automated world, having a dump of the data for the quarter of an hour before an accident and through as far as the machine keeps recording would be a useful way of establishing what happens during an accident; it really ought to be something we are thinking about, even in the narrow confines of this Bill.
I turn to what my noble friend said about motor vehicles. I presume the Bill will somehow, through the atmosphere of legislation, pick up the definition of motor vehicle from Section 185(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
“a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads”.
However, I think the Bill uses motor vehicle in a slightly different sense, as vehicles that,
“are or might be used on roads”—
that is okay so far—
“or in other public places”.
Clearly, we have a different definition of motor vehicle here from the one in the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, we are somewhat adrift; we are dealing with things that might be used in public spaces and therefore presumably might interact with footpaths, crossing all sorts of land; they could include the sort of thing that mows golf courses too, which might very well go automatic, or the farming equipment my noble friend was referring to. If you have a footpath across the land and one of these vehicles is trundling across it, it is occupying a public space at that point; we are encompassing a wide range of vehicles beyond the definition in the 1988 Act. This might be something worth resolving at some stage.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this group of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, our transport networks are becoming increasingly digital. The regulation of the collection, sharing, use and deletion of data will be vital. Several stakeholders, including the insurance industry, have highlighted the need to ensure access to automated vehicle data, not least because it will help determine who is liable in the event of an accident, as my noble friend has just said.
While we certainly recognise the potential value and use of data, especially for vehicle insurers—and the need to look at the subject of data generated from automated vehicles—as with many previous amendments we do not consider that now is the correct time to start making provision for access for insurers, as suggested by my noble friend in Amendment 26. Nor do we believe that this is the right time to consider new offences regarding the deletion of data, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Borwick in Amendment 27. However, I shall seek to give both noble Lords some reassurance.
It is likely that the international UNECE regulations underpinning the type approval system, which allows vehicles to be sold in the UK, will require the use of a data collection and storage system in automated vehicles. In response to my noble friend’s Amendment 26, it is of course important that insurers have access to the data they need in order to establish liability for any accident. I hope that he finds that reassuring. However, to balance the needs of industry and consumers, we still require detailed engagement on which parties will require access to this data and how it should be shared. It is clear that some data collected by automated vehicles, such as location information, may constitute personal data and will therefore need to be handled appropriately—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Therefore, there is a need to balance the personal privacy of automated vehicle users with the public good, and this is an area that will most likely need to be resolved internationally to help ensure consistent standards.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I will assume that included in it, but not vocalised, was a promise to write to me about the definition of motor vehicles. I like my moments of pedantry as well as the next man, and I would be interested in pursuing that subject in correspondence.
On the main points, I am delighted that my noble friend found at least half a warm word for my noble friend Lord Borwick. I think there is a real opportunity here that, with a little persuasion and some crafting of the amendment, we might, unusually, find ourselves supporting the Government in giving themselves some powers that they do not yet know how to use, within this limited area, because it would have such a potentially positive effect on the economy of the UK. I beg leave—
Baroness Randerson
Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that there are now reasonably big drones delivering goods? They trundle along pavements and across level crossings and so on, appearing to behave a bit like pedestrians. I have been thinking about what the noble Lord is saying, and he is raising a good point. What is the difference between a drone delivering an Amazon parcel and a driverless van delivering an Amazon parcel? The only difference is probably the size, so there will have to be some definition of a cut-off point—unless we are going to insist that drones are insured, in the same way as vehicles.
Lord Berkeley
Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she really thinks that drones trundle along pavements?
Baroness Randerson
I have indeed seen them. There are experimental systems that are wheeling along pavements.
Baroness Randerson
Not in Wales, no—in London. We are not that advanced in Wales.
Lord Lucas
The noble Baroness raises a very valid point. What we seek to regulate is autonomous automated vehicles that are likely to interact with people. That will include delivery drones, whether they are flying or trundling on the pavement. It would be quite useful in parts of London to be able to go amphibious and drop into the Thames for a bit, run up the river and then back on to the bank. We are talking about things that will interact with the public. I hope we are looking at a wide definition here and not just talking about things that are supposed to confine themselves to the road. One of the virtues of automated vehicles is that they do not have the same need to do that as other things, and they might well turn out to be quite versatile. I look forward to learning in correspondence where we are on the definition, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Review of Part 1
(1) By September 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament assessing the effectiveness of the system for defining and insuring automated vehicles introduced by Part 1 of this Act.(2) The report must consider—(a) the impact on the insurance industry,(b) the impact on the cost of insurance premiums for automated vehicles,(c) the impact on the uptake of automated vehicles, and(d) the levels of disagreement between manufacturers and insurers on liability.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we all agree that in the future automated vehicles have the potential to improve personal transport arrangements as well as air quality, which is crucial given the dire state of the environment and its impact on health. Solving questions of how automated vehicles can be insured is essential and we welcome the fact that the Government are setting out how to do that. However, it is important to assess how measures work in practice, not only in legislation. It is particularly important that the Government should ensure that regulations are working as intended and should monitor unexpected impacts, which are always there, before attitudes and practices become entrenched and before automated vehicles become common on our roads.
Although the list in the amendment is not exhaustive, given the focus of Part 1 of the Bill it makes sense for a report to consider the impact that measures have on the insurance industry, on the cost of premiums for policyholders, on the uptake of automated vehicles and on disagreements between insurers and manufacturers on liability. This will be a fast-moving area and—who knows?—we may have to revisit areas of this Bill in the future as advances in technology take place and the advances impact on how these vehicles are insured.
It is important that Parliament is kept informed of the effectiveness and impact of the legislation to make sure that we keep it up to date as new technologies in this area are developed. I beg to move.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the Government are taking a step-by-step approach to our regulatory programme in relation to automated vehicles. Where the evidence base exists for regulatory change, we will act so that the UK public and businesses can benefit from innovative new vehicle technologies as soon as they arrive to market. As we noted when we initially consulted with the public and industry in 2016, each of these steps, taken through either primary legislation, secondary legislation or guidance, will be subject to a process of scrutiny and ongoing review.
On the automated vehicle insurance measures, as part of this regulatory programme we will continue to engage with the DVLA and other motoring agencies, the insurance industry and other relevant stakeholders to make sure that the system works effectively as the new insurance framework is implemented, and that we are still meeting our intended policy objectives to provide a compulsory insurance framework for automated vehicles.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have produced a detailed impact assessment looking at the potential direct economic effect on the insurance industry from introducing these measures. As my noble friend has just explained, the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles has asked the Law Commission to undertake a far-reaching review of the UK’s legal framework for automated vehicles. This may consider a wide variety of areas of law, including the liability and the insurance provisions set out in the Bill.
Unlike with many other amendments we have discussed today, I will not be arguing that the Bill is the wrong place for this amendment. However, it asks for a report by September 2019, which would be too early to consider whether the scheme is effective. It is not anticipated that there will be many—or even any—vehicles to which the insurance provisions apply. However, I understand and share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that the system that is in place is working effectively, and ahead of Report I will consider whether there is anything further we can do in this area. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. There is a wider point, which perhaps I should have made before—though I think she is erring towards agreeing with me—which is that it seems possible that the first fully automated vehicles could be ferrying children to school in, say, five, 10 or 15 years’ time, without this issue coming back to this House at all, by virtue of the wide powers that many of the road traffic and other Acts have to do things by order, for example. Therefore I hope that we will be able to find some sort of reporting compromise that ensures that this House and, ideally, Parliament in general are kept informed of developments in this exciting and innovative area. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.